I got to thinking about the whole marriage debate and I don't understand why its ok for a single person to be discriminated against. Why not name whomever we want as beneficiaries or power of attorney, etc.? Why should be treated as inferiors in tax status?
Simple question; Why is it OK for single people to be discriminated against?
- Thread starter JRHawk2003
- Start date
I honestly don't understand how its ok to treat one group differently? Couldn't we have skipped this whole gay marriage thing? I am sure there is some legal reasoning...but no one has explained it to me.
Gee, you're the first person ever to raise that point
If you're serious about taxes, the justification traditionally has been that it promotes families, which are considered a strength for the nation. I am not agreeing or disagreeing; just explaining the reason for it. And sometimes, in some states, being married can cost more tax-wise than being single. I don't know what the federal tables look like now because I've filed jointly for so long. But Iowa gives married people the option of filing as individuals in order to get a lower tax bill.
I never claimed I was the first person. I was just asking the question. Its kind of weird to me that it hasn't been challenged by someone single before the gays did it.
I am serious. If this was about equal protection or rights, why would it be fine to consider the gays equal but single people not?
You're losing me. A single person can name anybody a beneficiary of an insurance policy. A single person can grant anybody power of attorney. Unless there's something of which I am unaware, which is always possible. And as I pointed out, the tax thing is a mixed bag in terms of whether marriage is a plus or minus.
A much better question is why are tall people paid more than shorter people? Statistically, height is a better indicator of compensation than race or gender or sexual orientation.
Regarding tax, there have been equal-protection challenges to the tax differentials for married individuals. However, because it is impossible to design our tax system to treat all parties equal (given the presence of community property states, the option to file as married, and a progressive rate structure), those challenges fail. Under the current tax brackets, whether you gain or lose by being married depends on your level of income and the income levels of the individuals. There is no set tax preference for marriage.
Thank you. Ok that makes some sense. I am not a tax accountant, nor have I studied the law on this issue. I guess theIowaHawkPrick knows it all and has contempt for people even asking.
I made this very point a while ago (and no, not the first person to do it) and Iowa Hawk thought it was crazy. I'm glad to see he's come around and sees the logic in the argument now.Gee, you're the first person ever to raise that point
If you're serious about taxes, the justification traditionally has been that it promotes families, which are considered a strength for the nation. I am not agreeing or disagreeing; just explaining the reason for it. And sometimes, in some states, being married can cost more tax-wise than being single. I don't know what the federal tables look like now because I've filed jointly for so long. But Iowa gives married people the option of filing as individuals in order to get a lower tax bill.
Honestly, if we are sexes aren't different (as we are basically saying with SSM), and children aren't the primary point of marriage, then I honestly don't see why the gov't should be subsidizing marriage, any marriage.
Eye roll. We've discussed this. The reasons you are saying we're FOR sanctioning of marriage exist for ssm as well: procreation (yes, people, it's a miracle, gays have children!) and family stability. Those same values are present. You think that gays have fundamentally different values?
Not saying it's OK, but always thought it was to encourage people to get married, have babies, and keep the social security ponzi scheme going
You are misunderstanding fundamental aspects of your own question. You have misstated the "new rights" of gays, equated married homosexuals with single people, and basically claimed an epiphany for an extremely simple thought.
You deserve to be ridiculed.
I claimed no epiphany. I told Clone I figured that I wasnt the first. I was just seeking the legal justification. You read into it what you wanted.
Thanks. That makes sense. I had for some reason always assumed married people always benefited under the tax system but I guess that's not the case.
Simple example: John and Jane each make $75,000 a year. When they file their joint return, they get some advantages in terms of deductions, etc., but they are in the $150,000 marginal tax bracket. Iowa gives them the option of filing separately on a joint return, which basically preserves the advantages but taxes each of them on their individual income.
LOL. You still don't get the point. Amazing. Charen's article explained this crystal clear, and I made a point by point explanation for you. I give up. You're hopeless.
