North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by saden1

I am not sure how much thought you've put into the above paragraph but two things stick out to me immediately:

a) unmarried/single people pay more in taxes
b) less population less expenditure

With the way things are right now in this country you want more unmarried/single people pay more taxes and population growth to dwindle or even go into the negative.

If the government truly wants to have more money in it's coffers it should discourage marriage.

I dont think either of you guys are right. But i guess i think youre more wrong:

a) If youre subject to entitlements dont get married.

That is unless your spouse to be makes a lot of money relative to your income. Getting married in this situtation can cut your rate down significantly. Perhaps progressively in "half", but "progressively in half" isnt real in half

b) less population also means less revenue

A and B are arguable but i completely disagree with your last sentence.


Entitlement reform needs to change because it discourages marriage. 47% of us pay no income tax. 20 some percent pay a negative income tax (get money for showing up). 10-20% pay a negative income so high they effectively pay no payroll tax. If all these people were married they would loose out on a lot of loot.


Social security benefits straight up hook married people up. You never worked a day in your life, but your husband made tons and is subject to the full benefit amount? Cool, you get half of his straight up.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

I dont think either of you guys are right. But i guess i think youre more wrong:

a) If youre subject to entitlements dont get married.

That is unless your spouse to be makes a lot of money relative to your income. Getting married in this situtation can cut your rate down significantly. Perhaps progressively in "half", but "progressively in half" isnt real in half

b) less population also means less revenue

A and B are arguable but i completely disagree with your last sentence.


Entitlement reform needs to change because it discourages marriage. 47% of us pay no income tax. 20 some percent pay a negative income tax (get money for showing up). 10-20% pay a negative income so high they effectively pay no payroll tax. If all these people were married they would loose out on a lot of loot.


Social security benefits straight up hook married people up. You never worked a day in your life, but your husband made tons and is subject to the full benefit amount? Cool, you get half of his straight up.

You should reconsider and reevaluate your thoughts. What part of what I said offends basic logic? Is it the fact that people who are single pay more in taxes than married people? You know, the tax law that requires two unmarried people to file separately and thus forfeit certain tax benefits afforded to married couples? Or is it the part where having less people means less spending on infrastructure, entitlement and various other general welfare such as student loans and educational grants?

Here's is a simple brain exercise that can help you sort out your thoughts. Ask yourself what would happen to this country's revenues and expenditures if:

a) You eliminate tax breaks for married couples.
b) You kill off 2.5% of all those over the age 65 and increase the infant mortality rate to 2.5%. Or if you wish just kill off 5% of the population.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by saden1

You should reconsider and reevaluate your thoughts.

Couldnt agree (in principle) more. I am always open to persuasion. I like to think my thoughts are dynamic and evolving (just like Obama's!).

What part of what I said offends basic logic?

I think this is rhetorical, but i think its a good time to point out that there is nothing that offends basic logic more so than tax law. Nothing.

Is it the fact that people who are single pay more in taxes than married people? You know, the tax law that requires two unmarried people to file separately and thus forfeit certain tax benefits afforded to married couples?

But that’s not really true. Sure the Bush tax cuts eliminated a lot of the Marriage Penalty, but a lot of it has come back and a lot of the penalty never went away, espicially for the higher and lower income earners .

Honestly it changes from year to year as to who benefits most from marriage; you or the government. Currently I would say the government would be worse off (less revenues) if everyone was able to file as single (singles pay less), all else equal.

The tax benefits afforded to married peoples doesn’t really have anything to do with income filing, its the ability to re-title things tax free. You cant give your gf all your money without creating a taxable event, but you can give your wife everything tax free. Also upon your death certain benefits exist for IRA elections and of course all assets can be passed to your wife to avoid the estate tax during her remaining lifetime.

Or is it the part where having less people means less spending on infrastructure, entitlement and various other general welfare such as student loans and educational grants?

I thought you were a liberal? Are you implying theres a negative return on the government creating these programs for people? Elizabeth Warren would be pissed if she heard you!

[quote]Here's is a simple brain exercise that can help you sort out your thoughts. [QUOTE]

Kind of like Brain Age? I SUCK at that game!!!

Ask yourself what would happen to this country's revenues and expenditures if:

a) You eliminate tax breaks for married couples.
b) You kill off 2.5% of all those over the age 65 and increase the infant mortality rate to 2.5%. Or if you wish just kill off 5% of the population.

a) If we eliminate the “tax breaks” are we also going to eliminate the marriage penalties? If both are eliminated then I think well see a net decrease in revenues.

b) Youre just plain wild!

You never said anything before about killing off just the most unable persons. I wont answer that, but if I was able to “just kill off 5% of the population”, which was representative of both the most able and productive persons and those infirm, I think we would be worse off. Maybe im just a glass half full type dude.

You saying all these things makes me curious where you stand on illegal immigration? Are you for DREAM act?