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.

 

Straight men to marry each other for tax breaks!!!!

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
You're missing the point Heretic. ...

Think rationally for a second.


I'll try.




The tax break is the point.


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?

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? They don't even have to live together. And that happens all the time, too. Friends marry for the benefits of marriage or as a business arrangement. Sometimes people who are married and in love get divorced to take care of some financial issues. It happens.

Do you know that there are gay people marrying straight friends of the opposite sex for the benefits of marriage?

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.



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?


Oh, the poor military would go broke, I'm sure!
Talk about tax fraud!



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.


What financial 'crimes'? What's the crime? There's no law that says people who get married have to be in love. These so-called crimes you're so concerned are going to tear the financial structure of the US apart, are already happening.

WTF is homophilia?



[edit on 8-8-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]




posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Correct me if i am wrong please,aren't these same sex marriages in the USA and Europe,banned from any joint tax filings?I believe these two are in Canada,so has Canada got some strange laws on this too?Just wondering if the bothered to research anything.Thanks



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Heres the Million dollar question.


Who cares?

Straight people marry for purely financial reasons all the time. I know, I know, you are going to say "but next they are going to marry their Goat".

Again

Who cares?


Nothing nobody does will effect my marriage in the least and if yours is worth a damn it wont effect yours either



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 02:44 AM
link   

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.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 08:40 AM
link   

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.


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? If you want to go to a straight system where only those who use a certain benefit of a taxed society pay for that benefit, I'd be MORE than happy to switch to that, but that's not how the tax system works. We all pay into it and it gets spent for the needs of the society as a whole.



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?


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? Is it all about kids to you? It's not like that for everyone. 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 NOT all about breeding.



Even if the total loss of tax revenue is negligible it's unfair in principle, wouldn't you agree?


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. However, that is discrimination, and you still support it. It's not fair. But we could fix it. Easily.



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.


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?



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.


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]



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 02:07 PM
link   
This is my entire point.

Abortion
Welfare
corporate subsidies
Medicare
Medicaid
Social Security

to name a few, are paid for while some disagree and would prefer not to pay for it while there is no outstanding need for it in terms of our survival or ability to continue to function.

Removing income tax would go a long way in aiding that problem and eliminating the entire debate.

Makes no difference what side you are on.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   
I should mention that I am not a homophobe before I post what I post; I have quite a few gay friends. Now having said that…


Best Buy, you know THE Best Buy allows gay partners of employee’s to share their discounts after one year of being together…Sounds nice doesn’t it? (I have some buddies who work there)

I don’t think so…


What about unmarried straight couples? NOPE.

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?

Imagine that “we” have become so PC that it has swung 180 degrees.

So….Any straight guys out there want to hook up with me so we can get tax breaks and Best Buy discounts? I’m sure my wife wont mind, she wants a new TV…



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   

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?


It sucks. If they had the right to get married, then this special dispensation would disappear.

Some companies realize that the law is stupid and unfair and they want to extend the same benefits to their gay employees that their straight employees have. I commend them for taking a step in the right direction.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I commend them for taking a step in the right direction.


Their heart is in the right place, but in practice they didnt do it right.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 06:03 PM
link   
This is great news. So what if it's for the tax break? No law that currently says they cannot do this. I think elimination of all but a sales tax would prevent this from happening.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 06:30 PM
link   
I believe most (if not all) corporations in Massachusetts got rid of any special gay domestic partnership benefits after gay marriage became legal in the state. Surprisingly (or maybe not so), gays were pretty upset about it because a lot of them didn't really want to get married.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:08 PM
link   

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?


These are shared goods never the less. Every citizen enjoys an economy that would be impossible if this were a nation of uneducated citizens. Every citizen eats food delivered on trucks.
I'm not talking about only paying for what you use. I'm talking about properly targeting tax breaks to those who meet the intent of the tax breaks. When we create a tax break which is intended to make sure a person is not being taxed beyond their means to provide for necessities, that tax break should go to the people who have the need which the tax break was designed to protect.



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.


In Canada now they do have that right, this is what brought the issue up. They have equal access to the tax break, they have equal right to marry, and their access to the break should be protected by retargeting it in such a way that it is not grabbed up by people for whom it was not intended.


Hollow marriage? Is that one without kids?

No, it's one entered into entirely for the purpose of exploiting loopholes by which one can enjoy tax breaks and other benefits which were intended to relieve the pressures which are inherent to marriage.
If we give a tax break so that families can afford homes, but people who don't intend to raise a family get married to enjoy that tax break, that is hollow. It is a misuse of a benefit that has been offered in good faith to help the people. If people who didn't need it weren't taking it, the size of the benefit could be increased for those who do need it.


