Enough with the Gay...Alright??

[SOB]

Originally posted by Toad
The real solution is to not give any special benefits to married couples.

Why should a guy with a "significant other and dependents" get automatic medical coverage for them when a single person working for the same company gets nothing other than coverage for himself.

Why do "married" couples get a break on income tax? Why do children generate deductions? An unmarried person doesn't get that same tax bracket and there's no way to deduct children that don't exist.

Cut the overt and hidden benefits of marriage. They're basically unfair to unmarried people.

Then let the marriages begin. Heck. let'em marry their dogs or cats if they like. Just don't give any entitlements for being married.

Just my .02.

What he said.

[miko2d]

SirLoin: What is so wrong with being gay?..Or wanting a legal marriage certificate?

 It entitles people to a lot of government-mandated benefits.
 Supposedely when the taxpayers agreed to part with their hard-earned money it was to support and promote a specific kind of family, not anyone who wishes to call himself that.

 Making taxpayers to agree subcidising families and then changing the definition of a family is bait and switch fraud.

 If they did not lay a claim on my tax money, I would not care what they call themselves.

 miko

[muckmaw]

Miko makes a good point on this issue.

As for Toad-

Children generate a small deductible. *Granted, I'm no tax expert*

I got back about $500 if I remember right because I have one child.

Now factor in how much money I pump back into the economy because of this child. $850 per MONTH just for daycare. Now factor in clothes, food, and all the incidentals a 4 year old princess simply "Cannot live without".

Trust me, parents like me put a hell of a lot more back into the economy than tax breaks give us.

AS for spousal medical coverage...I pay for that. They take more money out of every paycheck for my wife's and daughter's medical coverage. Why should I not get something I pay for?

I don't get your argument here, Toad.

My whole opposition to the Gay Marriage issue is not based in logic. It's an emotional reaction I have to the issue, that for the life of me, I cannot figure out.  Why should I care? I should'nt but for some reason it bugs me.

Maybe I'm just sick of being innundated with this issue every day.

[Curval]

Originally posted by Dowding
Well, you could always watch Sex in the City... and develop a deep dislike of whiny, spoilt tarts everywhere. lol

TV sucks.

Well said man.  That show just annoys the hell out of me.

Just like that Alley Mcbeal show.  I watched a few episodes and thought it was funny.  Then I just got fed up with how pathetic the characters were...especially Calista Flockhard's...I just wanted to slap her.

Actually, I should have mentioned that one in the "Who needs a good slap" thread over at Check 6.

brb

[Toad]

Muck,

Let's start with this. You CHOOSE to get married and you CHOOSE to have children.

Deductions:

You're allowed a deduction just for being you: a personal exemption. You're also allowed an exemption for each person who qualifies as your dependent. The personal exemption amount for 2003 is $3,050.

Now depending on your tax bracket, how much you save can be significant.

Let's say you are married, filing joint, making $70,000 on the W2. This puts you in the 25% tax bracket. After all adjustments to income EXCEPT children, your AGI is $60,000. You have two kids, though, so you can "exempt" another $6100 dollars. In your tax bracket that additional exemption will save you 25% of $6100 or $1525 over a single person with the same income and deductions.

Why should the government give you $1525 because YOU CHOSE to have two children? In effect, the single person is subsidizing your choice. Is that fair?

I don't think so. Have all the kids you want. It's not my business.... or the governments. IMO, it entitles you to no special dodge on paying the nation's debts either.

That $850 you spent on daycare might just as well be spent on something that would also drive the economy. Don't tell me that had you made the choice NOT to have a child that you would give that $850 to Mother Teresa; you'd be out shopping for a hot car, a new house, a vacation or something. You might even SAVE it, a good thing for economies, or so they tell us.

Whatever you spend in support of your child, it's fair to assume you'd simply spend on something else if you were childless. The economy would still harvest your wallet.

