[UCGal]

sdduuuude – that was great.

back to the op… I was raised in a mixed household… mom was a republican, dad was a democrat. We violated social norms and debated politics and every other subject at the dinner table. It was kind of like piggington – where you needed to have some substance to back your arguments. I definitely learned (and I think it’s a learned skill) to listen, and be willing to consider opposing views. So, yeah, I’ve changed my mind when presented with compelling arguments.

It wasn’t until I was 17 or 18 that I realized how unusual our dinner table conversations were and how many people ignore facts that don’t fit their mindset.

Piggington reminds me of those old dinner table conversations – lots of differing views, (some) people bringing substance to debate. It’s a good thing.

[UCGal]

sdduuuude – that was great.

back to the op… I was raised in a mixed household… mom was a republican, dad was a democrat. We violated social norms and debated politics and every other subject at the dinner table. It was kind of like piggington – where you needed to have some substance to back your arguments. I definitely learned (and I think it’s a learned skill) to listen, and be willing to consider opposing views. So, yeah, I’ve changed my mind when presented with compelling arguments.

It wasn’t until I was 17 or 18 that I realized how unusual our dinner table conversations were and how many people ignore facts that don’t fit their mindset.

Piggington reminds me of those old dinner table conversations – lots of differing views, (some) people bringing substance to debate. It’s a good thing.

[UCGal]

sdduuuude – that was great.

back to the op… I was raised in a mixed household… mom was a republican, dad was a democrat. We violated social norms and debated politics and every other subject at the dinner table. It was kind of like piggington – where you needed to have some substance to back your arguments. I definitely learned (and I think it’s a learned skill) to listen, and be willing to consider opposing views. So, yeah, I’ve changed my mind when presented with compelling arguments.

It wasn’t until I was 17 or 18 that I realized how unusual our dinner table conversations were and how many people ignore facts that don’t fit their mindset.

Piggington reminds me of those old dinner table conversations – lots of differing views, (some) people bringing substance to debate. It’s a good thing.

[UCGal]

[quote=SK in CV]I agree with your conclusion.

Politically, the Dems spent a year negotiating with an opposition that wouldn’t have supported this bill no matter what it said, but now can point at it and say they did something, while really doing almost nothing, And the Republicans have something to assail. As a practical matter, it’s almost a yawner. But political fuel all around.[/quote]

I’ll take it one further than this. The Dems pretended to negotiate to save face when they caved to their own bankster interests. Both parties are bought and paid for by Wall Street. It was never going to have teeth.

[UCGal]

[quote=SK in CV]I agree with your conclusion.

Politically, the Dems spent a year negotiating with an opposition that wouldn’t have supported this bill no matter what it said, but now can point at it and say they did something, while really doing almost nothing, And the Republicans have something to assail. As a practical matter, it’s almost a yawner. But political fuel all around.[/quote]

I’ll take it one further than this. The Dems pretended to negotiate to save face when they caved to their own bankster interests. Both parties are bought and paid for by Wall Street. It was never going to have teeth.

[UCGal]

[quote=SK in CV]I agree with your conclusion.

Politically, the Dems spent a year negotiating with an opposition that wouldn’t have supported this bill no matter what it said, but now can point at it and say they did something, while really doing almost nothing, And the Republicans have something to assail. As a practical matter, it’s almost a yawner. But political fuel all around.[/quote]

I’ll take it one further than this. The Dems pretended to negotiate to save face when they caved to their own bankster interests. Both parties are bought and paid for by Wall Street. It was never going to have teeth.

[UCGal]

[quote=SK in CV]I agree with your conclusion.

Politically, the Dems spent a year negotiating with an opposition that wouldn’t have supported this bill no matter what it said, but now can point at it and say they did something, while really doing almost nothing, And the Republicans have something to assail. As a practical matter, it’s almost a yawner. But political fuel all around.[/quote]

I’ll take it one further than this. The Dems pretended to negotiate to save face when they caved to their own bankster interests. Both parties are bought and paid for by Wall Street. It was never going to have teeth.

[UCGal]

[quote=SK in CV]I agree with your conclusion.

Politically, the Dems spent a year negotiating with an opposition that wouldn’t have supported this bill no matter what it said, but now can point at it and say they did something, while really doing almost nothing, And the Republicans have something to assail. As a practical matter, it’s almost a yawner. But political fuel all around.[/quote]

I’ll take it one further than this. The Dems pretended to negotiate to save face when they caved to their own bankster interests. Both parties are bought and paid for by Wall Street. It was never going to have teeth.

[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.

[UCGal]

[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]

Now I have to worry about zombie jellyfish? OMG. I was planning on going to the beach this weekend… Oh the humanity!!!!

[UCGal]

[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]

Now I have to worry about zombie jellyfish? OMG. I was planning on going to the beach this weekend… Oh the humanity!!!!

[Author]

Posts