If States Defined Why They Give Tax Breaks to Marrieds....

[PaintMyHouse]

1. Do boys need a father and girls a mother or at least the hope of having one?

No...

And how exactly are you qualified to make that final determination which has a ripple effect to society the size of a 100 foot sleeper wave?

Because opposite sex kids have been raised by single parents for literal eons. Leave It To Beaver was a TV show, and hardly realistic even then. Let It Go, You Lost...

 

[Syriusly]

The Supreme Court has twice now found that the children of gay parents are harmed by their parents not being able to be legally married.

You of course want those children to be harmed- which is why you keep going on and on.

They found that twice without professional deliberation; Y

You don't agree with the Supreme Court- we get that.
You want gays harmed- and by extension you are going after their kids to harm them- we get that.

But Supreme Court did take the health and wellbeing of children into effect- and now there is marriage equality in all 50 states for both straight and gay couples.

No matter how much you don't like homosexuals

 

[Syriusly]

1. Do boys need a father and girls a mother or at least the hope of having one?

No...

And how exactly are you qualified to make that final determination which has a ripple effect to society the size of a 100 foot sleeper wave?

And how exactly are you qualified to make any decision? The answer is you are not- yet you keep telling everyone that your opinion should over rule the Supreme Court's decision.

Stop your campaign to harm children- that would be the best decision you could make.

 

[Skylar]

The Supreme Court has twice now found that the children of gay parents are harmed by their parents not being able to be legally married.

You of course want those children to be harmed- which is why you keep going on and on.

They found that twice without professional deliberation; not just spoon fed dogma from the APA-arm of the LGBT cult. Since none of the five Justices who made those things happen have a degree in child psychology, their Finding is worthless on that particular question of law. When an adoption agency cites New York vs Ferber (1982), that deliberation will happen as it should: by those qualified to do so. The Justices pass an Opinion after they hear argument. They don't do the arguing themselves..particularly if they aren't qualified to do so...

More gibbering nonsense. Show me the Supreme Court citing the APA in the thei Obergefell ruling. You can't. You've never read the ruling, have no idea what sources the court cites. Because you've refused to look.

YOu're literally making this up as you go along. And your thumbsucking, self soothing lies to yourself have no relevance to the ruling. As your agreement with the court's findings remain perfectly irrelevant. No matter silly lies you make up about their ruling.

Again, Sil...what's the point of all of this. Even you don't believe your bullshit.

The argument will be very simple and concise:

1. Do boys need a father and girls a mother or at least the hope of having one (gay marriage strips them of this hope even for life)?

2. If #1 is "yes, or they will statistically suffer a number of social and psychological maladies", then New York vs Ferber will be cited to show that even if the Judicial branch is allowed to add brand new categories to the 14th Amendment for protection (just some of their favorite repugnant minority deviant sex behaviors-as-identity but not others), those constitutional protections do not dominate a child's right to hope or presence of the missing gender-as-role-model for a parent.

3. From there (or even before, forcing the issue) states can say "we have no reason to give monetary incentives to what amounts to a mental prison for children...a prison from which they will arrive into our social milieu as predictably stunted and struggling individuals headed for indigency, mental health issues, drug addiction or prison. ie: States cannot be required to invest in their own predictable fiscal demise. PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

The PRince Trust Study never so much as mentions mothers, fathers, gays, same sex marriage, same sex parenting, nor measures the effects of any kind of parenting. Which you've known. And we know you know. And you know we know you know.

So what's the point in lying again and again and again? There's no one left to believe you. Not even yourself.

 

[Skylar]

1. Do boys need a father and girls a mother or at least the hope of having one?

No...

And how exactly are you qualified to make that final determination which has a ripple effect to society the size of a 100 foot sleeper wave?

Says the poor soul who is offering her personal opinion as the law. While ignoring the explicit findings of the Supreme Court. That's not a legal argument Silly.

And we're not quoting ourselves. We're quoting the Supreme Court and their findings. You insist that you know better, that whatever you make up is the law. And you're still nobody.

Get used to the idea.

 

[Blackrook]

I've been married for 26 years and I can assure you there is no tax break for married couples.

On the contrary, if a married couple file their taxes jointly, they will be taxed at rate that includes the husband's and wife's income together for a higher tax rate than the same man and woman if they were single.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I've been married for 26 years and I can assure you there is no tax break for married couples.

On the contrary, if a married couple file their taxes jointly, they will be taxed at rate that includes the husband's and wife's income together for a higher tax rate than the same man and woman if they were single.

Well that's not true. Here are a couple of examples:

1. Estate Tax, spouses are exempt from Estate taxes differently then estates that pass to other individuals.
Therefore different tax treatment for spouses.

