Traditional Marriage

[Sammy-San]

-_- because unrelated people you don't even know can have the same last name as you. Or do you think all people with the last name Smith know each other and have deep, family bonds?

-_- furthermore, people don't always change their last name when they get married, it's optional.

-_- also, what if some stalker gets their last name changed to yours, does that make them your spouse now? That would be a scary world.

So not to sound stupid, but what does getting married mean? The topics discussed in your preivous didnt apply to Inuits.

How are tax breaks a union but having the same last name isnt?

 

[PsychoSarah]

How are tax breaks a union but having the same last name isnt?

Neither are. I actually looked it up; you don't get any notable tax breaks just for being married. You get tax breaks based on what you do; if you own property with that person, you count as two people, thus get double the tax break (but, really, the same tax break for each person). Unmarried people could take advantage of a lot of these same things, it's just slower and can't be applied to previous holdings prior to starting.

If you get married, you can count the property you currently own as if it were owned by two people, without it being in your spouse's name.

But, honestly, marriage is a concept, so you can view it as an emotional state or a legal one, if you want. View it as you like. However, I stand by the fact that sharing a last name is not as good an indication of relationship as sharing taxes, because, again, people you don't even know can have the same last name as you, and your spouse might not have it.

 

[Sammy-San]

Neither are. I actually looked it up; you don't get any notable tax breaks just for being married. You get tax breaks based on what you do; if you own property with that person, you count as two people, thus get double the tax break (but, really, the same tax break for each person). Unmarried people could take advantage of a lot of these same things, it's just slower and can't be applied to previous holdings prior to starting.

If you get married, you can count the property you currently own as if it were owned by two people, without it being in your spouse's name.

But, honestly, marriage is a concept, so you can view it as an emotional state or a legal one, if you want. View it as you like. However, I stand by the fact that sharing a last name is not as good an indication of relationship as sharing taxes, because, again, people you don't even know can have the same last name as you, and your spouse might not have it.

What about medieval times, or native american/inuit people before Europeans?

People talk about getting married, but, I apologize for sounding stupid, its very vague to me.

 

[PsychoSarah]

What about medieval times, or native american/inuit people before Europeans?

People talk about getting married, but, I apologize for sounding stupid, its very vague to me.

Are you asking what marriage is? It is basically a social contract between two people that links their families together in a spirit of mutual cooperation. This helped maintain social order, as, rather than kill each other over disputes, this helped produce an environment of more compromise.

 

[Sammy-San]

Are you asking what marriage is? It is basically a social contract between two people that links their families together in a spirit of mutual cooperation. This helped maintain social order, as, rather than kill each other over disputes, this helped produce an environment of more compromise.

child custody, and healthcare decisions weren't in bibical times.

 

[PsychoSarah]

child custody, and healthcare decisions weren't in bibical times.

No, but feuds existed. This is a means of preventing feuds and disagreements from becoming battles.

 

[Sammy-San]

No, but feuds existed. This is a means of preventing feuds and disagreements from becoming battles.

That wasnt in Eden. Even inheritance wasnt.

So marriage is a broad term for a variety of unions?

 

[Ken-1122]

First off: Godwin: you lose.

Second, what you're saying is we should stop Hitler but do nothing about Gasey and Amin.

No, the reason I said we should stop Hitler is because Hitler is the guy we are talking about. I didn’t mention Gasey or Amin, because they are not the guys we are talking about.

Third, It isn't off-topic to this thread to discuss why you think legal marriage should be abolished in favor religious-only marriages.

Fair enough; since you insist on discussing this in this thread, let me put it this way. If the tax breaks from starting a business or buying a house results in more taxes that everybody else has to pay; a position I disagree with but you believe is true, then I am against tax breaks for starting a business, and the tax breaks associated with buying a house.
BTW I'm sure you can come up with plenty of other examples tax breaks that I would agree should be done away with as well, if you wish to bring them into the conversation.

Similar to social security benefits is collecting inheritance (depending on the amount) and tax breaks for charitable donations apply to single people as well.

Dependents getting medical coverage goes right back to the question I asked you (to which you failed to respond). Namely; should we do away with tax credits for single people with children?

I am not familiar with that tax credit. Explain it to me then I will tell you if I believe they should do away with it or not.

 

[Ken-1122]

In what situation does that happen? I said when you marry someone, you can put them under the same insurance plan as yourself, not necessarily pay less. You only personally pay less that way if it happens to be that your insurance is a benefit of your job, .

Which is usually the case.