I'll wager your spousal medical is subsidized by your company. You're not paying the full rate for it, I'm near certain. If you doubt me, call an independent medical insurer and see what they get to sign your wife up for the same coverage. It'd be a rare company that passes the full cost along.

So, why is this all fair to the single persons? Where's the additional benefit they get from the company that equals your subsidized medical?

I'm sick of the constant barrage of "gay this and that too". I personally don't care where someone parks his peter as long as it's done in privacy. (I don't care to see heterosexuals humping in the park either, in case anyone is wondering.) Just do your own thing in privacy and don't (figuratively)rub it in everyone's face.

One of the easiest ways to avoid this whole constitutional amendment issue is to remove favoritism for "married" couples. Just make it of no benefit and -voila- nobody will give a fig.

Ask yourself WHY they want the marriage certificate. Because it brings a lot of BENEFITS with it. Bring the benefits of married/unmarried into equality and fairness.. IE: NONE.. and the problem goes away.

[Mighty1]

Why give the mentally ill everything/anything they want? Helloooo! They are mentally ill so they can't make sound judgements.

As far as me being a bigot..well if your definition of a bigot is someone who doesn't like a dick shoved up his bellybutton or shoving his up another mans bellybutton then YES I'm a bigot.

If it is One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ then NO I'm not.

[Nakhui]

Originally posted by Toad
Why do "married" couples get a break on income tax? Why do children generate deductions? An unmarried person doesn't get that same tax bracket and there's no way to deduct children that don't exist.

Actually... if you're married you may pay more in income tax....
you know the "Marriage Penalty" that congress has been wrangling over for decades.

And I believe the deduction for kids is the same regardless if you're married with kids or single with kids....

Honestly, I don't know the details, I make too much money to care about a few thousand here or there. My accountant does my taxes.

but ok... sure being married does have some financial benefits... such as lowering car insurance premiums...

From what I've heard... the real issue is actually the legal rights marriage bestows: power of attorney, transfer of property, etc.

And right to say "You be the ***** tonight, I'm tired of being the *****, my butt is sore"

[miko2d]

Toad: Why should the government give you $1525 because YOU CHOSE to have two children? In effect, the single person is subsidizing your choice. Is that fair?

 That is not fair.

I don't think so. Have all the kids you want. It's not my business.... or the governments. IMO, it entitles you to no special dodge on paying the nation's debts either.

 Could you be more explicit? The nation's social security and medicaid/medicare debt is currently valued at $50 trillion. Who will pay that debt to the retired people? The children of those who chose to have children.
 Their taxes will not be designated for the benefits of the parents but for all retirees. Do you propose to abandon that as prerequisite for fairness?

 Sure, it's nice not to spend any money on those children but then lay claim on half of their income (there will be about 2 workers per retiree in a couple of decades). But how fair is that?

 Anyway, people live in families. If a family of 4 earns $70,000, how come they are in 25% bracket? Shouldn't they be in the same bracket as two two-person families earning $35,000?
 And you can keep the deductions.

 Also, a child is an investement. A capital that the whole society will derive profit from in the form of taxes and some other services. He will pay 50-70% of his earnings in taxes, so raising a child effectivelly means raisinh a 2/3 slave for the state, so 2/3 of all the expenses should be deducted as business expence or depreciated as capital expense.

 If you buy education of machinery for an amployee that works for you, it's 100% deducted but if you buy education or other stuff for a slave of the state to make him more productive - why should that deserve only $700?

 How about the labor of raising such slaves? It should be counted as expence at the same rate as a hired specialist whould charge.
 That would be fair.

 miko

[Toad]

" Who will pay that debt to the retired people? The children of those who chose to have children."

Or not. They're already discussing cutting the benefits. I assume you saw that trial balloon.

The system can't be paid for as it is now. Two options: less benefits (likely) or increase the number of folks paying in (unlikely).