2. There is a provision under the law where when real property is sold a single person can exercise a $250,000 tax exemption on the profit realized from the sale of a home. For Civilly Married couples the amount is $500,000 (two people, twice the exemption, makes sense). The surviving spouse of a Civilly Married couple can continue to claim the $500,000 exemption for up to two years after the death of a spouse to allow for liquidation of the property they had owned jointly even though upon the death of the spouse the person is now legally "single" and would normally only qualify for 1/2 the exemption. Therefore different tax treatment for spouses.

I've been married for 26 years and I can assure you there is no tax break for married couples.

On the contrary, if a married couple file their taxes jointly, they will be taxed at rate that includes the husband's and wife's income together for a higher tax rate than the same man and woman if they were single.

Actually there may be or may not be.

Whether there is a marriage penalty (the couple pays slightly more in taxes) or a marriage bonus (the couple pays slightly more in taxes) depends on the impact of two people having only one income or the relative size of both incomes if both work.

Having been married for 28 years I can tell you that single and married people are treated differently under the tax code. During my military career we traveled, alot and often received a "marriage bonus". When mine was the only income during years we relocated or had children and she stayed at home - she was a deduction as a dependent and therefore lowered our tax. Even today I earn twice what my wife earns and because of that income disparity pay slightly lower taxes (only a few dollars) but we check every year as our tax software make that easy.

Here is more information for you to become informed -->> http://taxfoundation.org/article/understanding-marriage-penalty-and-marriage-bonus


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

The question of this thread is WHY did states give marriage tax breaks in the first place. States do not invest in private affairs unless they anticipate a benefit fiscally later on. States incentivized marriage to provide a mother and father for children so that the girls and boys expected statistically to arrive would be the best-adjusted citizens. For decades and even hundreds or thousands of years, society made the observation that boys without fathers and girls without mothers do poorly and are maladjusted adults. The reason states gave tax breaks to marrieds was completely dismantled and now the dismantlers are demanding they be rewarded with cash for guaranteeing an inferior product for the investment.

 

[Montrovant]

The question of this thread is WHY did states give marriage tax breaks in the first place. States do not invest in private affairs unless they anticipate a benefit fiscally later on. States incentivized marriage to provide a mother and father for children so that the girls and boys expected statistically to arrive would be the best-adjusted citizens. For decades and even hundreds or thousands of years, society made the observation that boys without fathers and girls without mothers do poorly and are maladjusted adults. The reason states gave tax breaks to marrieds was completely dismantled and now the dismantlers are demanding they be rewarded with cash for guaranteeing an inferior product for the investment.

Since our society has not been around for your thousands of years, you must be talking about multiple societies. Are you going to show that all societies followed your stated reasoning?

Perhaps the state believes that boys and girls with two parents who are married are expected statistically to become the best-adjusted citizens.

 

[Syriusly]

The question of this thread is WHY did states give marriage tax breaks in the first place. .

What tax breaks?

As a married man, I really would like to know what those tax breaks are. Other than inheritance taxes, my state gives no particular 'tax break' to my wife and I for being married. Some years we pay more than if we were not married, some years less.

And if the 'inheritance tax' was for the benefit of kids- why not give them that tax break- rather than the spouse?

 

[Skylar]

The question of this thread is WHY did states give marriage tax breaks in the first place. States do not invest in private affairs unless they anticipate a benefit fiscally later on. States incentivized marriage to provide a mother and father for children so that the girls and boys expected statistically to arrive would be the best-adjusted citizens. For decades and even hundreds or thousands of years, society made the observation that boys without fathers and girls without mothers do poorly and are maladjusted adults. The reason states gave tax breaks to marrieds was completely dismantled and now the dismantlers are demanding they be rewarded with cash for guaranteeing an inferior product for the investment.

The question of this thread is your 'gay marriage tyranny' drama queen tantrums. Where you're still trying to self sooth, still thumbsucking, still telling yourself comforting little lies that have no relevance to the law or the recognition of same sex marriage.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that same sex couples have a right to marry. And that the right to marry isn't predicated on children or the ability to have them. You ignore the Supreme Court and imagine your own basis.

Alas, your ignoring the Supreme Court and playing pretend isn't a legal argument. Its pseudo-legal fan fiction. You might as well include werewolves and vampires that 'sparkle' for as much relevance as your fantasy has with the actual law.

 

[Skylar]

The question of this thread is WHY did states give marriage tax breaks in the first place. States do not invest in private affairs unless they anticipate a benefit fiscally later on. States incentivized marriage to provide a mother and father for children so that the girls and boys expected statistically to arrive would be the best-adjusted citizens. For decades and even hundreds or thousands of years, society made the observation that boys without fathers and girls without mothers do poorly and are maladjusted adults. The reason states gave tax breaks to marrieds was completely dismantled and now the dismantlers are demanding they be rewarded with cash for guaranteeing an inferior product for the investment.

