Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Vermont Legislature Legalizes Gay MarriageFollow

#102REDACTED, Posted: Apr 09 2009 at 12:05 PM, Rating: Unrated, (Expand Post) Ash,
#103 Apr 09 2009 at 12:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
hangtennow wrote:
Tulip,

Quote:
Can you see why my idea of morality shouldn't be made into a law, maybe?


That's the thing, it's not my idea. It's based on the religion which was a big part of the constitution that tells us what is and isn't acceptable behaviour for a civilized society.

And here we come to the biggest problem with Conservatism in any form: YOU DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, HAVE TO BASE ANYTHING YOU DO ON WHAT PEOPLE DECIDED WAS RIGHT IN THE PAST.

Times change, pal. Live with it.
#104 Apr 09 2009 at 12:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
hangtennow wrote:
Ash,

I have a problem with immorality. Something that obviously doesn't bother you. But then again you're probably a card carrying member of NAMBLA.

I look a hell of a lot like Marlon Brando. Smiley: nod
#105 Apr 09 2009 at 12:06 PM Rating: Good
hangtennow wrote:
Tulip,

Quote:
Can you see why my idea of morality shouldn't be made into a law, maybe?


That's the thing, it's not my idea. It's based on the religion which was a big part of the constitution that tells us what is and isn't acceptable behaviour for a civilized society.


The religion has nothing to do with our consitution.

That, however, is a fruitless argument, as you are too ignorant to understand that basic concept.
#106 Apr 09 2009 at 12:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:

A: taxes have @#%^-all to do with gay marriage.


Taxes have everything to do with gay-marriage. More correctly, it's all the benefits marriage grants which someone else has to pay for. Taxes are just one aspect of this.

While there are certainly people (Varus presumably included) who just plain despise the idea that man on man love is going on somewhere, this is *not* about taking away the rights of people to engage in homosexuality. The issue of making homosexuality illegal is not what's being discussed.

Do you actually think that opposition to changing laws to allow gay marriage is because people care about whether two men or two women are living together and having sex? Really? Cause that's pretty darn silly given that they can already do that. The issue is entirely about the rest of society being required to subsidize the relationship.

So yeah. It is about taxes. Single people pay more taxes on average than married people. And it's not a tiny percent, either. I'd probably save 10-15% of my taxes if every single married person was required to apply the same tax table that I have to use, so let's not pretend this is a small amount of money. Certainly, it's relevant for "the people" to have a say as to who gets that benefit (along with a host of others). I know we've had this debate many times, but it would be nice if just once someone on the pro-gay-marriage side would acknowledge that by being allowed to legally marry, gay couples would get to use the married tax columns. This is not opinion. It's fact.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#107 Apr 09 2009 at 12:22 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
gbaji wrote:
Do you actually think that opposition to changing laws to allow gay marriage is because people care about whether two men or two women are living together and having sex? ... So yeah. It is about taxes.
So you're admitting to basing your suppression of someone else's happiness on saving a few nickels on your tax statement? Cuz that's pretty goddamn sad.

Edited, Apr 9th 2009 3:24pm by AshOnMyTomatoes
#108 Apr 09 2009 at 12:27 PM Rating: Good
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Do you actually think that opposition to changing laws to allow gay marriage is because people care about whether two men or two women are living together and having sex? ... So yeah. It is about taxes.
So you're admitting to basing your suppression of someone else's happiness on saving a few nickels on your tax statement? Cuz that's pretty goddamn sad.

Edited, Apr 9th 2009 3:24pm by AshOnMyTomatoes


Know what makes it even worse?

The people he's opposed to spending his tax dollars on happen to be paying in taxes that are spent on heterosexual marriages. I.e.: Gbaji, if he gets married.
#109 Apr 09 2009 at 12:29 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Do you actually think that opposition to changing laws to allow gay marriage is because people care about whether two men or two women are living together and having sex? ... So yeah. It is about taxes.
So you're admitting to basing your suppression of someone else's happiness on saving a few nickels on your tax statement? Cuz that's pretty goddamn sad.

