OT: Gay Marriage

[briansd1]

[quote=Fletch]

The government affords tax advantages to marriage for one reason: to incentivize the raising of children in stable homes. The idea being that these children will grow into consumers and workers, both of which are essential for a growing economy. It was an acknowledgment of what Piggs have said repeatedly: raising kids is difficult and costly.[/quote]

That is not true.

Marriage is a carry over from the past, as an estate planning tool.

People had many mistresses and many children. But under feudal laws, only the legitimate issue could inherit property.

In other societies, such a China, people had many wives and the father would choose whom of his children would inherit.

Marriage is now obsolete in a modern society, so I do support the “TG option”.

But still, if people want to get married, let them be.

[Sandi Egan]

[quote=Rich Toscano]As is often the case, I think sdduuuude summed it up perfectly.

“I’d say this is the biggest non-issue of the decade.”

I think Prop 8 is stupid and offensive, but what’s even stupider is that people are getting so worked up about this picayune nonsense when there are really serious issues that many of the same people are being totally complacent about, e.g. the massive transfer of wealth to the financial industry, the potential for a US govt debt/currency crisis, and zombie jellyfish.

A lot of the really bad stuff that happens wouldn’t be allowed to happen if so many people weren’t so laser focused on the wrong things.[/quote]
+100

[Sandi Egan]

[quote=Rich Toscano]As is often the case, I think sdduuuude summed it up perfectly.

“I’d say this is the biggest non-issue of the decade.”

I think Prop 8 is stupid and offensive, but what’s even stupider is that people are getting so worked up about this picayune nonsense when there are really serious issues that many of the same people are being totally complacent about, e.g. the massive transfer of wealth to the financial industry, the potential for a US govt debt/currency crisis, and zombie jellyfish.

A lot of the really bad stuff that happens wouldn’t be allowed to happen if so many people weren’t so laser focused on the wrong things.[/quote]
+100

[Sandi Egan]

[quote=Rich Toscano]As is often the case, I think sdduuuude summed it up perfectly.

“I’d say this is the biggest non-issue of the decade.”

I think Prop 8 is stupid and offensive, but what’s even stupider is that people are getting so worked up about this picayune nonsense when there are really serious issues that many of the same people are being totally complacent about, e.g. the massive transfer of wealth to the financial industry, the potential for a US govt debt/currency crisis, and zombie jellyfish.

A lot of the really bad stuff that happens wouldn’t be allowed to happen if so many people weren’t so laser focused on the wrong things.[/quote]
+100

[Sandi Egan]

[quote=Rich Toscano]As is often the case, I think sdduuuude summed it up perfectly.

“I’d say this is the biggest non-issue of the decade.”

I think Prop 8 is stupid and offensive, but what’s even stupider is that people are getting so worked up about this picayune nonsense when there are really serious issues that many of the same people are being totally complacent about, e.g. the massive transfer of wealth to the financial industry, the potential for a US govt debt/currency crisis, and zombie jellyfish.

A lot of the really bad stuff that happens wouldn’t be allowed to happen if so many people weren’t so laser focused on the wrong things.[/quote]
+100

[Sandi Egan]

[quote=Rich Toscano]As is often the case, I think sdduuuude summed it up perfectly.

“I’d say this is the biggest non-issue of the decade.”

I think Prop 8 is stupid and offensive, but what’s even stupider is that people are getting so worked up about this picayune nonsense when there are really serious issues that many of the same people are being totally complacent about, e.g. the massive transfer of wealth to the financial industry, the potential for a US govt debt/currency crisis, and zombie jellyfish.

A lot of the really bad stuff that happens wouldn’t be allowed to happen if so many people weren’t so laser focused on the wrong things.[/quote]
+100

[UCGal]

[quote=Fletch]
The government affords tax advantages to marriage for one reason: to incentivize the raising of children in stable homes. The idea being that these children will grow into consumers and workers, both of which are essential for a growing economy. It was an acknowledgment of what Piggs have said repeatedly: raising kids is difficult and costly.

So my question is: Is this incentivizing of child rearing unnecessary and/or immoral? If no such incentive exists, then should there even be a legal recognition of any marriage (what I’ll call the “tg option”.)[/quote]

The tax codes are a mess and confuse things.

There is no requirement that married people have children. Nor is there a requirement that you be married to have children. I spent the weekend at a friend’s wedding. They will never have kids. (By choice). Several of the other couples there were also child free by choice and married.

