[Fletch]

You need more bourbon in your repertoire.

The wife and I drink a lot of Manhattans. We don’t generally use rye. Knob Creek is my favorite for Manhattans, though I never buy it because I’m not an ivy league educated lawyer living in a low cost of living area. The angostura bitters and cherry are not optional.

[Fletch]

You need more bourbon in your repertoire.

The wife and I drink a lot of Manhattans. We don’t generally use rye. Knob Creek is my favorite for Manhattans, though I never buy it because I’m not an ivy league educated lawyer living in a low cost of living area. The angostura bitters and cherry are not optional.

[Fletch]

You need more bourbon in your repertoire.

The wife and I drink a lot of Manhattans. We don’t generally use rye. Knob Creek is my favorite for Manhattans, though I never buy it because I’m not an ivy league educated lawyer living in a low cost of living area. The angostura bitters and cherry are not optional.

[Fletch]

You need more bourbon in your repertoire.

The wife and I drink a lot of Manhattans. We don’t generally use rye. Knob Creek is my favorite for Manhattans, though I never buy it because I’m not an ivy league educated lawyer living in a low cost of living area. The angostura bitters and cherry are not optional.

[Fletch]

You need more bourbon in your repertoire.

The wife and I drink a lot of Manhattans. We don’t generally use rye. Knob Creek is my favorite for Manhattans, though I never buy it because I’m not an ivy league educated lawyer living in a low cost of living area. The angostura bitters and cherry are not optional.

[Fletch]

[quote=UCGal]
The tax codes are a mess and confuse things.
[/quote]
Very true. But inefficient implementation does not detract from my point which is the intent.

[quote]
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?
[/quote]
Of course not. Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn’t. The code was merely supposed to incentivize a lifestyle which on average, the government thought (perhaps naively or ignorantly) would better society.

[quote]
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.[/quote]
The thinking was that the children of the married couples will on average have better societal outcomes than those with single parents. Anyway, at least the federal child tax credit is blind to marital status.

[Fletch]

[quote=UCGal]
The tax codes are a mess and confuse things.
[/quote]
Very true. But inefficient implementation does not detract from my point which is the intent.

[quote]
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?
[/quote]
Of course not. Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn’t. The code was merely supposed to incentivize a lifestyle which on average, the government thought (perhaps naively or ignorantly) would better society.

[quote]
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.[/quote]
The thinking was that the children of the married couples will on average have better societal outcomes than those with single parents. Anyway, at least the federal child tax credit is blind to marital status.

[Fletch]

[quote=UCGal]
The tax codes are a mess and confuse things.
[/quote]
Very true. But inefficient implementation does not detract from my point which is the intent.

[quote]
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?
[/quote]
Of course not. Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn’t. The code was merely supposed to incentivize a lifestyle which on average, the government thought (perhaps naively or ignorantly) would better society.

[quote]
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.[/quote]
The thinking was that the children of the married couples will on average have better societal outcomes than those with single parents. Anyway, at least the federal child tax credit is blind to marital status.

[Fletch]

[quote=UCGal]
The tax codes are a mess and confuse things.
[/quote]
Very true. But inefficient implementation does not detract from my point which is the intent.

[quote]
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?
[/quote]
Of course not. Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn’t. The code was merely supposed to incentivize a lifestyle which on average, the government thought (perhaps naively or ignorantly) would better society.

[quote]
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.[/quote]
The thinking was that the children of the married couples will on average have better societal outcomes than those with single parents. Anyway, at least the federal child tax credit is blind to marital status.

[Fletch]

[quote=UCGal]
The tax codes are a mess and confuse things.
[/quote]
Very true. But inefficient implementation does not detract from my point which is the intent.

[quote]
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?
[/quote]
Of course not. Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn’t. The code was merely supposed to incentivize a lifestyle which on average, the government thought (perhaps naively or ignorantly) would better society.

[quote]
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.[/quote]
The thinking was that the children of the married couples will on average have better societal outcomes than those with single parents. Anyway, at least the federal child tax credit is blind to marital status.

[Fletch]

[quote=briansd1]
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.[/quote]
There is some truth in each of your broad historical generalizations, but I’m speaking specifically about the US tax code of which it is most definitely true. In the US, the intent of affording benefits to married couples was to provide an incentive for people to raise law-abiding, productive, citizens. It was thought to be a benefit to society and the economy. You (and Rich and a few others) are clearly of the opinion that it is neither.

If gay marriage has no socio-economic impact (specifically regarding child rearing), the logical conclusion is, as Rich said, that this is a big non-issue.

[Fletch]

[quote=briansd1]
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.[/quote]
There is some truth in each of your broad historical generalizations, but I’m speaking specifically about the US tax code of which it is most definitely true. In the US, the intent of affording benefits to married couples was to provide an incentive for people to raise law-abiding, productive, citizens. It was thought to be a benefit to society and the economy. You (and Rich and a few others) are clearly of the opinion that it is neither.

If gay marriage has no socio-economic impact (specifically regarding child rearing), the logical conclusion is, as Rich said, that this is a big non-issue.

[Fletch]

[quote=briansd1]
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.[/quote]
There is some truth in each of your broad historical generalizations, but I’m speaking specifically about the US tax code of which it is most definitely true. In the US, the intent of affording benefits to married couples was to provide an incentive for people to raise law-abiding, productive, citizens. It was thought to be a benefit to society and the economy. You (and Rich and a few others) are clearly of the opinion that it is neither.

If gay marriage has no socio-economic impact (specifically regarding child rearing), the logical conclusion is, as Rich said, that this is a big non-issue.

[Fletch]

[quote=briansd1]
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.[/quote]
There is some truth in each of your broad historical generalizations, but I’m speaking specifically about the US tax code of which it is most definitely true. In the US, the intent of affording benefits to married couples was to provide an incentive for people to raise law-abiding, productive, citizens. It was thought to be a benefit to society and the economy. You (and Rich and a few others) are clearly of the opinion that it is neither.

If gay marriage has no socio-economic impact (specifically regarding child rearing), the logical conclusion is, as Rich said, that this is a big non-issue.

[Fletch]

[quote=briansd1]
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.[/quote]
There is some truth in each of your broad historical generalizations, but I’m speaking specifically about the US tax code of which it is most definitely true. In the US, the intent of affording benefits to married couples was to provide an incentive for people to raise law-abiding, productive, citizens. It was thought to be a benefit to society and the economy. You (and Rich and a few others) are clearly of the opinion that it is neither.

If gay marriage has no socio-economic impact (specifically regarding child rearing), the logical conclusion is, as Rich said, that this is a big non-issue.

[Author]

Posts