What is the Purpose of Spousal Tax Benefits?

[jwoodie]

Q. Why should "married" people be given preferential treatment regarding joint tax returns, inheritance taxes and social security benefits? Because they "love" each other more than unmarried people? These "tax expenditures" are costing the U.S. Treasury $ billions, so why should we do it?

A. These benefits are designed to allow parents to devote more time to the care of their children and should be limited to married parents of minor children, regardless of sexual orientation.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I don't think there should be any rewards for breeding, either. You want children, you get to support them, not every other taxpayer.

 

[g5000]

Tax expenditures are collectivist attempts at social behavioral engineering. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you do not buy this product, the State will punish you with higher taxes. If you do not exhibit this behavior, the State will punish you with higher taxes.


If you earn the exact same income as your next door neighbor, it is ridiculous you may be paying more or less taxes than he does. And the less he pays, the more you have to pay to make up the difference!

The State is morally judging you, and that morality is created by the demands of those who make cash donations to its functionaries.

 

[eflatminor]

Q. Why should "married" people be given preferential treatment regarding joint tax returns, inheritance taxes and social security benefits? Because they "love" each other more than unmarried people? These "tax expenditures" are costing the U.S. Treasury $ billions, so why should we do it?

A. These benefits are designed to allow parents to devote more time to the care of their children and should be limited to married parents of minor children, regardless of sexual orientation.

I disagree. Rather than the government giving benefits to any group over another, because of some "perceived" societal benefit, how about we all get treated equally?

Unique concept, I know!

In other words, there should be no problem allowing an individual to name any other individual to be his beneficiary for inheritance, social security, taxes, etc. The government need not know that person's relationship to you. That way, you'd be free to name your spouse, your partner, your friend, a family member, or anyone else you like.

 

[boedicca]

Q. Why should "married" people be given preferential treatment regarding joint tax returns, inheritance taxes and social security benefits? Because they "love" each other more than unmarried people? These "tax expenditures" are costing the U.S. Treasury $ billions, so why should we do it?

A. These benefits are designed to allow parents to devote more time to the care of their children and should be limited to married parents of minor children, regardless of sexual orientation.

Two of these things are not like the other.

Inheritance and SS benefits are "assets" for which taxes have already been paid. A better question is why the government taxes them in the first place.

As for the income tax benefits of being married? Ha. Take a look at the singles tax table compared to the married. The income levels on the latter are not a simple 2X of the former. If anything, many married people are penalized with higher taxes than if they were single.

 

[jwoodie]

Q. Why should "married" people be given preferential treatment regarding joint tax returns, inheritance taxes and social security benefits? Because they "love" each other more than unmarried people? These "tax expenditures" are costing the U.S. Treasury $ billions, so why should we do it?

A. These benefits are designed to allow parents to devote more time to the care of their children and should be limited to married parents of minor children, regardless of sexual orientation.

Two of these things are not like the other.

Inheritance and SS benefits are "assets" for which taxes have already been paid. A better question is why the government taxes them in the first place.

As for the income tax benefits of being married? Ha. Take a look at the singles tax table compared to the married. The income levels on the latter are not a simple 2X of the former. If anything, many married people are penalized with higher taxes than if they were single.

1. The income tax benefit of being married is income averaging.

2. Most inherited assets represent capital gains which escape taxation because of the automatic step-up in cost basis for beneficiaries.

3. Nonworking spouses receive an additional 50% of the working spouses social security.

 

[kaz]

Q. Why should "married" people be given preferential treatment regarding joint tax returns, inheritance taxes and social security benefits? Because they "love" each other more than unmarried people? These "tax expenditures" are costing the U.S. Treasury $ billions, so why should we do it?

To government, all citizens should be equal individuals. Gay or straight marriage should be a private matter between a couple and their religion and each other. The only relevance to government should be if they decide to enter into a contract. Like sure, I'll have your kids and take care of your home, but if you leave me you SOB I want half your bread. He can agree or not. Government has no place in it either way.