Since our society has not been around for your thousands of years, you must be talking about multiple societies. Are you going to show that all societies followed your stated reasoning?

Perhaps the state believes that boys and girls with two parents who are married are expected statistically to become the best-adjusted citizens.

Sil can't actually find a legal basis in our ACTUAL law for her random gibbering. So she's *imagining* a law where she could be right. Making it up as she goes along. From what I've been able to piece together from Sil's 44 threads on the topic, there's this big Wardrobe that if you step into it you'll meet a talking lion that will take you to a land where her arguments actually make sense.

 

[Silhouette]

The question of this thread is your 'gay marriage tyranny' drama queen tantrums. Where you're still trying to self sooth, still thumbsucking, still telling yourself comforting little lies that have no relevance to the law or the recognition of same sex marriage.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that same sex couples have a right to marry.

You know that's interesting...because the Supreme Court has ruled many many MANY more times that the 1st Amendment guarantees the right to free speech, even in cases where that free speech is so thoroughly repugnant and abusive to others that it seems ludicrous...and yet...

...in New York vs Ferber, they chose to squelch free speech in one very specific instance. And that instance is where someone's free speech harmed children either physically or psychologically... The Court said "no, no way".

Stripping a child even of the hope of either a mother or father for life is psychological cruelty. And guess what gay marriage does?....so much for your Obergefell Ruling.. It is overruled effectively by NY vs Ferber (1982)..

So it leaves you wondering how states are going to be forced to give tax breaks to harm done to children? What do they get out of the deal? Which is why I posed the question in the title of this thread for states to mull over exactly why it was they gave tax breaks to marrieds in the first place. Certainly not to interfere or influence the private lives of adults. It was and is for children's sake. They've got some thinking to do about that...

 

[Skylar]

The question of this thread is your 'gay marriage tyranny' drama queen tantrums. Where you're still trying to self sooth, still thumbsucking, still telling yourself comforting little lies that have no relevance to the law or the recognition of same sex marriage.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that same sex couples have a right to marry.

You know that's interesting...because the Supreme Court has ruled many many MANY more times that the 1st Amendment guarantees the right to free speech, even in cases where that free speech is so thoroughly repugnant and abusive to others that it seems ludicrous...and yet...

...in New York vs Ferber, they chose to squelch free speech in one very specific instance. And that instance is where someone's free speech harmed children either physically or psychologically... The Court said "no, no way".

Ferber was about kiddy porn. It doesn't even mention marriage. Making your reference to it more pseudo-legal gibberish.

Stripping a child even of the hope of either a mother or father for life is psychological cruelty. And guess what gay marriage does?....so much for your Obergefell Ruling.. It is overruled effectively by NY vs Ferber (1982)..

More meaningless gibberish. Ferber never finds that same sex marriage is psychological cruelty to children. It never even mentions marriage. You're not citing Ferber. You're citing *yourself*. And you're nobody.

Worse for your silly argument, the supreme court found that same sex marriage benefits children and denying same sex marriage hurts kids. Twice each, once each in Windsor, once each in Obergefell. Thus, by the standards of your own argument about Ferber, the Supreme Court should have ruled exactly as they did: in recognizing same sex marriage.

You disagree with the findings of the Supreme Court, insisting you know better. And then laughably insist that the Supreme Court is overruled by your personal opinion.

Nope.

 

[Syriusly]

The question of this thread is your 'gay marriage tyranny' drama queen tantrums. Where you're still trying to self sooth, still thumbsucking, still telling yourself comforting little lies that have no relevance to the law or the recognition of same sex marriage.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that same sex couples have a right to marry.

You know that's interesting...because the Supreme Court has ruled many many MANY more times that the 1st Amendment guarantees the right to free speech, even in cases where that free speech is so thoroughly repugnant and abusive to others that it seems ludicrous...and yet...

...in New York vs Ferber, they chose to squelch free speech in one very specific instance. And that instance is where someone's free speech harmed children either physically or psychologically... The Court said "no, no way".

Ferber was about kiddy porn. It doesn't even mention marriage. Making your reference to it more pseudo-legal gibberish.

Stripping a child even of the hope of either a mother or father for life is psychological cruelty. And guess what gay marriage does?....so much for your Obergefell Ruling.. It is overruled effectively by NY vs Ferber (1982)..

More meaningless gibberish. Ferber never finds that same sex marriage is psychological cruelty to children. It never even mentions marriage. You're not citing Ferber. You're citing *yourself*. And you're nobody.

Worse for your silly argument, the supreme court found that same sex marriage benefits children and denying same sex marriage hurts kids. Twice each, once each in Windsor, once each in Obergefell. Thus, by the standards of your own argument about Ferber, the Supreme Court should have ruled exactly as they did: in recognizing same sex marriage.

