|
| Thread: Legal and Financial Benefits of Marriage Should be Removed |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · NEXT» |
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
posted September 18, 2009 04:23 PM |
|
|
Legal and Financial Benefits of Marriage Should be Removed
In our modern world, why does the government give it's blessing to couples who marry? It's a social/religous obligation but why are those who choose to get married awarded special legal rights, tax breaks, etc? In the US at least, most participants in a marriage hold jobs and contribute to the household income. The original point of the financial benefits of marriage were to ease the burden on the man who was supporting two individuals as opposed to one. Now however, the woman is contributing funds and the tax breaks are not necessary.
Not only would this completely REMOVE the gay marriage war (marriages and civil unions would be exactly the same legally, so homosexuals would be placed in the exact same pool as heterosexuals in the gov't's eyes) but it would push our country further towards the founding fathers' constitutional ideal by furthering the divide between church and state (marriage is a religious act in the United States as it is defined based upon it's biblical definition). The United States condoning and supporting a religious act is unconstitutional and the benefits are completely unnecessary now. I do defend CERTAIN legal rights involved in marriage but ONLY when they are supported by pre-existing precedent such as spousal privilege being supported by your right to privacy, things you say in the confines of your own home to your wife or husband who is the person you are the closest to in the world (hopefully) should be protected. Financial benefits and most other legal benefits however need to go. We've been on this road for a while, men used to have Master/slave level rights in regards to their wives merely a century or two ago so I feel we can continue to make marriage a completely optional and ceremonial act by removing the legal and financial benefits that turn it into an obligation
disclaimer: i still believe in tax breaks for having/adopting/fostering children because the child does not contribute to the collective household income for approximately 16 years
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 18, 2009 04:50 PM |
|
|
I would like to agree with you, but I can't. Marriage provides a societal externality - stability - so it should be slightly rewarded.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted September 18, 2009 08:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I would like to agree with you, but I can't.
quoted for truth.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 18, 2009 08:45 PM |
|
|
Nah, marriage is good for society but feel free to lobby for your ideas. What is not good for society is women pumping out kids on the taxpayer dime instead of Mommy and Daddy supporting the kids.
If a woman can't name the father the children should be taken from her (unless she was raped) if she can't support them. If she names the father the father and she should be responsible for taking care of the children.
Children need both a mother and a father. Yes, they can survive without both but they need both in the home. The government should encourage the nuclear family to stay together, not implement policies that would harm it.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 18, 2009 09:09 PM |
|
|
I don't know how it's done in other countries. Angelito recently made a thread about taxes in different countries but nobody seemed interested enough to post in it.
Anyway, the tax benefits of being married in the US is a myth. As a matter of fact, it's just the opposite. Not so long ago everyone was complaining about the "marriage penalty". I've know multiple couples who just lived together rather than getting married just because their taxes would have increased if they married.
As far as taxes, the IRS (the US agency that collects taxes) is not "for" or "against" marriage either one, it merely recognizes it. Marriage is something that already exists and that institution is recognized in the tax codes.
A married couple has the option of pooling their money. When a married couple does this, some of the things they jointly do with their money have tax consequences. For example buying a house or raising kids. If the couple is pooling their money, it would be difficult to separate it for tax purposes. When both are jointly paying for the house, or paying for the kids, how do you split the expenses for tax purposes? The IRS simply recognizes this situation and made some very minor adjustments in the way taxes are filed to accommodate it. It's simply a convenience for a lot of people.
For the large majority of couples, the difference in the tax itself will be VERY small. For various reasons, such as gay marriage that was already mentioned, this marriage/tax issue is blown WAY out of proportion for some sort of political gain. When in reality, for most people it would make little difference. I repeat, the IRS simply recognizes something that already exists and allows for a special type of filing that's more for convenience than anything else.
The tax code also gives the option of filing jointly, as above, or filing separately, as if they were not even married. Not all married couples pool their money, and there could be other reasons why they don't want to file jointly. So yes, there are some special cases when it WILL make a difference, but for your average couple it will not.
