Gay Marriage from the (Mostly) Straight Perspective

[dandelion]

So are you suggesting that our nation abolish all tax and financial incentives for legally married couples or domestic partnerships...

Yes, an excellent idea.

...even though their fiscal and societal responsibilities are higher and more demanding than a single person?

not sure what you mean? what responsibilities? That they choose to have children for their own pleasure and support in their old age? Can I get a tax break for my dog?

 

[Speculator]

Yes, an excellent idea.

not sure what you mean? what responsibilities? That they choose to have children for their own pleasure and support in their old age? Can I get a tax break for my dog?

Exactly, can I please have a tax rebate too? I have a Porsche 911 turbo to think about and the financial responsibility is overwhelming.

 

[midlifebear]

Exactly, can I please have a tax rebate too? I have a Porsche 911 turbo to think about and the financial responsibility is overwhelming.

Spec: You should sell that 911, develop a physical handicap, and move to Argentina where the government will subsidize 30% of the sticker price for a new Japanese or German auto. The Audis in the showroom near my building look nice. :biggrin1:

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Yes, an excellent idea.

Actually it's a horrible idea. Since people are born into a system of inequality, where centuries of generations are forced into a cycle that is of not their personal choosing and those caught in it have to work much harder than anyone else just to make ends meet, it is out of basic human decency that a nation tries to help out those who need it. The word "equality" means nothing if you don't try to achieve it on every single aspect. It's actually an insult for some of you to even be chirping the word, given how blatant some of you are to obvious societal problems. Eliminating all of these benefits just so you and the "Spec" can have some pseudo-moralistic, self proclaimed victory over what you believe is "equality" is bullshit. Plain & simple.

not sure what you mean? what responsibilities? That they choose to have children for their own pleasure and support in their old age? Can I get a tax break for my dog?

Only if I can tax you for being inherently stupid.
Your snide comment only makes you look greedy. And trust me, there aren't many things I hate more than the paranoia & greed of blatantly dishonest people. You may want to think twice about trying to bring the discussion down this path. Seriously.

 

[dandelion]

Actually it's a horrible idea. Since people are born into a system of inequality, where centuries of generations are forced into a cycle that is of not their personal choosing and those caught in it have to work much harder than anyone else just to make ends meet, it is out of basic human decency that a nation tries to help out those who need it.

I thought we were discussing tax breaks because you have children, not tax breaks because you are poor.

Only if I can tax you for being inherently stupid.
Your snide comment only makes you look greedy. And trust me, there aren't many things I hate more than the paranoia & greed of blatantly dishonest people. You may want to think twice about trying to bring the discussion down this path. Seriously.

no, dont understand what that has to do with the desireability of tax breaks for being married, or the merits of subsidising people to have children.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I thought we were discussing tax breaks because you have children, not tax breaks because you are poor.

Not much of a difference really, considering the angle some people are choosing to view it.

no, dont understand what that has to do with the desireability of tax breaks for being married, or the merits of subsidising people to have children.

Why don't you ask Spec about that? He's the one that initially brought it up.

 

[dandelion]

Not much of a difference really, considering the angle some people are choosing to view it.

official statistics say 20% of children in England live 'in poverty'. So 80% do not.

Why don't you ask Spec about that? He's the one that initially brought it up.

Ask him what you meant by your post?

 

[B_VinylBoy]

official statistics say 20% of children in England live 'in poverty'. So 80% do not.

So what? Numbers are similar in our country as well. National Poverty Center | University of Michigan

Are you suggesting that people outside of the poverty level, or the other 80%, don't also need assistance to keep afloat on certain matters? That if you make even $1 above the poverty limit that you should be able to keep up with the constantly rising costs of everyday living expenses and be completely self sufficient? Please, don't do that to yourself. And do keep in mind, you're viewing this from a UK perspective and I'm looking at this just from the angle of my own country.

Ask him what you meant by your post?

No... ask him why he decided to bring the issue of tax benefits for people who have dependent children to begin with. Again, he brought it up first. And here's the post for verification - http://www.lpsg.org/214309-gay-marriage-from-the-mostly.html#post3144284

 

[B_crackoff]

That 20% in poverty figure is bollox anyway in the UK. The Rowntree Foundation doesn't include housing, nor do they chuck in all the free repairs, upgrades, new wardrobes, & other ancilliary benefits. It's a relative measure anyway.

That said, I do think that 2 adults, living together in one house should get a tax break. It's cheaper, more environmentally friendly, & more efficient.

However, they do get tax breaks for their kids though via free schooling - basically a free nanny at worst, & healthcare. Maybe tax breaks for up to 2, then zero for the rest. Parents showing responsibilty: what a thought.


