Guru
Originally Posted by Taxpayer
Oh geez. Call it whatever you like. Tax must be paid if you are not married and not paid if you are married. I consider that a break on ones taxes when you dont have to pay them. As well, the estate tax BREAK applies even when property is NOT a part of marital property.
Like the right to vote?
Henry George's theories were based on land ownership and how far a business was from a public resource like a mill or waterway. The man lived and died a decade before the model T was produced much less modern transportation and communication. Not only did Henry George never hear of the Internet, he barely lived long enough to see the electric light. Applying the theories of Henry George to modern nations is about as risky as letting the most brilliant caveman design your next airport.
People have to pay income tax whether they're married or not. Being married doesn't give you a right to pay no, or even less taxes (usually the opposite occurs). It just changes whether the income and deductions are associated with two individuals or one couple. It let's folks who have chosen to live together merge their finances without the need to keep a separate accounting for the IRS.
As for estate taxes... when folks marry, the marriage forms a union of the two. They merge their lives -- social, legal, and financial. Yes, you can keep some stuff outside of the marriage (can be complicated to do so), but if your spouse dies without making arrangements for those assets the law recognizes you've lived one life. It doesn't tax the surviving spouse for 'inheriting' stuff that was owned by either individual. Because their life, was also yours.
There's no reward for being married. The laws just accommodate the decision of two people to live as one, and attempts to be fair to that couple in a society where the laws generally expect to deal with individuals living individual lives.
Henry George's theories were based on land ownership and how far a business was from a public resource like a mill or waterway. The man lived and died a decade before the model T was produced much less modern transportation and communication. Not only did Henry George never hear of the Internet, he barely lived long enough to see the electric light. Applying the theories of Henry George to modern nations is about as risky as letting the most brilliant caveman design your next airport.
Analyst
the purpose of marriage is to allow two people to share their lives and their fortunes and misfortunes together because they love being together. anything else is just gravy.
Why not any state that does pass itshould also be forced to forfeit any government benefits, tax breaks, exceptions, or any of the other hundreds of benefits that come with being married. Come on, stand on your principals if that is what this is really about?
It is still in the best interest and to the benefit of society to promote and encourage and sanction heterosexuality and not homosexuality so if we are going to do as you say would it make more sense to do it as I say especially since in the over 30 states where it has been voted on protection of marriage has won. How are you going to get your suggestions passed when the majority of states citizens disagree with you?
""The power to do good is also the power to do harm."
Milton Friedman
."
*shrug* You could start by showing them the constitution all states agreed to. It's what the supreme court did 60 years ago, last time this happened.
Henry George's theories were based on land ownership and how far a business was from a public resource like a mill or waterway. The man lived and died a decade before the model T was produced much less modern transportation and communication. Not only did Henry George never hear of the Internet, he barely lived long enough to see the electric light. Applying the theories of Henry George to modern nations is about as risky as letting the most brilliant caveman design your next airport.
Analyst
In case you forgot, Separate but Equal was done away with by a 9-0 unanimous decision by the Supreme Court. There are plenty of ways for minorities in America to attain and hold their rights beyond the ballot box, and I don't care how many states' citizens disagree with it.
Guru
A couple getting married could make the decision to exempt from marital property any or all of their property in a prenuptual agreement, and STILL all income, gift and estate tax BREAKS apply. A reward for being married.
The single mother and grandmother down the street, raising their children/grandchildren for nearly a decade have chosen "the decision of two people to live as one". Two 18 yr old boys, young dumb and full of cum are no more worthy, no more in need of government accomadation than the mother and grandmother. No benefit to society would arise in the case of the two boys that also wouldnt arise in the case of the mother and grandmother. If you want to give special treatment to gays, you need some justification for doing so, otherwise you run afoul of constitutional requirements.
Guru
Did someone suggest separate but equal? Strawman? N Carolina amendment limits all marriages, civil unions or any other partnership arrangements to a man and woman. Completely unequal, because they are not equal.
Analyst
I never suggested or implied that separate but equal was an appropriate legal argument for gay marriage. I would leave that to folks actually trained in the law to slice and dice that point. I brought up the Plessy-Brown shift only in response to bluesguy who asked how anything could ever get changed "when the majority of states citizens disagree with you?"
I would suggest that if the Warren Court had left THAT a state's rights issues, that would have been a decision that your side would have applauded. I am suggesting that, sometimes, like with civil rights, you just have to open up the southerner's mouths and shove integration or acceptance of diversity right in it. And that IS the answer to bluesguy's question: if you are on the right side of the constitution, press on. If it gets to the supremes, you are confident that, however they rule, they will rule with their best constitutional judgment and you will accept that ruling as a victory for the constitution.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Bookmarks