Marriage and equal rights for ALL people.

[saveliberty]

I think marriage is a religious thing and allowing government to get involved is not separation of church and state.

Taxes should be based on the individual, that seems the fairest approach. The same for Social Security benefits. No getting what the larger payout is when a spouse dies. How did I do PP?

 

[syrenn]

Exactly...and while we're at it, explain why families with children get a tax break while requiring more public services than families without children.

OH nice point, didn't think of it like that before. Adding this to my "arsenal" LOL.

One of my pet peeves I agree,couples who pop our children are the ones taking up services. Granted public school is part of this country, but its the ones who get state and federal aid that i have problems with. Food stamps, weal fair, medicare, aid to mothers with dependent children...you get the idea.

 

[Charles_Main]

Let me preface this by stating my opinion on marriage. I feel gays, if they want to, should be allowed to get married. I also feel that non-gay people, if they want to, should be allowed to get married.

My issue comes with the "Equal Rights" part of the whole marriage and taxes equation.

Why should Gay married couples or Straight Married couples receive preferencial treatment from our government through the tax system?

Is this not discriminatory against non-married americans?

Why should non-married americans have to have a larger tax burden than married americans under our tax laws?


There are some questions to get a discussion going.

My personal opinion is that single people do not have the same and equal rights as married people under the tax code therefore everyone should be taxed at an individual tax rate regardless of marriage status.


Debate, Discuss, and disagree if you don't like the opinion. Try to tell me why you think i'm right or wrong in my opinion.

Exactly...and while we're at it, explain why families with children get a tax break while requiring more public services than families without children.

Families with out Children? lol

 

[Charles_Main]

In case you all had not notice for years before Bush married people actually paid a penalty. If the Bush tax Breaks are allowed to sunset the marriage penalty will be reinstated. Tell me if it is not fair for Married people to get a break is it fair to tax them more because they are married?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

In case you all had not notice for years before Bush married people actually paid a penalty. If the Bush tax Breaks are allowed to sunset the marriage penalty will be reinstated. Tell me if it is not fair for Married people to get a break is it fair to tax them more because they are married?

I did not notice that.

Married individuals should be taxed the same as single individuals and vise-versa.

My opnion is: "No it is not fair to tax them more or less based on marriage status."

 

[Foxfyre]

Let me preface this by stating my opinion on marriage. I feel gays, if they want to, should be allowed to get married. I also feel that non-gay people, if they want to, should be allowed to get married.

My issue comes with the "Equal Rights" part of the whole marriage and taxes equation.

Why should Gay married couples or Straight Married couples receive preferencial treatment from our government through the tax system?

Is this not discriminatory against non-married americans?

Why should non-married americans have to have a larger tax burden than married americans under our tax laws?


There are some questions to get a discussion going.

My personal opinion is that single people do not have the same and equal rights as married people under the tax code therefore everyone should be taxed at an individual tax rate regardless of marriage status.


Debate, Discuss, and disagree if you don't like the opinion. Try to tell me why you think i'm right or wrong in my opinion.

1. A moral society puts the interests of children first and foremost in all matters of policy.

2. Children, whether gay or straight, benefit emotionally and mentally from having positive role models from a grown up, loving mom AND dad in the home.

Disclaimer: I am not saying at all that single parents or gay parents cannot be excellent parents. I know many who are. I am only saying that a stable, loving, traditional two-parent family is the very best situation for the rearing of children.​

3. Children are far less likely to live in poverty in a two parent family.

4. Neighborhoods in which the traditional family is the norm are much more likely to be stable with churches, parks, better schools, less blight, less crime, more prosperous and provide a stronger tax base than often otherwise exists, and this also adds to a safer and more supportive environment for the kids.

So for these reasons, and in the spirit of the Founders intent to promote--that's promote niot provide--the general welfare, I support a tax policy that encourages and supports the traditional family rather than policy that weakens it by making it seem less relevant and necessary. And that is why I oppose changing the traditional definition of marriage.

And as for those who choose not to or can't enter into traditional marriage, I also support an option to form themselves into legally recognized family groups offering basic protections and benefits such as rights of visitation, inheritance, shared insurance, etc. etc. etc. I don't see this as a 'separate but equal' kind of thing but rather an either/or kind of thing as all citizens would have full right to do one or the other if they wanted to.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Let me preface this by stating my opinion on marriage. I feel gays, if they want to, should be allowed to get married. I also feel that non-gay people, if they want to, should be allowed to get married.

My issue comes with the "Equal Rights" part of the whole marriage and taxes equation.

Why should Gay married couples or Straight Married couples receive preferencial treatment from our government through the tax system?

Is this not discriminatory against non-married americans?

Why should non-married americans have to have a larger tax burden than married americans under our tax laws?


There are some questions to get a discussion going.

My personal opinion is that single people do not have the same and equal rights as married people under the tax code therefore everyone should be taxed at an individual tax rate regardless of marriage status.


Debate, Discuss, and disagree if you don't like the opinion. Try to tell me why you think i'm right or wrong in my opinion.

