mjah Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 I wasn't sure about the having-kids tax break either, until I had kids. Now I toooootally understand. Yeah, it's necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 LOL All you complaining about the top 1% and the wealth distribution in other threads are in here talking about taking away marriage bennies and deductions for kids to further push the middle class and poor down? Can't make this stuff up. Back on topic. There is a reality show on Showtime called Polymory which follows some of these "pods" around including them getting married, sex, and all the issues they encounter with jealousy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forehead Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Did you really just objectify and (de)value those women based on whether they would be worthy of you sexually? Oh give me a break. I don't agree with a lot of what SPJunkies says, but that was a throwaway line that isn't worthy of your indignation. Besides which, haven't you seen his shirt (No, I still haven't forgotten that thread)? Women flock... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 It was probably somebody, somewhere's, way of encouraging folks to marry instead of co-habitating. And why do we care about this? Besides if people are only getting married for benefits, how is that good? I was on your side until the part about kids. I honestly don't think there should be a break for kids. Can't afford kids without the break? Don't have children! I've been told, and will admit I don't know the source or how credible it was, that the kids tax break was implemented after WWI to help drive the population back up. I think we have reached a point where we don't need to continue to do that. Tax breaks for kids help the middle class. There have been several studies done on this. This nation will always need an influx of young, educated adults. They come, largely, from the middle class. LOL All you complaining about the top 1% and the wealth distribution in other threads are in here talking about taking away marriage bennies and deductions for kids to further push the middle class and poor down? Can't make this stuff up. Back on topic. There is a reality show on Showtime called Polymory which follows some of these "pods" around including them getting married, sex, and all the issues they encounter with jealousy. I'm against benefits that only help a select group. Either expand it to all groups or get rid of it all together. Taking away marriage benefits for couples without kids will not push the middle and poor down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Why do married people need special benefits? I'm completely behind a tax break for having kid(s). But just for being married? No. You're already getting the benefit of splitting bills and dual incomes. The idea I believe is to encourage people to get married as part of a maintaining the idea of a traditional family core. Really though, even today, we should keep those benefits for people who don't have kids so they can continue to try to put themselves in a better position to one day have kids. There are a lot of different ways to raise a family, but I'm still of the belief that the biological mother and biological father married together and raising their kids together is still the best way to go about it. We should still be encouraging people to do that, even if everybody's different. Tax benefits is only one way to do that, but it helps, and I'm fine with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 The idea I believe is to encourage people to get married as part of a maintaining the idea of a traditional family core. Really though, even today, we should keep those benefits for people who don't have kids so they can continue to try to put themselves in a better position to one day have kids. There are a lot of different ways to raise a family, but I'm still of the belief that the biological mother and biological father married together and raising their kids together is still the best way to go about it. We should still be encouraging people to do that, even if everybody's different. Tax benefits is only one way to do that, but it helps, and I'm fine with it. That's nice, but that "traditional family core" has long since been passed. People want to have kids, fine. We will give them benefits for having kids. But when there are no kids, there is nothing to benefit. The marriage in and of itself is the benefit. Sharing of bills, dual income, one rent, etc. The idea that a man and a woman should get tax breaks for having a piece of paper while another pair does not and does not get those benefits is stupid. Marriage is a social contract. It's time to treat it as such. If anyone puts any other meaning behind it, it's of their own free will and choosing and the government should not be involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 That's nice, but that "traditional family core" has long since been passed. People want to have kids, fine. We will give them benefits for having kids. But when there are no kids, there is nothing to benefit. The marriage in and of itself is the benefit. Sharing of bills, dual income, one rent, etc. The idea that a man and a woman should get tax breaks for having a piece of paper while another pair does not and does not get those benefits is stupid. Marriage is a social contract. It's time to treat it as such. If anyone puts any other meaning behind it, it's of their own free will and choosing and the government should not be involved. There are other legal implications than tax breaks when it comes to marriage. The GAO has identified over 1000 different legal rights/benefits/etc. from marriage (i.e. visitation rights at hospitals/inheritance upon death/etc.). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States How does one deal with those if marriage is reduced to merely a social contract? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koala Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 When it gets any further than this, let me know. A few oddballs do not make a movement. ~Bang[/quote Im actually curious why the Mormons and the Muslims are so quiet about all thia. Youd figure they have a decent argument vis a vis Seperation of Church and State or 14th amendment. I guess the Mormons figure they already have Utah. the Muslims are distracted by bigger concerns, plus polygamy is pretty much socially unacceptable amongst most of them evem if its religously permisssible. Like the dude said earlier, finding a woman thatll accept sharing her husbabd is pretty much a unicorn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 There are other legal implications than tax breaks when it comes to marriage. The GAO has identified over 1000 different legal rights/benefits/etc. from marriage (i.e. visitation rights at hospitals/inheritance upon death/etc.). