Fashion Board 4-6-04 to 5-7-04

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by bilmore
Yeah, that's pretty much my basis for not liking it. She's just screwed up, and I doubt she had a clue what the consequences would be.

Isn't that always the case, e.g. the Bay Bridge non-jumper here who tied up traffic Bay Area wide for 13 hours? I don't really care where they lock him/her up - jail or mental institution, but shouldn't she have to at least pay back the cost of the search for her, a la charging someone for a false fire alarm?

I'd say she's wacko for doing all that for a dude, but this season's reiteration of "The Real World" has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that almost all chicks are wacko and we would be better off with Stepford Wives.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Expensive point. Although I guess it would be sort of funny if the IRS made a big thing by coming after them for filing as married, but then said "we're prosecuting you for overpaying."


MR: Can't one or the other partner deduct the kids as a dependent regardless of marriage?

[ETA]: I always had some respect for the couple we read about in tax law that got divorced every Dec. 31 and remarried every Jan. 1 just so they could file as unmarried.

AAAAAAAAACCCCCCKKKKKKKKKK. I know I should stp, but I can't stand it. Even if Rosie and whoever are determined to be legally married under CA state law, they can't file as married for federal tax purposes because of the Defense of Marriage Act. Not married for federal law purposes.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
AAAAAAAAACCCCCCKKKKKKKKKK. I know I should stp, but I can't stand it. Even if Rosie and whoever are determined to be legally married under CA state law, they can't file as married for federal tax purposes because of the Defense of Marriage Act. Not married for federal law purposes.

how about if they claimed they were polygamists, you know, just starting out?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Where's fringey to explain all this? Or has all the tax talk whipped her into such an orgasmic frenzy that she can't post?

Anyway, there are two reasons for the marriage penalty. First is the standard deduction. Until recently (last year?), the standard deduction for a married couple was less than double the deduction for a single. Obviously that penalizes you for being married. Second is the marginal rates, which are higher for higher income, which is Sidd's point. So, until recently, if your spouse worked enough to take the full benefit of the standard deduction, you would be penalized for that reason alone for being married. That's gone now; but there's still the marginal penalty. So I don't know who BRC's friends are, but one of them must be making real shit pay to benefit from being married.

I was not and am not in an orgasmic frenzy. I was busy, and now I am just too fucking disgusted by the level of ignorance to even type.

OK, not really. If there is a big income disparity, there is an ADVANTAGE to being married (unless the higher earner is still in the lowest tax bracket), IMHO. Let's say I and my next-office-door neighbor are the same class year and therefore have the same salary. I am single, and she is married with a husband who has no income. She will pay considerably less in taxes than I will, because their taxes are computed using the married tax tables and mine are computed using the single tax tables, and the brackets are wider for the married people.

If each spouse in a married couple earns exactly half of what I earn, they will pay (in total) less than I do in taxes because of the wider brackets.

If there are two married people each earning as much as I do, they each will pay more than I do in taxes because the brackets for married people are not twice as big as the brackets for single people (except for the bottom bracket).

And yesterday, people on PB were doing so well with the AMT. This is a huge disappointment to me. I may have to go on hiatus.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by baltassoc
If you are looking at the two as individuals, and attribute 20% of the joint filing amount to the person making 20k, then yes, this is true. ($3723 vs 2,646) But it seems shortsighted for a guy to begrudge his wife $2262 in tax savings just so he can save $1077.

Hell, even with my then soon to be ex-wife I managed to work it out to file jointly so that I could save several K in taxes, even though it theoretically cost her more (I split the savings with her).

You are the Beaker to my Honeydew.

You are so hot. Sidd is not.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
how about if they claimed they were polygamists, you know, just starting out?

What about "one man and one woman" did you not understand?