And until the marriage penalty was fixed a decade back – it was a tax dis-incentive to be married with 2 good incomes. I was careful to push my wedding day into the new year, rather than at the end of the previous year for that very reason… I’d have paid higher taxes with 2 incomes married, than 2 incomes both filing single. The tax law does incentivize having 1 stay at home parent, though.

There are many people who are single parents – some are widows/widowers (no moral issue of why they’re single). Are you saying the tax code makes an exception for them?

As to your question… I can see making the taxcodes based on members of households, but not marital status. I don’t see any reason why a 5 person family (2 adults, 3 kids) should pay different tax rates based on whether the adults are married. Tax rates should be based on household income and number of people in the household. But… it will never happen.

[UCGal]

[quote=Fletch]
The government affords tax advantages to marriage for one reason: to incentivize the raising of children in stable homes. The idea being that these children will grow into consumers and workers, both of which are essential for a growing economy. It was an acknowledgment of what Piggs have said repeatedly: raising kids is difficult and costly.

So my question is: Is this incentivizing of child rearing unnecessary and/or immoral? If no such incentive exists, then should there even be a legal recognition of any marriage (what I’ll call the “tg option”.)[/quote]

The tax codes are a mess and confuse things.

There is no requirement that married people have children. Nor is there a requirement that you be married to have children. I spent the weekend at a friend’s wedding. They will never have kids. (By choice). Several of the other couples there were also child free by choice and married.

And until the marriage penalty was fixed a decade back – it was a tax dis-incentive to be married with 2 good incomes. I was careful to push my wedding day into the new year, rather than at the end of the previous year for that very reason… I’d have paid higher taxes with 2 incomes married, than 2 incomes both filing single. The tax law does incentivize having 1 stay at home parent, though.

There are many people who are single parents – some are widows/widowers (no moral issue of why they’re single). Are you saying the tax code makes an exception for them?

As to your question… I can see making the taxcodes based on members of households, but not marital status. I don’t see any reason why a 5 person family (2 adults, 3 kids) should pay different tax rates based on whether the adults are married. Tax rates should be based on household income and number of people in the household. But… it will never happen.

[UCGal]

[quote=Fletch]
The government affords tax advantages to marriage for one reason: to incentivize the raising of children in stable homes. The idea being that these children will grow into consumers and workers, both of which are essential for a growing economy. It was an acknowledgment of what Piggs have said repeatedly: raising kids is difficult and costly.

So my question is: Is this incentivizing of child rearing unnecessary and/or immoral? If no such incentive exists, then should there even be a legal recognition of any marriage (what I’ll call the “tg option”.)[/quote]

The tax codes are a mess and confuse things.

There is no requirement that married people have children. Nor is there a requirement that you be married to have children. I spent the weekend at a friend’s wedding. They will never have kids. (By choice). Several of the other couples there were also child free by choice and married.

And until the marriage penalty was fixed a decade back – it was a tax dis-incentive to be married with 2 good incomes. I was careful to push my wedding day into the new year, rather than at the end of the previous year for that very reason… I’d have paid higher taxes with 2 incomes married, than 2 incomes both filing single. The tax law does incentivize having 1 stay at home parent, though.

There are many people who are single parents – some are widows/widowers (no moral issue of why they’re single). Are you saying the tax code makes an exception for them?

As to your question… I can see making the taxcodes based on members of households, but not marital status. I don’t see any reason why a 5 person family (2 adults, 3 kids) should pay different tax rates based on whether the adults are married. Tax rates should be based on household income and number of people in the household. But… it will never happen.

[UCGal]

[quote=Fletch]
The government affords tax advantages to marriage for one reason: to incentivize the raising of children in stable homes. The idea being that these children will grow into consumers and workers, both of which are essential for a growing economy. It was an acknowledgment of what Piggs have said repeatedly: raising kids is difficult and costly.

So my question is: Is this incentivizing of child rearing unnecessary and/or immoral? If no such incentive exists, then should there even be a legal recognition of any marriage (what I’ll call the “tg option”.)[/quote]

The tax codes are a mess and confuse things.

There is no requirement that married people have children. Nor is there a requirement that you be married to have children. I spent the weekend at a friend’s wedding. They will never have kids. (By choice). Several of the other couples there were also child free by choice and married.

And until the marriage penalty was fixed a decade back – it was a tax dis-incentive to be married with 2 good incomes. I was careful to push my wedding day into the new year, rather than at the end of the previous year for that very reason… I’d have paid higher taxes with 2 incomes married, than 2 incomes both filing single. The tax law does incentivize having 1 stay at home parent, though.

There are many people who are single parents – some are widows/widowers (no moral issue of why they’re single). Are you saying the tax code makes an exception for them?