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.


Why should people have to be married just to buy a home and contribute to the economy. If a break of that nature is needed let's design one, rather than forcing people to enter marriages of convenience in order to be able.
Target tax breaks effectively to do what they are supposed to do, and not be otherwise taken advantage of as loopholes. When you aren't losing tax revenue to loop-hole exploiters you've got room for more targeted taxbreaks to benefit even more cases in which they serve a legit purpose.



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.


Oh, well it's not a fair world so screw it, let's not even try. Let's disolve our court system and fire all of our police because life isn't fair.

Where did I say that I support the barring of same sex marriages. I've said again and again that the government has no business pushing its nose into people's private lives and SHOULDN'T regulate that. I've even said that same sex couples should have equal right to adoption as any other home which lacks a parent of one gender or the other (ie single parents). You have completely misunderstood my interest in the issue. I don't have any interest in opposing or changing homosexuals.

And remember, the article is talking about a situation in Canada, where if I'm not mistaken, it is legal. I do not support descrimination, and I am mildly offended to find that I have been taken as a supporter of it.




You are dreaming. A fair tax code is a dream!


Since when does that mean we shouldn't do everything we can? Do you mean to tell me that if a million people were dying, but you could save five of them, you wouldn't, because saving them all is just a dream?
If I may borrow a quote from Second Hand Lions, "Just because somethin' aint true, that's no reason you can't believe in it... There's some things that a good man has to believe in, not because they're true, but because those are the things that are worth believing in."


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?


Let's not forget that they are also providing a valuable service by raising the next generation of workers, without whom we have no economic future. They pay the high insurance rates for new drivers to cover the cost of wrecks, do they not? They pay their childrens tickets and fines to repair the damage their children do when they are caught vandalizing, do they not? And those without children are sharing in the benefits of having educated young people in our society- they are a public good produced with public funds. Who the hell else is going to cook your french fries for 6.75 an hour? Who the hell else is going to work his way through college and become a productive employee for your business some day?
Young people are a necessity which must be provided and we must ensure that we will have them. That means enabling families to support them. That means making sure the assisstance is there for those who need it by making sure that all of that money is not grabbed up by those who would marry just to exploit a loophole.



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.

No, I don't. The point of my statement that it would be wrong to restrict marriage was precisely that homosexuals SHOULD be allowed to marry, and if they have children through artificial insemenation or adoption they should get the tax break to help raise those children. And if they don't have children they should have no access to the tax break, just as a straight couple which has not chosen to reproduce should not.



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]


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.

[edit on 10-8-2005 by The Vagabond]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Amuk pretty much expressed my feelings on the matter better then I could.
Amuk I would give you a vote towards the way above top secret award if I could.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 07:56 AM
link   

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.


I have to admit, I may have made some assumptions that added to the misunderstandings. Sorry. I do get carried away with defending people I see as the underdog. And I get preachy. I am a bit of a warrier for the oppressed.

I don't think it's 'right' for people to marry just for a tax break, either, but I'm not willing to say we should stop them. I'm just saying that if we can't apply a restriction to everybody, we shouldn't apply it to anybody.

Again, I apologize for being defensive where perhaps no defense was needed. I think we pretty much agree, except on a few minor issues.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   
No problem. The motives behind this issue do lend themselves to the assumption that anyone interested in it has an agenda related to homosexual rights- either pro or con. Few people are able to see the heart of the matter (the demonstration of a tax loophole) without being too heavily distracted by the anti-homosexual overtones added by the occasion on which the loophole was demonstrated.

My dad has a saying that I think you'd like, as far as applying limitations uniformly. Whenever somebody starts to gripe about this or that not being quite fair because it's too harsh, he says "what's fair is what's the same for everybody". His point being that if something is unfair, but equally unfair for everybody, that it's fair enough.
Not sure I agree with his rationale there 100%, I'm inclined to think we can always try to do better (even if we're likely to fail) but I had the feeling you'd like the expression.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I think these men are unfamiliar with Canadian Tax laws. Same-sex couples have been able to enjoy the same tax benefits and disadvantages since 2001, if they have co-habitated together for a period of 12 months, under the common-law provisions.

There can be tax benefits for married couples if they have children, but a family without children can often find themselves paying more taxes than if they claimed as two single people.

It is a very individual situation, and they should speak to a tax attorney before going ahead with their plan. I can think of only one or two instances where this would save you money, the first being if one doesn't have any income whatsoever. Then they could be claimed as a dependant spouse. The other would be the transfer of unused medical expenses.

Unless one of them is planning on killing the other off for the pension benefits.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join