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States How does one deal with those if marriage is reduced to merely a social contract? The same way you would if you didn't have a marriage and wanted those rights/benefits to go to someone else. Living will, power of attorney, etc. Stop issuing marriage licenses. Begin issuing civil unions. They hold the same weight, legally. Within these civil unions will be living wills, last will and testament, power of attorney, and prenuptial agreements. They will name the primary as the person with whom the civil union is with. Gives all the same benefits. Provides clear understanding and makes for much easier dissolution of civil unions (ie, divorce). Marriage ceremonies will be, as they have been in the last 100 years, symbolic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 I was on your side until the part about kids. I honestly don't think there should be a break for kids. Can't afford kids without the break? Don't have children! I've been told, and will admit I don't know the source or how credible it was, that the kids tax break was implemented after WWI to help drive the population back up. I think we have reached a point where we don't need to continue to do that. Probably from the days where being married was considered better because it wasn't living in sin. But those views are pretty outdated. And so are the tax breaks. What about disabled family members? Elderly parents? What other aspects of family life do you want to discourage the majority of the country from engaging in? The last tax breaks that I'd support being removed are those that help people form families and support their family members. I'd consider those essential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamB Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Im actually curious why the Mormons and the Muslims are so quiet about all thia. Youd figure they have a decent argument vis a vis Seperation of Church and State or 14th amendment. I guess the Mormons figure they already have Utah. the Muslims are distracted by bigger concerns, plus polygamy is pretty much socially unacceptable amongst most of them evem if its religously permisssible. Actually, I am not sure why either. With Mormons, it may be because of past history combined with the fact that those Mormons who practice polygyny also tend to be withdrawn from society in general (probably one leading to the other). Also, polygyny for religious/cultural reasons has different connotations than polyamory due to it being a relationship that is usually not based upon emotional connections and in some cases (like Warren Jeffs and his group) the women are coerced into the structure. This would create an inhibition towards speaking out even in those relationships that are based on emotional connections in addition to religious reasons. I am just guessing though. It makes sense to me, but also could be completely wrong. Like the dude said earlier, finding a woman thatll accept sharing her husbabd is pretty much a unicorn It actually has less to do with "sharing" and more with the structure being described. Women are just as likely as men to practice polyamory (again, assuming no religious or cultural imperatives), and men are just as likely to have "sharing" issues as women. Single women that are looking to enter into a closed relationship MFF structure are not that common, especially a single bi-sexual woman who is wanting to have a relationship with both, hence the term "unicorn". Men willing to enter into such a relationship are more common, but not that much, particularly bi-sexual men (which gets into societal perceptions of bi men vs. bi-women). Women looking to enter into an open triad where all of the individuals are free to seek outside relationships beyond the core are not rare at all within the poly community. Thus, the term "unicorn" is in reference to a specific situation, not polyamory in general. edit: I think what I wrote above was coherent. If not, I blame the cold meds - I hate being sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spjunkies Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 You have low standards sir. I do indeed On topic I'm totally for equal rights and if you want to have an open marriage that's your business, but only two people should be legally married at a time in my eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 What about disabled family members? Elderly parents? What other aspects of family life do you want to discourage the majority of the country from engaging in? The last tax breaks that I'd support being removed are those that help people form families and support their family members. I'd consider those essential. I don't see what the disabled and elderly have to do with anything. Having a disabled or elderly family member isn't a choice. Getting married and having kids are. How do the tax breaks help form wholesome families? The tax breaks are currently in place and what is our current divorce rate? I would argue that getting rid of the marriage benefit would actually help it because people wouldn't get married just for the benefit. Now I will admit that I may be skewed on this some. I'm in the military and see people who have no business getting married doing it for the perks. But if we got rid of all the benefits of marriage except the "love" part, maybe we would see more wholesome families. As for the kids tax perk, I would get rid of it only if I thought people that couldn't afford to have kids would actually stop having kids. But that isn't going to happen. So the tax perk really just becomes subsidizing their stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Btubes18 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 I don't see what the disabled and elderly have to do with anything. Having a disabled or elderly family member isn't a choice. Getting married and having kids are. How do the tax breaks help form wholesome families? The tax breaks are currently in place and what is our current divorce rate? I would argue that getting rid of the marriage benefit would actually help it because people wouldn't get married just for the benefit. Now I will admit that I may be skewed on this some. I'm in the military and see people who have no business getting married doing it for the perks. But if we got rid of all the benefits of marriage except the "love" part, maybe we would see more wholesome families. As for the kids tax perk, I would get rid of it only if I thought people that couldn't afford to have kids would actually stop having kids. But that isn't going to happen. So the tax perk really just becomes subsidizing their stupidity. I think you hit something there, military marriage benefits are huge and having a ton of military friends flat out tell me they got married for the benefits, I agree it's being abused in this case. Do I think non-military people abuse it too, sure...but I can tell you it's a way less percentage. The trend of people getting married has drastically become a later in life thing. Look at the average age at which Americans got married in the 1950's compared to now. Nowadays, people want to establish themselves in a career before