BTW - has someone stolen Dandelion's ID! Has LPSG taken it's toll on him, or has he finally come over to the Dark Side!:biggrin1:

 

[dandelion]

Are you suggesting that people outside of the poverty level, or the other 80%, don't also need assistance to keep afloat on certain matters?

Well...yes. Thats the definition of poverty.

I'm looking at this just from the angle of my own country.

Which differs how? Are children more expensive in the US. (if we are talking children)

No... ask him why he decided to bring the issue of tax benefits for people who have dependent children to begin with. Again, he brought it up first.

You mean, your objection is not to scrapping tax breaks for the married or for children but that it was an off-topic post?

That said, I do think that 2 adults, living together in one house should get a tax break. It's cheaper, more environmentally friendly, & more efficient.

Two adults living together should get a tax break because their expenses are less? How about people who live in shared accommodation, or hotels, or prisoners?

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Well...yes. Thats the definition of poverty.

That's extremely shortsighted of you. With the cost of everyday living expenses constantly on the rise, combined with a job market where many employers don't keep up with ever changing financial standards for their employees in the form of competitive & livable wages, to base some kind of economic self sufficiency based on whether or not someone is at or below the poverty level is ridiculous. Again, that trumpets the rhetoric of the greedy and I have no sympathy for those who are so desperate to maintain their own lifestyles that they would take it from those who have little to none. Which is precisely what fuels a lot of the tax talk in Politics to begin with.

You mean, your objection is not to scrapping tax breaks for the married or for children but that it was an off-topic post?

Both to be honest with you.

Two adults living together should get a tax break because their expenses are less? How about people who live in shared accommodation, or hotels, or prisoners?

Are you being sarcastic or did you actually think this was a logical question?

 

[helgaleena]

dandelion skrev:
How about people who live in shared accommodation, or hotels, or prisoners?

Prisoners are taxed if they have sufficient income, but it would have to be dividend income from outside assets. Most prisoners are forced to work at wages far below taxable level as part of their 'rehab'. They are even used as telemarketers nowadays.

 

[B_crackoff]

Two adults living together should get a tax break because their expenses are less? How about people who live in shared accommodation, or hotels, or prisoners?

I think prisoners get £20,000 of expenses free! There's no council tax or utility/tv bills in hotels, & isn't it the Coalition forcing single men into shared accommodation? The issue with that anyway is it's transient, isn't it.

What have you done with Dandelion!!!!

Have you been Clegged.

From a quality of life point of view, fewer, better houses are more preferable to the endless urban sprawl, mainly derived from single person dwellings. Just look at how many former school playing fields, brownfield & urban green areas have been built upon.

From an economic point of view, it's a complete waste of money building new houses, aside from building to replace, or for a definite rise in the populace.

Fiat Capitalism depends on people buying things they don't need, that they can't afford, with money they don't have, & I've long harboured the suspicion that a lot of social engineering tries to fracture relationships in order to duplicate the number of products/assets bought.

Furthermore, in the UK, it can cost the state a minimum of £10-15,000/annum in extra benefits paid out when couples split up.

So, relationship break ups, & more dwellings, cost more, makes the place we live look less desirable, it's inefficient, & is environmentally poor (& you must know how ungreen I am:smile.

Therefore, especially in these dodgy economic waters, it makes sense to keep people - & families - together under one roof. Money problems are the number one reason for break ups - & lead to non economic concommitant socia, emotionall & personal costs that then affect wider society; so have a heart Dandelion -it's in all of our interests:smile:

Most prisoners are forced to work at wages far below taxable level as part of their 'rehab'. They are even used as telemarketers nowadays.

In the UK they can't really work - the unions put an end to that in the 60s.

 

[Speculator]

Are you suggesting that people outside of the poverty level, or the other 80%, don't also need assistance to keep afloat on certain matters? That if you make even $1 above the poverty limit that you should be able to keep up with the constantly rising costs of everyday living expenses and be completely self sufficient? Please, don't do that to yourself. And do keep in mind, you're viewing this from a UK perspective and I'm looking at this just from the angle of my own country.

It doesn't really matter what country you're from, it's exactly the same principle. Handing subsidies to the married and those with children at the expense of everyone else is blatant vote buying, if anything parents should pay more tax as they're using up more resources with schooling etc.

If we're worried about the poor then lets give them tax breaks, not handouts. A $15,000 minimum allowance before any income tax is applied and zero tax on savings interest which is the major investment vehicle for those on lower incomes. These measures can be applied to everybody regardless of marital status so they're fair, and it reduces the expense of gov't bureaucracy, so they're also cheaper.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

It doesn't really matter what country you hail from, it's exactly the same principle.

