Single men and women should receive the same tax benefits and penalties as married couples. No one should be punished being asexual or uninterested in marriage.

Old_Thrashbarg · 2010-08-27T16:16:45+00:00

I was all, sweet, I wanna read this article because I agree!

But I'm afraid you accidentally linked to an emblem for a grade-school recess all-boys club.

Pontiflakes · 2010-08-27T18:53:36+00:00

The government wants to promote marriage. When people get married, what do they do?

Have kids. When they have kids, what do the kids need?

Shit. An average of $200,000 worth of shit between birth and the age of 18. Once they're independent, what do they do?

Work and produce more shit. And get married. And have more kids.

I don't mean to sound condescending, but I thought this was fairly obvious.

Scribblenerd · 2010-08-27T19:02:41+00:00

It's not punishment, it's encouragement to marry.

I'm on your side, being a widow, but I understand the reason for the tax code. Married people are statistically more stable, commit fewer crimes, have healthier lifestyles, etc. Historically, they've been more likely to have children and contribute to their neighborhoods.

It stinks, but the gummint would like us all to settle down, already!

shadetreephilosopher · 2010-08-27T18:18:15+00:00

Maybe....The continuation of society's next generation (and the next and the next) really does benefit from each generation being raised by a father and a mother. If you accept that premise, then it makes sense to try to help out those who have decided to bond together and create the next generation. How best can you "hit" this group with a benefit? -by marriage tax benefits. Of course this solution has some gross over spillage in that many of the people that the benefit "hits" either aren't raising kids, or split up after having them, or just do a really shitty job of raising their kids. But in general the benefit does hit those it's designed to hit.

2010-08-27T18:23:06+00:00

Start a company, you get more than individuals could ever imagine.

DougDante · 2010-08-27T22:48:42+00:00

How about "single men should receive the same parental rights as married men". You know, like the right to take your child to the doctor, which is summarily stripped for unmarried men (Michigan - varies from US state to US state and in different countries) when their child is born and can only be restored by the order of a court and with the help of a lawyer.

ignatiusloyola · 2010-08-28T00:44:54+00:00

The tax benefits were set up to compensate for one partner not working.

Perhaps you might have a better argument if you said that families with both partners working should lose their tax benefits?

But there is nothing wrong, sexist - or anything related - about compensating couples in this way, in my view.

Zolty · 2010-08-28T01:29:56+00:00

Ah Al Bundy, a king among men.

stemgang · 2010-08-27T18:43:47+00:00

You aren't getting penalized because you are single. Just like you aren't getting penalized for being rich. You are getting a break because you are married and you are getting a break because you are poor.

If you really want to be a douche about it because it isn't fair to you, then by all means please lobby to have married couples and poor people pay as much tax as you. This is a much more feasible idea considering how much debt the fed currently has.

AnnArchist · 2010-08-27T16:59:53+00:00

...or for being gay

x86_64Ubuntu · 2010-08-27T17:45:33+00:00

B..B..But then people may get married at a lower rate , and continue to have pre-marital sex. Rolling back the tax-advantage is rolling in the sin.

doggywoggy · 2010-08-27T19:10:58+00:00

I think there needs to be crusade for Asexuals for rights!

Godspiral · 2010-08-27T19:20:54+00:00

there are some child related credits, but filing single returns is an advantage if both earn income. In canada, there is no marriage tax penalty, because of the option to file single returns, and collect child credits. Is that different elsewhere?

also, lamest link ever.

maineac · 2010-08-28T02:14:40+00:00

What benefit? You get to file as one person with two deductions. Not always a benefit, but so what. get married or have a baby and get a dependent. It is not a huge benefit if you are both earning a living. It just looks bigger when one is working.

ds637 · 2010-08-28T08:22:58+00:00

Married couples live under one roof 99% of the time. Living together they cost the government less money as the potential for expense with many government services is combined into one household.

etherreal · 2010-08-27T14:50:41+00:00

Replace income tax with a national sales tax. Problem solved.

Il128 · 2010-08-27T14:42:53+00:00

Of course.

lanana · 2010-08-27T14:52:02+00:00

As someone affected by the marriage tax penalty I wholeheartedly agree? Why do I have to pay thousands of dollars extra just because I got married?

marytormey · 2010-08-27T15:20:13+00:00

Marriage laws are out of date.

