Originally posted by whodey I know a woman who had cancer and met someone who later wanted to marry her. She wrote her own will in her own hand writing, but did not know the law. However, the person she married did, and knew what he would obtain by marrying her once she died.
To make a long story short, they were married less than a year and the man in question took everything she ...[text shortened]... ried out. She was too poor to afford a lawyer to sort these things out on her own and too sick.
Great anecdote.
What the woman desired she made clear when she married.
What came of it was obviously her very own fault. No-one forced her to get married.
Originally posted by whodey Imagine that, lawyers voting down a law that would decrease their grizzly business.
As already pointed out, it would increase, not decrease, the amount of business lawyers would have. I and you have no idea what the composition of the Alabama House is vis-a-vis lawyers.
Originally posted by whodey I know a woman who had cancer and met someone who later wanted to marry her. She wrote her own will in her own hand writing, but did not know the law. However, the person she married did, and knew what he would obtain by marrying her once she died.
To make a long story short, they were married less than a year and the man in question took everything she ...[text shortened]... ried out. She was too poor to afford a lawyer to sort these things out on her own and too sick.
Those types of laws are good ones, assuring that a deceased spouse can't give away all the marital assets to third parties when marriage is considered an economic partnership. Absent them, there would be nothing to stop a dying husband from writing a will that gave all the assets of a long marriage to his mistress for example.
If the story is true, she must have had a small estate as normally the spousal exemption has fairly small monetary limits before the will's provisions kick in. There are many ways she could have avoided such a result and if her income is low there are many places where the poor can get free legal advice.
Originally posted by no1marauder Those types of laws are good ones, assuring that a deceased spouse can't give away all the marital assets to third parties when marriage is considered an economic partnership. Absent them, there would be nothing to stop a dying husband from writing a will that gave all the assets of a long marriage to his mistress for example.
If the story is true, sh ...[text shortened]... result and if her income is low there are many places where the poor can get free legal advice.
Who says marriage is an economic partnership? That is an assumption. Even if it is, who is to assume what those paramaters should be?
If the said husband wants to give all his money to his mistress, why can't he? What is immoral about it in a secular humanist court of law?
Now before the said man died he could have given all of his possession to the mistress, so why not after he dies?
Originally posted by no1marauder As already pointed out, it would increase, not decrease, the amount of business lawyers would have. I and you have no idea what the composition of the Alabama House is vis-a-vis lawyers.
You repeating yourself does not make it so.
I don't see how divorce lawyers could get even more rich than they are.
Originally posted by sonhouse Er, explain the entitlement thing. For instance, 20 or so years ago, if you got married there was a disconnect in tax law where the married couple had to pay more taxes because they were married. Now we at least have more or less equality of taxation of married V unmarried. I don't see that as entitlement.
For me and my wife, because she has AARP supple ...[text shortened]... n overall price. Is that what you mean by entitlement? That is more a straight up business deal.
Whether you are aware or not, lot's of benefits accrue to married people that singles don't enjoy.
Take for example, health care paid for by an employer. If one of a married couple where both work has family health care, the mate can seek higher wages instead of fringe benefits.
Breeding is rewarded by tax exemptions that never extend to single persons.
Originally posted by normbenign Whether you are aware or not, lot's of benefits accrue to married people that singles don't enjoy.
Take for example, health care paid for by an employer. If one of a married couple where both work has family health care, the mate can seek higher wages instead of fringe benefits.
Breeding is rewarded by tax exemptions that never extend to single persons.
Exactly
Why does who you want to have sex with mean you get special perks?
Granted, Marauder tried to make the argument that marriage has nothing to do with sex, which I find absurd, but logically is the only defense of state sponsered marriage.
Originally posted by whodey Who says marriage is an economic partnership? That is an assumption. Even if it is, who is to assume what those paramaters should be?
If the said husband wants to give all his money to his mistress, why can't he? What is immoral about it in a secular humanist court of law?
Now before the said man died he could have given all of his possession to the mistress, so why not after he dies?
Go lobby to change the laws then. I doubt you'll get very far.
It's not an assumption that marriage is an economic partnership, it is a reality - one that democratically elected legislatures have recognized in all 50 States.
Originally posted by no1marauder Go lobby to change the laws then. I doubt you'll get very far.
It's not an assumption that marriage is an economic partnership, it is a reality - one that democratically elected legislatures have recognized in all 50 States.
Can you rationally argue for discrimination against single people, or those who fail to breed?
The fact that discrimination is supported democratically is not principled.
Originally posted by normbenign Tax deductions, and other favorable laws toward those who marry and breed.
A tax deduction for a child is merely recognizing the reality that they cost money. What deductions and credits are made available to taxpayers are legitimate public policy choices to be made by the people's representatives.
Originally posted by no1marauder A tax deduction for a child is merely recognizing the reality that they cost money. What deductions and credits are made available to taxpayers are legitimate public policy choices to be made by the people's representatives.
Is it the responsibility of all others to subsidize marriage and breeding? Sure there are costs, and there are costs to single people as well.
It is then legitimate public policy to favor one group of citizens over another. That is the sad result of a democracy allowing people to vote to spend other people's money.
Originally posted by normbenign Is it the responsibility of all others to subsidize marriage and breeding? Sure there are costs, and there are costs to single people as well.
It is then legitimate public policy to favor one group of citizens over another. That is the sad result of a democracy allowing people to vote to spend other people's money.
If the People's representatives can't pass laws which might have a differential effect on individuals even if they advance the interest of the People overall, then democracy is useless.
Finally!!!!!!!!!
22 Sep '15 17:09
Back to Top