Legal inequities force up tax bill for gay couples

For gay couples, the April 15 tax filing deadline can be a reminder of the disparities they face, even in a nation that is becoming more accepting of same-sex couples.

[Flat Tax]

The income tax should be repealed.
Maybe these gay people can get out and protest about that to help not just them but everyone else, and this could improve their image.

The repeal of the income tax is MUCH more important than legalizing and sanctioning sodomy, and would be something everyone would enjoy.

[eddie]

What is the reason we would give various partnerships the tax breaks we give families raising children. A partnership maybe the most wonderful event in someones life but it is not the same as a couple who produce off spings and raises them which betters society.

We should help natural order and promote partnership as a form of birth control or other reasons but they as an individual should pay their fair share of taxes.

Let us not cave into whinners who always demand something for nothing.

[Question]

Flat Tax wrote:

The income tax should be repealed.
Maybe these gay people can get out and protest about that to help not just them but everyone else, and this could improve their image.
The repeal of the income tax is MUCH more important than legalizing and sanctioning sodomy, and would be something everyone would enjoy.

So you are saying you don't enjoy sodomy. Why did you try it to begin with? Did you think you would?

[AshevilleNative]

eddie wrote:

What is the reason we would give various partnerships the tax breaks we give families raising children. A partnership maybe the most wonderful event in someones life but it is not the same as a couple who produce off spings and raises them which betters society.
We should help natural order and promote partnership as a form of birth control or other reasons but they as an individual should pay their fair share of taxes.
Let us not cave into whinners who always demand something for nothing.

Most gay couples I know have children. So, by your logic, all gay and straight couples with children should get tax breaks; all gay and straight couples with no children should get no tax breaks (i.e., married childless couples should pay "their fair share" with no whining).

[Old Maid Spotter]

eddie wrote:

What is the reason we would give various partnerships the tax breaks we give families raising children.

The various partnerships also have families raising children. These biological children came from previous marriages that failed, or from adoptions. At this point in time, these families and their kids fall through the cracks because they are excluded from the system they are supporting with their tax money.

eddie wrote:

A partnership maybe the most wonderful event in someones life but it is not the same as a couple who produce off spings and raises them which betters society.

A partnership without children would be the same as any other couple without children.

eddie wrote:

We should help natural order and promote partnership as a form of birth control or other reasons but they as an individual should pay their fair share of taxes.

Single people and partnerships DO pay their fair share of taxes. They do not, however, receive their fair share of the benefits they pay for with their taxes --- 1138 benefits (according to the General Accounting Office):

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

eddie wrote:

Let us not cave into whinners who always demand something for nothing.

The "whiners" ARE paying for it, they just aren't getting anything for their money. That's why they are "whining". If you were in their boots, you'd "whine" too.

The other option is for the government to STOP taxing single people and partnerships for the 1138 benefits that they pay for but are not receiving.
----------
You seem to be somewhat on the right track on this issue, I think you can make a fair judgement now that you know what the squabble is about.

-oms

[K-Man]

Do the same rules not apply to hetrosexual shack-ups? Why do the homosexuals think they are special?

[Will]

Old Maid Spotter wrote:

<quoted text>
The various partnerships also have families raising children. These biological children came from previous marriages that failed, or from adoptions. At this point in time, these families and their kids fall through the cracks because they are excluded from the system they are supporting with their tax money.
<quoted text>
A partnership without children would be the same as any other couple without children.
<quoted text>
Single people and partnerships DO pay their fair share of taxes. They do not, however, receive their fair share of the benefits they pay for with their taxes --- 1138 benefits (according to the General Accounting Office):
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf
<quoted text>
The "whiners" ARE paying for it, they just aren't getting anything for their money. That's why they are "whining". If you were in their boots, you'd "whine" too.
The other option is for the government to STOP taxing single people and partnerships for the 1138 benefits that they pay for but are not receiving.
----------
You seem to be somewhat on the right track on this issue, I think you can make a fair judgement now that you know what the squabble is about.
-oms

The flaw in your argument is that you ASSUME from the start that a gay relationship is equal to a marriage -- it is NOT equal to begin with, so there is no reason to provide all the benefits of civil marriage to a gay relationship.

Every relationship is not equal to every other relationship.

[Old Maid Spotter]

Will wrote:

<quoted text>
The flaw in your argument is that you ASSUME from the start that a gay relationship is equal to a marriage -- it is NOT equal to begin with, so there is no reason to provide all the benefits of civil marriage to a gay relationship.
Every relationship is not equal to every other relationship.

Bingo! Equality in marriage is what this movement is all about. The times they are-a changin'----

[Old Maid Spotter]

K-Man wrote:

Do the same rules not apply to hetrosexual shack-ups?

The difference is that a heterosexual shack-up can result in a legal marriage with the full 1138 gov't benefits package, wedding with rice and dying flowers, tin cans hanging off the back of the getaway car with dead fish in the hubcaps, a horneymoon in Campoontang, while grandma babysits the two illigitimate kids, all covered by social security.

K-Man wrote:

Why do the homosexuals think they are special?

We were born that way. We have no choice.

[Will]

Old Maid Spotter wrote:

<quoted text>
Bingo! Equality in marriage is what this movement is all about. The times they are-a changin'----

LOL... but the times haven't a-changed THAT much -- human society STILL relies principally upon sexual reproduction. So, since heterosexuality is special when it comes to sexual reproduction,
it makes sense that society favors heterosexuality and NOT specially favor homosexuality when it comes to the benefits of civil marriage.

