"Because it's not love without a tax break"

[gardenswithkids]

An article raises the points that legal recognition of same sex relationships will have economic impact and cost the tax payers money. I found it interesting.
lifesitenews.com/news/same-sex-marriage-a-welfare-program-not-a-right

Despite all the Sturm und Drang about equal rights, ending prejudice, and transcending the final frontier of the civil rights movement, the homosexual “marriage” movement is essentially just a pitch for another welfare program. …Reading their complaints more closely shows, like all revolutionaries, they have a set of demands: They want government benefits, mandatory health insurance coverage, and tax shelters – an unearned wealth transfer from taxpayers or employers to themselves.
…Make no mistake: this is an economic debate, one that deserves a rational analysis of whether these costs are worth the “benefit” society would receive. And the burden of proof is on those who want to overturn thousands of years of tradition to put their hands in our wallets.
It’s not just about money; it’s about other people’s money, our money. The greatest PR triumph of the socialist-progressive axis to date is to claim that if those who pay those tax dollars dare to object about the use of our money, it is an act of mindless bigotry. …

 

[SgtSchultz]

An article raises the points that legal recognition of same sex relationships will have economic impact and cost the tax payers money.

While I don’t agree with same-sex “marriage”, I don’t think that this particular argument is well grounded. One might very well say, using that logic, that real marriage costs the taxpayers money. Better then, to have the government get out of marriage to begin with and let religion handle it, if not to save money.

 

[SonCatcher]

While I don’t agree with same-sex “marriage”, I don’t think that this particular argument is well grounded. One might very well say, using that logic, that real marriage costs the taxpayers money. Better then, to have the government get out of marriage to begin with and let religion handle it, if not to save money.

Why not? It’s the very one the judge made in the courtroom on the Federal trial in California on the constitutionality of their Constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The tax break given to married couple is government assistance to them to raise a family. Something homosexuals cannot naturally do. And there is even a question whether the mental and emotional health of kids adopted by homosexual couples will be good or not.

 

[gardenswithkids]

The tax break given to married couple is government assistance to them to raise a family. Something homosexuals cannot naturally do. …

Exactly. The tax break and any benefits are because married couples produce future citizens.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Exactly. The tax break and any benefits are because married couples produce future citizens.

So they get a tax break because they can produce kids, and another when they do. That’s silly. Let’s just give them the tax breaks when they do. Why give benefits to couples who don’t want kids, can’t have kids, or are too old?

 

[thewanderer]

So they get a tax break because they can produce kids, and another when they do. That’s silly. Let’s just give them the tax breaks when they do. Why give benefits to couples who don’t want kids, can’t have kids, or are too old?

To be honest, my answer to this would be sure, go ahead and delay the tax break that married couples currently get until they actually have kids. The systtem isn’t perfect as is, but that doesn’t really mean we should make it worse and extend the tax breaks to even more people who don’t deserve them.

 

[mini_me640]

I don’t know about anyone else, but before we had children (which was 7 years of our marriage), we were penalized tax-wise for being married. We would have owed less income tax if we were still single and cohabitating (thanks to the so-called “marriage penalty” on the standard deduction).

 

[gardenswithkids]

It might help for some people to read the article. lifesitenews.com/news/sam…am-not-a-right

 

[BlueEyedLady]

To be honest, my answer to this would be sure, go ahead and delay the tax break that married couples currently get until they actually have kids. The systtem isn’t perfect as is, but that doesn’t really mean we should make it worse and extend the tax breaks to even more people who don’t deserve them.

I’m getting married in a couple months and wow the tax benefits we are receiving are insane! (We had our employers run example checks.) Personally I think its a little ridiculous to have my marriage subsidized like that, especially to that extent. We really aren’t doing anything to warrant it, and nothing in our lives will really change.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I’m getting married in a couple months… and nothing in our lives will really change.

Congratulations on your upcoming nuptuals. I don’t know you, but I have a very hard time believing that nothing in your life will change with your marriage. Let us know in a couple of years if you still believe that.

 

[thewanderer]

I’m getting married in a couple months and wow the tax benefits we are receiving are insane! (We had our employers run example checks.) Personally I think its a little ridiculous to have my marriage subsidized like that, especially to that extent. We really aren’t doing anything to warrant it, and nothing in our lives will really change.

Yeah, I think its silly that the government gives out those tax breaks to couples who never plan on having kids, or who are sterile etc. I mean, yes, its always nice for the people who get the tax breaks… but come on, our government is in enough debt as it is, reserve the tax breaks for things that actually make a difference.

 

[gardenswithkids]

In our first year of marriage, my husband and I were hit with the marriage penalty tax, (like mini_me640 mentioned also.) Before we filed our tax return together, we were expecting our first child.

