my solution to the gay marriage argument

[Inso0]

Tax breaks for married people are so they can provide for their children.

If you're gay and want to commit yourself to another gay person for the rest of your life, that's fine... good for you. But you're not having any children and as such, shouldn't be tapping into a benefit designed for people who do.

As for the married people without children? I guess they're getting a break. But the government can't be bothered to make sure the people filing for tax refunds are even legal citizens, much less legal citizens with children... so I wouldnt expect the tax laws to change any time soon.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
Tax breaks for married people are so they can provide for their children.

If you're gay and want to commit yourself to another gay person for the rest of your life, that's fine... good for you. But you're not having any children and as such, shouldn't be tapping into a benefit designed for people who do.

As for the married people without children? I guess they're getting a break. But the government can't be bothered to make sure the people filing for tax refunds are even legal citizens, much less legal citizens with children... so I wouldnt expect the tax laws to change any time soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Living together is energy efficient and should be rewarded for all. And I'm sure married people get tax breaks in most countries even if they have no children.

And gay couples should be allowed to adopt on par with other couples and hence be able to raise children too. And they can already have children in other ways (surrogates or from previous relationships).

[adios]

I believe elwood posted a similar solution awhile back. Seems ok to me, haven't read the other posts yet.

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
Living together is energy efficient and should be rewarded for all.

[/ QUOTE ]

If 2 people living together is energy efficient, aren't they already rewarded by not have to spend as much on AC and heating?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If this happened, I would immediately become civilly united with some poor college student or homeless person so I could save a ton on my taxes. And so would every other single person.

[/ QUOTE ]

so what? it's unfair to reward married people and punish the people too ugly/miserable to find someone to marry. just abolish the tax benefits to marriage altogether then.

[/ QUOTE ]

Supporting a family of 2+ on a given income is different than supporting a single person on the same income. It makes perfect sense to take less tax from an income (or combined income) that supports at least 2 people than from the same income for one person.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why does the government give extra tax breaks to a family of 2+ then? It's already recognized in the tax system regarding what you said and yes I'm married.

[natedogg]

Why not get rid of marriage, unions, tax-breaks for cohabitation altogether?

natedogg

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Why not get rid of marriage, unions, tax-breaks for cohabitation altogether?

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be ok. How about regarding the resolution of community property issues? I suppose people could just enter into specific contracts with each other if they decide to share the same household and decide to act as a "team" in acquiring wealth and such.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Tax breaks for married people are so they can provide for their children.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what are tax breaks for dependents?

[ QUOTE ]
If you're gay and want to commit yourself to another gay person for the rest of your life, that's fine... good for you. But you're not having any children and as such, shouldn't be tapping into a benefit designed for people who do.[ QUOTE ]


Gay people can and do have children. And they get the dependent deduction.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the married people without children? I guess they're getting a break. But the government can't be bothered to make sure the people filing for tax refunds are even legal citizens, much less legal citizens with children... so I wouldnt expect the tax laws to change any time soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is so far off in the weeds it's hilarious. "Well, that's the law, so STFU!"

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Living together is energy efficient and should be rewarded for all.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's efficient, aren't they saving money already?

EDIT: OH NOES MY PONY TOO SLOW

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Living together is energy efficient and should be rewarded for all.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's efficient, aren't they saving money already?

EDIT: OH NOES MY PONY TOO SLOW

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that point isn't dreadfully important to me either way. My main point was that the other poster seemed to think gay couples are unable to raise children, which ofcourse isn't true.