You disagree with the findings of the Supreme Court, insisting you know better. And then laughably insist that the Supreme Court is overruled by your personal opinion.

Nope.

Even better- she insists this Supreme Court ruling is over-ruled by a prior Supreme Court ruling- on a completely unrelated subject.

 

[Skylar]

The question of this thread is your 'gay marriage tyranny' drama queen tantrums. Where you're still trying to self sooth, still thumbsucking, still telling yourself comforting little lies that have no relevance to the law or the recognition of same sex marriage.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that same sex couples have a right to marry.

You know that's interesting...because the Supreme Court has ruled many many MANY more times that the 1st Amendment guarantees the right to free speech, even in cases where that free speech is so thoroughly repugnant and abusive to others that it seems ludicrous...and yet...

...in New York vs Ferber, they chose to squelch free speech in one very specific instance. And that instance is where someone's free speech harmed children either physically or psychologically... The Court said "no, no way".

Ferber was about kiddy porn. It doesn't even mention marriage. Making your reference to it more pseudo-legal gibberish.

Stripping a child even of the hope of either a mother or father for life is psychological cruelty. And guess what gay marriage does?....so much for your Obergefell Ruling.. It is overruled effectively by NY vs Ferber (1982)..

More meaningless gibberish. Ferber never finds that same sex marriage is psychological cruelty to children. It never even mentions marriage. You're not citing Ferber. You're citing *yourself*. And you're nobody.

Worse for your silly argument, the supreme court found that same sex marriage benefits children and denying same sex marriage hurts kids. Twice each, once each in Windsor, once each in Obergefell. Thus, by the standards of your own argument about Ferber, the Supreme Court should have ruled exactly as they did: in recognizing same sex marriage.

You disagree with the findings of the Supreme Court, insisting you know better. And then laughably insist that the Supreme Court is overruled by your personal opinion.

Nope.

Even better- she insists this Supreme Court ruling is over-ruled by a prior Supreme Court ruling- on a completely unrelated subject.

And she wonders why every single legal prediction she's ever made, without exception....has been laughably, comically wrong.

But hey, maybe *this* time it will be different.

 

[Silhouette]

You disagree with the findings of the Supreme Court, insisting you know better. And then laughably insist that the Supreme Court is overruled by your personal opinion.

Nope.

No, New York vs Ferber (1982) disagrees with the findings in Obergefell with regard to children involved implicitly in the concept of "marriage"..

 

[mdk]

You disagree with the findings of the Supreme Court, insisting you know better. And then laughably insist that the Supreme Court is overruled by your personal opinion.

Nope.

No, New York vs Ferber (1982) disagrees with the findings in Obergefell with regard to children involved implicitly in the concept of "marriage"..

And by New York v. Ferber you mean your imagination. The courts are not bound by any bullshit you make up to punish gay people and their families. It's why you have a very shitty track record when it comes to legal predictions.

Meanwhile...gay marriage is still legal despite all your whiny protest.

 

[Silhouette]

New York vs Ferber found that even while the 1st Amendment gets massive leeway in free speech...even when it is clearly abusive towards others...the Court made one exception to that: when children might be harmed either physically or psychologically. It was a case where a pervert named "Ferber" wanted to peddle child porn as his "right to free speech" and the Court said no way Jose'...for one and only one reason did they squelch a constitutional right: for the sake of the welfare of children..

So, you can pitch your voice to explain to the Court in the next challenge to gay marriage, how systematically stripping a child FOR LIFE of EVEN THE HOPE of having either a mother or father is "good for them". ie: you'll have to convince Kennedy that boys missing a dad or the hope of ever having a dad, FOR LIFE is not a kind of psychological prison sentence with the Court's blessing in Obergefell.

 

[mdk]

New York vs Ferber found that even while the 1st Amendment gets massive leeway in free speech...even when it is clearly abusive towards others...the Court made one exception to that: when children might be harmed either physically or psychologically. It was a case where a pervert named "Ferber" wanted to peddle child porn as his "right to free speech" and the Court said no way Jose'...for one and only one reason did they squelch a constitutional right: for the sake of the welfare of children..

So, you can pitch your voice to explain to the Court in the next challenge to gay marriage, how systematically stripping a child FOR LIFE of EVEN THE HOPE of having either a mother or father is "good for them". ie: you'll have to convince Kennedy that boys missing a dad or the hope of ever having a dad, FOR LIFE is not a kind of psychological prison sentence with the Court's blessing in Obergefell.

I don't have to convince Justice Kennedy of anything as your lies about the findings in Feber are highly unlikely to reach the high court. I wonder why this case was never used in any of arguments presented before a myraid of local, state, and, federal courts? It being irrelevant to matter at hand might have something to do with it.

Too bad we can't harness your consistent failures into an alternative energy source. lol