As for other legal and financial benefits of being married, like what?
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted September 18, 2009 09:21 PM |
|
|
I basically agree with the OP on everything, except somewhat for his argument with maintaining a separation between church and state. Marriage is a broad term under the eye of the U.S. law that extends beyond it's function in a specific religion. It doesn't matter if you're Christian, atheist, Muslim, Hindu, etc., you still receive the same benefits if you're married and you have X amount of kids. So to the government, it's a social contract.
Like you said, I think it's reasonable enough to give tax benefits for couples with kids, but for childless couples, there's really no need for it. Mvass mentioned that it encourages stability in society, but that's mostly important for when you're raising kids. If two childless adults break up and go their separate ways, although they may harm themselves, they're mature adults and life will go on. If a couple with a kid break up, little Jimmy is likely to get tossed around between the two and grow up emotionally broken. So a financial incentive to stay together and let the kid grow up in a sane atmosphere is good (although I'm skeptical if financial incentives do any good here).
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 18, 2009 09:23 PM |
|
|
The main financial benefit afforded by the government to married couples has nothing to do with taxes. It has to do with the consequences of divorce or death (inheritance).
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 18, 2009 11:33 PM |
|
|
blizzardboy:
Marriage adds stability to childless couples as well (although, of course, it isn't as socially important in that case).
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted September 18, 2009 11:48 PM |
|
|
You see this is one of the few areas where I doubt a financial incentive will do any good, or if so, very rarely. If a couple is fed up with each other and want a divorce, a small financial motive isn't going to keep them glued together imo. Being pissed at your partner is a powerful cosmic force that throttles the stars. Divorce rates are going to stay high until the superstitious Western mindset of 'romance' gets buried in the history books where it belongs. It's a cultural problem that is reinforced through mainstream entertainment.
Some places in the world with alarmingly low birthrates are juicing up the benefits to having kids, and I'd be okay with that. Money might not be able to keep people together, but it can help dispel their fears of having kids and remaining financially comfortable.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 18, 2009 11:50 PM |
|
|
@Aquaman333
As a person who believes the state only should take care of the freedom of the people, and the security of said freedom I can only agree with you, when you write that at least a part of the church should be seperated from the state (wheres I'd like that the church and the state had nothing to do with eachother at all).
For me, all those bonuses the state grants you when marriaged should be present for non-marriaged couples as well, not on marriage, but on what's relevant, the exact situation where such a bonus (help) is necessary.
I do actually think it's an act of oppression when the state requires will only give you certain bonuses given you apply to certain religions, as we do know of today, everyone are free to believe in what they want, and no one should get extra "bonuses" because they believe god is named Buddha and not Allah, or something like that.
Edit:
@Blizzardboy wrote
"It doesn't matter if you're Christian, atheist, Muslim, Hindu, etc., you still receive the same benefits if you're married and you have X amount of kids. So to the government, it's a social contract."
And what if you apply to no religion at all? The same benifits should at least still be present or it'll still be oppressing.
Oh and I still can't see what point there's in the state meddling in the business of religion, look at all the divorse cases, it's something I believe should never be something you could take to court etc., unless illegal stuff had happened.
Edit#2:
Quote:
If a woman can't name the father the children should be taken from her (unless she was raped) if she can't support them. If she names the father the father and she should be responsible for taking care of the children.
I completely disagree with this viewpoint. Let's go the opposite way first, you can't force anyone to take responsibility for a child, if they do not wish to do so, first of all it's not good for the child, secondly what're you going to do, give the person handcuffs on to the child? It's clearly not in the interest of the people.
Secondly if the woman can't support a child there's the following options:
A) The state takes the child (non positive for mother nor child) and the state pays to some institution to take care of the child.
B) The state in stead of paying the institution pays the mother so she can take care of the child, which both she and the child wants.
I'd choose B in any case, even if B should be more expensive than A.
