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

By LESLEY WRIGHT, Sun Media

WHAT'S LOVE got to do with it?

Bill Dalrymple, 56, and best friend Bryan Pinn, 65, have decided to take the plunge and try out the new same-sex marriage legislation with a twist -- they're straight men.

"I think it's a hoot," Pinn said.

The proposal came last Monday at a Toronto bar amid shock and laughter from their friends. But the two -- both of whom were previously married and both of whom are looking for a good woman to love -- insist that after the humour subsided, a real issue lies at the heart of it all.

"There are significant tax implications that we don't think the government has thought through," Pinn said.

Dalrymple has been to see a lawyer already and there are no laws in marriage that define sexual preference.

'STAY OUT OF THE BEDROOMS'

They want to shed light on the widespread financial implications of the new legislation and are willing to take it all the way.

There are obvious tax benefits to marriage, they said, but insisted they don't want their nuptials to insult gays and lesbians.

"I disagree with the government getting involved with what people should and shouldn't do," Dalrymple said. "Stay out of the bedrooms."

Words of warning came from Toronto lawyer Bruce Walker, a gay and lesbian rights activist.

"Generally speaking, marriage should be for love," he said. "People who don't marry for love will find themselves in trouble."

Walker isn't personally insulted by the planned Pinn-Dalrymple union because he believes in personal freedoms and rights.

"If someone wants to do something foolish, let them do it," he said.

As for wedding plans, Pinn and Dalrymple haven't set a date.




LINK




We all knew it was comming, I mean guys have ben doing this for years to get out of the military......This is funny.

Complete and utter crap.....its Canada now, US tommorow

They make an outstanding point, and one that goes far beyond the realm of same sex marriages actually. The question here is, what is a tax break for married couples designed to accomplish?
What about these two not being in love has any fiscal implications whatsoever?

My angle is that the tax break is obviously intended to enable families to afford a home and an environment suitable for raising children. This means that if a couple cannot, or does not intend to reproduce or adopt, they should not get the tax break.

There is a huge hole in the tax law that needs to be fixed here. The answer, in my opinion, is that any and all marital tax breaks should be suspended for a couple that does not reproduce or adopt in the first 10 years of their union, or before they have each reached the age of 35- whichever comes first.

As far as I'm concerned, a homosexual's right to adopt is equal to or greater than that of a single person (if the lack of a parent of one gender or the other is acceptable for one reason, than it is equally acceptable for another reason). Of course on a footnote to that, a person who intends to expose a child to inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature should not be allowed to adopt regardless of their gender preference, so I would expect homosexual parents to keep it in the bedroom and not extensively expose a child to sex in whatever form. Afterall "training" a child to be a homosexual when that may not be the decision they would make for themselves is no more moral than trying to force a young person who has chosen homosexuality to be straight.


Long story short, these guys are dead on- close the tax loopholes for those who don't need the break and stay out of the bedroom (but by all means be cautious, while not closed minded, about whose care children are placed under).

Originally posted by edsinger
Complete and utter crap.....its Canada now, US tommorow

Yeah, like there's never been a loveless, sexless "straight" domestic partnership before?

Why not be outraged at Stephen Hawking's marriage? My GOD! He can't even have sex! This is complete and utter crap!

I can't imagine caring what two people that have nothing to do with me do, but then I actually support freedom.

We could save everyone the trouble of even bothering with this issue at all if we simply eliminated income tax.

This is a stupid subject, and shouldn't even be in the public arena.

It's not a legit marriage until consecrated, with one of the old lady grandma's in a babushka coming in the next morning & checking for blood on the sheets!

Originally posted by Bout Time
It's not a legit marriage until consecrated, with one of the old lady grandma's in a babushka coming in the next morning & checking for blood on the sheets!

Old school? Let's go neo-school. An itty bitty sheet sniffing committee led by Ed can get a big fat federal grant from Faith Based Community Initiatives to go around checking assholes for the proper post coital dialtion to make sure Jesus approves of the tax break.

