Gays should be denied tax breaks that heterosexual people get from marriage
- Thread starter ChristJudgeOfAll
- Start date
- Nov 29, 2003
- 2,567
- 84
- 42
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Single
Development rarely equals enlightenment and it doesn't in this case. Because tax policies is not a magic wand that somehow makes everyone happy: as long as there are many people objecting to a new policy it shouldn't be implemented or it should be revoked - in a sensitive case such as this. There are many more less arguable tax policies that have been implemented or can be which the government and IRS can decide. Bringing in taxes doesn't work if there's massive objection and jealousy - that's the fact. The fact is most heterosexuals, irrespective of legislation, don't accept that all families are or would be given benefits, just like everyone whether heterosexual or homosexual doesn't accept social welfare for everyone. For example those who really don't want children, those who don't have time for relationships in the first place and those who can't take care of some things well enough to get a good partner. Why should the happy ones be given tax reliefs? Couples, for example homosexual couples are already happy because they have each other. There are homosexual individuals (and I'm not saying they should deny their urges) who fail at something in unfortunate ways and "therefore" are not able to attract a partner, especially not a long-term partner, so why should they be punished further? Making getting married easier doesn't solve some of the problem-ridden single-problem: it can be such minor things (and I'm saying this in a loving way) such as poking ones nose, not affording expensive good enough perfume, brain damage from stroke or psychosis, a too big home with too many thingummies in it, too many vehicles or books, etc. basically something You've been able to do for a time or become accidentally injured which turns down a potential partner:
I already explained on the last page where I explained about child allowance, so yes infertile couples already get less from (or perhaps pay more to) the state/nation and I've very rarely heard any objections to general child allowance:
I already explained on the last page where I explained about child allowance, so yes infertile couples already get less from (or perhaps pay more to) the state/nation and I've very rarely heard any objections to general child allowance:
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 24,707
- 14,589
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
If that's the case, then neither should straight couples...
Us single folks are tired of having to pay more than our fair share so that a couple who chose to have kids of their own accord can have a tax break...that was their life decision, it shouldn't cost me more money.
I'm being facetious there...but hopefully it makes my point.
No, the government gave tax breaks for it as a shoddy effort at an economic equalizer. The theory was that if there was a household where both spouses had to work to keep the household going, they'd have a smaller tax burden than a person who made that same amount of money on their own.
Clearly the plan backfired, within 10-15 years of these tax breaks being introduced, the divorce rate skyrocketed...which can lead us to believe one thing. The promise of a smaller tax burden encouraged some couples to get married for the benefits when they weren't really ready to do so...or wouldn't have gotten married otherwise.
The idea that married couples should be able to get a "marriage bonus" (as it's referred to) came about thanks to the 81st and 82nd congress. (Democratic majority in both)
As I noted before, then so do straight married couples. Why should I have to pay more in taxes than them based on their personal life choices?
From the individual standpoint (as it relates to the legislative process), it's about legal rights and statuses. You can't say that one group of people gets a tax break from theirs but then deny another group that same break for theirs. It's an all-or-nothing deal.
If I were to make a law like the following, would you say it's a fair law?:
"Everyone has the right to get a drivers license...however, since people living in the suburbs are more likely to be able to afford their own cars than someone in the inner city, and thus provide their own transportation (which provides a 'benefit' to society by not having to use public transportation), we're going to give them a tax break for having a drivers license...but we're not going to give that to the folks in the inner city"
If your argument is really about the benefits, then you should be opposing benefits for straight couples as well. If a couple needs to have the government dangling a carrot in front of them to get married and push out a few kids, then that couple shouldn't be married, or having kids.
...but with all that being said. The argument against benefits is a weak one at best. As I mentioned earlier, the idea of benefits for marriage was a poor attempt at an economic equalizer by the democrats in congress at that time. The only time this tax benefit really comes into play is if the two members of the couple have a large disparity in incomes.
Here's an example:
Joe & Mike are married
Scenario A) Joe's taxable income $35k/year - Mike's is the same.
If they file jointly, their tax burden as a couple is $9,596
If they file separately, they each have an individual tax burden of $4,800, x2 would be $9,600
A whopping $4 difference
Scenario B) Joe's taxable income is $50k/year - Mike's is $20k
If they file jointly, it's the same $9,596
If they file separately, Joe pays $8,363 - Mike pays $2,550
A $1,317 difference
Scenario C) Joe's taxable income is $70k - Mike doesn't work (Joe supports the household & Mike)
If filed jointly, it's $9,596
If Mike files as single, it's $13,363
A $3,767 difference
Scenario A is trivial...in scenarios B & C, Joe is getting a tax break because he is providing a positive service for society...he's shouldering the responsibility of housing, feeding, and clothing Mike so that the tax payers don't have to via entitlements.
Is Joe getting that $3700 break...you bet. ...because if Joe wasn't doing that, Mike would be collecting a much larger amount via Welfare and Food Stamp programs.
Only 1.6% of the population identifies as gay.
Or ~4,800,000 people
On average 51% of couples in the US get married (that's a blanket stat on all relationships in general
So, we could roughly expect 2,448,000 gays to get married in the long run.