It'd make living as a couple HARDER than living as two single people in a house. A husband might not even be able to replace his wife's junky car without having to pay the gift tax. Basically, if the amount of money (or objects valuing) you give to other people without anything in exchange is over $14,000 (in the United States) in a year, and it's not a charitable donation, you are taxed for it. The gift tax is a means of preventing other loop holes rich people took advantage of so that their kids would avoid paying taxes on their inheritance, so you can't get rid of it or just let random people apply to share their money, as that would prevent its important function.

I disagree; Of what I know of it, I think we should get rid of the gift tax as well

Basically, taking the government out of marriage would lower the quality of living for anyone that is married down below that of an unmarried person, would result in huge legal disputes (as in, worse than already exist) over child custody, property, and healthcare,

Legal avenues are in place to allow this to be taken care of when you have children, acquire property, or healthcare.

and wouldn't make your personal taxes any lower. Seriously, you act as if what you pay in taxes would be lower if married people could never pay less than you.

No, I’m just saying, when someone pays less, somebody else has to pay more to make up for it.

 

[Queller]

No, the reason I said we should stop Hitler is because Hitler is the guy we are talking about. I didn’t mention Gasey or Amin, because they are not the guys we are talking about.

Fair enough; since you insist on discussing this in this thread, let me put it this way. If the tax breaks from starting a business or buying a house results in more taxes that everybody else has to pay; a position I disagree with but you believe is true, then I am against tax breaks for starting a business, and the tax breaks associated with buying a house.

I wasn't referring specifically to tax breaks for buying a house although I may have misspoke. I was talking about the tax breaks that come from owning a home such as those I listed.

BTW I'm sure you can come up with plenty of other examples tax breaks that I would agree should be done away with as well, if you wish to bring them into the conversation.

I am not familiar with that tax credit. Explain it to me then I will tell you if I believe they should do away with it or not.

• Earned Income Tax Credit
• Child Tax Credit
• Child and Dependent Care Credit

They not just for single people but single people with children benefit even more from these tax credits even more than married people do.

For example, the Child and Dependent Care Credit income phase out is at $55,000 for married couples and at $75,000 for single parents and heads of households.

Which, btw, is just one more example of where a law benefits single people more than married couples.

 

[Queller]

Was there an equivalent to that in ancient or medieval times?

An equivalent to what?

 

[Queller]

Sounds to me that you are just bitter about having to pay taxes.

That's the impression I'm getting as well.

 

[Queller]

No, I’m just saying, when someone pays less, somebody else has to pay more to make up for it.

This is incorrect. When someone uses a tax deduction, credit, or loophole, your taxes don't go up as a result. You still pay the same amount you would have had they not used that particular deduction. The overall amount the government gets is simply reduced by the amount that person would have paid.

 

[Sammy-San]

An equivalent to what?

benefits.

 

[Queller]

benefits.

An equivalent to tax benefits in the Middle Ages? Well, I guess if you paid the local lord enough money that year you got to go on living and maybe you got to keep your wife, your daughter, and/or your land.

 

[Sammy-San]

An equivalent to tax benefits in the Middle Ages? Well, I guess if you paid the local lord enough money that year you got to go on living and maybe you got to keep your wife, your daughter, and/or your land.

did getting married mean the same thing back then?

 

[Queller]

did getting married mean the same thing back then?

Marriage in the Middle Ages was mostly about political arrangements, just as it had been before that. Marriages based solely on the love of the two people involved is a fairly recent invention.

 

[Dave-W]

And when insurance companies give married couples a lower insurance rates than unmarried couples, the unmarried couple has to pay extra to cover or the married couple.

Not so. Those discounts are per the actuarial tables which show that marrieds have a lower instance of traffic accidents and (especially men) live longer than singles. So no one is "paying extra" to cover someone else - they pay according to the risk of their life circumstance.

When the Government gives tax breaks to married couples that they don't give to unmarried couples, the unmarried couple has to pay extra to cover for what the married couple is not paying.

In some tax brackets, marrieds pay MORE in taxes.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

In some tax brackets, marrieds pay MORE in taxes.

I recall reading some time ago that senior citizens were "shacking up" instead of getting married because the benefits of being single outweighed the benefits of being married.

No idea if that's the case anymore.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That wasnt in Eden. Even inheritance wasnt.

So marriage is a broad term for a variety of unions?

Yes, marriage is a broad term for a basic union between families centering upon two individuals joining each others' families (or more, in polygamous marriages). However, variety of unions? Not so much, the basic premise of marriage is pretty much the same in all cultures that practice it, although the spiritual significance tacked on will vary from culture to culture.