As much as I hate paying taxes, I'm not sure Jethro's idea is perfect. I've sort of grown accustomed to driving on roads and things like that (I also got rather accustomed to being paid to build roads).
They can let me stop paying for the Social Security I know I'll never collect anytime they please, and they can certainly feel free to stop paying detectives who couldn't detect my right foot till it was half way through their lower intestine, not even to mention homeland security... but totally eliminating taxes seems a tad overboard. Only a tad.

Having Ed inspect people's butt is WAY overboard. I think Ed will bear me out on that.

I hate to gloat guys, but my idea is the best one here so far.


Edit to add: if that foot in the intestine thing begs for context, allow me to provide it. The performance of one Indio Police Department relating to a certain murder investigation in which I am keenly interested is seriously encouraging me to simply walk into their station wearing steel toe boots three sizes too large for my size 13 feet, and proclaim "The Beatings Will Now Begin!".

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

Originally posted by RANTWhy not be outraged at Stephen Hawking's marriage? My GOD! He can't even have sex! This is complete and utter crap!

.

Once again RANT, it happens as rare as it is.....I agree with you!

Originally posted by Bout TimeIt's not a legit marriage until consecrated, with one of the old lady grandma's in a babushka coming in the next morning & checking for blood on the sheets!

Thats funny, even if it misses the point.

Originally posted by RANT Old school? Let's go neo-school. An itty bitty sheet sniffing committee led by Ed can get a big fat federal grant from Faith Based Community Initiatives to go around checking assholes for the proper post coital dialtion to make sure Jesus approves of the tax break.

Was that really necessary? I am surprised but I guess that would be a better job than sucking farts from old trucks seats huh?




[edit on 8-8-2005 by edsinger]

Vagabond

You seem to be of the impression that states get vast somes of money from the Federal government for things like schools and roads. This is not true. In fact, the Federal government really only contributes about 7% to school budgets (which can easily be taken at the state or local level at a much more cost effective, or at least more transparent way).

As to the government, income tax is only about 50% of the government's take.

What do you think would happen, if over some period of time, 100 million people got to take home 30% or more each month.

It would what made this country strong and allowed people to take care of themselves and their neighbors for the bulk of our history.

Income tax was started in 1913, and was vastly lower than it stands today.

But that was in 1913 my friend. There are things that can and should be cut and I grant you that, but infrastructure aint what it used to be. Nuclear facilities and security for them. Military defense. Grant programs to encourage business. Inspection of food, drugs, and other products for safety. etc etc etc. I'm sure that if somebody had the party discipline and the cajones we could reorganize our government and probably reduce income tax considerably- for all i know cut it in half, who knows. We do have to realize however that in the modern age planning and cooperation is far more necessary than it was in 1913 and the federal government needs funding. Frankly I'd like to see caps on state income taxes and have certain aspects of state budget coming out of an allotment from the federal level. Although I dislike that sort of centralization I believe that it would eliminate redundancies and reduce the tax burden in the long run.

(and I was well aware that most of the education budget comes from the state- via income taxes once again, especially here in California- nobody stipulated -federal- income tax as the topic of discussion)

Vagabond: From my understanding, the a huge portion of military spending is generally unneeded for the simply fact that when push comes to shove, boots on the ground are huge to winning a war.

Do we need to be high tech? Not in particular, although some is nice. We sure don't need much of what we have, and we need a lot more of others.

The military consitutes about 50% of our budget not including the war, which is roughly equal to the amount of money the entire planet Earth (barring the US) spends on military combined.

That is what's considered rediculous, especially with the limited troops we have.

Additionally, social programs are unneeded and unAmerican generally and should be systematically removed over time (so as not to shock the system) coupled with income tax reduction.

While I understand that the world and this country aren't the same, humans are and they can survive and prosper now as well as then under conditions that don't burn you for dipping your hand in the waters of business.

This would not be overnight, but truth that this country will go down before someone has the balls to DO something proper in this country.

As far as the tax issue goes I'm all for dropping the income tax and having a straight federal sales tax. I know there's constitutionality issues with that, but I think most people would support paying a penny or two on the dollar extra fro their purchases versus 20% of their paycheck. Skips past all the loopholes inherent in tax forms, as well as forces those with less-than-legitimate business practices to contribute their fair share to the finances of this country. Even drug dealers need toilet paper, whether they claim the money they make or not.