Again it's all about the purpose of the government, it's about freedom and security of said freedom, if the state can't deliver that, the state has lost it purpose and we could just as well be living in an anarchy, where whomever controls the state would be the one with the power, but still an anarchy (as the state would not fullfill its purpose, but be more like a mafia).
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 19, 2009 12:23 AM |
|
|
blizzardboy:
That wasn't what I meant. Of course, a financial incentive won't be enough to keep a feuding couple together (unless it's ridiculously large, of course). But it may induce a couple into marrying - take care of a few financial problems, or something like that - and that would increase stability.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted September 19, 2009 12:40 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Edit:
@Blizzardboy wrote
"It doesn't matter if you're Christian, atheist, Muslim, Hindu, etc., you still receive the same benefits if you're married and you have X amount of kids. So to the government, it's a social contract."
Ohforfsake:
Quote:
And what if you apply to no religion at all? The same benifits should at least still be present or it'll still be oppressing.
Unless I'm severely mistaken, you get the same benefits regardless of your ideological beliefs. The state is apathetic and indifferent to such things.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 19, 2009 02:02 AM |
|
|
Quote:
secondly what're you going to do, give the person handcuffs on to the child?
oh come on, you just take money from the person and give it to support the child. Was that a serious question? 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 19, 2009 02:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Secondly if the woman can't support a child there's the following options:
A) The state takes the child (non positive for mother nor child) and the state pays to some institution to take care of the child.
B) The state in stead of paying the institution pays the mother so she can take care of the child, which both she and the child wants.
I'd choose B in any case, even if B should be more expensive than A.
So basically you think a woman should be able to live off the taxpayers as long as she is having kids. Sorry, I don't want to support her lifestyle.
If she wants to make a living by having sex let her make her living on the street as a prostitute.
Oh, removeing the child from such an environment would be a very positive thing for the child. The child should not grow up with an expectation that a government should pay women for having sex.
If she can't support the child and can't narrow down a list of possible men who were the father for a DNA test then she has no business raising the child.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 19, 2009 12:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
secondly what're you going to do, give the person handcuffs on to the child?
oh come on, you just take money from the person and give it to support the child. Was that a serious question?
I think it should be the choice for every parent if they want to support a child or not, because I say, in the long run, if the parent won't support the child, the family is better with no contact at all (no money, nothing), because if he pays, he can later claim custody, which is not healthy for the child, as it's up to the child to forgive, not to some courthouse. I've had this debate on another forum I think, but I can't remember it that well anymore, and not something I'm eager to go at again.
Quote:
[So basically you think a woman should be able to live off the taxpayers as long as she is having kids. Sorry, I don't want to support her lifestyle.
No that's not enough, I think anyone who can't support themselves should be supported by the society in general. Notice the difference of can't and won't also. The model is something I know works in other countries.
Secondly, why do you actually pay taxes? For your own good? In principle if you're wealthy you can probably get a lot more from not paying taxes, because you're wealthy enough to support yourself in all what's needed. Or are you paying because you're forced? If that's so why do you live in a country where you're being oppressed?
No to answer my own questions, the purpose of the state is to make certain we're free to seek out the possibilities we wish to and that we've security of this freedom. With "we", I mean the population, so the state solely exists for the sake of the population, for every single individual, likewise the person in question is an individual of the state and likewise she's the right to be free to seek out her options in life, which means she'd be supported, having a child shouldn't be anything that should cause you trouble, it's not good for the parent(s) or the child.
So we pay taxes to make certain that everyone of us have the same possibilities no matter from where we live, that we've the same degree of freedom of life (which means that in trouble you'll get help, and if you want to do something that doesn't opress the freedom of others, you can do so), and that this freedom is forever secured.
It's actually a brilliant system, because when you're doing well and can afford paying to the state, then likewise when you're not doing well, you know you'll get the help needed.
See that's the way I believe it should be.
Quote:
If she wants to make a living by having sex let her make her living on the street as a prostitute.
