G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Mar 24, 2013 4:57pm
The CA case at least appears to focus on benefits. I'm not sure how you can deny benefits to a protected class - change "gay" to "black" and it seems kind of a no-brainer decision.
Whether there should still be a deduction/benefit for marriage is a completely different discussion - I'm not a big fan of subsidizing DINK's.
Whether there should still be a deduction/benefit for marriage is a completely different discussion - I'm not a big fan of subsidizing DINK's.
ts1227
Posts: 12,319
Mar 24, 2013 5:17pm
gut;1413521 wrote:The CA case at least appears to focus on benefits. I'm not sure how you can deny benefits to a protected class - change "gay" to "black" and it seems kind of a no-brainer decision.
Whether there should still be a deduction/benefit for marriage is a completely different discussion - I'm not a big fan of subsidizing DINK's.
There should be no financial benefits for marriage anyway. Everyone should have to file individual returns. I'd say government needs out of the marriage game completely, but then it gets really screwy with next of kin rights and financial shit so you can't do that.
So long as the government recognizes marriage, they really aren't in a position to discriminate. A church can not recognize it all they want, but in the eyes of the law I don't see how it can continue to not be OK
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Mar 24, 2013 5:21pm
Yeah, but as with Jim Crow laws the states don't get to willy-nilly discriminate.ccrunner609;1413532 wrote:this should be left to states
Interesting to me that it seems a huge % of gay rights activists are focused on the benefits. Call it a civil union and confer the benefits and this issue mostly goes away, IMO.
The entitlements and benefits are really about family, anyway, so my solution would be to eliminate the marriage benefit and maybe increase the child credits. Why should a married couple with no kids receive favorable tax treatment over a single person with no kids? That law was written when married women were not a major participant in the workforce, and as such is grossly outdated.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Mar 24, 2013 5:25pm
I agree, but can you imagine the shit-storm if they tried to change that law? I could see Rand Paul taking it on, though. :thumbup:ts1227;1413534 wrote:There should be no financial benefits for marriage anyway.
I wonder how much revenues we would be talking if everyone had to file an individual return...
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Mar 24, 2013 6:18pm
Agreed with no marriage benefits; gay or not.
HitsRus
Posts: 9,206
Mar 24, 2013 7:36pm
The problem is that you take away the "incentive" to create a family, and give benefits to people who raise children out of wedlock.... And then you get into a situation with who gets the 'child credits' if they are not together. I think it's pretty obvious what happens here.The entitlements and benefits are really about family, anyway, so my solution would be to eliminate the marriage benefit and maybe increase the child credits. Why should a married couple with no kids receive favorable tax treatment over a single person with no kids? That law was written when married women were not a major participant in the workforce, and as such is grossly outdated.
If you want to take away the marraige benefit for Dinks that's one thing....but I think it would be to everyone's benefit if incentives were given and expanded to couples raising children within a cohesive, committed family unit.
ts1227
Posts: 12,319
Mar 24, 2013 7:37pm
But should tax benefits be, essentially, based on morals?
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Mar 24, 2013 7:41pm
Tax legislation has and will continue to mold/shape social actions through financial incentives.ts1227;1413655 wrote:But should tax benefits be, essentially, based on morals?
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Mar 24, 2013 7:43pm
Those are good points, but with divorce rates @50% how effective is this incentive? Also do you really want to incentivize people to stay together just for the tax benefit?HitsRus;1413651 wrote:The problem is that you take away the "incentive" to create a family, and give benefits to people who raise children out of wedlock.... And then you get into a situation with who gets the 'child credits' if they are not together. I think it's pretty obvious what happens here.
If you want to take away the marraige benefit for Dinks that's one thing....but I think it would be to everyone's benefit if incentives were given and expanded to couples raising children within a cohesive, committed family unit.
Ultimately children are good for current and future economic growth, so I think that's really all you want to incentivize.
HitsRus
Posts: 9,206
Mar 24, 2013 8:01pm
^^^I disagree,.... obviously, the current tax benefit is not enough incentive to keep people together when they are in a lousy marraige, so I think that point is moot. Moreover, you already have welfare queens that have children just to get more benefits....do you really want to open that can of worms?
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Mar 24, 2013 8:04pm
Punish the welfare queens by removing welfare. Can't feed your child? That's negligence. The problem would solve itself overnight.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Mar 24, 2013 8:46pm
Yeah, I'm not talking about welfare, I'm talking about increasing the deduction for the first 2 or 3 children to offset the loss of filing jointly. You could even go a step further reducing the deduction, but allowing both to claim dependents under the same roof so everything washes out.HitsRus;1413677 wrote:Moreover, you already have welfare queens that have children just to get more benefits....do you really want to open that can of worms?
Negative tax liabilities are a completely different discussion.
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Mar 25, 2013 4:42am
" I'm not sure how you can deny benefits to a protected class - change "gay" to "black" and it seems kind of a no-brainer decision."
The easy answer to this is performing gay acts doesn't generally make one a member of a protected class - even in many "gay-friendly" states. It isn't as if the government can monitor one's activities.
To the extent that the federal government recognizes a civil union between two people and there is a tangible tax benefit, get ready for a lot of BS civil unions - gay or straight - to arbitrage the situation. I'n not sure DINK's benefit much from marriage, the marriage penalty is still present in many tax provisions (just look at Obama's promise that he won't raise taxes on those making less than $200K, or $250K filing jointly - note it isn't $400K). The benefit is when one of the partners has little to no income.
