marriage in general promotes social and financial stability, which is why the government provides tax incentives -- they suspect the level of savings in social welfare programs they will gain by having a more stable society outweighs the lost taxes. it has nothing to do with children.
It had something to do with children when they marriage was created. Seing as whole point of marraige from day 1 to 10 years ago was to have children, and still many people think that you get married for children.
Then if someone makes a law about marriage, then its not about anything other than children, if the purpose of marraige is for two people to be bound to each other for child reering purposes.
Maybe the benefits of marraige that you say stem from making babbies, not just that two people are married
Also, could you please source that, i'de love to see that written somewhere by the lawmakers, because then that changes EVERYTHING. But i've never once heard that argument from any politician speaking on marriage ever.
"As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"
Um... did you read it? The penalty is the exact opposite of what you said.Originally Posted by ElijahWyatt
Secondly, pay attention to what God said, it's what I said earlier but better worded:The marriage penalty in the United States refers to the higher taxes required from some married couples, where spouses are making approximately the same taxable income, filing one tax return ("married filing jointly") than for the same two people filing two separate tax returns if they were unmarried (i.e., filing as "single", not "married filing separately"). The percentage of couples affected has varied over the years, depending on shifts in tax rates.
It does do something for society, which is create two co-dependants; a married couple is much more stable financially than a single, or even "civil partners" who a) are at the whim of the law changing randomly and b) lack all the benefits of married couples as stated previously.
Just because you are born out of marraige doesn't mean the people won't get married for the majority of the childs life span afterwards.
"As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"
from your own document
"The reason that one couple would receive a benefit while another would receive a penalty sits in whether the couple's individual incomes were disparate (resulting in a benefit) or roughly equal (resulting in a penalty).[4]"
Edit: NVM.......... I'm Wrong, but still right.
IT DOESN'T MATTER if both are rich or not. it only matters if they are disparate or roughly equal
However those benefits would still apply WITH MY VERSION OF LEGALIZED GAY MARRIDGE, i'm not taking away any other rights except tax shelters
"As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"
This is what you said elijahthe burden goes up if and only if
THERE IS A LARGE DISPARITY
Yeah i realized when i reread the the thing, i got it confused, and edited my post, but i'm still right and you are still wrong, you said rich people get penalized and poor people get shelters, when infact both rich and poor alike get benefits and shelters from this. And infact the richer OR poorer you are the more likely that your partner has a bigger disparity from your income, meaning better tax rates for both the rich AND the poor
"As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"
Also most couples with a high disparity probably get that disparity from the husband or wife making much more money than their spouse (who would be making an income of $20,000 or more), meaning the size of a couple's net income with a high enough disparity to incur a penalty would most likely place them in, at the very least, lower upper class.
It said the more disparity the better, not penalty
"As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"
If this is true (not taking into account my previous post), then why does this whole tax relief thing matter at all? As God just said, there are obviously other benefits to having a country with lots of marriages, so your entire case is moot no matter what conclusion you make here.
mm, right, my bad
Is this another "Taxes are evil" thread?
yes
Because, it shouldn't be about rich or poor, it should be restructured for how many children you have. (the tax reliefs) There are other benefits that aren't direct tax reliefs that you mentioned that would stay no matter how many children you have, but the direct tax reliefs should be scaled and apply to only those who raise children, not just any couple who decides to sign a document and say 10 words
"As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"
http://files.efc-canada.net/si/Marri...f_Marriage.pdf
ironically this is from an evangelical organization
Why is it so hard to understand that there are economic and social benefits for a country when there is more marriage that doesn't involve making babies?
That is saying there are many benefits to marriage for the children, and only the first part of the first thing applies to everyone children or no children, however that statistic doesn't account for married WITHOUT children. compared to common law for the same ammount of time also without children.
That is the statistic needed to make the conclusion that you guys have made, that marriage inherently creates more stability than a couple, who have both been together for the same ammounts of time, and that statistic needs to show dramatic results, or else my argument is the one that has more presidence
"As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"
^CHECKMATE
I undrestand this, but your argument is based on that would be the MAIN REASON for tax reliefs. However i am saying that children are the MAIN reason for tax reliefs. So you need to show me the statistics that prove that being married without children and being in a relationship without children both for considerable ammounts of time(and the same ammount of time), that being married has a dramatic increase in the odds for stability after that time.
"As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"
This doesn't prove anything other than you drain OTHERS STATES economies and increase YOUR OWN. This doesn't give the U.S. anymore money, it just shifts from places where gay people cannot get married, to a place where gay people can get married.
If my state legalizes marijuana and prostituion i will see an increase in our economy, and a decrease in the economies of the states around me, because we are just taking their money.
"As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"
So what if it isn't the MAIN REASON? It still creates benefit, so does it really matter what the reliefs are intended for?
YES YES IT DOES, because you are saying the vailidity of my argument is not valid because the reason for tax reliefs is not because of children, it is because of inherent stability of marriage.
"As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"
The evidence you're asking for is in the link from the evangelical society I provided earlier, you just ignored it because most of it was about children. The first reason provided is that couples are more stable when married than when simply in a common-law relationship.
So if the whole US legalizes marijuana and prostitution, it has a huge economic boost from tourism, same thing with gay marriage.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote