Front Office Football Central

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   FOFC Archive (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=27)
-   -   Time to abolish marriage. (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=32002)

John Galt 11-17-2004 10:04 AM

Quote:

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.


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?

Huckleberry 11-17-2004 10:09 AM

Anybody that ever "got screwed by" or lost money because of the marriage tax was just plain lazy and/or stupid.

As JG says above, it was always easily avoidable just by paying attention and giving a little effort.

Samdari 11-17-2004 10:42 AM

Quote:

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?



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).

Marc Vaughan 11-17-2004 10:43 AM

Quote:

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.


I personally don't have a problem with gays being 'married' - I do however think its sureal for them to expect to impose their views upon institutions which don't aprove of gay relationships.

This to me is no different to any society which isn't harming others and has rules etc. which the members obey. For instance a local Rugby club shouldn't be forced to allow someone in who wants to play soccer as part of their team ... it'd destroy the game for everyone else because it is no longer the game they want to be part of.

If gay marriages through civil law or whatever religion/institution supports such unions is cool by me.

judicial clerk 11-17-2004 11:15 AM

random thoughts-

I generally agree with John Gault.

I cannot explain the marriage penalty or the marriage benefit produced by the tax code, but I know that they both exist and, according to my income tax professor, the tax code provides more benefit to married people than penalty

Aside from taxes, there are many other legal circumstances where married people receive a benefit not provided to single people (criminal law and probate law come to mind as examples)

People on both sides of this issue make good points. I personally do not want the government to use the law for social engineering except when the government is attempting to dissuade clearly bad behavior (for example: murder is illegal and the penalty is life in prison or death) I do not think there is anyuthing wrong with people being single, and so I don't want the laws to dissuade people from this lifestyle. another example is the mortgage interest deduction in income taxes. I think home ownership is great and I love my big tax deduction, but I think that not owning a home is OK also, and so the government should not attempt to dissuade people form being non-home owners by making them pay more taxes. A final example is dependant deductions and credits. I certainly want parents to take care of thier minor children, and so would make not doing so criminal. However, i do not think that the government should dissuade people from being childless by letting people with children pay less taxes.

Franklinnoble 11-17-2004 11:52 AM

Quote:

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.


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!

John Galt 11-17-2004 12:50 PM

Quote:

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!


Well it definitely only happens if you have two wage earners (with one wage earner, you always get a benefit) and it may have been that you always fell in the same part of the bracket. I can't say for sure.

I'm fine with eliminating the penalty if the government decides it wants to promote marriages, but I just want to point out that Samdari's claims are just plain wrong.

John Galt 11-17-2004 12:57 PM

Quote:

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).


I'm not denying that a marriage penalty existed for some couples (almost always when two wage earners had similar incomes - especially in the middle high brackets). Your claim, however, that no married couple receives a benefit is just nonsense and not supported by your sites.

Ask any tax law professor and they will tell you more people received a benefit than a penalty. The lowest number was only 51% received a benefit (and I think 30% had a penalty, but I can't remember that part). Other studies have shown a much higher number for people receiving the benefits.

If you want sources, just google myth of the marriage penalty or read any tax book. I'm not trying to pick a fight, but you can ask anyone on this board who took tax law and they will tell you the same (as judicial clerk has).

Young Drachma 11-17-2004 05:47 PM

Quote:

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.


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.

Leonidas 11-17-2004 08:16 PM

Statistics clearly show children not living in a two parent household drop out of school more often and wind up in jail more often. And frankly, if I didn't have that vow I took not to fool around, I might stay with my woman, but I'd certainly be fooling around without my word of honor to bond me, and somehow I suspect that would lead to an unhealthy environment for the kids.

Marc Vaughan 11-18-2004 04:18 AM

Quote:

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.


Like it or not one role of the goverment is to encourage people to behave in a manner which helps keep society healthy, both physically and mentally.

You can see this in many ways - taxes on items which are self-destructive (ie. cigarettes) and laxs which discourage non-positive behaviour (ie. stealing, violence etc.).

Having tax breaks for marriage is very similar to these imho - its been proven that marriage is the most best situation for raising children (who are the next generation of society) as such I don't see it wrong that the goverment should encourage people to be married .... in fact to me its common sense ...


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.