1. A moral society puts the interests of children first and foremost in all matters of policy.

2. Children, whether gay or straight, benefit emotionally and mentally from having positive role models from a grown up, loving mom AND dad in the home.

Disclaimer: I am not saying at all that single parents or gay parents cannot be excellent parents. I know many who are. I am only saying that a stable, loving, traditional two-parent family is the very best situation for the rearing of children.​

3. Children are far less likely to live in poverty in a two parent family.

4. Neighborhoods in which the traditional family is the norm are much more likely to be stable with churches, parks, better schools, less blight, less crime, more prosperous and provide a stronger tax base than often otherwise exists, and this also adds to a safer and more supportive environment for the kids.

So for these reasons, and in the spirit of the Founders intent to promote--that's promote niot provide--the general welfare, I support a tax policy that encourages and supports the traditional family rather than policy that weakens it by making it seem less relevant and necessary. And that is why I oppose changing the traditional definition of marriage.

And as for those who choose not to or can't enter into traditional marriage, I also support an option to form themselves into legally recognized family groups offering basic protections and benefits such as rights of visitation, inheritance, shared insurance, etc. etc. etc. I don't see this as a 'separate but equal' kind of thing but rather an either/or kind of thing as all citizens would have full right to do one or the other if they wanted to.

Lets forget about the gay marriage thing for a minute and just concentrate on the tax part.

What if we left the child tax credits intact but taxed married individuals the same as single individuals. Do you feel this would still acheive the good ideals you just described in your post? Would you find that acceptable?

I dont wanna sound like, well you know what i dont wanna sound like, but isn't it discriminatory against single individuals the way the tax code is set up now and doesn't that go against equality for all under the eyes of the law?

sorry lots of questions.

 

[Foxfyre]

Lets forget about the gay marriage thing for a minute and just concentrate on the tax part.

What if we left the child tax credits intact but taxed married individuals the same as single individuals. Do you feel this would still acheive the good ideals you just described in your post? Would you find that acceptable?

I dont wanna sound like, well you know what i dont wanna sound like, but isn't it discriminatory against single individuals the way the tax code is set up now and doesn't that go against equality for all under the eyes of the law?

sorry lots of questions.

Single individuals have the same right to get married as do people who get married. The only purpose of providing a break to those who do get married is to promote a traditional family. And the only reason to promote the traditional family is those four reasons I listed.

Nobody forces anybody to get married or to not get married and everybody has the same right to get married or not get married so a tax break for the married discriminates against no one.

The child tax credit in no way promotes traditional marriage and in fact could discourage it. It certainly does not accomplish any of the four points for consideration that I listed.

 

[syrenn]

I need to edit my OP. Everyone is concentrating on the wrong thing

edit: ok i edited to take out the distraction .

Shesh...making me read it again!

 

[syrenn]

In case you all had not notice for years before Bush married people actually paid a penalty. If the Bush tax Breaks are allowed to sunset the marriage penalty will be reinstated. Tell me if it is not fair for Married people to get a break is it fair to tax them more because they are married?

I did not notice that.

Married individuals should be taxed the same as single individuals and vise-versa.

My opnion is: "No it is not fair to tax them more or less based on marriage status."

Exactly. And there should be no tax credits for children. Having children should cost you in terms of a child penalty, as they take up tax burdens.

 

[Ravi]

What part of and don't you understand?

Ah yes it says married couples AND married couples with children in your post.

So....now that we got that out of the way do you have an answer?

Why do you find it acceptable that married couples, without children, get to pay a lower overall tax burden while single individuals do not get equal treatment under the laws?

Actually, it says married couples AND couples with children (who may or may not be married). Single parents also get a tax break.

The only people that don't are single people without children.

I didn't say I found it acceptable. I think you should be able to form a "marriage" with your non-boyfriend boyfriend if that is what you wish to do...and receive the same benefits.

 

[boedicca]

IMO, we'd all be better off if the government quit using the tax code for social engineering and income / wealth distribution.

One flat or fair tax for all. Let people decide what lifestyle they wish to support with their own money.

Period. End of Story.

 

[syrenn]

IMO, we'd all be better off if the government quit using the tax code for social engineering and income / wealth distribution.

One flat or fair tax for all. Let people decide what lifestyle they wish to support with their own money.

Period. End of Story.

My take on it

EXACTLY!

 

[ConHog]

Also, in reality, this thread is not about allowing or disallowing marriage. Like I said you did not read what I was asking about.

You brought it up...it's a pet peeve of mine, like the claim that we now "allow" women and blacks to vote.

That's because you're stupid and don't understand the difference between a God given right and a COTUS protected right. God didn't guarantee you could vote in US elections, nor does the COTUS guarantee you can marry.

 

[Foxfyre]

IMO, we'd all be better off if the government quit using the tax code for social engineering and income / wealth distribution.

One flat or fair tax for all. Let people decide what lifestyle they wish to support with their own money.

Period. End of Story.