WildYams · 2010-08-27T19:03:54+00:00

Once again, I still don't know why the government is involved in anything having to do with marriage at all. The government doesn't get involved in bar mitzvahs or christenings or communion or any other religious rituals, so why marriage? It just makes no sense to me: "I love you." "And I love you too." "Great, let's get the government in on this!"

Marriage is a religious ritual (or at the very least is just two people publicly saying they love each other). I don't see how this should be any business of the government's.

etherspirit · 2010-08-27T16:03:24+00:00

The government should just get rid of marriage benefits. This solves the problem you are talking about, as well as increasing revenue, as well as the gay marriage issue.

AnnArchist · 2010-08-27T18:56:47+00:00

I disagree -- you gotta show up to the prom to enjoy the punch.

johnnyneverdies · 2010-08-27T21:50:07+00:00

http://timmytaylor.com/blog/?p=30

nexes300 · 2010-08-27T21:58:28+00:00

La Habra, eh?

Glayden · 2010-08-27T22:40:13+00:00

I agree with the title, but what's up with the childish image?

kraddy · 2010-08-27T23:09:40+00:00

It's even worse in the military. There are SO many benefits for married soldiers and their families as opposed to being single, it feels as if they're pressuring us to get married asap.

lanana · 2010-08-28T00:01:12+00:00

Here is an interesting read from the CBO about the origin and effects of marriage penalties and bonuses.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=7&type=0

It actually has some rather thoughtful sections on how difficult it is to make the system fair for everyone. And they state:

Marriage penalties and bonuses are not deliberately intended to punish or reward marriage.

It's a good read for anyone interested in the nuances of trying to implement a fair tax system. Made me reconsider some of my kneejerk responses to the issue.

krsvbg · 2010-08-28T02:13:22+00:00

Marriage is promoted because it's good for the economy. Traditional values will always be favored.

EvolutionTheory · 2010-08-27T17:30:31+00:00

I agree with the title.

TomEagleton · 2010-08-28T03:33:19+00:00

This is sort of a nonsense argument. A "benefit" applied to everyone is no longer a benefit. It's like saying "10% off to every customer over the age of 3." The price may be $100 on the tag but if everyone pays $90, the price is effectively $90. In a similar way, if a "tax benefit" is applied to 99% of the tax-paying population, it benefits no one. Sure you can argue that it's silly to offer benefits to married couples but saying the benefits should be extended to singles is economically zero-sum.

joe-king · 2010-08-27T15:48:39+00:00

Sales tax = regressive tax

I guess you overlooked this definition, it seems to fit the bill to me.

regressive tax

Definition: A tax that takes a larger percentage of the income of low-income people than of high-income people.

Edit: Removed unnecessary link accidentally included, added definition.

anatinus · 2010-08-27T21:52:00+00:00

Since when did "Men's Rights" become "Marriage-Phobists"? So you married a cunt and she dumped you. Join the club, get the shirt, move the fuck on.

java81 · 2010-08-27T14:39:13+00:00

Meh.

purebacon · 2010-08-27T21:01:47+00:00

No, married couples shouldn't receive any benefits. No one should be rewarded for being sexual or interested in marriage.

GarretJax · 2010-08-28T00:48:04+00:00

How about: Single men and women and married couples should receive the same tax benefits as corporations.

gazugaXP · 2010-08-27T16:09:59+00:00

i agree completely. its like the government is charging sluts for not wanting to get married, they are really providing a service to married people who want to cheat, so i think married couples should pay a tax to benefit single people. maybe the money could go to schools, treatment centers or prescription drugs for the singles.

logophage · 2010-08-27T19:56:32+00:00

Would home renters with a loan should get the same tax benefit as home owners with a loan?
Would non-veterans get an NVA?
Would non-retired people have access to Social Security?
Would the insured non-sick get insurance payments? ...

Title	Single men and women should receive the same tax benefits and penalties as married couples. No one should be punished being asexual or uninterested in marriage.
Author	AnnArchist
Upvotes	233
Comments	126
Date	August 27, 2010 2:18 PM UTC (15 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/d65hw/single_men_and_women_should_receive_the_same_tax/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/single-men-and-women-should-receive-the-same-tax.1047836 https://theredarchive.com/post/1047836

Comments