Only 13% of households are single income, that means that we could expect 318,240 gays to get the "marriage credit" tax break.
Average household income in the US is roughly $48k.
So, long story short, we could potentially have 300K people paying $6300 instead of $7800. Not really a big deal.
$450,000,000 less in tax revenue coming in (compare that to the grand total from single income married couples without children, which makes up 30% of households...and it's small potatoes)...
Or to put it in perspective...the US spends that much on 3 Trident missiles.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
DaisyDay
I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
- Jan 7, 2003
- 38,059
- 17,521
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Unitarian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Where is "over here"?
We have a standard exemption for dependents also assistance for head of households who earn below a certain amount; plus assistance other than tax breaks for poor people.
Upvote
0
- Nov 29, 2003
- 2,567
- 84
- 42
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Single
Germany and Northern EU countries, also I would suppose Norway as well but haven't checked:
Then it's not the same thing at all: having to apply for the money is not the same thing as getting it easily without even being asked. Where You're at (the U.S.) some who would almost get the benefit may even fill in a little too little in the income tax form just to get the benefit (and pay less taxes). And not giving the child benefit to "rich" people is supposing none of them have high costs (for example for disabled children) and forcing couples where one person (usually the mother as there are fewer dads with the sole custody over a child or children) has modest incomes (but too high to get the child benefit alone) and the other one is poor, to marry just to get the child benefit where You're at (the U.S.):
Then it's not the same thing at all: having to apply for the money is not the same thing as getting it easily without even being asked. Where You're at (the U.S.) some who would almost get the benefit may even fill in a little too little in the income tax form just to get the benefit (and pay less taxes). And not giving the child benefit to "rich" people is supposing none of them have high costs (for example for disabled children) and forcing couples where one person (usually the mother as there are fewer dads with the sole custody over a child or children) has modest incomes (but too high to get the child benefit alone) and the other one is poor, to marry just to get the child benefit where You're at (the U.S.):
Upvote
0
DaisyDay
I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
- Jan 7, 2003
- 38,059
- 17,521
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Unitarian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Rich people get the standard dependent deduction just like everyone else.If they itemize, as rich people very often do, then any medical expenses past a percentage of their income is also deductible. They can also pay such expenses with untaxed dollars.
It's not true that a couple has to be married to get the child benefit, but it will go to either the one who pays most the expenses or the custodial parent - not both.
Upvote
0
- Nov 29, 2003
- 2,567
- 84
- 42
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Single
So let's say the mother is the sole custodial parent, she gets full child benefit even if she's rich? Why is that money not paid out automatically - seems like unnecessary administration? I think the real reason why no-one needs to apply in this area over here is because it's then no administration. EDIT: If there are any catches how to get child benefit or medication then it is true that You have to be married to reap all the benefits. And I can't understand a system of making tax deductions for medications - how many aren't cheating and filling out more expenses for it in the form than they've bought qualifying medicines?
Also individuals in Sweden and some other countries only need to pay medical expenses for most medicines up to a certain annual amount which is about $200 and the price for those medicines is thereafter greatly reduced and the state pays the rest, and some get some (not all - only some select medication that the seniour physicians says not each medicine the seniour physicians has prescribed to the individual) medication paid in full by the county - the latter means a lot hassle for the individual and not needing to take loans:
EDIT: Clearly the U.S. has to work on some benefits, taxes and tax deductions - the U.S. system is not optimal even though most people who post in this thread claim that it is.
Also individuals in Sweden and some other countries only need to pay medical expenses for most medicines up to a certain annual amount which is about $200 and the price for those medicines is thereafter greatly reduced and the state pays the rest, and some get some (not all - only some select medication that the seniour physicians says not each medicine the seniour physicians has prescribed to the individual) medication paid in full by the county - the latter means a lot hassle for the individual and not needing to take loans:
EDIT: Clearly the U.S. has to work on some benefits, taxes and tax deductions - the U.S. system is not optimal even though most people who post in this thread claim that it is.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Jan Volkes
Well-Known Member
Yes we do pay for it in the UK, the more you earn the more you pay [there is an upper limit] but when you take everything into account the average Brit pays less than the average American.
We do not suffer the same fate Americans suffer when they lose their jobs, NO Brit is ever told that they must pay their medical bill because their cover has been refused, NO Brit ever went bankrupt because of medical bills, EVER, there are no co-pays [what ever they are] there are NO such things as a pre-existing conditions with Universal Health Care........
How much does peace of mind cost? how much would you pay for it?
UHC also reduces the number of abortions, if a young woman knows that the medical system will take care of her and her baby she is more likely to have the child rather than having it aborted, that alone should make the Pro life people in the US vote for universal health care.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Jan Volkes
Well-Known Member
Americans should have UHC but it will take many many years before the government will even think about it let alone put anything together, the only way to make it happen would be to give the Democratic party a mandate by giving them a majority in the congress and the senate and that is never going to happen.
You said they should check out the tax rates, that would not tell them a great deal.
Countries with UHC are all better off in many other ways as well, the workforce is healthier and have more time off which makes for better happier employees to name just a couple of ways.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