That's only if you want to ignore the specifics. I tend not to, because I know running blindly by ideology does nothing to solve any real problems. Hopefully one day, you'll learn this as well. But I'm not holding my breath.

Handing subsidies to the married and those with children at the expense of everyone else is blatant vote buying, if anything parents should pay more tax as they're using up more resources with schooling etc.

What a way to ensure that the human population dwindles, Einstein.
Not that it would evaporate to extinction since people are gonna have sex and many people don't use protection. That means the millions of people who have those unplanned pregnancies (whether it be due to promiscuity or even in cases of rape) will essentially be penalized for giving birth to a child because, according to your faulty logic fueled by personal greed, they're "using more resources". That's bound to cause more problems since most of these unwanted births happen in the poor sectors where they don't make a lot of money to begin with. So what kind of additional taxes would you be looking to get from these people with your "brilliant" tax incentives to promote "equality"? And please... provide numbers and percentages! Sarcasm very much intended here because I know you can't do it

So sorry if your dedication of being a perpetual bachelor is so warped that you'd suggest such a foolish ideal just to preserve more of your drinking money. But you'll have to come up with a better solution than this.

If we're worried about the poor then lets give them tax breaks, not handouts. A $15,000 minimum allowance before any income tax is applied and zero tax on savings interest which is the major investment vehicle for those on lower incomes.

State & federal taxes for anyone making money at this level are so astronomically low, that giving them another "break" to make them lower would do practically NOTHING to help them. Congratulations, your "more tax break rhetoric" just made sure a family can super size their extra value meals once a month at McDonald's! You're such a societal savior!!

Spare me your pathetic ideologies. You don't take into any consideration the specifics of anything you preach, so don't even bother telling me what you believe. It's all bullshit without any substance or examples to back them.

These measures can be applied to everybody regardless of marital status so they're fair, and it reduces the expense of gov't bureaucracy, so they're also cheaper.

Really, what do you have against people who procreate? I mean, I'm gay and probably will never lay with a woman to produce a child. However, I'm not so against what they stand for and the assistance many of them might need in order to suggest some of the most stupidest ideas I've seen in a long time.

 

[Speculator]

What a way to ensure that the human population dwindles, Einstein.
Not that it would evaporate to extinction since people are gonna have sex and many people don't use protection. That means the millions of people who have those unplanned pregnancies (whether it be due to promiscuity or even in cases of rape) will essentially be penalized for giving birth to a child because, according to your faulty logic fueled by personal greed, they're "using more resources". That's bound to cause more problems since most of these unwanted births happen in the poor sectors where they don't make a lot of money to begin with. So what kind of additional taxes would you be looking to get from these people with your "brilliant" tax incentives to promote "equality"? And please... provide numbers and percentages! Sarcasm very much intended here because I know you can't do it

Well it's pretty simple really. People should pay for the resources they consume, if they're using more than their fair share then clearly they have an obligation to contrbute a little extra to the pot. Is it possible to integrate this system into the government's pricing mechanism? Absolutely, but the state needs to be honest about the true $ value of it's services.

Imo parents should neither be taxed or subsidised for having children, it's a private matter that has nothing to do with the state. If there's a chance the couple might be bringing up their children in poverty then the correct decision is to not have kids, not have them and expect everyone else to pay for them. Adults should be bringing kids into the world because they love them and are in love with the idea of starting a family, not because they're tax efficient entities that yield an easy buck.

So sorry if your dedication of being a perpetual bachelor is so warped that you'd suggest such a foolish ideal just to preserve more of your drinking money. But you'll have to come up with a better solution than this.

You should be careful, personal attacks like that could be classified as hate speech.

Really, what do you have against people who procreate? I mean, I'm gay and probably will never lay with a woman to produce a child. However, I'm not so against what they stand for and the assistance many of them might need in order to suggest some of the most stupidest ideas I've seen in a long time.

I'm against the fact that they think it's ok to steal my money to fund their lifestyle choices, this isn't anti-procreation, it's anti-theft. Having children for the monetary assistance is about the shallowest, greediest policy family policy imagineable and encourages all the wrong people to take advantage.

What ever happened to personal responsibility? Don't you believe in that?

 

[dandelion]

Have you been Clegged.

Hes a bit of an upper class toff, but may you live in interesting times (apparently an english curse, according to wikipedia)

From a quality of life point of view, fewer, better houses are more preferable to the endless urban sprawl, mainly derived from single person dwellings.

How so?

Just look at how many former school playing fields, brownfield & urban green areas have been built upon.