In regards to the original topic, I see absolutely no problem with that at all. A lot of straight male/female marriages are almost strictly for financial purposes. I don't care what Anna-Nicole says; if that guy hadn't been a billionaire she wouldn't have given him the time of day. You stay in it for the money, you find "love" on the side. And financial reasons aside, how many married couples have you met in your life who obviously weren't in love with each other any more, but stayed together "for the kids" or some other, similar reason? Maybe I'm just cynical, but I find more often than not love and marriage really don't have to be part of the same package.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Vagabond: From my understanding, the a huge portion of military spending is generally unneeded for the simply fact that when push comes to shove, boots on the ground are huge to winning a war. Do we need to be high tech? Not in particular, although some is nice. We sure don't need much of what we have, and we need a lot more of others.

While the military has had quite a few projects blow up in its face (even without them knowing it- Styrker is a perfect exampe), and has a bad habit of wanting to go in every direction at one time, a good portion of our military spending is perfectly legit.
The boots never get on the ground if you can't ensure naval superiority, and in today's world that means air superiority at sea.
They don't stay on the ground long if you can't fight a numerically superior force with a relatively small force of your own- there's where all of those multi million dollar vehicles come in- mobility equals control of tempo and the ability to hit them where they aren't.
Can't stay mobile if the enemy blows up your fuel- hence all the high tech air defense equipment.
Then consider the speed and firepower of modern armies. Wars can be over in as little as six days, hence the enormous logistical infrastructure. Expensive, not very flashy, but vitally necessary and quite possibly the cornerstone of American power.
Then there's deterrence. VERY expensive, especially considering that we'll probably (hopefully) never use it, but again, necessary.
You can only streamline R&D so much, at the end of the day, we have to keep moving forward. We're probably 1 or 2 generations ahead of most of the world, (keeping in mind that stuff built in the 70s was only made public in the 90s) and people know it. That keeps us out of wars. Conventional deterrence.
Last but not least, you actually have to fill the boots, because a pile of boots on the ground with nobody in them won't even scare the French. Every squad of infantry is a million dollar plus weapon system, and we definately can't get rid of them.

The military thing is really a crappy job, but we've got it, because we're at the top. We're holding most of the cards. We're the ones people are gunning for. We spend 3.7% of our GDP on the military, while the best armed of the Europeans (UK and France) spend 2.5% and the rest of Europe sticks closer to 1.5%. Japan spends 1%. But do you know WHY those nations can get away with that? Because on one level or another, they are our allies- they have things that we need, and they know we have to protect them. Otherwise, they'd be spending as much of their GDP as we do on defense.
Russia spends 2.75% and for that they get a Navy that can't even go to sea in peacetime without losing vessels. Russia is a case study in what happens to America's ability to defend interests abroad if we are forced to go too far in cutting costs in the military.

Additionally, social programs are unneeded and unAmerican generally and should be systematically removed over time (so as not to shock the system) coupled with income tax reduction.

I agree with you fully. Let's also not forget the illegal immigration problem which is driving down wages and thus driving down tax revenues as well as stagnating the economy, lining the pockets of corporate fat cats while poisoning the rest of the nation. Not to mention the enormous drain on social programs which they technically don't even have a right to.


I believe you and I would agree on more topics than we would disagree on, but military spending may not be one of them.
I believe in honest work for honest pay so that a man can make it on his own. I believe that a steady flow of wages down to the common man with a lighter tax burden created by cutting the least necessary and most disfunctional social programs means a steady flow of consumer spending back up to business. I believe this means more tax revenue at a lower tax rate. When kept under the proper controls by interest rates this means sustainable growth and a better future for everyone.
I get the sense that you might agree with me on that.
But I also believe that the above should be the primary means of decreasing the military budget: as a percentage of the total budget, not as a reduction in actual dollars spent and force sustained.