I guess you people get progressively more brain-damaged as you get older. That would explain the inability of your leader to put together a sentence, let alone think on his feet.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Isn't that always the case, e.g. the Bay Bridge non-jumper here who tied up traffic Bay Area wide for 13 hours? I don't really care where they lock him/her up - jail or mental institution, but shouldn't she have to at least pay back the cost of the search for her, a la charging someone for a false fire alarm?

In Colorado, when those dumb asses who rock climb or moutain bike or helicopter ski get hurt/stranded, they sometimes get charged for the cost of the rescue, particularly if they have done something risky/reckless to end up requiring a rescue.

FYI - if you buy a Colorado hunting or fishing license, since part of the license fee goes to fund rescue operations, then the cost of the rescue gets billed to the CO dept of wildlife. They also have a Colorado Outdoor Recreation Search and Rescue (CORSAR) Card that you can buy for a small fee. It funds search and rescue operations and if you end up needing one, you don't get charged for it.

Originally posted by LessinSF
I'd say she's wacko for doing all that for a dude, but this season's reiteration of "The Real World" has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that almost all chicks are wacko and we would be better off with Stepford Wives.

You don't need to go so far as to replace us with robots. A submissive Asian chick should work fine for guys like you.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
You don't need to go so far as to replace us with robots. A submissive Asian chick should work fine for guys like you.

In other words, Less is two short steps from polygamy. NTTAWWT.

[str8outavannuys]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Given its apparent randomness, I thought it was your password for your various stuff IRL, and considered it rather gutsy.

Now that I know better, well ...



No offense, but I think I preferred my ignorance.

Listen sizzle-chest, I know Jerky Boyz, and there's no "3587" in any Jerky Boyz call. Unless it's a deep deep deep album cut, or from some of their later works.

If there's a Venn diagram of Rio Ferdinand fans and Jerky Boys fans, I bet the area of intersection is pretty fucking small.

[str8outavannuys]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Isn't that always the case, e.g. the Bay Bridge non-jumper here who tied up traffic Bay Area wide for 13 hours? I don't really care where they lock him/her up - jail or mental institution, but shouldn't she have to at least pay back the cost of the search for her, a la charging someone for a false fire alarm?

I'd say she's wacko for doing all that for a dude, but this season's reiteration of "The Real World" has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that almost all chicks are wacko and we would be better off with Stepford Wives.

Less mentioning a MTV show and a Paramount movie? Where's that drop that Fred Norris plays when somebody's plugging something.

I know I'd definitely be better off with a Stepford Wife. Especially the 5'11" Australian red-headed model:

[LessinSF]

Didn't know they were remaking it. Certainly didn't know which studio it was (or cared). Most certainly wouldn't have replied to Note Me, Please, Please, Note Me. But have no problem with polygamy in others. I prefer polyamory for myself, though. Polygamist divorces get messy.

[Dave]

Originally posted by mmm3587
The story is definitely sad, and I think it's kind of bullshit they charged her. She obviously had some mental illness, plus she slept in a Wisconsin marsh for five days in March.

That said, her picture and name are all over, and I don't think that it's appropriate to use a public picture as my avatar for a while. But perhaps others disagree. If people actually find it callous or in poor taste, I'll take it down.

A lot of the people I know think that they should have arrested her, charged her with a felony, etc. I think that those are all people who have never had the misfortune of being chronically depressed.

I still haven't figured out how exactly one can be depressed when one is 20, reasonably attractive, and lives in Madison.

Unless you're too broke to afford booze and stuff, and then only maybe.

[Dave]

Who are you going to get to speak at your next firm event? Try the Nashville Speakers Bureau

I'm going for either Teddy Atlas or Charlie Daniels. Now I just have to convince the committee to budget ten Gs.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
you people get progressively more brain-damaged as you get older. That would explain the inability of your leader to put together a sentence, let alone think on his feet.

Leader? Shape Shifter? Oh, I know. His father and I were in the blood bank business together, but that was a long time ago.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Dave
Who are you going to get to speak at your next firm event? Try the Nashville Speakers Bureau

You are truly the King of the Avatars.