Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This case is interesting because it's not as cut and dried as one would think. According to the link, the justices really had to piece this one together.
Bottom line though...two states can't hit you up which makes sense. However, Scalia and Thomas voted with the minority. That threw me for a loop.
The break down is interesting but not nearly as uncommon as many try to make it to be. We get a 5-4 ruling on a major issue and there are howls and cries about a partisan court when the reality is the court in the last session had a record 9-0 rulings and we often get mixed voting as we see here but they aren't the issues that make the news.
As for the ruling, good. I live in a border town and while I do not work in the next state I know many that do and they do get credits in state on their taxes. It's still messed up and it should be set up to where you don't pay it to start with but I figure the states hope enough people won't bother with filling in the credit section when doing their taxes.
This case is interesting because it's not as cut and dried as one would think. According to the link, the justices really had to piece this one together.
Bottom line though...two states can't hit you up which makes sense. However, Scalia and Thomas voted with the minority. That threw me for a loop.
....
That shouldn't have "[thrown] you for a loop"; it's happened before.
These types of lineups happen all the time. Its only the big idological decisions that anyone pays attention to and where you get the traditional batting lineups more than not.
Tax policy meh not so much if it isnt involved with Ocare. Even then outside of the forum/blog/epinion sphere the common man on the street is a casual idiot.
That shouldn't have "[thrown] you for a loop"; it's happened before.
Scalia and Thomas have voted in favor of double taxation before? They've hinted in some obscure writings that they'd be open to ruling in favor of such a thing?
You're trying to be cute...but it's just disingenuousness on your part.
No one prognosticating this decision would've put Thomas and Scalia in the minority opinion. Not you or anyone else.
I like the outcome here from a policy standpoint. Can't even pretend to understand the legal arguments for each side.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