The amount of land involved is a drop in the ocean compared to the alternative amount of 'green field' land available, so taking that urban land has essentially saved no countryside. It is a matter of national stupidity to have built on urban parkland.

From an economic point of view, it's a complete waste of money building new houses...

One of the few national investments which actually generates new employment and creates a tangible asset.

.... aside from building to replace, or for a definite rise in the populace.

Arent we expecting a 10 million increase in uk population?

So, relationship break ups, & more dwellings, cost more, makes the place we live look less desirable, it's inefficient, & is environmentally poor (& you must know how ungreen I am:smile.

All expenditure is about improving our lives. It does not improve lives to force people to live with others they do not want to.

Money problems are the number one reason for break ups -

The only people in the Uk for whom government intervention on finances is big enough to influence choices on marriage is for the poor. No one else is going to decide to get married for the tax breaks. For the poor there are actual big disincentives to live together because benefits tend to be cut if they do. So we have a system which gives extra money to rich people who will not be influenced by it to live together, and take money away from the poor if they live together. What did you say about this being helpful?

have a heart Dandelion -it's in all of our interests:smile:

Subsidising the rich?

What a way to ensure that the human population dwindles, Einstein. Not that it would evaporate to extinction since people are gonna have sex and many people don't use protection.

er, arent we all going to die because the world is facing a runaway population explosion (which it is!). Most countries would benefit from cutting their populations. Few are willing to face this.

 

[Drifterwood]

Quit giving the 'fundies' Ideas......

How else are they going to have them? :wink:

"Holy matrimony is an institution ordained by God so that men and women blah blah blah and have children blah blah blah........"

No children, no marriage. God doesn't like you if you're gay and God doesn't like you if you are infertile. What's the problem?

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Well it's pretty simple really. People should pay for the resources they consume, if they're using more than their fair share then clearly they have an obligation to contrbute a little extra to the pot. Is it possible to integrate this system into the government's pricing mechanism? Absolutely, but the state needs to be honest about the true $ value of it's services.

Imo parents should neither be taxed or subsidised for having children, it's a private matter that has nothing to do with the state. If there's a chance the couple might be bringing up their children in poverty then the correct decision is to not have kids, not have them and expect everyone else to pay for them. Adults should be bringing kids into the world because they love them and are in love with the idea of starting a family, not because they're tax efficient entities that yield an easy buck.

An overly simplistic belief based on an unbelievable amount of bigoted and societal ignorance. This also goes completely against your rhetoric about smaller government, because in this scenario you want them to control a parent's ability to procreate based on their income status. And you get mad when I call you a hypocrite... LOL!!! Thank you for proving once again that you and your ideologies are one big glaring one.

You should be careful, personal attacks like that could be classified as hate speech.

ROTFLMAO!!!!
Nobody on this board (or anyone that I can think of in the world) has ever been brought up on hate crime charges for equating someone or their thoughts to an unintelligent drunk. So don't kid yourself here.

I'm against the fact that they think it's ok to steal my money to fund their lifestyle choices, this isn't anti-procreation, it's anti-theft.

Get the fuck over it. As a gay man, my tax dollars have been used to fund programs & policies that I cannot openly take advantage of as well. Due to my lifestyle choices, I can't legally marry (or get a civil union) with my life partner which puts a lot of things regarding our rights (in the event one of us dies) in jeopardy. And there's still the issue of DADT. Funny how you talk about equality, yet when someone mentions these things (or something you don't think affects you) it magically becomes a "special right" and you want it eliminated.

Having children for the monetary assistance is about the shallowest, greediest policy family policy imagineable and encourages all the wrong people to take advantage.

Stop preaching the bullshit... the mass, MASS majority of people do not do this. People who procreate just for the money are as elusive as the welfare queen who some fools ignorantly think exist in droves, who've lived off government handouts for decades and can somehow magically afford to buy a brand new Mercedes-Benz on a welfare check. You sure you're from the UK talking all of this Reaganized garbage? Do you know where to find me a bag full of leprechaun as well?

What ever happened to personal responsibility? Don't you believe in that?

You should be the last one talking about "personal responsibility". Because if you were, these little things such as tax benefits for married couples with children (and the insignificant amount of funds they provide) wouldn't even be one of your concerns. The numbers clearly don't add up to the rhetoric you spew. In the end, you're just fuckin' greedy. So much in fact that you'd try to take out your own societal & financial shortcomings on others through your distorted beliefs with "equality". This isn't my first time taking apart someone's argument like this and exposing it for the bigoted sham that it really is. And yours is just too easy.

 

[B_curiousme01]

Hate begets hate.


I