And don't forget, gays aren't denied any right to civil marriage -- gays can marry civilly and receive all the same benefits as nongays, subject to the identical restrictions and limitations on civil marriage that nongays face, nothing more and nothing less.

That hasn't changed nor should it change.

[Will]

K-Man wrote:

Do the same rules not apply to hetrosexual shack-ups? Why do the homosexuals think they are special?

Old Maid Spotter wrote:

...We were born that way. We have no choice.

LOL. Your argument reduces to saying that rules should be changed to accommodate peole who were "born that way".

So then, the military should change its rules and abolish minimum height limitations to accommodate little people under 4 feet tall as recruits because they were "born that way"?

[Rick in Kansas]

Will wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL... but the times haven't a-changed THAT much -- human society STILL relies principally upon sexual reproduction. So, since heterosexuality is special when it comes to sexual reproduction,
it makes sense that society favors heterosexuality and NOT specially favor homosexuality when it comes to the benefits of civil marriage.

So, going by what you're passing off as logic here, it would be acceptable for the state to view children of heterosexual relationships, who are not the product of the sexual reproduction of the couple in question as unequal to those who are? Sorry, but nowhere on the tax forms that I'm all too familiar with is there a distinction between sexually reproduced and non-sexually reproduced offspring. Since both heterosexual and homosexual relationships are capable of producing offspring by alternate means or giving homes to those who have been produced by others and there currently is no inquiry into the origin of those offspring, just where is there a justification for treating the offspring of homosexual relationships as unequal to those of heterosexual relationships?

[Nexel]

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>
So, going by what you're passing off as logic here, it would be acceptable for the state to view children of heterosexual relationships, who are not the product of the sexual reproduction of the couple in question as unequal to those who are? Sorry, but nowhere on the tax forms that I'm all too familiar with is there a distinction between sexually reproduced and non-sexually reproduced offspring. Since both heterosexual and homosexual relationships are capable of producing offspring by alternate means or giving homes to those who have been produced by others and there currently is no inquiry into the origin of those offspring, just where is there a justification for treating the offspring of homosexual relationships as unequal to those of heterosexual relationships?

Homosexual adoption places children at risk and denies them a father or mother.

[Will]

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>
So, going by what you're passing off as logic here, it would be acceptable for the state to view children of heterosexual relationships, who are not the product of the sexual reproduction of the couple in question as unequal to those who are? Sorry, but nowhere on the tax forms that I'm all too familiar with is there a distinction between sexually reproduced and non-sexually reproduced offspring. Since both heterosexual and homosexual relationships are capable of producing offspring by alternate means or giving homes to those who have been produced by others and there currently is no inquiry into the origin of those offspring, just where is there a justification for treating the offspring of homosexual relationships as unequal to those of heterosexual relationships?

LOL.

You should change your slogan from "My hobby is troll bashing" to "My hobby is strawman arguments".

My comment, that you pretend to be responding to, dealt with distinguishing between heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships with regard to civil marriage -- my comment had NOTHING to do with distinguishing between the CHILDREN of either heterosexual or homosexual relationships.

[Old Maid Spotter]

Will wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
LOL. Your argument reduces to saying that rules should be changed to accommodate peole who were "born that way".
So then, the military should change its rules and abolish minimum height limitations to accommodate little people under 4 feet tall as recruits because they were "born that way"?

Yes. Discrimination in employment is against the law.

[mike]

K-Man wrote:

Do the same rules not apply to hetrosexual shack-ups? Why do the homosexuals think they are special?

Exactly....... cohabitating heterosexual couples, with or without children, have the same problem.

[Old Maid Spotter]

Will wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL... but the times haven't a-changed THAT much -- human society STILL relies principally upon sexual reproduction. So, since heterosexuality is special when it comes to sexual reproduction,
it makes sense that society favors heterosexuality and NOT specially favor homosexuality when it comes to the benefits of civil marriage.
And don't forget, gays aren't denied any right to civil marriage -- gays can marry civilly and receive all the same benefits as nongays, subject to the identical restrictions and limitations on civil marriage that nongays face, nothing more and nothing less.
That hasn't changed nor should it change.

Revolutions sometimes take time. Be patient.

[mike]

AshevilleNative wrote:

<quoted text>
Most gay couples I know have children. So, by your logic, all gay and straight couples with children should get tax breaks; all gay and straight couples with no children should get no tax breaks (i.e., married childless couples should pay "their fair share" with no whining).

That is pretty much how the system works already. Maybe an end to income tax would alleviate all this grubbing for deductions. Income tax is a tax on productivity and morally indefensible. Two seperate issues here.... one on gay unions and the other is how to "fairly" tax the population.

[Rick in Kansas]

Will wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL.
You should change your slogan from "My hobby is troll bashing" to "My hobby is strawman arguments".
My comment, that you pretend to be responding to, dealt with distinguishing between heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships with regard to civil marriage -- my comment had NOTHING to do with distinguishing between the CHILDREN of either heterosexual or homosexual relationships.

Hey, you're the one that stated that sexual reproduction was the issue here and I was simply pointing out that that ain't quite where all children come from even in heterosexual relationships. It's not an example of a strawman argument, just a closer look at what you're attempting to pass off as a logical argument.

[Old Maid Spotter]

Nexel wrote:

<quoted text>
Homosexual adoption places children at risk and denies them a father or mother.

This must be that Wil personna from NAMbliviA that everyone complains about. Hi Wil,

In a same-sex marriage there is a father and a mother. One of them is trapped in the body of the opposite sex. They do it to fool you.

You have a reputation for being easily fooled. I can see why.