Sorry, but there is absolutely no guarantee that the former leads to the latter. Nor that the converse is true, either.
No, it really doesn’t. Feel free to offer evidence to the contrary, if you’d like, but you’re going to have to prove that all individuals in a population happen to mutate at once. Evolution is a cumulative process built from small changes in individuals; it does not act at the species level.
Sorry, but there is absolutely no guarantee that the former leads to the latter. Nor that the converse is true, either.
No, it really doesn’t. Feel free to offer evidence to the contrary, if you’d like, but you’re going to have to prove that all individuals in a population happen to mutate at once. Evolution is a cumulative process built from small changes in individuals; it does not act at the species level.
People harping about the supposed benifits of joint filing should get a new accountant, since they have no clue about the marriage tax penalty.
Cite?
Did that first sentence make some sort of sense I just don’t see, or did you just run afoul of Gaudere’s Law?
Either way, I’ll stay out the debate between you and pldennison, Homebrew, and MrVisible, as they seem to be handling your claims quite, um, handily.
Brutus, exactly what did my post, which concerned taxing deductions for additional dependents, have to do with the marriage penalty? (Hint: Nothing.) If you’re implying that I’m unaware of it, you’re quite stupid. Otherwise, there is no logical connection between my post and yours. In fact, I haven’t seen anyone “harping on” some supposed tax benefit simply for filing jointly; they’ve concentrated on the other legal benefits that accrue from marriage, such as inheritance rights.
To you, they are self-evident. To me, what I said was self-evident. The fact that you allow people that you agree with to use the “it’s self-evident” defense, but not people with whom you disagree, indicites hypocrisy.
No, you interpreted me as making that claim. Your continued inability to distinguish between what I have said and what you think I have said makes it very irritating to deal with you. How many times do I have to say it?
Do not misrepresent my position.
Do not misrepresent my position.
Do not misrepresent my position.
Do you get it now?
And I don’t understand the reasoning behind your claim that all Republicans are agents of Satan. Maybe that’s because you didn’t actually say it, and I am putting words in your mouth.
Reasonable people, when wishing to discuss something they don’t understand, ask for a clarification. Unreasonable people simply make up an interpretation that suits them, ask that the person defend a position that he never took, and then blame him for their own rudeness. You do not need to understand what my postion is to refrain from misrepresenting it.
How did I fail to show that non-bigoted actions can be done for bigoted reasons?
If you mean “same-sex marriage”, the process is very simple:
first, they must be a non-bigot;
and next, they must oppose same-sex marriage.
I’m not quite sure what else you want from me.
And I never said that you said that I was obligated. I said that you implied it.
The Ryan, once again you dazzle us with another exciting demonstration language as pure art, unbesmirched by actual meaning. Breathtaking.
True, your quote was involving not-children. I way misread that one.
I should instead quote Homebrew , who asserts that there is fiscal advantage to married couples. I won’t quote him, since I am indeed that lazy.
Are you trying to nitpick one aspect and ignore the rest, Idiot formerly known as Ottto?
Yes, being married has distinct legal advantages. I’ve linked to several of those. You want to keep harping on whether there is a Marriage Penalty, eh? How about in the case of a married couple where one is a homemaker? One income, divided by 2 or more individuals = distinct tax advantage.
Besides, according to the Concord Coalition, the Congressional Budget Office found the marriage penalty is actually a red herring ( especially as you’re using it):
And just how many gay couples have one partner sitting at home? It isn’t like they generally have kids to take care of, the reason many hetero married couples only have one wage-earner.
From this site. A source of much to ponder upon.
You’re still ignoring the fact that more than half of couples filing jointly enjoyed a Marriage Bonus. Plus, as I’m sure you know, Congress has addressed this issue and by 2005 the standard deductions for joint filers will be adjusted to equal that of two people filing seperately to eliminate that problem. Red Herring. And you’re still focusing on one issue of many. Since you seem too lazy to link to the sites I referenced, I’ll list a few:
If you have nothing to add to the conversation, then shut up.