Edited, Apr 9th 2009 3:24pm by AshOnMyTomatoes


Know what makes it even worse?

The people he's opposed to spending his tax dollars on happen to be paying in taxes that are spent on heterosexual marriages. I.e.: Gbaji, if he gets married.
Know what makes it worse still? He's already encouraged all those homosexuals to get married the "right" way in the past. If they did so, the same amount of people would be married, and the taxes would be the same as if all the gays were married to other gays.

So yeah. It's a load of *********
#110 Apr 09 2009 at 12:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I'd probably save 10-15% of my taxes if every single married person was required to apply the same tax table that I have to use, so let's not pretend this is a small amount of money.
I have no idea if this ius true or not but the obvious solution is for you to get married. Duh.
Quote:
it would be nice if just once someone on the pro-gay-marriage side would acknowledge that by being allowed to legally marry, gay couples would get to use the married tax columns.
Sure. And I think they should be using those columns if they're married. That's, you know, part of being married.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#111 Apr 09 2009 at 12:39 PM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
it would be nice if just once someone on the pro-gay-marriage side would acknowledge that by being allowed to legally marry, gay couples would get to use the married tax columns.
Sure. And I think they should be using those columns if they're married. That's, you know, part of being married.


Hell, two for one. I'll acknowledge it, too. Seems like common sense to me... not sure why it's a big deal to acknowledge it.

Smiley: looney
#112 Apr 09 2009 at 12:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Ironically, I just looked and I think I'm getting hit with a marriage penalty on my taxes versus my filings from my single days.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#113 Apr 09 2009 at 12:49 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji wrote:
Taxes have everything to do with gay-marriage. More correctly, it's all the benefits marriage grants which someone else has to pay for. Taxes are just one aspect of this.

[...]

So yeah. It is about taxes.


No it's not.

If the issue here was money saved from Married people V. Singles, why the hell allow it in the first place? (I know what you're going to say, don't even bring up the "incentive" to have children, straight couples and taxes. That sh*t is weak and old) Because as I recall, I don't see churches, parent groups of "morality" and your base nutjob declaring that all marraige is wrong, just gay marraige.

It's a morality issue condoned and backed up by religion. It's weak and tiresome. When you declare that all marraige is wrong based on money, fine, you'll have an argument on your side that I'll agree on but let's not pretend that's why gay marraige is such a hot topic.

Screenshot


Edited, Apr 9th 2009 4:06pm by Kaelesh
#114 Apr 09 2009 at 12:50 PM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
Ironically, I just looked and I think I'm getting hit with a marriage penalty on my taxes versus my filings from my single days.


The guy who did our taxes year before last told us that, as far as taxes go, it would behoove my husband and I to get a divorce and just live together and file seperately. Smiley: nod
#115REDACTED, Posted: Apr 09 2009 at 1:09 PM, Rating: Unrated, (Expand Post) Tulip,
#116REDACTED, Posted: Apr 09 2009 at 1:11 PM, Rating: Unrated, (Expand Post) Kael,
#117 Apr 09 2009 at 1:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm thinking we cut the difference and institute a morality tax.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#118 Apr 09 2009 at 1:18 PM Rating: Good
hangtennow wrote:
Well except our constitution being based in judeo/christian concepts of ethics and morality.


Do you know anything about The Constitution of the United States of America? There is nothing in there to even suggest such a thing. Except for the little diddy about no religious testing required to serve the United States Gov.

Ya know, for someone who spouts off like he's a Constitutionalist, you sure do have a mixed sense of what that document actually says.

Edited, Apr 9th 2009 4:23pm by Kaelesh
#119 Apr 09 2009 at 1:19 PM Rating: Good
hangtennow wrote:
People disagree with homosexual marriage for a number of reasons. Some for taxes some based on morality.