For example, if I have a roommate that recently lost his job and doesn't expect to find a comparable position in the near-term, it would be highly beneficial for us both to form a civil union and take advantage of the joint tax rates. That likely wouldn't be the case if we both earned an equal amount of comp.
The easy answer to this is performing gay acts doesn't generally make one a member of a protected class - even in many "gay-friendly" states. It isn't as if the government can monitor one's activities.
To the extent that the federal government recognizes a civil union between two people and there is a tangible tax benefit, get ready for a lot of BS civil unions - gay or straight - to arbitrage the situation. I'n not sure DINK's benefit much from marriage, the marriage penalty is still present in many tax provisions (just look at Obama's promise that he won't raise taxes on those making less than $200K, or $250K filing jointly - note it isn't $400K). The benefit is when one of the partners has little to no income.
For example, if I have a roommate that recently lost his job and doesn't expect to find a comparable position in the near-term, it would be highly beneficial for us both to form a civil union and take advantage of the joint tax rates. That likely wouldn't be the case if we both earned an equal amount of comp.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Mar 25, 2013 5:48am
Would agree with "will", would disagree with "should".Con_Alma;1413656 wrote:Tax legislation has and will continue to mold/shape social actions through financial incentives.
HitsRus
Posts: 9,206
Mar 25, 2013 8:24am
I'm using 'welfare' as an example of what happens when you incentivize having children outside of a committed relationship. Are these children better off? I'm speaking in generalities not specifics...I'm sure there are examples where children are better off under one loving parent, than children in a failed, miserable, or abusive marraige.gut;1413723 wrote:Yeah, I'm not talking about welfare, I'm talking about increasing the deduction for the first 2 or 3 children to offset the loss of filing jointly. You could even go a step further reducing the deduction, but allowing both to claim dependents under the same roof so everything washes out.
Negative tax liabilities are a completely different discussion.
pmoney25
Posts: 1,787
Mar 25, 2013 11:38am
Pretty simple. As long as the government is in the marriage business. Which it shouldn't be. But since thats the way it is now, then I'm for Gay Marriage or Civil unions. If churches don't want to marry gays, thats fine also.
If two consenting adults want to spend their lives together, they should be awarded the same privileges as any other couple.
If two consenting adults want to spend their lives together, they should be awarded the same privileges as any other couple.
pmoney25
Posts: 1,787
Mar 25, 2013 11:46am
50% of marriages end in divorce and another 10-15% probably stay together strictly for the kids sake or financial reasons. Not really much more they can do to destroy the sanctity of marriage.
FatHobbit
Posts: 8,651
Mar 25, 2013 1:47pm
I agree with this. If churches don't want to marry people they shouldn't be forced to. But two consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want and get the same benefits as any other consenting adults.pmoney25;1414091 wrote:Pretty simple. As long as the government is in the marriage business. Which it shouldn't be. But since thats the way it is now, then I'm for Gay Marriage or Civil unions. If churches don't want to marry gays, thats fine also.
If two consenting adults want to spend their lives together, they should be awarded the same privileges as any other couple.
HitsRus
Posts: 9,206
Mar 25, 2013 2:29pm
I agree with this.If two consenting adults want to spend their lives together, they should be awarded the same privileges as any other couple.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Mar 25, 2013 2:46pm
The child tax credit already exists whether you are married or not. By itself it is not some giant incentive - the people you are referring to are doing that because of the welfare benefits.HitsRus;1413999 wrote:I'm using 'welfare' as an example of what happens when you incentivize having children outside of a committed relationship.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Mar 25, 2013 2:49pm
I'm pretty sure sexual orientation is a protected class - it's why you get a worse sentence for punching a gay dude. You may disagree, but the law is the law.Manhattan Buckeye;1413980 wrote:
The easy answer to this is performing gay acts doesn't generally make one a member of a protected class
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Mar 25, 2013 3:05pm
Federally? I'm pretty sure it isn't. There are decades of Con law scrutiny for sex and race. There's isn't much for orientation. There's a difference between a hate crime (which I think is idiocy) and a protected class. The term "protected class" has serious meaning in Con law.gut;1414210 wrote:I'm pretty sure sexual orientation is a protected class - it's why you get a worse sentence for punching a gay dude. You may disagree, but the law is the law.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Mar 25, 2013 3:16pm
Not federally, but in most states. Although protected classes have evolved, and this could end-up making sexual preference a protected class (but I'm guess they won't go that far).Manhattan Buckeye;1414225 wrote:Federally? I'm pretty sure it isn't.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Mar 26, 2013 6:38pm
Well sounds like the SC might punt this, which is probably the correct route. Although one could hope for finality to get this stupid question out of the national debate, but obviously as with abortion that will never happen.
Forget where I heard it, but great point that no one is discriminated against - no one is prevented from marrying someone of the opposite sex. And since you're not dealing with a federally protected class, where's the discrimination?
Forget where I heard it, but great point that no one is discriminated against - no one is prevented from marrying someone of the opposite sex. And since you're not dealing with a federally protected class, where's the discrimination?
SportsAndLady
Posts: 35,632
Mar 26, 2013 7:36pm
gut;1415091 wrote:Well sounds like the SC might punt this, which is probably the correct route. Although one could hope for finality to get this stupid question out of the national debate, but obviously as with abortion that will never happen.
Forget where I heard it, but great point that no one is discriminated against - no one is prevented from marrying someone of the opposite sex. And since you're not dealing with a federally protected class, where's the discrimination?
So translate this for someone (me) who doesn't understand political talk. This isn't going to pass?