I doubt there'll be a sudden desire for large families in the US. When I was a child, 4 children seemed to be common. Now 2 is probably the most common. I think this trend can be validated through the last 100 years through the census records. Beyond that, if we went back to 4 children per family, where would those kids work? IIRC, you're the one that points out job flight to lesser developed countries is inevitable. If they aren't working, how will they pay into the system? They won't; instead, they'll cause more debt as unemployed benefits rise.

"Do you propose to abandon that as prerequisite for fairness?"

The system is not and has never been "fair".

 
"If a family of 4 earns $70,000, how come they are in 25% bracket? "

As I pointed out, it's not about fair; never has been. A "progressive" income tax is not "fair". Fair would be, well.. everyone paying their "fair" share.  


"Also, a child is an investement."

There are lots of investments from which to choose. If you invest in stock, should you get exemptions?

[miko2d]

Toad: " Who will pay that debt to the retired people? The children of those who chose to have children."

Or not. They're already discussing cutting the benefits. I assume you saw that trial balloon.

 Not really. It's the same kind of scam as Reagan's tax cuts - which actually maximised tax revenue to the state rather then lowered them.
 They are not talking about paying less benefits then they could otherwise but about saving the system. You get no milk fro a dead cow.
 There is no possible way ever to get them benefits they are promised, so instead of allowing the system to crumble naturally and have those lazy shortsited child-haters starve, Greenspan wants to "reduce" the payout to the maximum realistically possible.


I doubt there'll be a sudden desire for large families in the US.

 You probably think that increase in socialism and drop in fertility are just a coincidence. Children were the natural old-age insurance for the most of human history.
 More children, more personal savings or starvation - I do not care much what they desire, as long as they do not become a burden burden.


If you invest in stock, should you get exemptions?

 Asolutely. You invest $100 and sell it for $150, you are only taxed on the $50 profit of $150 revenue, not the original $100 expence or the $150 revenue.

 When a child earns $50,000 year revenue, he is taxed on that amount. But it took a lot of money to "build" that child (raise and educate) so that he can earn that much. It's a capital expence that should be deducted. Human capital and intellectual capital - not principally different from physical capital.

 miko

[LAWCobra]

Originally posted by muckmaw
Cripes Ahmighty...

Is everyone gay?

Queer Eye, Boy Meets Boy, That stupid sitcom...Will and Grace, now the whole marriage thing.

Mayors making their little power trips marrying homosexuals.

Listen, I don't give a rats arnold what you like to do with your naughty parts in the bedroom.

But I'm sick of having these depraved and in my opinion, they are depraved, lifestyles thrown in my face.

So you're a guy that likes taking a shot in the pail...good for you. I don't need to hear it, read about it, and grant you some sort of special badge of spoodge for it.

Enough with the gay, already!

Now it's just annoying and overexposed!!!

And no...2 guys are not married. They're banging each other. End of story.

Welcome to the year of the queer.

[Toad]

"Greenspan wants to "reduce" the payout to the maximum realistically possible."

Sounds like cutting benefits to me.

"You probably think that"

It's real simple. I think the average number of children per family is declining and continuing a declining trend that has existed for a long time. Therefore, I see no traditional way to increase the number of people paying in over the long term.

 "Asolutely. You invest $100 and sell it for $150,"

However, the very fact that you have invested does not generate an immediate $3000 exemption that having a child on Dec. 31 does.

If you want to collect on your capital expense of a child, why isn't it done the same way as a stock then? You invest and your profit is taxed. Invest in your child. Pay tax on your "profit".

Deduct capital expense on a child? OK, so one set of parents sends the kids to private schools; they spend a lot. Another set merely takes the free public education. Do they get to deduct the same capital expense?

And what of the child that becomes a menace to society? Do the parents have to repay the deduction?

[LAWCobra]

Yeah what he said

[Wlfgng]

you're all studmuffins... not that there's anything wrong with that

[bpti]

isn't your wife bi?