As to your question though, government did not create government marriage to foster anything except why government does anything. To do the opposite of what I advocate and make everyone unequal, then manipulate that for the expansion of their own power.

 

[kaz]

In other words, there should be no problem allowing an individual to name any other individual to be his beneficiary for inheritance, social security, taxes, etc. The government need not know that person's relationship to you. That way, you'd be free to name your spouse, your partner, your friend, a family member, or anyone else you like.

Bam!

The left want the death tax, then whine when, OMG, gay couples have to pay it. We're supposed to let them out of their own trap. End it for everyone. Then gay couples will be exempt too.

 

[BreezeWood]

England once had a bachelor tax ....

 

[jwoodie]

I have to laugh when Social Security recipients complain about tax breaks for families with children. Who else is going to keep the program solvent?

 

[boedicca]

Q. Why should "married" people be given preferential treatment regarding joint tax returns, inheritance taxes and social security benefits? Because they "love" each other more than unmarried people? These "tax expenditures" are costing the U.S. Treasury $ billions, so why should we do it?

A. These benefits are designed to allow parents to devote more time to the care of their children and should be limited to married parents of minor children, regardless of sexual orientation.

Two of these things are not like the other.

Inheritance and SS benefits are "assets" for which taxes have already been paid. A better question is why the government taxes them in the first place.

As for the income tax benefits of being married? Ha. Take a look at the singles tax table compared to the married. The income levels on the latter are not a simple 2X of the former. If anything, many married people are penalized with higher taxes than if they were single.

1. The income tax benefit of being married is income averaging.

Uh. No. Income averaging doesn't provide a tax benefit. Income averaging was removed from the tax code years ago.

2. Most inherited assets represent capital gains which escape taxation because of the automatic step-up in cost basis for beneficiaries.

You are asserting a moral premise that capital gains should be taxed. Inherited assets realized no capital gains until they are sold; until that time they profits are fictitious. The nonsense you advocate is what destroys family businesses.

3. Nonworking spouses receive an additional 50% of the working spouses social security.

You are asserting a premise that it is moral to seize someone's income to fund other people's retirement instead of leaving them alone to invest it for his own future. The morally and financially proper use of that money is private retirement accounts which an individual can leave to his or her heirs (and which cannot be raided by the government).

 

[Unkotare]

Q. Why should "married" people be given preferential treatment regarding joint tax returns, inheritance taxes and social security benefits? .

To encourage marriage, of course.

 

[BillyV]

Two of these things are not like the other.

Inheritance and SS benefits are "assets" for which taxes have already been paid. A better question is why the government taxes them in the first place.

As for the income tax benefits of being married? Ha. Take a look at the singles tax table compared to the married. The income levels on the latter are not a simple 2X of the former. If anything, many married people are penalized with higher taxes than if they were single.

1. The income tax benefit of being married is income averaging.

Uh. No. Income averaging doesn't provide a tax benefit. Income averaging was removed from the tax code years ago.

2. Most inherited assets represent capital gains which escape taxation because of the automatic step-up in cost basis for beneficiaries.

You are asserting a moral premise that capital gains should be taxed. Inherited assets realized no capital gains until they are sold; until that time they profits are fictitious. The nonsense you advocate is what destroys family businesses.

3. Nonworking spouses receive an additional 50% of the working spouses social security.

You are asserting a premise that it is moral to seize someone's income to fund other people's retirement instead of leaving them alone to invest it for his own future. The morally and financially proper use of that money is private retirement accounts which an individual can leave to his or her heirs (and which cannot be raided by the government).

I think he was just stating current law, not evaluating whether or not it was "moral". In fact, if a single man earning a decent wage marries a single woman making little, the couple's taxes will go down because of the wider tax brackets. If, on the other hand, they make about the same amount, there is no benefit. Averaging the single man's salary with the woman's lack of it is what he is, I believe, referring to, not the old "income averaging" tax rule. In any case, it is generally less significant than the tax benefits that are provided for minor children, between the dependency deductions, child credits, child care credits, and in lower income households the earned income credits. It's one main reason there is a "47%".


