How will gay marriage change the world?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by arauca, Feb 28, 2013.

  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    It's still an under-defined question

    How does this discrimination work? The original idea, I believe, behind "married, filing jointly", was the nature of a marriage. Perhaps we have strayed from that idea of joining two into one.

    I'm just fine with a tax code that effectively ends MFJ. But I have no idea how to go about addressing your question because it is so vague.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Did you read the articles? Single people pay more in taxes than their married counterparts. That is one arguement for same sex marriage. Why should marital status matter to the taxman?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    History and Taxes

    Come on, Joe. I already know you're more aware of history than that.

    Let's try it colloquially.

    When I think of Lorelei, my head turns all around. As gentle as a butterfly, she moves without a sound. I call her on the telephone, she says be there by eight. Tonight's the night she's moving in, and I can hardly wait.

    The way she moves, ooh ooh ooh-ooh. I gotta say, "Lorelei let's live together. Brighter than the stars forever."
    "Lorelei let's live together. Brighter than the stars forever. Oh baby, forever."


    In 1976, that sort of lyric was scandalous.

    Now, watching you argue economy and finances with people, I'm quite certain you could do a better job of describing the historical evolution of our tax code than I could.

    But the underlying idea is that a married couple functions together, while single people function independently. MFJ status reflects that functional union; singles do not, by nature, have another to function in union with.

    The idea of supporting family growth by giving married couples a tax break via MFJ makes a certain amount of sense when viewed in such an historical context. Perhaps in the twenty-first century, with more fractured families, single parents, and two-income families, it's time to get rid of MFJ and simply levy the income tax on each person. I don't have an objection to that.

    But if there is discrimination against single people in the tax code, it has emerged in recent decades and independently of the intent to bolster families.

    Strangely, though, it was only a few years ago that we were still hearing people complain about the "marriage penalty" by which married couples were oppressed by taxes compared to single people.

    And, yes, it seems odd to me that you should be proposing these notions without any apparent regard to history. Why should marital status matter to the taxman? That answer is in the historical record, and it has to do with the idea of having one mouth to feed versus four. But the idea that this has always been willful penalization of single people doesn't fly. That's a very recent idea, and contradicts the anti-tax argument pertaining to marriage that preceded it.

    And I'm pretty sure you're aware of that.

    It will take a while to dig up the legislation or policy directive that created MFS in 1952, MFJ in 1955, or four tax schedules (MFJ, MFS, Single, Head of Household) in 1971.

    Meanwhile, plenty will still assert that the so-called "marriage penalty" still exists.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    Wouldn't the opposite be true , that single taxpayers are being segregated and made to pay more just because they are single? Why should any married couple get to reduce their taxes? That isn't fair to me and to a whole lot of other people out there.
  8. Bells Staff Member

    Why should single people who happen to be homosexual be denied the right to marry if they so choose?
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    I don’t know. That is not my position.
  10. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Back in the day, the underlying idea was the institution of marriage had some social value in conceiving and raising children. Therefore, individuals choosing to enter marriage should be rewarded and incented with tax incentives (e.g.. Married Filing Jointly tax rate schedule). Perhaps that made sense more than a half century ago. But times have changed. The role of women has changed and the old “Father Knows Best” family model has been virtually eliminated and replaced with a less ridged and more variable family structure.

    The institution of marriage has evolved to the point where I think it is largely irrelevant to the wellbeing of the state – if it ever was necessary to the wellbeing of the state. Even religion plays a smaller role in our society today versus 50 years ago. And the tax code should reflect that evolution and be more reflective of the modern American family where many if not most children are raised in nontraditional families. Child rearing is still a valuable social endeavor, but there are better more efficient and effective ways of incenting that behavior through the tax code like the Child Tax Credit. Not every couple raises children, so why should they be rewarded with a special tax schedule and tax benefits simply because they are married? If they have children, give them a tax credit. Reward and incent the result and not the institution or the probability of a result.

    The tax code is so complex, if you look hard enough you can find a penalty somewhere under some circumstance for virtually anyone. But for most instances, individuals (i.e. singles) pay a higher rate than married individuals per the previously referenced material. Married couples filing jointly can earn twice the income of a single person, regardless of who earns it, and pay a lower income tax rate than the single individual. History is fine, but the times and circumstances have changed.

    I advocate getting government completely out of the marriage business. If people are rearing children, they should get a reasonable tax credit regardless of their marital status. We should have one tax schedule, one filing status, and behaviors should be incented through tax credits not tax schedules. The tax code has become too complex and unfair. We should be allowed to share what is ours with whomever we choose regardless of marital status.

    Every year we spend billions in tax breaks for married individuals and then we pay billions divorcing them. It just doesn’t make any sense. Let people marry whomever they want and government needs to get out of the marriage business.
  11. stephendavion Registered Member

    I guess ... its reduce the population and that will help allot to the earth and also the environment ... as the reports says .... increased population causing to the increment in CO2 levels ... these Gay marriages will decrease the population as they cant produce children ... its just my opinion thou
  12. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    I am going to make some predictions. I think the Supremes will, with a narrow majority, wuss out on Prop 8 using the jurisdictional argument. Republicans on the court like Alito and Thomas will vote the Republican Party line as they always do. A wuss out decision would not be the endorsement gay advocates seek, but it would be a victory of sorts for gay advocates as the lower courts have ruled against Prop 8 and it would let same sex marriages stand in California.

    But a wuss out on the Prop 8 will continue the growing morass that same sex marriage has become in the US with some states recognizing it and others not. Same sex marriage has become very complicated and difficult for married gay individuals when they travel from one state to another, to a state that does not recognize their marriage.

    I think DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) will be ruled as unconstitutional. Republicans like Alito, Thomas, and Scalia will vote the Republican Party line as they always do. Roberts and Kennedy I think will vote against DOMA. If they vote to support DOMA it will have Earth shattering consequences for the rule of law. It will overturn the whole Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution. While history has demonstrated Alito, Thomas and Scalia have the balls and no reservations about overwriting constitutional law with party ideology in order to advance political objectives, I don’t think Roberts and Kennedy are so blatant in their conservative (i.e. Republican) partisanship. In the PPCA (i.e. Obamacare) decision, Roberts demonstrated a modicum of concern for the credibility of the US Supreme Court. DOMA is really a no brainer; it is clearly unconstitutional and should be overturned. I don't see how the court could uphold DOMA and retain any degree of credibility.
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2013
  13. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    How do you figure? Same sex marriage doesn’t create more same sex couples. It just gives the relationship a special legal status, a legal status that is shared with heterosexual couples. What same sex marriage does is legitimize homosexual relationships. And there is nothing wrong with that, in fact there is a lot of good in that. We should not be ashamed of our sexual natures and we should not be forced into being or pretending to be something we are not. I think we owe ourselves and others a little honesty.
  14. Balerion Banned Banned

    In a roundabout way, I think it absolutely could lead to more same-sex couples. Many gay people remain closeted because of how society still views and treats them. By removing what's really the last barrier between it and social normalcy, sexual orientation will become more and more incidental to a person's identity, and therefore homosexuals will have less cause to hide it.
  15. Thoreau Valued Senior Member

    I don't see how gay marraige will affect population levels any differently than currently. Marital status has nothing to do with birthrates.

    And if homosexuality has any affect on population levels, it's certainly not that it decreases the population. It may slow the rate of growth of a population, yes. But in order to actually cause the levels to DECREASE, that would mean that the vast majority of people would have to be non-reproducing homosexuals. And that just isn't the case.

Share This Page