If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   Many same-sex couples may pay more in taxes after they get married. Heterosexual couples: "We told you so"   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 23
    More: Followup, marriage penalty, child tax credit, income taxes  
•       •       •

2138 clicks; posted to Business » on 29 Jun 2013 at 10:40 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-06-29 10:57:29 AM
4 votes:
The problem here isn't with gay marriage. It's with our stupid tax system.
2013-06-29 10:48:40 AM
4 votes:
...Plus a few hundred other rights and benefits previously unavailable to them.

I think they'll be OK with the "marriage tax penalty".
2013-06-29 11:38:35 AM
3 votes:
Wtf wants to get married any more?
Idiots.
2013-06-29 11:27:22 AM
3 votes:
There is no marriage tax penalty... at least not anymore.

If you and your life partner make the same amount, filing together, you pay the same as if you file separate. No difference.

If you and your life partner make vastly different amounts (say, 100k and 0), then you get a massive tax break because you effectively pay the taxes on the average of the two incomes.

In the weird event that somehow filing taxes together would cause you to pay more taxes (it shouldn't), file separately.
kab
2013-06-29 04:53:02 PM
2 votes:

Lost Thought 00: The tax code is designed to encourage single-income families. To that end, it is effective.


Too bad the rest of our economic system encourages exactly the opposite.
2013-06-29 11:59:38 AM
2 votes:

jake3988: There is no marriage tax penalty... at least not anymore. If you and your life partner make the same amount, filing together, you pay the same as if you file separate. No difference. If you and your life partner make vastly different amounts (say, 100k and 0), then you get a massive tax break because you effectively pay the taxes on the average of the two incomes. In the weird event that somehow filing taxes together would cause you to pay more taxes (it shouldn't), file separately.


I think the marriage tax "penalty" is either a myth or something that's been dead for ages but still mentioned because of its fictional existence allows people to whine.  I've always done my own taxes and for as long as I've been doing them, the above has been the case.  As a single person it made me pissed that families would get huge tax breaks AND have the gall to complain about their tax burden.  And I remember thinking that over ten years ago because I was using a 1040 to claim student loan interest and saw the difference.  Any "penalty" would have to have been dead at least two administrations ago.

When I got married and my wife was unemployed, my taxes dropped like whoah -- I think the amount I saved topped $10k.  We definitely started paying more once my wife got a job, but that's because her income was almost as high as mine.  Double income = more taxes.  We've run the numbers on filing jointly or separately and there's no real difference in our current situation.

If you're married and paying more in taxes, you're doing it wrong.  But I think this is really more a case of retarded douchebags in America complaining about "problems" that don't even exist.  We could repeal all federal income taxes today and by tomorrow they'll be talking about how the federal gas tax is Destroying America.
2013-06-29 11:39:42 AM
2 votes:

MFAWG: Peki: AirForceVet: And same-sex couples can enjoy the pleasures of divorce too.

/BFD compared to not being able to get married in the first place.

I suspect this is actually how we'll get nation-wide SSM: a couple will get married in one state, move to another, petition to get a divorce, be denied, and then take it to the SC under the FF&C clause. I think we have one or two of these in the pipeline already.

/almost there, not quite

Why would they be denied? 'Recognize the marriage to dissolve it' is not the same as 'allow the marriage to happen in the first place'.


If you look at the constitutional amendments in most states against same-sex marriage the language states that the state-level courts cannot do anything that would recognize a same sex marriage in the same way as a hetro-sexual marriage.  In order to get a divorce you must first recognize a valid marriage as a valid marriage is a prerequisite to divorce.  If you don't recognize the same-sex marriage then why do you need divorce, do single couples randomly file for divorces?  No, and that is why courts in states with bigoted constitutional amendments will not grant same-sex divorce.
2013-06-29 10:26:08 AM
2 votes:

AirForceVet: And same-sex couples can enjoy the pleasures of divorce too.

/BFD compared to not being able to get married in the first place.


I suspect this is actually how we'll get nation-wide SSM: a couple will get married in one state, move to another, petition to get a divorce, be denied, and then take it to the SC under the FF&C clause. I think we have one or two of these in the pipeline already.

/almost there, not quite
2013-06-29 10:12:57 AM
2 votes:
And same-sex couples can enjoy the pleasures of divorce too.

/BFD compared to not being able to get married in the first place.
2013-06-30 03:20:10 PM
1 votes:

dantheman195: Get rid of Government sanctioned marriage and we get rid of many problems that goes along with it


Actually, it will make the core problems that same-sex couples worry about worse.  If you are fighting for the right to visit your spouse in the hospital, being able to wave a marriage certificate that is valid in the same state in which the hospital is located will do wonders.  (Yes, I realize that even now this is not an option for a lot of gay couples.  But with the addition of California, it will be true in a lot of the more populous states.)  If we do away with government recognized marriage, but the government does continue to recognize parent-child relationships, then your mother-in-law can keep you from seeing your dying spouse irregardless of your genders.
2013-06-30 12:33:14 PM
1 votes:

Divinegrace: SDRR: dantheman195: SDRR: Gunny Walker: The problem here isn't with gay marriage. It's with our stupid tax system.

Ding Ding we have a winner.

Government sanctioned "Marriage" has nothing with love, commitment, or anything like, it is about allocation of assets, that is all.

Why do we have Government sanctioned marriage in the first place?

Get rid of Government sanctioned marriage and we get rid of many problems that goes along with it

I would prefer they fix the farked up tax code.

How about this...

Get rid of Government...PERIOD.

