It technically gets rid of permanent alimony, but only for new couples. Existing payers will have to go to court to have their setups adjusted, and that's not a guarantee. They just now get to have their "right to retire" considered as part of the adjustment, which it very much wasn't before.
I was curious about what the statistics are for the alimony arrangements that currently exist. As the article says, any "non-modifiable agreement[s]" will continue to be so. I don't really know how common that is or what that entails. But on the surface, this seems good. I, being a Floridian, am very happy that we are taking another step toward making our state slightly less shitty.
Non-modifiable divorce agreements are fairly common, unfortunately. I had to finish paying spousal support to my ex >WHO WAS IN JAIL FOR MAKING KIDDIE PORN WITH ONE OF OUR CHILDREN<. I even had to pay child support to her until I could get a hearing and have the magistrate adjust the final decree. The family court system hates fathers, it cannot be salvaged at this point.
It baffles me how a fake case can even have any legitimacy with the court. Yet here we are...SCOTUS is even more a joke now. It's just so tragic their bad faith & buffoonery affects so many people .
I don't really see the constituonal basis here. Racial discrimination is explicitly prohibited by the Constitution, so there's an obvious angle for calling affirmative action unconditional. That doesn't really exist with legacy admissions.
It's still stupid and shouldn't be a thing, but it's not the job of the Courts to ensure an optimal college admissions system. Saying that it's de facto racial discrimination is a pretty big stretch.
The argument is that legacy admissions are a criterion being used in lieu of race to achieve racial discrimination. Similar systems were an aggressive part of the Jim Crowe South to prevent blacks from voting when they couldn't make skin color-specific rules anymore, where you would have to prove literacy or your grandfather's ability to vote to get a vote in since they knew that no black person could pass those tests.
It's not the strongest case, but it isn't unreasonable and it has a rational basis. I'm skeptical that even a disinterested court would accept the logic on its face and know that the current court will just wallow in its hypocrisy, but I at least understand the principle.
The defense to it is that these elite universities actively desire diversity, so clearly they are not using legacy admits as a proxy for racial discrimination. There's plenty of evidence that there is a different, corrupt-but-legal purpose for these legacy systems that is not racially motivated.
edit: On the flip-side, if indirectly discriminatory policies like these ARE allowed, it gives the universities a clear path forward to continuations of their AA policies. They just need to replace the race of their applicants with proxies for race that are allowed. Theoretically, this logic could force a standoff -- either policies that indirectly have discriminatory outcomes (defined by who?) are illegal or they aren't. Or else you'd have to somehow prove intention to discriminate before you could find a policy illegal, which is another very complex can of worms that the elite universities could probably get around.
And so, like with everything around this case, it likely won't change any real behavior from the elite universities but will seriously fuck with less affluent ones.
Harvard degrees are ridiculously overvalued. I know a couple of legacy admission students. Neither of them were especially smart either before or after going to Harvard. Since then I realized that there are lots of below average people running around with Harvard degrees. Same thing is probably true for other Ivy schools.
If you want inflation to stop just put extra tax on companies that have increased consumer prices in last 12 months. In 12 months you see that inflation under control again.
Of course this is never going to happen but we all know the reason for inflation.
Just need to make corporate taxes similar to personal ones, but as a percentage basis. Did you have a 40% profit? Okay, you pay 37% in taxes on money earned above that. 35% profit? 33% tax.
Stock buybacks should be considered profit for tax purposes.
If an employee gets paid more than 50% in stock/stock options and the company has more than 10 million in revenue per year, the company should pay taxes on that as well.
If we did that and closed a few other loopholes, we’d probably see companies investing more into the business and prices would also not rise quickly.
That sounds like it would be really difficult to track and implement in practice though. Companies would just bring in very slightly different models with new names, or do a bit of shrinkflation. Tracking like-for-like equivalents would be a nightmare and everything would get tied up in the courts.
I had the same question after watching Cathy Wood of Ark Invest’s jobs report yesterday. My thought being “isn’t higher wages a good thing, and can help people weather inflation?”
As others have said, there are better ways the fed can go about dealing with inflation than wanting the average person to have lower wages. It’s frustrating.
cbsnews.com
Oldest