MCory

I'm not sure if you intended this or not, so I wanted to clear something up. I understand that you are for a national sales tax (which is a reasonable opinion), but I am not of that mind (in case you might have assumed I was).

I proposed we systematically remove the income tax system to be replaced by....


Nothing.

The military, and other proper Federal duties can be done on the government's other income.

As for who will deal with everything that they already do but is misconstrued by most everyone including the MSM? The States.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
As for who will deal with everything that they already do but is misconstrued by most everyone including the MSM? The States.

Who will hike their own income taxes to cover anything the Federal Government cuts off, especially in liberal states like California. Give California absolute control over its own budget and the name People's Republic of California will scarcely even be a joke anymore.

If you can massively slash the budget, or reorganize the budget to actually increase your income, you do the later, not the former. The massive cuts are too dramatic- they'll do a lot of damage.

They will do no lasting damage depending on the method employed. It's not accurate to say that it would cause damage because:

1) It hasn't been tried

2) Economists can't agree on what would happen

3) You would need to transition of course. No sane person would dump that kind of money on the market at one time, nor would they simply cut people's livelyhoods on a dime.

You have to look at the results of something like this, while keeping in mind the idea that it would be done over a series of years, perhaps 10.

Increased money in the marketplace:

-would reduce public and private debt
-vitalize small business
-increase health coverage and reduce cost due to increased risksharing
-improve job quality
-increase job quantity
-create new innovation and greatly inhance compitition

to name a few

In addition, there would have to be a number of other changes. These things do not happen in a bubble after all.

I would suggest a streamlining of business and small business code and regulations to drastically reduce red-tape while maintaining reasonable environmental constraints.

I would suggest removing big business from government, although I haven't lined down a solid idea on how to do that.

I would suggest eliminating Free Trade Treaties and increase tarriffs on imports while eliminating subsidies, grants, export restrictions and taxes, and forgien aid completely.

I would suggest we remove all social programs in the most balanced way possible along reasonably the same timeline as the tax reduction.

I would suggest the elimination of the Department of Energy and Education (although there are others who can be consolodated or removed)

I would suggest term limits for Congress and restore the State's right to choose Senators rather than it being elected by the people (as it was originally intended, a BALANCE of power).

There are so many reasons to refocus attention on the state rather than the Federal Government I barely have time to get into it.

I grant you practically all of your points. I simply think that there all of those benefits can be accomplished through safer, more moderate actions, especially without undermining the military strength which we depend upon to enforce stability in regions of vital interest to our economic growth.

It's not as if this is some new phenomenon in which America has lost its way. The same debate more or less has been going on since the Barbary Wars.

Does this really hurt anyone? HOW does it affect you, ed? How does it impact your marriage, if you're in one?

Who gives a sweet merciful crap what 2 old guys do? Just explain to me please why you care. If 2 guys want to get married so they can play chess in the hospital where one is dying, who gives a flying fig?

If you or anyone thinks denying 2 men the right to marry is going to cut down on homosexuality, you're wrong! They'll be just as many gay folk and they'll be doing just the same things they're doing now.

Next people will be marrying their pets (as they were doing in my NationStates country recently)...not a big deal if it's for tax purposes. If you want to take all meaning out of marriage, this is what you'll get. I'm not surprised...

You're missing the point Heretic. It's not about being against homosexuality. Even the guys who are making this big stir in the article were very clear that the government should stay out of the bedroom.

Think rationally for a second. Why would I give a second thought about which holes somebody likes to put things in (unless of course i found the idea intriguing- which i don't). That's not the point.

The tax break is the point. These two are exposing a rather glaring injustice in the tax code which is more urgent than ever to close because the laws in Canada at this time (permitting same sex marriage) partially remove one of the greatest barriers to marriages of financial convenience (that being the obvious uneasiness that comes from being in a sexually suggestive arrangement with somebody who you wouldn't mind having sex with, but whom you can't).

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?

The same thing applies in the civilian sector. If me and my roommate can get married, have no sexual tension between us because we're straight, and instantly and legally defraud the government of part of the tax money we rightfully owe, you know we're going to do it.

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.