As to your question… I can see making the taxcodes based on members of households, but not marital status. I don’t see any reason why a 5 person family (2 adults, 3 kids) should pay different tax rates based on whether the adults are married. Tax rates should be based on household income and number of people in the household. But… it will never happen.

[UCGal]

[quote=Fletch]
The government affords tax advantages to marriage for one reason: to incentivize the raising of children in stable homes. The idea being that these children will grow into consumers and workers, both of which are essential for a growing economy. It was an acknowledgment of what Piggs have said repeatedly: raising kids is difficult and costly.

So my question is: Is this incentivizing of child rearing unnecessary and/or immoral? If no such incentive exists, then should there even be a legal recognition of any marriage (what I’ll call the “tg option”.)[/quote]

The tax codes are a mess and confuse things.

There is no requirement that married people have children. Nor is there a requirement that you be married to have children. I spent the weekend at a friend’s wedding. They will never have kids. (By choice). Several of the other couples there were also child free by choice and married.

And until the marriage penalty was fixed a decade back – it was a tax dis-incentive to be married with 2 good incomes. I was careful to push my wedding day into the new year, rather than at the end of the previous year for that very reason… I’d have paid higher taxes with 2 incomes married, than 2 incomes both filing single. The tax law does incentivize having 1 stay at home parent, though.

There are many people who are single parents – some are widows/widowers (no moral issue of why they’re single). Are you saying the tax code makes an exception for them?

As to your question… I can see making the taxcodes based on members of households, but not marital status. I don’t see any reason why a 5 person family (2 adults, 3 kids) should pay different tax rates based on whether the adults are married. Tax rates should be based on household income and number of people in the household. But… it will never happen.

[Aecetia]

TG- Glad to know you escaped. We were thinking about starting a poll to see if Piggingtons wanted to pay your ransom. Here is the update on your list of Commandments:

“According to Torah tradition, God gave Noah and his family seven commandments to observe when he saved them from the flood. These commandments, referred to as the Noahic or Noahide commandments, are learned by tradition but also suggested in Genesis Chapter 9, and are as follows:

1. not to commit idolatry
2. not to commit blasphemy
3. not to commit murder
4. not to have forbidden sexual relations
5. not to commit theft
6. not to eat flesh cut from a living animal
7. to establish courts of justice to punish violators of the other six laws.”

I think the porn might be under number 1. or perhaps number 4.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/gentiles.htm

[Aecetia]

TG- Glad to know you escaped. We were thinking about starting a poll to see if Piggingtons wanted to pay your ransom. Here is the update on your list of Commandments:

“According to Torah tradition, God gave Noah and his family seven commandments to observe when he saved them from the flood. These commandments, referred to as the Noahic or Noahide commandments, are learned by tradition but also suggested in Genesis Chapter 9, and are as follows:

1. not to commit idolatry
2. not to commit blasphemy
3. not to commit murder
4. not to have forbidden sexual relations
5. not to commit theft
6. not to eat flesh cut from a living animal
7. to establish courts of justice to punish violators of the other six laws.”

I think the porn might be under number 1. or perhaps number 4.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/gentiles.htm

[Aecetia]

TG- Glad to know you escaped. We were thinking about starting a poll to see if Piggingtons wanted to pay your ransom. Here is the update on your list of Commandments:

“According to Torah tradition, God gave Noah and his family seven commandments to observe when he saved them from the flood. These commandments, referred to as the Noahic or Noahide commandments, are learned by tradition but also suggested in Genesis Chapter 9, and are as follows:

1. not to commit idolatry
2. not to commit blasphemy
3. not to commit murder
4. not to have forbidden sexual relations
5. not to commit theft
6. not to eat flesh cut from a living animal
7. to establish courts of justice to punish violators of the other six laws.”

I think the porn might be under number 1. or perhaps number 4.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/gentiles.htm

[Aecetia]

TG- Glad to know you escaped. We were thinking about starting a poll to see if Piggingtons wanted to pay your ransom. Here is the update on your list of Commandments:

“According to Torah tradition, God gave Noah and his family seven commandments to observe when he saved them from the flood. These commandments, referred to as the Noahic or Noahide commandments, are learned by tradition but also suggested in Genesis Chapter 9, and are as follows:

1. not to commit idolatry
2. not to commit blasphemy
3. not to commit murder
4. not to have forbidden sexual relations
5. not to commit theft
6. not to eat flesh cut from a living animal
7. to establish courts of justice to punish violators of the other six laws.”

I think the porn might be under number 1. or perhaps number 4.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/gentiles.htm

[Author]

Posts