Wow, you’re ridiculous.
You mean marriage? Yeah, me and the Supreme Court. Seriously, are you playing? Are you genuinely this ignorant?
You know that isn’t a rebuttal. That is an admission that you don’t have one.
Do you really, truly believe that? I know several gay couples who have gotten married here in Canada, and generally it was for different reasons than tax benefits.
There are many possible benefits of marriage, besides income tax, including things like (off the top of my head):[ul][li]Having a family health insurance plan, rather than two individual plans[/li][li]Automatically inheriting upon the others’ death, rather than having their SO’s family swooping in and excluding the spouse[/li][li]Immigration law makes it much easier if you are a married couple[/li][li]Being able to make medical decisions for each other, rather than risk being overriden by their SO’s “real family”[/li][li]Heck, even being guaranteed that they’ll be able to see their spouse if they’re sick in hospital, no questions asked[/li][li]Pensions and survivors benefits[/li][*]Being able to take paid or unpaid leave from work to care for a sick spouse (which wouldn’t be allowed for a “roommate” or friend)[/ul]
Apparently you are underinformed. The Supreme Court never said that marriage is a civil right. They said that marriage can’t be restricted by race, which isn’t the same thing. If the law says that you can’t restrict access to a restroom by race, it doesn’t mean you are required to supply a restroom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
If marriage was actually a right then some states couldn’t require blood tests to get married.
If you weren’t paying attention, the Supreme court hasn’t ruled on DOMA yet.
[quote=“Waenara, post:64, topic:630233”]
Do you really, truly believe that? I know several gay couples who have gotten married here in Canada, and generally it was for different reasons than tax benefits.
There are many possible benefits of marriage, besides income tax, including things like (off the top of my head):[ul][li]Having a family health insurance plan, rather than two individual plans[/li][li]Automatically inheriting upon the others’ death, rather than having their SO’s family swooping in and excluding the spouse[/li][li]Immigration law makes it much easier if you are a married couple[/li][li]Being able to make medical decisions for each other, rather than risk being overriden by their SO’s “real family”[/li][li]Heck, even being guaranteed that they’ll be able to see their spouse if they’re sick in hospital, no questions asked[/li][li]Pensions and survivors benefits[/li][li]Being able to take paid or unpaid leave from work to care for a sick spouse (which wouldn’t be allowed for a “roommate” or friend)[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
I don’t know about Canadian law, but I already pointed out that some of the things on your list can be handled contractually in the United States.
I don’t understand the medical comments. I thought Canada already had Universal health care. A lot of other things you listed are actually equivalent to taxes if you are talking about equivalent to subsidies if you are talking about social security survivor benefits.
I’m not too thrilled about marrying people for a green card in any case, but my main concern there is an immigration policy based on nepotism.
The last place I worked didn’t actually distinguish between sick leave and vacation. It was all paid time off. I liked that since there were too many people that abused sick leave.
Wikipedia. Adorable. You might try reading the actual text of the decision.
Did you notice that you are quoting something that Justice Warren didn’t actually say, but a quote from another court. If your interpretation is actually correct, then:
[ul]
[li]Requiring people to buy a marriage license is unconstitutional.[/li][li]Saying first cousins can’t marry is unconstitutional.[/li][li]Saying people with syphilis can’t marry is unconstitutional.[/li][/ul]
Maybe I should invite Bricker to come over and make a ruling? I personally suspect that this is an Obiter dictum or Justice warren would have actually put that language in the decision instead of a quote.
What about the states who have passed laws or amended their state constitutions to prevent gay people from privately making their own legal contracts that even approximate marriage? And even if those anti-gay amendments did not exist, not all of the rights conferred by marriage could be made with a private contract.
