- Joined
- Sep 23, 2011
- Messages
- 11,273
- Reaction score
- 5,733
- Location
- On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Don't you think that you are projecting your own biases?
The question to me has to do with why does the government care what your personal living arrangements are, or what your sexual persuasions are, and why should the government give out special benefits on the bases of those living arrangements/sexualities?
What possible concern does government have in this and why?
Perhaps it is only coming up now because it is so clear now how biased these government benefits are. The LGBT community is right-it is discriminatory to give these special benefits to some but simply giving them to a few percent more people doesn't make it less discriminatory. Many people today are single for life, by choice, by lack of opportunity, or by discriminatory laws that don't allow one to marry a sibling or other relative (platonically or not). Where do they go for relief from discrimination?
Your grasp of basic logic continues to astound me. Yes, that is exactly what I am saying: single people should pay higher taxes in order to encourage them to get married.
Try not to swallow your tongue while composing your reply.
I guess you aren't voting for any of the Democratic candidates, considering they're all older than this "geriatric". Or do you just suffer from acute bigotry against old Republican people?
Sorry, an adult human being doesn't need an allowance, allowances are for children.
Yes, someone who left the job market and gets a divorce should have to get a job to support themselves, of course.
Cant all that just be recorded in the courts, by magistrates, etc anyway? Stamped by a notary...boom! So noted. And now your kid can inherit your stuff, visit you in the hospital, be recognized legitimately in custody hearings, etc?
Marriage is the foundation of civilized society and government has a compelling interest in encouraging it.
Allowance? I don't think so. What this would be is compensation to one party by another for an economic harm done to one because a decision that was jointly made that benefitted both.
Sure it could but that still involves the government. And really isn't a whole lot different from what happens now.
Your grasp of basic logic continues to astound me. Yes, that is exactly what I am saying: single people should pay higher taxes in order to encourage them to get married.
Try not to swallow your tongue while composing your reply.
Actually, I've been saying this for years. Civil marriage is ridiculous and should have no place in society.
My reasoning is different though..... I'm a single guy, and I pay taxes. If I were a married guy, I would pay less taxes. That, to me, isn't fair... and for that reason and that reason alone, I don't believe the government (especially the IRS) should be involved in marriage
Oh geez. There is no reason to pay her for staying home. If however you agreed to pay her to stay at home I suppose you have an obligation to do so.
I suffer from bigotry towards whiny people.
Cant all that just be recorded in the courts, by magistrates, etc anyway? Stamped by a notary...boom! So noted. And now your kid can inherit your stuff, visit you in the hospital, be recognized legitimately in custody hearings, etc?
People who say "Where's the poll?" within the first 10 minutes of a poll thread being created should be permanently banned.Where's the poll?
Your grasp of basic logic continues to astound me. Yes, that is exactly what I am saying: single people should pay higher taxes in order to encourage them to get married.
Try not to swallow your tongue while composing your reply.
Allowance? I don't think so. What this would be is compensation to one party by another for an economic harm done to one because a decision that was jointly made that benefitted both.
The civil institution of marriage is not only "tax breaks."
I still believe in child support. I don't believe in alimony. And Martin Luther was alive hundreds of years ago, times have clearly changed.
Alimony harkens back to a day when women couldn't work or take care of themselves. A divorced woman would move back in with her father. Today.... a woman is capable of taking care of herself just as a man is, so there is no reason for archaic and ancient civil marriage contracts
So a woman is compensated for not working....welcome to 2015 lol
It is, via the marriage license or the birth certificate or the adoption record.
Why is this so damnably hard to understand?
The woman is compensated because of lost economic opportunity because she left the workforce and worked in the home. In the NYC market a woman technologist making $100,000/yr can expect that salary to go up by 50%, at least, in 20 years. She leaves the workforce to raise kids, kids grow up and she and her husband get divorced. She is not getting a 150K job. She may not even be employable in her field. Hell she may wind up as a cashier someplace. That's due to a decision that was, presumably, jointly made by her and her husband. You don't believe her former husband owes her anything to make up in part for the money she cannot earn because she was out of the market raising their kids?
And I'd point out anyone who suggests raising kids and taking care of home is not "working" is naive at best. I assume you don't have kids so you may not actually realize this.
So a woman is compensated for not working....welcome to 2015 lol
Why is this so damnably hard to understand?
The woman is compensated because of lost economic opportunity because she left the workforce and worked in the home. In the NYC market a woman technologist making $100,000/yr can expect that salary to go up by 50%, at least, in 20 years. She leaves the workforce to raise kids, kids grow up and she and her husband get divorced. She is not getting a 150K job. She may not even be employable in her field. Hell she may wind up as a cashier someplace. That's due to a decision that was, presumably, jointly made by her and her husband. You don't believe her former husband owes her anything to make up in part for the money she cannot earn because she was out of the market raising their kids?
And I'd point out anyone who suggests raising kids and taking care of home is not "working" is naive at best. I assume you don't have kids so you may not actually realize this.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?