When an asset is inherited, you get to use the value at the date of death as if that is what you paid for it, even if the deceased paid little or nothing for it. If old Aunt Sally bought shares of IBM in 1947 and you inherited them from her today, she would have a large profit in those shares. If there were no estate tax and therefore no "step up in cost basis", you would have to pay the capital gains tax on most of what you received when you sold them; as it is you would inherit them basically tax free, Aunt Sally's estate would have already paid the tax. I personally think the former is the better way to tax those assets, especially since, as you say, they are often invested in family businesses that are destroyed to pay the taxes (see: Joe Robbie (Miami Dolphins) estate).

 

[Pete7469]

Tax expenditures are collectivist attempts at social behavioral engineering. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you do not buy this product, the State will punish you with higher taxes. If you do not exhibit this behavior, the State will punish you with higher taxes.


If you earn the exact same income as your next door neighbor, it is ridiculous you may be paying more or less taxes than he does. And the less he pays, the more you have to pay to make up the difference!

The State is morally judging you, and that morality is created by the demands of those who make cash donations to its functionaries.

That's the most lucid thing you've ever posted.

 

[eots]

I don't think there should be any rewards for breeding, either. You want children, you get to support them, not every other taxpayer.

these children born now will carry the debt load of many middle aged people who had no childen of their own a your thinking is a bit short sited

 

[Unkotare]

I don't think there should be any rewards for breeding, either.

Stable, in-tact families should be encouraged.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Q. Why should "married" people be given preferential treatment regarding joint tax returns, inheritance taxes and social security benefits? Because they "love" each other more than unmarried people? These "tax expenditures" are costing the U.S. Treasury $ billions, so why should we do it?

A. These benefits are designed to allow parents to devote more time to the care of their children and should be limited to married parents of minor children, regardless of sexual orientation.

I disagree. Rather than the government giving benefits to any group over another, because of some "perceived" societal benefit, how about we all get treated equally?

Unique concept, I know!

In other words, there should be no problem allowing an individual to name any other individual to be his beneficiary for inheritance, social security, taxes, etc. The government need not know that person's relationship to you. That way, you'd be free to name your spouse, your partner, your friend, a family member, or anyone else you like.

If part of government's role is to further what benefits society as a whole, while not abridging the rights of any sub group of society, why would any sane person demand they not do so because of some 'perceived' notion about what equality means?

 

[Pop23]

I don't think there should be any rewards for breeding, either.

Stable, in-tact families should be encouraged.

Of course that's the reason, saying it is an award for breeding degrades the purpose, but ok, it's a dirty job (if done right), but somebody's gotta do it.

 

[Politico]

Q. Why should "married" people be given preferential treatment regarding joint tax returns, inheritance taxes and social security benefits?

They shouldn't.

 

[eflatminor]

Q. Why should "married" people be given preferential treatment regarding joint tax returns, inheritance taxes and social security benefits? Because they "love" each other more than unmarried people? These "tax expenditures" are costing the U.S. Treasury $ billions, so why should we do it?

A. These benefits are designed to allow parents to devote more time to the care of their children and should be limited to married parents of minor children, regardless of sexual orientation.

I disagree. Rather than the government giving benefits to any group over another, because of some "perceived" societal benefit, how about we all get treated equally?

Unique concept, I know!

In other words, there should be no problem allowing an individual to name any other individual to be his beneficiary for inheritance, social security, taxes, etc. The government need not know that person's relationship to you. That way, you'd be free to name your spouse, your partner, your friend, a family member, or anyone else you like.

If part of government's role is to further what benefits society as a whole,

It's not. The government's role is to keep us free and to oversee their enumerated powers. You're spouting Marxist nonsense again.

while not abridging the rights of any sub group of society,

Which is EXACTLY what they're doing when tax and other benefits are given to married straight couples but not to other partnerships between two people.

why would any sane person demand they not do so because of some 'perceived' notion about what equality means?

We get that 'equal treatment under the law' has traditionally not been a strong point for progressives...'cuz they know what's best and which groups deserve special treatment of course.

Hypocritical doesn't being to describe it...