Both equally none of their business.
#120 Apr 09 2009 at 1:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Ironically, I just looked and I think I'm getting hit with a marriage penalty on my taxes versus my filings from my single days.


There is no such thing as a marriage tax penalty, unless one or both (typically both) of you have a low enough income to qualify for a sufficiently large EITC.

The "married filling jointly" column simply doubles the width of each bracket. So it'll look kinda like this:

 
tax_rate          single        married/jointly 
5%                10k           20k 
10%               25k           50k 
20%               50k           100k 
30%               75k           150k 
40%               100k          200k 


While the total taxable income may increase, the total taxes paid on your two salaries collectively is always going to be either equal to or less than that which you'd collectively have paid if you'd been single. Always (except for EITC, which doesn't take into account marriage status).


Aside from two very poor people (and there's a whole debate over that all by itself), any two people will typically gain significant tax benefits when they marry. Interestingly enough, that gain is in direct proportion to the degree of gap in their salaries. If two people with exact equal salaries marry, the resulting tax will be exactly the same as they'd have paid if they weren't married. But if two people with different salaries marry, they collectively gain a savings. The higher paid person is paying effectively half as much taxes on the money, but the lower paid person's salary doesn't bring the total up enough to double the money and therefore equalize the equation.

In a case where one person works and the other is unemployed, the working person's taxes will in most cases be exactly half as much as they'd have been as a single person. This is kinda relevant, right? If I'm shacked up with someone and supporting them financially as a single person, I pay X taxes. If I marry that person and support them, I pay .5X taxes.

There is an overwhelming tax benefit to marrying for most people.


Edited, Apr 9th 2009 2:27pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#121 Apr 09 2009 at 1:30 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kaelesh wrote:
hangtennow wrote:
People disagree with homosexual marriage for a number of reasons. Some for taxes some based on morality.


Both equally none of their business.


When I'm the one picking up the tab? Absolutely, it's my business.

I'm ok with paying a higher rate of taxes so that opposite-sex couples who marry may gain the benefits of a lower tax rate. I am *not* ok with paying a higher rate of taxes so that same-sex couples who marry may gain lower rates.

What part of that is not my business? Disagree if you want, but don't try to argue that I have no reason to care, or aren't affected by the outcome.

Edited, Apr 9th 2009 2:34pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#122 Apr 09 2009 at 1:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Hell, two for one. I'll acknowledge it, too. Seems like common sense to me... not sure why it's a big deal to acknowledge it.


Dunno.. Maybe because I was responding to a post claiming that it had nothing to do with taxes?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#123 Apr 09 2009 at 1:43 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji wrote:
When I'm the one picking up the tab? Absolutely, it's my business.

I'm ok with paying a higher rate of taxes so that opposite-sex couples who marry may gain the benefits of a lower tax rate. I am *not* ok with paying a higher rate of taxes so that same-sex couples who marry may gain lower rates.

What part of that is not my business? Disagree if you want, but don't try to argue that I have no reason to care, or aren't affected by the outcome.


Fine, fine. You've got your reason. It's just archaic, short-sighted and homophobic.
#124 Apr 09 2009 at 1:48 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

What part of that is not my business? Disagree if you want, but don't try to argue that I have no reason to care, or aren't affected by the outcome.


There is no tax benefit to being married. There are structural changes that might benefit people in very particular situations, a wide income disparity between partners for instance, but from a demographic standpoint, if the gay people getting married are representative of the rest of the gay population, there will be no tax gain to them being married.

So, nope, doesn't effect you *at all*. You can stop posting about it now. See how easy that was to ascertain when you're not a drooling simpleton?



____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#125 Apr 09 2009 at 1:50 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
There's no way the world could actually have produced someone as stupid and bigoted as varrus. He's such a @#%^ing caricature.

Then stop replying!!

#126REDACTED, Posted: Apr 09 2009 at 1:57 PM, Rating: Unrated, (Expand Post) Kael,
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 122 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (122)