I can't argue with the logic. But having spent a good deal of my adult life dealing with children who didn't have advantage of a two parent traditional family, and seeing how much that often made a significant difference, I have to support and defend the traditional family. In my opinion, a tax structure that promotes and encourages a traditional family but making that 100% available to anybody who wants to take advantage of it rather than targeting special groups---that meets the Constitutional intent of promoting the general welfare.

I don't see it as social engineering.

And yes, some people will get married and benefit from the tax policy even though they don't have children. But again, it is non discriminatory and that option is available for every single citizen, and even the childless couples tend to promote those four advantages I listed in my initial post.

 

[boedicca]

IMO, we'd all be better off if the government quit using the tax code for social engineering and income / wealth distribution.

One flat or fair tax for all. Let people decide what lifestyle they wish to support with their own money.

Period. End of Story.

I can't argue with the logic. But having spent a good deal of my adult life dealing with children who didn't have advantage of a two parent traditional family, and seeing how much that often made a significant difference, I have to support and defend the traditional family. In my opinion, a tax structure that promotes and encourages a traditional family but making that 100% available to anybody who wants to take advantage of it rather than targeting special groups---that meets the Constitutional intent of promoting the general welfare.

I don't see it as social engineering.

And yes, some people will get married and benefit from the tax policy even though they don't have children. But again, it is non discriminatory and that option is available for every single citizen, and even the childless couples tend to promote those four advantages I listed in my initial post.

I agree on the importance of a child being raised by a mother and a father. But what we have now is an overall tax structure that since the 1950s, has doubled the total tax burden as a percent of income on the median family. All of the special deductions, childcare tax credits, brackets etc. are so highly politicized that the people they were ostensibly designed to benefit have actually been harmed. A fair or low flat tax would be better for families, imo, than the current tangle and AMT crap we have now.

None of us know the burdens and responsibilities of another. A single person with no children may be responsible for caring for elderly parents or a sick sibling. Do we really need the government to manage such relationships via the tax code - or is it better to let people decide how to spend their own money vis a vis their own responsibilities?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let me preface this by stating my opinion on marriage. I feel gays, if they want to, should be allowed to get married. I also feel that non-gay people, if they want to, should be allowed to get married.

My issue comes with the "Equal Rights" part of the whole marriage and taxes equation.

Why should Gay married couples or Straight Married couples receive preferencial treatment from our government through the tax system?

Is this not discriminatory against non-married americans?

Why should non-married americans have to have a larger tax burden than married americans under our tax laws?


There are some questions to get a discussion going.

My personal opinion is that single people do not have the same and equal rights as married people under the tax code therefore everyone should be taxed at an individual tax rate regardless of marriage status.


Debate, Discuss, and disagree if you don't like the opinion. Try to tell me why you think i'm right or wrong in my opinion.

because since time immortal, marriage has been the bedrock of society. Married couples are more likely to be stable & thus contribute to society moreso as a whole. Plus, if you start taxing married couples as individuals, you will screw them over.....

Bullshit.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Marriage_penalty

 

[Foxfyre]

No quarrel with general inequity and destructiveness of the current tax code Boe. You and I are mostly on the same page with that one.

Not only do I think it counter productive, but a very dangerous thing for almost half the population being exempt from paying Federal income taxes. That is one of the most reliable recipes for corruption in government and in those governed that I can think of. I think it counter productive and corrupting to punish success and reward low productivity.

So I 100% support the concept of an across the board flat tax that everybody, rich and poor, pays alike.

Where I part company with the flat tax purists though is that I do condone some exemptions and deductions. I want the federal government out of the business of providing charity, but I want to promote the general welfare by encouraging the private sector to be generous and not withhold benevolence. The tax code can encourage that.

And I want to promote home ownership and entrenprenourship and growing business and commerce and the tax code can encourage that.

And I want to promote the traditional family and make it the norm again for kids to grow up with a mom and dad in the home. The tax code can encourage that.

The trick is, just like in the taxes assessed, that the code be non discriminatory in who can and who can't take benefit from the tax code when it promotes the general welfare.

 

[saveliberty]

You create a slippery slope with exceptions.

 

[xotoxi]

Let me preface this by stating my opinion on marriage. I feel gays, if they want to, should be allowed to get married. I also feel that non-gay people, if they want to, should be allowed to get married.

My issue comes with the "Equal Rights" part of the whole marriage and taxes equation.

Why should Gay married couples or Straight Married couples receive preferencial treatment from our government through the tax system?

Is this not discriminatory against non-married americans?

Why should non-married americans have to have a larger tax burden than married americans under our tax laws?


There are some questions to get a discussion going.

My personal opinion is that single people do not have the same and equal rights as married people under the tax code therefore everyone should be taxed at an individual tax rate regardless of marriage status.


Debate, Discuss, and disagree if you don't like the opinion. Try to tell me why you think i'm right or wrong in my opinion.

Take it up with your State Representative as we did here in Texas. And we've concluded that marriage is between one man and one woman. If folks don't like it, they're free to leave.

wooooooosh! (that was the sound of the OP's point going over your brilliant head.)

Down here in Texas, we don't take too kindly to anal sex...unless it is between a man and a woman.

And don't let us catch you masturbatin'...cuz you'll be executed.