starting a family. Frankly, I got married to my wife because I truly love her and feel I will spend the rest of my life with her. I enjoy the every moment I spend with her and my daughter. And for my situation, both my wife and I work and we are actually getting taxed much higher (similar incomes) than if we were filing separately, so those "tax benefits" are non-existent for us and actually being married hurts us. This tax break for being married only really applies to couples who either have one wage earner or there are massive differences in the wage earners. As for the people saying married people have "Dual incomes, double the amount the people to pay the bills..." I could flip it around and say that we have double the expenses...two cars, two wardrobes to fill, two mouths to feed, I could go on and on. I think for most married people they do not get married for the tax breaks or dual income. They get married because they love the person and they have fully committed to being with the person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switchgear Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 If this is going to become a thing, they need to come up with a better word than "throuple." Strangely enough, when this article and one earlier about the triad when they first got "married" was posted on a poly forums I visit, there was discussion about "throuple" and how bad it was. After many suggestions for a new term, the overall winner was: family The answer is so obvious. Thramily. You're welcome. Just kidding, I know that's terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamB Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 The answer is so obvious. Thramily. You're welcome. Just kidding, I know that's terrible. Ya, that's pretty bad. It sounds like something off of a medical show: "He's pissing blood and his ear fell off. Push 20mg of I.V. Thramily, then get me a bottle of Vicodin and find my car..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 I don't see what the disabled and elderly have to do with anything. Having a disabled or elderly family member isn't a choice. Getting married and having kids are. How do the tax breaks help form wholesome families? The tax breaks are currently in place and what is our current divorce rate? I would argue that getting rid of the marriage benefit would actually help it because people wouldn't get married just for the benefit. Now I will admit that I may be skewed on this some. I'm in the military and see people who have no business getting married doing it for the perks. But if we got rid of all the benefits of marriage except the "love" part, maybe we would see more wholesome families. As for the kids tax perk, I would get rid of it only if I thought people that couldn't afford to have kids would actually stop having kids. But that isn't going to happen. So the tax perk really just becomes subsidizing their stupidity. The benefits are given because starting a family isn't a flawless process in which income is steady and stable for all involved. The tax breaks for kids are there for the same reason they are for disabled family and parents, they are dependents and the government wants to encourage you taking care of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 I'm not sure why a normal English word like "triad" won't suffice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 I do indeed On topic I'm totally for equal rights and if you want to have an open marriage that's your business, but only two people should be legally married at a time in my eyes. if some church wants to marry a whole town, go for it. ....but only two people should be able to enjoy the legal benefits assigned to a marriage partnership.... crossing THAT line introduces far too many logistical problems, in my opinion I was on your side until the part about kids. I honestly don't think there should be a break for kids. Can't afford kids without the break? Don't have children! I've been told, and will admit I don't know the source or how credible it was, that the kids tax break was implemented after WWI to help drive the population back up. I think we have reached a point where we don't need to continue to do that. Probably from the days where being married was considered better because it wasn't living in sin. But those views are pretty outdated. And so are the tax breaks. I really don't understand why taxes can't be more like "you made $X this year, give me 10%" and worry less about what people do with it. If I choose to spend it on kids or a Harley, that shouldn't matter. *Disclaimer: this is for income tax. Obviously other things, like cigarettes, should have a higher tax than flowers to help discourage their purchase. marriage and children are the ONLY tax breaks that i think are unarguable. It isn't a break per-se, it is a recognition that the other PEOPLE are now recipients of the same income. If you buy a Harley or a dog, there is still just one person involved (contrary to how a bunch of pet/harley lovers like to portray it). once you have a child or a spouse, then you are talking about essentially 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or...etct... individual tax records, but they are just filed under one form for efficiency. the alternative to having "deductions" for children, would be for a parent to essentially formally "pay" (not quite "pay" but distribute") a portion of their income to their children for their own support, and have each of the individuals fill out tax returns, but with the income spread out amongst the individuals. I think the returns would generally be lower, except for the very very wealthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 What about "trio"? "Threesome"? "Few"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamB Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 What about "trio"? "Threesome"? "Few"? I'm not sure why a normal English word like "triad" won't suffice. Normally the terms used are triad, quad, etc. "Threesome" has a sexual connotation (three people who are sexually active with each other at the same time) which does not necessarily apply to the group in question as it is possible that two of the three are are not sexually active with each other, or at the same time, etc. There is nothing wrong with the term, just that because it does not always apply it is used less often than triad. "Throuple" is just...goofy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 Threesome is the best idea. Menage a trois already is the sexual connotation. Tri-pod would work right ? haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 Just an opinion, but I think "Family" is the best idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 The more i think about it, the more i I like "few." Where we say "look at that cute couple holding hands," we could say, "look at that cute few holding hands." That is how we use the words "couple " and "few" in other contexts. As in "I had a couple/few beers last night." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.