On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 19:28:53 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:36:07 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 01:54:03 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 22:07:36 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:42:39 -0400, wrote:

You don't need a lawyer for marriage or divorce. Unless we have it your
way. We won't.


I guess you have never been through a divorce. You pretty much need a
lawyer familiar with the laws in the state you are divorcing in, just
to figure out who gets the "stuff" and how to legally convey it. If
kids are involved it gets way more complicated than that.

You don't need one. Sometimes its a good idea. Sometimes its
unnecessary.

I suppose if there are no assets no kids and you live in a state with
a very simple divorce procedure, you can get way with Kinkos blank
divorce petition but if there is any confusion at all about the
divorce, you will wish you had a lawyer.

Wishing and needing are two different ****ing things. You're really
being particularly stupid today.

Since you have no experience in this your opinion is meaningless.

Fortunately no. Unlike some dickbrain who's handle starts with G?



There's +1100 gov laws that take marital status into consideration.

At a certain point, why would anyone enter into a contract that
involves 1100+ different laws without legal advice?
If Edie Winter had better legal advice, she would not have been
slammed with that huge tax bill.

So, blame the grieving widow. You're claiming what exactly? She should
just write off her dying wife? I guess so.

If she really had a million dollar inheritance coming (as indicated by
the $360,000 tax bill), she really should have sought legal advice and
engaged in some tax planning. It is simple logic.

Sure. So, it's her fault or her dead spouses. What a lame brain.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, never was, never will be.

So, it's her dead spouce's fault, right? Come on, say it.



I hate lawyers but I also understand they are necessary if you want to
protect yourself from other lawyers or, in this case, the government.

What advice would the lawyer have given them Mr. I'm-an-expert?

A lawyer might have suggested a trust with a million dollars at stake
but most investment vehicles can simply be held in joint tenancy.

Feel free to offer everyone your thoughts given you got divoriced
(once I'm assuming). That certainly confirms your expertise spanning
nuclear technology and the law.


There are a number of very simple ways to hold property jointly, even
if you are not married.

Go for it. We're waiting...


look up

You mentioned it, so name it.



So you can just forget about a simple flat tax and other wacko ideas.
The country has never worked that way and never will.
Just concentrate on waste and corruption.

As long as special interests still control congress, we will never
have a flat tax. I suppose you will be defending the carried interest
deduction next.


Nor should we. It's very regressive. It hurts those who can least
afford it. The rich do fine though.

It is all part of our 10,000 page tax code. 99% of it has nothing to
do with anyone who isn't a millionaire. All of those "loopholes" were
put in there to placate some special interest, usually a very rich
special interest.

So, when making things simpler and fair comes around, you're all for
it. Good. Just don't mention flat tax, as that is simple but it aint
fair.

Not fair to whom? Millionaires?

Everyone else pretty much.

For virtually everyone making less than about $150,000 a year, a flat
tax would be better.

No it wouldn't. It's class warfare..

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articl...-class-warfare

This guy is talking mostly about the home interest deduction, that is
class warfare too. Renters, the poorest group generally, do not have a
mortgage deduction.

Gee ya thunk?

The fact that the only interest that is deductible contributed to the
housing crash because instead of taking out a car loan, they took a
second on their house.
People were encouraged by the government to use the equity in their
home as a source of extra spending money and they could borrow 125% or
more of an artificially inflated value on their home. When housing had
a slight decline, they were upside down and it snowballed from there.
Tell me again why this is a good thing?

Where did I say it was? Flat-tax = regressive. That's what I said.
.

Guys like Buffett and Romney would be paying a lot more.

Stupid like you don't get it.

Romney paid about 15%, so did Buffett

So, you're claiming that if Romney paid 25% (say) and some guy who
makes $40,000 pays 25%, that would be fair? Jesus H. ****ing Christ.




We come full circle back to the idea that marriage is a simple
contract between anyone who wants to enter into it at that point don't
we?

That's fine with me.

Good deal. That is as it should be

Tell your right-wing buddies.