Started By
Message
2
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:26 pm to brodeo
I actually feel like the church should get out of marrying people.
It still doesn't count until you have that document.
It still doesn't count until you have that document.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:29 pm to CatFan81
quote:
He's right about it being welfare for the married.
Welfare isn't a dirty word in that context then.
Do you think the EITC is welfare in the negative sense? How about the mortgage interest deduction? Credits for children?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:31 pm to The Spleen
quote:
States began sanctioning marriages in the 20's and 30's to keep whites and blacks from marrying.
Do you have a link to support this? I don't doubt you, would like to research this.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:33 pm to Duke
You don't want to know my opinion on those matters. 
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:33 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
Taxes.
That's the point. Why should taxes depend on marital status? Is that not unequal treatment under the law?
Kingbob posted a solution a while back on the poliboard that pops up every time this issue is discussed:
If you pass the Fair Tax Act, it abolishes the income tax, which removes any reason for government needing marital status for taxation purposes.
Then, the government creates a type of contract called a "Community Property Agreement" that can be made between any number of consenting adults. It pools their property together and creates common property between them, much like what exists in marriage. These "Community Property Agreement"s can include terms that resemble prenuptial agreements deciding on the reallocation of assets in the event the Community Property is dissolved. It can even have a process of dissolution that resembles divorce in order to keep things familiar with the trial lawyers and judges.
Everyone wins. Everyone can marry whomever they want, people get more freedom to enter into contracts with whomever they want, hippies can more easily form voluntary communes, the trial lawyers still get to make bank in divorce proceedings, EVERYONE'S A WINNER!
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:34 pm to CatFan81
quote:
You don't want to know my opinion on those matters.
Why not?
I mean I did ask the questions.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:34 pm to sorantable
quote:
I actually feel like the church should get out of marrying people.
It still doesn't count until you have that document.
That's what I'm getting at. Why do we need a document?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:35 pm to brodeo
Taxes. Duh.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:35 pm to Duke
quote:
Duke
What's your opinion on the fair tax?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:36 pm to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
Do you have a link to support this?
Not the most reliable link, but the first one I found.
LINK
It's also on Wikipedia. I first read it in a newspaper article a few years ago.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:37 pm to sorantable
quote:
Taxes. Duh.
But why should marital status affect taxes?
I know it does, but I'm asking why should it.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:38 pm to Duke
quote:
Why not?
I mean I did ask the questions.
I think that any tax like those that you mentioned are bullshite. Most of the people who get EITC or the child tax credit don't pay much into the system to begin with. They get thousands more back than they pay in. There's a huge problem with that.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:40 pm to sorantable
frick Texas and Taxes.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:40 pm to CatFan81
Why do you hate women and poor people so much?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:42 pm to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
What's your opinion on the fair tax?
The national sales tax?
I love the idea in theory, but I question how much we'll actually get out of it. Black markets will explode and it's going to be quite expensive to try and squash them. You've also got to lower/eliminate it for certain goods like food, basic clothing, ect. If not, it's painfully regressive for the poor. In doing that, you increase the regulatory nightmare that would come from it.
I'm going to channel the Black Walnut here, some iteration of his 9-9-9 plan could actually be fairly effective. A small sales tax on non-essential goods with a reduction in the income tax tied to it.
This post was edited on 4/22/14 at 4:43 pm
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:44 pm to Duke
quote:
You've also got to lower/eliminate it for certain goods like food, basic clothing, ect. If not, it's painfully regressive for the poor. In doing that, you increase the regulatory nightmare that would come from it.
That's already a really big part of the Fair Tax and why it works.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:45 pm to brodeo
quote:
Why is government involved at all?
Originally, it was to keep blacks and whites from marrying in the early 1900s after it started becoming a "problem".
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:46 pm to brodeo
quote:
You've also got to lower/eliminate it for certain goods like food, basic clothing, ect. If not, it's painfully regressive for the poor. In doing that, you increase the regulatory nightmare that would come from it.
That's already a really big part of the Fair Tax and why it works.
Was about to say that, but brodeo was too quick.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:46 pm to The Spleen
frick, beat me to it.
Page 7 of 15
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News