It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
You're missing the point Heretic. ...
Think rationally for a second.
The tax break is the point.
What about their military? I don't know if they allow it, but how much money will the government be defrauded of by a couple of soldiers deciding to have a meaningless marriage so that they cang et housing allowance and move off base?
If you could just stop ebing consumed by this ridiculous homophobia/homophilia war between the left and right maybe it wouldn't be so hard to see the blatant implications for financial crimes.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So, your claim is that the tax break these guys get is going to effect you? You think if same sex marriage is legalized that we'll have a plethora of same sex marriage for tax break purposes and that's going to cut into your tax advantages somehow?
It will at least somewhat expand the use of a loophole that I oppose even when same sex marriage isn't part of the issue, yes. It's bad policy. It serves no purpose other than to unbalance the tax burden. If anything, people who share two incomes in one household and do not have children should have an increased tax burden. Does it make any sense at all that if you choose not to marry, but do have kids with someone you live with, you don't get a tax break which is clearly designed to help families, while somebody else who has a hollow marriage and either can't or won't ever have kids is getting that tax break?
You think there are enough people around who are just waiting to take advantage of this just for the tax break? If that's the case, why don't they just marry a friend of the opposite sex?
Some do, but there is a certain tension about that sort of a relationship. If you can just get married on paper to your same-sex room mate, it's definately going to expand the practice. Even if the total loss of tax revenue is negligible it's unfair in principle, wouldn't you agree?
Would you have it so that the only reason 2 people can get married is love? Good luck! You just don't have that kind of control.
I don't care who gets married or does anything else. Controlling people isn't the point. A fair tax code is the point. More tax breaks for people who have or intend to have families, less for people who don't. It's simple.
What financial 'crimes'? What's the crime? There's no law that says people who get married have to be in love.
Business marriages are a loophole, nothing more. It would be wrong to interfere with people's freedom by restricting marriage, but it would absolutely right to close the loophole by retargeting the tax break so that it goes to those who actually intend to have a family.
WTF is homophilia?
A word I just made up, literally referring to the love of homosexuals, as an opposite to homphobia, but referring to a homosexual-centric view of issues which are not expressly related to homosexuality.
In other words, while I agree with the point the two mentioned in the article are making about the tax code, I object to the way in which a demonstration of a tax loophole has been spun to turn it into a fight over homosexual rights, which are besides the point, and which I am not arguing against.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
If anything, people who share two incomes in one household and do not have children should have an increased tax burden.
Does it make any sense at all that if you choose not to marry, but do have kids with someone you live with, you don't get a tax break which is clearly designed to help families, while somebody else who has a hollow marriage and either can't or won't ever have kids is getting that tax break?
Even if the total loss of tax revenue is negligible it's unfair in principle, wouldn't you agree?
A fair tax code is the point. More tax breaks for people who have or intend to have families, less for people who don't. It's simple.
Business marriages are a loophole, nothing more. It would be wrong to interfere with people's freedom by restricting marriage, but it would absolutely right to close the loophole by retargeting the tax break so that it goes to those who actually intend to have a family.
Originally posted by skippytjc
So, if you are gay, your partner can have access to your discounts, but if your not, you are SOL. How’s that for equal rights?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I commend them for taking a step in the right direction.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You do realize that married people without children pay for public schools, don't you? You realize that people who hardly use the roads pay for them to be repaired, right?
Only if everyone has the same right to marriage. Only if it's a free choice for each and every couple regardless of their plumbing. If 2 straight people have kids and don't get married, that's their problem. If they're gay, they CAN'T get married and have the tax break. You have to look at both sides.
Hollow marriage? Is that one without kids?
People who get married and have jobs and buy homes and contribute to a stable society and pay taxes for schools and such certainly deserve a tax break.
It's unfair in principle, now. I don't know if you've heard, but life is NOT fair. The fact that same-sex people can't get married isn't fair either, but you support that.
You are dreaming. A fair tax code is a dream!
People who have kids are using the public school system, buses, tearing up the roads, many times raising brats who destroy and vandalize public and private property, have wrecks, and are basically a nuisance in many ways and a strain on the population and society and you want them to get MORE of a tax break?
I'm all for closing this loophole as long as you can do it for everyone. You say it would be wrong to interfere with people's freedom by restricting marriage, yet you support restricting marriage between peopel of the same sex.
The minute you say that opposite-sex people can use the loophole and same-sex people cannot, you're back to discriminating! How are you going to close this loophole for everyone?
[edit on 10-8-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]
Originally posted by The Vagabond
I better go back and re-read this thread, because I must have said something that was very easy to take out of context. You seem to believe that I support several things that I most definately do not support.