gbaji wrote:
Let's get away from "taxes", and use a more broad "total costs levied as a result of government intervention". If government regulations require me to pay more for health benefits than someone else, that's a "cost", but not a "tax", so let's not get stuck with narrow language.
Translation:
D'oh! I've been making my argument all about taxes and now someone has called me on it! Time to start tap-dancing! Quote:
They are paying more so that the married couple can pay less.
Wrong. They're paying more because the overhead of maintaining two separate insurance policies is higher than the overhead of maintaining a single policy covering multiple people, and because that overhead is inflated by the insurance company to pad their profits.
Regardless of those factors, however, the fact is that until I called you on it your argument was ALL ABOUT TAXES and how married couples get tax benefits to help create security for the rearing of children. Now suddenly it's about incidentals that kinda-sorta relate to the government.
Quote:
Additionally, most health care plans involve two portions. The portion actually paid by the employee and that paid by the employer. Here's the thing though. Both portions come out of a broad "payroll" budget. Thus, it's coming out of the pool of money that would otherwise go to pay people's salaries. So while the married employee pays more for his coverage to include his spouse, it's not double *and* it's matched by funds drawn from this general pool. A single guy doesn't get paid more because he's drawing less from this pool. He's lost the opportunity to get a share of that fund in the form of income, but gained nothing. Well. He gained something, but not as much per dollar lost as the guy who's married. Hopefully, that makes sense.
ROFL!!!! Oh come on, you cannot actually be serious! So all these single employees would just get a raise if the employer didn't have to pay for healthcare benefits? Please. No one can be that naive.
Quote:
Two single people will collectively pay more into their pension plans in relation to what they draw than two two married people. That's because the pension must cover all payouts drawn from it, but if the single guy dies, the pension stops, while if the married guy dies and he's got a surviving spouse, that spouse gets to continue receiving the pension. Same deal with military spouses if their spouse dies. Same deal with social security benefits.
If this is true, show me the numbers. It's a simple enough request. Show me the actual material impact of there being (let's go with my former estimate) 1.5% more married couples (not all of whom will be covered by health insurance or pension plans due to any number of factors) or 0.75% more child-rearing couples.
Your problem, Gbaji, is that you're trying to deny people equality based upon an unquantifiable hypothetical situation.
Quote:
Quote:
How much of your tax money ACTUALLY benefits other married couples? What the actual percentage?
Who cares? So if I'm only stealing a dollar out of your wallet, it's not theft and you have no right to complain? The idea that we shouldn't worry about paying for benefits because each individual benefit is just a tiny amount from each of us is a pretty bad reasoning. They all add up. They only don't add up if people are consistent about opposing each and every new thing. This is just one of them.
You have yet to demonstrate ANY material impact whatsoever to allowing gay marriage. You hypothesize, but nothing more.
It's like demanding an employee be arrested because he MIGHT embezzle from your company.
Arrest this man! He's going to embezzle from my company.
He's taken money from you?
No, but he will! All the signs are there.
Have you actually lost anything?
No, but I'm pretty sure I will.
I can't lock someone away and deny them their rights unless you can show they've actually stolen from you.
Actually, on second thought, that tracks. I forgot, you're all in favor of denying people liberties based upon what they MIGHT do.
Quote:
If there's so little impact, then no one should complain if we don't provide just those financial things to gay couples who marry.
Because the issue at stake here is equality. Can you not see how telling a gay couple "okay, you can call yourselves 'married' but if one of you dies prematurely, the remaining spouse gets fu
ck-all, too bad" is STILL sending the message that SOME unions are legitimate and some are not?
Quote:
I already went down this line of logic with Smash (in a different, but fairly recent thread). I proposed that we change the qualifications for the legal status of "married" to include gay couples, but then go through our legal code and change the qualifications for just a small set of financial benefits to "married couples consisting of one male and one female". I limited this to only shared social security benefits, survivor pensions, survivor military payments, employee mandated health coverage (just for the spouse, children aren't affected), filing under the "married" tax columns, and government funded loan programs for first time married home-owners.
So much for your claim that it's all about the kids. If it were really all about the kids, then you wouldn't be creating yet ANOTHER "separate yet equal" fallacy wherein the surviving parent of a child--be that child adopted, produced via surrogacy or insemination, or naturally born--would be left with less support with which to provide for that child than would a heterosexual widow/er.
Quote:
That's it. My proposal gives gay couples every single thing that everyone says is all they want. Yet, when I proposed this, I still got a "but that's discrimination!" response.
Duh, because it is, sh
it-for-brains.
Quote:
It somewhat erodes your argument that these are insignificant benefits when they're selectively insignificant based on who's paying for them and who's getting them, don't you think?
I said they are MATERIALLY insignificant. That in no way diminishes the fact that they are part of the whole package that says a gay couple's marriage and family unit is every bit as valid and worthy of recognition as a het couple's is.