Tax laws change. The “marriage penalty” that many married couples once paid have been mostly eliminated. Shortly after those “marriage penalty” taxes were re-written in favor of marriage, homosexual couples started demanding legal recognition of their relationships–and they demand the term “marriage”. Perhaps that’s just a coincidence, but it does raise questions. They didn’t push for “marriage” at a time when childless married couples paid higher taxes. Maybe these demands for legal recognition of same-sex relationships would go away if we re-instated marriage penalty taxes.

 

[maryjk]

I’m getting married in a couple months and wow the tax benefits we are receiving are insane! (We had our employers run example checks.) Personally I think its a little ridiculous to have my marriage subsidized like that, especially to that extent. We really aren’t doing anything to warrant it, and nothing in our lives will really change.

The idea is that when you get married, stuff should change.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

In our first year of marriage, my husband and I were hit with the marriage penalty tax, (like mini_me640 mentioned also.) Before we filed our tax return together, we were expecting our first child.

Tax laws change. The “marriage penalty” that many married couples once paid have been mostly eliminated. Shortly after those “marriage penalty” taxes were re-written in favor of marriage, homosexual couples started demanding legal recognition of their relationships–and they demand the term “marriage”. Perhaps that’s just a coincidence, but it does raise questions. They didn’t push for “marriage” at a time when childless married couples paid higher taxes. Maybe these demands for legal recognition of same-sex relationships would go away if we re-instated marriage penalty taxes.

I don’t think taxes have anything to do with it. You didn’t hear about gay marriage years ago not because of the tax code, but because society was so different. Gay people were fighting to not be attacked by strangers and shunned by their families.

The biggest reasons I hear for gay marriage are health insurance, medical rights (being able to be there and take care of things when a partner is sick/dying), pension benefits, property rights upon the death of a partner, etc. All of those little things that help spouses protect each other during life’s hardest times.

 

[cmforte]

The tax break given to married couple** is government assistance to them to raise a family**. Something homosexuals cannot naturally do. And there is even a question whether the mental and emotional health of kids adopted by homosexual couples will be good or not.

Just to clarify: “tax-breaks” are not government assistance. They are the government *allowing *people keep more of the money those people earned. Gee, thanks government.

Remember: that is not the government’s money. That money belongs to the* people who earn it. The government just thinks *that money belongs to it, and, sadly, some people agree.

-Chris

 

[cmforte]

Yeah, I think its silly that the government gives out those tax breaks to couples who never plan on having kids, or who are sterile etc. I mean, yes, its always nice for the people who get the tax breaks… but come on, our government is in enough debt as it is, reserve the tax breaks for things that actually make a difference.

Again, though, that money doesn’t belong to the government. And the government should reign in waste, fraud, corruption, and out-of-control spending before even thinking of raising taxes or taking away “tax-breaks,” that is, before taking more money from *the people who actually earn it *and that doesn’t belong to it.

-Chris

 

[gardenswithkids]

…The biggest reasons I hear for gay marriage are health insurance, medical rights (being able to be there and take care of things when a partner is sick/dying),** pension benefits**, property rights upon the death of a partner, etc. All of those little things that help spouses protect each other during life’s hardest times.

$$$$ Most of the things you mentioned as the “biggest reasons” you hear relate to money. $$$$

 

[thewanderer]

Again, though, that money doesn’t belong to the government. And the government should reign in waste, fraud, corruption, and out-of-control spending before even thinking of raising taxes or taking away “tax-breaks,” that is, before taking more money from *the people who actually earn it *and that doesn’t belong to it.

-Chris

Oh trust me, I am well aware that the government needs to reign in its spending, but there is so much debt that there is no way to fix it all by simply reigning in spending. My point was instead of expanding these benefits to more couples who don’t qualify for the very reason they exist in the first place, why not remove it from those who currently receive it without qualifing for the reason it exists in the first place. I don’t know, seems like a better solution to this particular issue to me.

 

[SonCatcher]

I’m getting married in a couple months and wow the tax benefits we are receiving are insane! (We had our employers run example checks.) Personally I think its a little ridiculous to have my marriage subsidized like that, especially to that extent. We really aren’t doing anything to warrant it, and nothing in our lives will really change.

Are you both going to continue working? If so, then make sure your withholding reflects that. Your employer’s sample check may have assumed that your future spouse wouldn’t be working.

Most of the time there is talk of a “marriage penalty” since spouses who are in different tax brackets wind up with the spouse in the lower bracket being pushed up to a higher one, thus incurring a greater tax rate than should have been.

A simple glance at the IRS tax table shows that Married, filing separate pays the same tax (or slightly higher) as a single person and that the combined incomes pay a joint rate comparable to the sum of the Married, filing separate rates.