I don't need the government to protect myself and my community.
I don't need the government to regulate my economy.
I don't need the government to pave my roads.
I don't need the government to provide my health care.
I don't need the government for a single mother fraking thing...not ONE.


Yeah, you do.
2013-06-30 10:27:55 AM
1 votes:
I still don't get why americans are pushing for the expansion of bad governmental policy. State marriage is a non defined contract whose terms are defined only at divorce. All marriages should require a well defined contract of terms on entry. At that point no government recognition is needed, just standard contract enforcement.

Also get rid of marriage benefits, it is unequal benefit to singles. A single person may just want their best friend a hospital bed, yet they get denied. It is unequal to those who do not marry.
2013-06-30 02:31:44 AM
1 votes:

Peki: AirForceVet: And same-sex couples can enjoy the pleasures of divorce too.

/BFD compared to not being able to get married in the first place.

I suspect this is actually how we'll get nation-wide SSM: a couple will get married in one state, move to another, petition to get a divorce, be denied, and then take it to the SC under the FF&C clause. I think we have one or two of these in the pipeline already.

/almost there, not quite


After 13 years of progress since Matthew Shepherd, I'll take the inevitability of national SSM as a sign we're finally acting like adults about gay lifestyles.
2013-06-29 09:44:00 PM
1 votes:

Why Would I Read the Article: The real question is what happens when they start to get divorced?  In straight couples, the woman gets everything and the man goes to live in Section 8 housing.  I guess now the government just expects gay couples to get divorced at the same rate as lesbian couples, and in those cases the lesbians get everything from both gays?

 Man, what a headache that will be.  I bet it goes all the way to the supreme court.

modcam.com

Now if I can only photoshop that bad boy.
2013-06-29 08:39:59 PM
1 votes:

Fark_Guy_Rob: In my experience, there is very little financial reason to get married; but there is a lot of increased risk.


Hey, don't assume the rest of us will make the same bad decisions you did.
2013-06-29 07:48:26 PM
1 votes:

borg: rugman11: Peki: AirForceVet: And same-sex couples can enjoy the pleasures of divorce too.

/BFD compared to not being able to get married in the first place.

I suspect this is actually how we'll get nation-wide SSM: a couple will get married in one state, move to another, petition to get a divorce, be denied, and then take it to the SC under the FF&C clause. I think we have one or two of these in the pipeline already.

/almost there, not quite

Isn't there already a case moving through the courts?  I think it involved a state employee being denied insurance coverage for his/her same-sex spouse because the state didn't recognize their marriage.  I want to say it was in Oklahoma.

The state is now legally required to recognize their marriage and provide all benefits. No if   and's or but's about it.


No, Oklahoma (and other states where same-sex marriage is illegal) is not required to recognize their marriage. The repeal of DOMA only affects federal benefits.
2013-06-29 07:21:46 PM
1 votes:

k1j2b3: Wondering what some of the liberals on here think of the idea that a governor can just decide not to defend a law he doesn't like? What happens when the shoe is on the other foot? As in, what if the 'people' get an anti-gay marriage law passed, a gay couple takes it to court, and the governor chooses not to defend it? What then? Will this Supreme Court decision be so awesome? Like it or not, the Prop. 8 decision was really about who had standing to pursue the case. It wasn't about gay marriage.


I know someone who listens to Jon and Ken....
2013-06-29 01:12:14 PM
1 votes:
But hey, at least now they can actually see their love ones in a hospital etc and aren't as badly screwed over when they die.
2013-06-29 12:19:59 PM
1 votes:
And they receive the same tax-benefits.  That is what they were fighting for, subtard.
2013-06-29 11:58:22 AM
1 votes:
You've just abandoned the Reagan Democrats with this gay marriage ruling. It was the loss of working class voters in swing states that cost us the 2012 election, not the gay vote. Gays who stayed unmarried because of DOMA respect the rule of law and can see how self-centered a politician must be to fill this gay marriage ruling with favors, earmarks and crony capitalists' pork, and call it good. You disrespect gays with your assumption that they desire ignoring the rule of law.
2013-06-29 11:25:47 AM
1 votes:

Peki: AirForceVet: And same-sex couples can enjoy the pleasures of divorce too.

/BFD compared to not being able to get married in the first place.

I suspect this is actually how we'll get nation-wide SSM: a couple will get married in one state, move to another, petition to get a divorce, be denied, and then take it to the SC under the FF&C clause. I think we have one or two of these in the pipeline already.

/almost there, not quite


Isn't there already a case moving through the courts?  I think it involved a state employee being denied insurance coverage for his/her same-sex spouse because the state didn't recognize their marriage.  I want to say it was in Oklahoma.
2013-06-29 11:01:19 AM
1 votes:
Really helps with inheritance taxes though: the entire reason  Windsor started was because a lesbian tried to claim the marriage exemption after her spouse died.

You'd think the R's would be all over this: they hate the "death tax" with a passion and the case was a huge win for people trying to lower their taxes.  Add to that more people getting married and you have a solid conservative case for letting the gays marry...
2013-06-29 10:46:43 AM
1 votes:

Peki: AirForceVet: And same-sex couples can enjoy the pleasures of divorce too.

/BFD compared to not being able to get married in the first place.

I suspect this is actually how we'll get nation-wide SSM: a couple will get married in one state, move to another, petition to get a divorce, be denied, and then take it to the SC under the FF&C clause. I think we have one or two of these in the pipeline already.

/almost there, not quite


Why would they be denied? 'Recognize the marriage to dissolve it' is not the same as 'allow the marriage to happen in the first place'.
 
Displayed 23 of 23 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report