Where did this come from? Oh and sure if anyone wants to be a prostitute then I've no problem with that, but that's very off topic isn't it?
Quote:
Oh, removeing the child from such an environment would be a very positive thing for the child. The child should not grow up with an expectation that a government should pay women for having sex.
Let's try this in stead of: Growing up with expectation that if you need help, you'll get it because we're all equal important in the eyes of the state.
Secondly claiming that it's very positive for any child to be removed from their parents because they might grow up with some ideology is absurd, in that way no religious people would ever be able to have children in general.
Quote:
If she can't support the child and can't narrow down a list of possible men who were the father for a DNA test then she has no business raising the child.
I disagree for the very reasons I listed in the post you answered.
Again if you'd stick to the post I answered in stead of writing the same again, answer the questions I made, if you honestly think a few buckets is more important than any human being then the capitalism have failed big time.
I see the system of capitalism great, as a way to the true goal of a utopia in the future, because money gives purpose, and with purpose there comes production, and with production there comes development, and we do travel towards this utopia future, however money in itself is only a way to the goal, and most likely useless in a society where the supply of energy is automatic and everyone can get what they want in the context of the purpose of the state, freedom to do what you want, and security of said freedom, which of course limits the freedom to not be able to go against the freedom of others.
However eventhough capitalism is a great way we should never forget the main objective, which always have been going from a state where we humans (and as existance contra non-existance it's clearly what really matters is the life of everyone) have been living in great danger (from when we first developed), where we had to fight to survive, where our freedom was very limited, and only very limited security, to a state where we live in absolute security and freedom.
Like religion was an early positive achievement (meant we'd have an easier time working together, as this gave a purpose), it's been with held to long, and know is nothing more than a burden, likewise the same will most likely happen to capitalism, but for now, and to the start of this utopia, I see capitalism as something positive, but we may never forget our true objective, forgetting that objective will not only mean we might loose direction and be stuck in a world of greed, we will also put shame on our forefathers, the people who made all this great progress.
So as you see, money may be the purpose of the society today, but it's still merely a method to get the true purpose forfilled, and in that spirit, of course no child should ever be taken away from any parent(s) as long as said parent(s) actually are willing to take care of said child. It's simply not the business of the state, the state should protect the parent(s) and the child, which means only in case of abuse.
Again the argument that wins is though as the very first post, in reality there's only 2 options:
State gives money to parent(s)
Or State gives money to where the child is put.
And the child goes from having loving parent(s) and the feeling of being unique, into being a part of a greater group with people who in reality never will love the child.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 19, 2009 04:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think it should be the choice for every parent if they want to support a child or not, because I say, in the long run, if the parent won't support the child, the family is better with no contact at all (no money, nothing), because if he pays, he can later claim custody, which is not healthy for the child, as it's up to the child to forgive, not to some courthouse.
Why is that? Why could he claim custody simply because he is taxed for the child?
And sorry, the parent's choice was ALREADY made when they conceived the child. The kid is not a toy you can just "buy" and then scrap later. You don't want responsibilities or to be forced to support it, then you don't have children. Simple as that.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted September 19, 2009 06:40 PM |
|
|
|
Yeah a child is not something you can choose to support or not. If you set a precedent that when you have a baby it's optional as to whether or not you have to support it, then there are going to be ALOT of struggling single mothers out there.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 19, 2009 07:22 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 21:52, 19 Sep 2009.
|
@Blizzard
Quote:
Unless I'm severely mistaken, you get the same benefits regardless of your ideological beliefs.
Sure you do - unless you're gay.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted September 19, 2009 09:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Sure you do - unless you're gay.
which is a good reason why the benefits should be removed as well. you shouldn't get a government stipen for being heterosexual
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 19, 2009 09:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
which is a good reason why the benefits should be removed as well. you shouldn't get a government stipen for being heterosexual
No, the benefits for everyone should be equal, not removed.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
| |
|
|
