![]() |
Quote:
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? |
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. |
Quote:
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). |
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
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! |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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). |
Quote:
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. |
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.
|
Quote:
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.