Canada has “universal health care” that does not actually cover everything. Visits to doctors are covered, and most treatments done by doctors in their clinic are covered (if medically necessary, not cosmetic). Hospital stays and treatments and drugs taken in hospital are covered. Diagnostic tests are covered if prescribed by a doctor (e.g. bloodwork, x-ray, MRI). But any prescription drugs taken outside hospital (i.e. your average prescription) are not covered. Also, dental care is usually not covered (unless it’s extremely health- or life-threatening, which is very rare). Other supplemental benefits are also not covered (e.g. purchase of medical devices for home use, physiotherapy, massage). So most people either have a supplemental health insurance plan through their employer, or they purchase their own individual plan.
Well you were specifically talking about how gay people wouldn’t bother getting married if they weren’t able to file jointly on their income tax. I was just pointing out that even if they couldn’t file jointly, there are other financial benefits that are an incentive to marry.
You do realize this charts lines are damn near paralell, and the gap represents the difference between 1 and 2 standard deductions.
and dont forget
If you look there the standard deduction for a married couple is exactly double the standard deduction for a single person. 2 people get two standard deductions, whats so unfair about that?
A quote of a ruling that he felt it worthwhile to include as justification. And if your interpretation is correct, then requiring people to acquire gun permits is unconstitutional.
And with that I’m out, because this really is a hijack, and because you’re simply not rational on the subject.
Fundamental civil rights are often not absolute and may be subject to some restrictions. Free speech, for example, which triggers the highest level of protection, manifested in the strict scrutiny standard, can still be subject to some restrictions. Marriage being a fundamental civil right would not necessarily require that all restrictions be eliminated.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you actually have a reference to an American law that has actually withstood up to a court challenge?
I actually talking about childless couples getting subsidies and tax breaks that aren’t available to single people, so single people end up picking up the tab. I stated that I’m okay with breaks for people actually raising children.
Talking about Canada is difficult. I don’t even know if they know what their tax laws say about childless married couples.
But he didn’t think it was enough important to explicitly mention in the decision of the court.
Your firearm analogy is flawed. Firearms exist as actual physical property.
Marriage only exists in the context of law. Otherwise you just have a bunch of people shacking up. Marriage only exists when the government starts telling you things you can’t do and things you must do. Of course, I’m talking about secular marriage.
A better analogy would be voting and a poll tax.
All I did was state was why I would object to SSM. You are the people that hijacked the thread. I never posted a single thing, except as a response to someone else.
You seem to flip-flopped the meaning of the word rational. I haven’t actually raised any emotional objectionions to SSM at all. The thing I don’t see is why society should subsidize childless marriages.
They don’t
So are you are stating that you are perfectly okay with eliminating the married deduction and just having single and head of household? If you are then there isn’t anything to argue about.
I’m just not seeing your point, a married couple gets the same deduction as 2 single people. A childless couple does not generally qualify for HoH/single.
If you would like a more detailed analysis I’m sure I could get my mom on here shes currently a supervisor for tax help lines at the IRS. I asked her about the accuracy of my post before posting it, she said your base premise that there is some kind of “bonus for a childless couple” is incorrect and that historically the opposite was true that married couples got taxed higher than 2 singles.
You basic fault is the assumption that both spouses have approximately equal incomes. If there is a big deferential in income or one doesn’t work then there is a big tax savings, unless their income already puts them in the 35% bracket. Did you actually not notice that or were you trying to sandbag me?
Some people have claimed to be indifferent to the tax consequences of their actions, but I’ve know people who put off marrying for years for exactly that reason. As I’ve already said, if you figure out the tax consequences up front, you can’t lose.
Why, by your own reasoning they should have been married to reap the “Tax benefits” as early as possible.
2 single people and a married couple have the exact same standard deduction. No somantic dancing changes that.
I realize you may be referring to the fact that its more likely that a bracket will be dropped with a larger combined standard deductible, but that does not affect every married couples tax bracket. Only a small percentage of married couples will even trigger that. The ones most likely to are the ones with a combined household income of less than $45K, who are by no stretch of the imagination reaping huge tax benefits from it. As your income climbs its statistically far less likely that such an event takes place.
So would you be ok as long as only gay couples whos combined deduction does not cross a tax bracket are married?
How did…
Turn into a debate about the Tax code and how unfair or fair it is?