Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 100

Thread: If we legalize gay marridge, who is going to pay for their tax reliefs?

  1. #26
    what about .. eyebrows God's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    among the people
    Posts
    49,804

    Default

    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.
    "I'll go," said Chagataev. "But what will I do there? Build socialism?"
    "What else?" said the secretary.

  2. #27
    Registered Users Regular ElijahWyatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Athens, TN
    Posts
    415

    Default

    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"

  3. #28
    This pic is definitely of me!! Solly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    retarded
    Posts
    14,050

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ElijahWyatt View Post
    that is not how it works, first off if one person is rich, then the joint filling doesn't matter. And usually if one person is rich, then the other DOESN'T WORK TOO. Secondly if both are rich, the burden doesn't go up,
    the burden goes up if and only if

    THERE IS A LARGE DISPARITY, it does not matter how rich or poor the people are.
    If your incomes are close, you get a tax benefit, if your incomes are far away, you get a tax -.
    Did you not read the thing you linked?
    Um... did you read it? The penalty is the exact opposite of what you said.

    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.
    Secondly, pay attention to what God said, it's what I said earlier but better worded:

    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.

  4. #29
    Registered Users Regular ElijahWyatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Athens, TN
    Posts
    415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by God View Post
    something like 40 percent of children are born out of marriage
    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"

  5. #30
    Registered Users Regular ElijahWyatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Athens, TN
    Posts
    415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Solly View Post
    Um... did you read it? The penalty is the exact opposite of what you said.



    Secondly, pay attention to what God said, it's what I said earlier but better worded:
    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"

  6. #31
    This pic is definitely of me!! Solly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    retarded
    Posts
    14,050

    Default

    the burden goes up if and only if

    THERE IS A LARGE DISPARITY
    This is what you said elijah

  7. #32
    Registered Users Regular ElijahWyatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Athens, TN
    Posts
    415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Solly View Post
    This is what you said elijah
    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"

  8. #33
    This pic is definitely of me!! Solly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    retarded
    Posts
    14,050

    Default

    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.

  9. #34
    Registered Users Regular ElijahWyatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Athens, TN
    Posts
    415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Solly View Post
    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"

  10. #35
    This pic is definitely of me!! Solly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    retarded
    Posts
    14,050

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ElijahWyatt View Post
    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
    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.

  11. #36
    This pic is definitely of me!! Solly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    retarded
    Posts
    14,050

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ElijahWyatt View Post
    It said the more disparity the better, not penalty
    mm, right, my bad

  12. #37
    is good for you
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Is this another "Taxes are evil" thread?

  13. #38
    This pic is definitely of me!! Solly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    retarded
    Posts
    14,050

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Celery View Post
    Is this another "Taxes are evil" threads?
    yes

  14. #39
    Registered Users Regular ElijahWyatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Athens, TN
    Posts
    415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Solly View Post
    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.
    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"

  15. #40
    This pic is definitely of me!! Solly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    retarded
    Posts
    14,050

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ElijahWyatt View Post
    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.
    http://files.efc-canada.net/si/Marri...f_Marriage.pdf

    ironically this is from an evangelical organization

  16. #41
    This pic is definitely of me!! Solly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    retarded
    Posts
    14,050

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ElijahWyatt View Post
    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
    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?

  17. #42
    Registered Users Regular ElijahWyatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Athens, TN
    Posts
    415

    Default

    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"

  18. #43
    This pic is definitely of me!! Solly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    retarded
    Posts
    14,050

  19. #44
    This pic is definitely of me!! Solly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    retarded
    Posts
    14,050

    Default

    ^CHECKMATE

  20. #45
    Registered Users Regular ElijahWyatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Athens, TN
    Posts
    415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Solly View Post
    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?
    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"

  21. #46
    Registered Users Regular ElijahWyatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Athens, TN
    Posts
    415

    Default

    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"

  22. #47
    This pic is definitely of me!! Solly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    retarded
    Posts
    14,050

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ElijahWyatt View Post
    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.
    So what if it isn't the MAIN REASON? It still creates benefit, so does it really matter what the reliefs are intended for?

  23. #48
    Registered Users Regular ElijahWyatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Athens, TN
    Posts
    415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Solly View Post
    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"

  24. #49
    This pic is definitely of me!! Solly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    retarded
    Posts
    14,050

    Default

    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.

  25. #50
    This pic is definitely of me!! Solly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    retarded
    Posts
    14,050

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ElijahWyatt View Post
    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.
    So if the whole US legalizes marijuana and prostitution, it has a huge economic boost from tourism, same thing with gay marriage.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •