Originally Posted by Samdari

The article states that the marriage penalty showed up starting in 1969. Unfortunately, it does not explicitly state what this supposed bonus was for being married then. The details are unclear. I would find a comparison interesting.

But, really, what does it matter? You and I (I assume) were not paying income taxes prior to 1969 - thus for all of our lives, there has never been a time where singles got screwed by the income tax code to the benefit of married couples. This is an especially salient point considering that one thing you are proposing is to NOW eliminate the tax breaks given by being married, whereas that was done 35 years ago. Go ahead and propose the elimination of governmental recognition of marriage, but the idea that you are getting rid of some tax breaks those people get is totally off base.

As to the main point, I think that most of the subtle discrimination in our society against single people is sociological, rather than governmentally mandated. Whether the government recognizes marriages or not, for the remainder of our lives married men are going to be automatically percieved by the bulk of society as more responsible than single men, and fathers as more responsible than childless husbands. That heirarchy translates into subtle benefits in the workplace, as the non-work hours of the three groups are seen as more valuable in the same order.

Despite my decrying the marriage penalty, I did find being married to be a financial boon. It is far easier to get by when pooling two incomes without correspondingly doubling expenses. Made it easier to buy a home, which does provide number of financial (taxes included) benefits. But, again, it is the social convention of marriage which provides that benefit, not any official governmental regulation. Government recognition of marriage does not prevent any two (romantically involved or not) people from similarly pooling their resources and reaping the benefits.It is largely the social implications which prevent this from happening more frequently.

I don't see the elimination of marriage as an officially recognized institution as eliminating much of what irks you in terms of benefits provided to married people by others in society.

Originally Posted by John Galt

I don't know where you are getting all this from (and what your answer is to my previous post). The vast majority of married Americans received a marriage tax benefit during our lifetimes. For a small group, there was a penalty. Your statement that, "there has never been a time where singles got screwed by the income tax code to the benefit of married couples" is patently false. Not to mention that any married couple could have avoided the penalty at any time (for those it did apply to) by filing separately. Where are you getting your tax history from?

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Marriage works. That said, it would also seem to be cost effective to allow gays to marry. The religious right shouldn't preach about the "sanctity" of marriage until we're doing a hell of a lot better than 8 years and 40 days per marriage.

Originally Posted by John Galt

This is a myth created for political gain. While it is true that some people (usually married couples with two wage earners where the sum of their total income just barely crossed into a new bracket) paid more, the vast majority of married couples received a large tax benefit.

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

I find it really, really unlikely that I just "happened" to be one of those rare couples that crossed into that bracket for the 4 years I was married to my first wife. We both worked. We got hit with a marriage penalty. It's a reality.

In my current marriage, my wife is a stay-at-home mom, and we have two kids - deduction city, baby!

Originally Posted by Samdari

John, where I got that there was a "marriage tax penalty" is documented in the article linked by Axxon, as well as simply examining the tax codes. Look at the examples in the articles as well as the one I provide. This example is hardly "a small group" it is well in the median range, and thus applied to the majority of married couples. You provide no evidence to back up your statement that there was a benefit for any married couple. You simply regurgitate a commonly held misconception with your usual bravado that what you believe simply must be true.

Case in point, the statement "Not to mention that any married couple could have avoided the penalty at any time (for those it did apply to) by filing separately." is patently PROVABLY (unlike any of your statements) false. If you were married, and wanted to file separately, you had to fill out your form differently (with different tax tables and amounts for exemption) and paid more taxes than someone who filed single. You could not legally avoid the marriage penalty by filing separately (although many married couples did file singly to avoid it).

Originally Posted by Axxon

So, lets make marriage a religious ceremony strictly with religious rules and regulations. Lets eliminate the concept completely from the legal standpoint.

No more tax breaks, alimony, special insurance rates etc, etc, just because you signed some papers before you fucked. It's not needed, it's inequitable and it's wrong. I've thought about it and giving rights to same sex couples only makes the discrimination against single people worse.

Lets really level the playing field and make all people equal and not spread bennies for those who decide to live together.

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I've long believed this. I think, despite all the vaunted claims about how marriage is good for the economy and for society...that there really needs to be a reevaluation of some government science project to coax people into feeling inadaquate if they're not ascribing to the societal "norm" of being stuck with one person forever.

Now that was a cynical view, mind you and I don't really believe marriage to be that. I just don't think the government needs to sanction it, especially when the story at the end of the day is that people who spend their lives in committed relationships want the "benefits" that the government bestows on those it feels are doing the "right" thing.

The connotations for me are far too pervasive and I think we're better off letting people do their own thing. Though it'll never happen.