Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Since you're against those benefits, do you give the proceeds to charity or do you just send them back to the government.Yes, because liberty is getting other people's money of course
Which you are fine with getting- but don't want other people to get.
If they are gay.
They can get it when marriage leads to procreation. For me it did, twice.
t
No- couples get the marriage exemption- regardless of procreation.
You want to deny the 'marriage bennies' that you get- only to homosexual couples. While they pay for your bennies.
You think a pair of 80 year old newly weds are eligible for 'marriage bennies' but not a lesbian couple with 5 kids.
Like I said- you are fine with getting yours- but don't want other people to get it.
If they are gay.
Again, how does it make sense I want benefits when I oppose the benefits? Is all the spinning you're doing making you dizzy?
Gay couples have families.Kaz,
You are INCORRECT that there is any kind of special tax break for Married couples so this whole thread is for NAUGHT.
In FACT there is a tax PENALTY for being married filing jointly....when you reach the higher income levels
Two people being taxed vs one person being taxed....Joining income does not save you in taxes, it actually makes you go in to a HIGHER tax bracket with less combined income than two single people filing that live together.
Marriage penalty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Under these tax rates, two single people who each earned $87,850 would each file as "Single" and each would pay a marginal tax rate of 25%. However, if those same two people were married, their combined income would be exactly the same as before (2 * $87,850 = $175,700), but the "Married filing Jointly" tax brackets would push them into a higher marginal rate of 28%, costing them an additional $879 in taxes.
In the most extreme case, two single people who each earned $400,000 would each pay a marginal tax rate of 35%; but if those same two people filed as "Married, filing jointly" then their combined income would be exactly the same (2 * $400,000 = $800,000), yet $350,000 of that income would be taxed as the higher 39.6% rate, resulting in a marriage penalty of $32,119 in extra taxes ($16,100 for the 39.6% bracket alone, plus the remainder is due to the higher phase out of the lower brackets.)
So complete exemption from the death tax is not a tax break? How do you figure that?
And really, you don't know how tax rates work for married people? What you said doesn't contradict me. If the wife stays home, they pay a lower tax rate. What you are talking about is if they both work and earn relatively equal salaries.
However, I said the "concept" of marriage is having a family, in that case they pay a lower rate, which is clearly a tax break no matter how you slice it. Your scenario is them not doing that
Oh, no! Now what??
Nominal figures are meaningless when comparing figures over a span of time such as from the beginning of Reagan's term until the end.Seriously, douche, are you this stupid for sympathy? Cause I'm feeling bad, like I'm arguing with a three year old.Holyfuckingshit!How funny is it watching you dismiss nominal figures after you used them yourself in the past...
kaz using nominal figures...
You should never use nominal figures when comparing numbers over a span of time. But you? You seem to switch between nominal figures and real figures based on which figures you like better.
That link didn't show me using nominal numbers, moron
You are seriously one dumb fucking retard. Yup, there is no doubt about it as you prove it repeatedly.
Dumbfuck.....
I linked a post if yours claiming "tax revenues doubled from the start of Reagan's presidency to the end."
... the only way that's true is if you're talking about nominal figures. Real figures come nowhere close to "double."
If you had a functioning brain in your head, I wouldn't have to be explaining this to you for a second time now (and counting, you still don't get it).
Strawman?
Irrelevant?
Off-topic?
What's your latest excuse for being such a dumb shmuck?
Yes, of course, I should have read the entire thread you linked to and figured out which post you were referring to, vagina
... moron ... you needed to look no further than the post I linked to know you were referencing nominal figures. You know you used nominal figures so why do you pretend like that post wasn't enough information for you?
Using nominal or binary figures is not always right or always wrong. It's funny how you go on a childish rant while calling me a 3 year old and your big point is I used nominal numbers in a post.
Reagan doubled revenue over his eight year term. My point was that all your crap about tax cuts is bilch, congress spent too much. Nominal budget numbers are the right terms for when discussing nominal spending, kiddie poo
Kaz, tell us, just exactly what are you willing to pay for???Gay couples have families.Kaz,
You are INCORRECT that there is any kind of special tax break for Married couples so this whole thread is for NAUGHT.
In FACT there is a tax PENALTY for being married filing jointly....when you reach the higher income levels
Two people being taxed vs one person being taxed....Joining income does not save you in taxes, it actually makes you go in to a HIGHER tax bracket with less combined income than two single people filing that live together.
Marriage penalty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Under these tax rates, two single people who each earned $87,850 would each file as "Single" and each would pay a marginal tax rate of 25%. However, if those same two people were married, their combined income would be exactly the same as before (2 * $87,850 = $175,700), but the "Married filing Jointly" tax brackets would push them into a higher marginal rate of 28%, costing them an additional $879 in taxes.
In the most extreme case, two single people who each earned $400,000 would each pay a marginal tax rate of 35%; but if those same two people filed as "Married, filing jointly" then their combined income would be exactly the same (2 * $400,000 = $800,000), yet $350,000 of that income would be taxed as the higher 39.6% rate, resulting in a marriage penalty of $32,119 in extra taxes ($16,100 for the 39.6% bracket alone, plus the remainder is due to the higher phase out of the lower brackets.)
So complete exemption from the death tax is not a tax break? How do you figure that?
And really, you don't know how tax rates work for married people? What you said doesn't contradict me. If the wife stays home, they pay a lower tax rate. What you are talking about is if they both work and earn relatively equal salaries.
However, I said the "concept" of marriage is having a family, in that case they pay a lower rate, which is clearly a tax break no matter how you slice it. Your scenario is them not doing that
Oh, no! Now what??
It cracks me up when you call me a 3 year old. The answer to your question is that they get tax exemptions for the kids. But you knew that, you are just a liar
That's a separate tax break which has nothing to do with marriage which they already get.Gay couples have families.Kaz,
You are INCORRECT that there is any kind of special tax break for Married couples so this whole thread is for NAUGHT.
In FACT there is a tax PENALTY for being married filing jointly....when you reach the higher income levels
Two people being taxed vs one person being taxed....Joining income does not save you in taxes, it actually makes you go in to a HIGHER tax bracket with less combined income than two single people filing that live together.
Marriage penalty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Under these tax rates, two single people who each earned $87,850 would each file as "Single" and each would pay a marginal tax rate of 25%. However, if those same two people were married, their combined income would be exactly the same as before (2 * $87,850 = $175,700), but the "Married filing Jointly" tax brackets would push them into a higher marginal rate of 28%, costing them an additional $879 in taxes.
In the most extreme case, two single people who each earned $400,000 would each pay a marginal tax rate of 35%; but if those same two people filed as "Married, filing jointly" then their combined income would be exactly the same (2 * $400,000 = $800,000), yet $350,000 of that income would be taxed as the higher 39.6% rate, resulting in a marriage penalty of $32,119 in extra taxes ($16,100 for the 39.6% bracket alone, plus the remainder is due to the higher phase out of the lower brackets.)
So complete exemption from the death tax is not a tax break? How do you figure that?
And really, you don't know how tax rates work for married people? What you said doesn't contradict me. If the wife stays home, they pay a lower tax rate. What you are talking about is if they both work and earn relatively equal salaries.
However, I said the "concept" of marriage is having a family, in that case they pay a lower rate, which is clearly a tax break no matter how you slice it. Your scenario is them not doing that
Oh, no! Now what??
It cracks me up when you call me a 3 year old. The answer to your question is that they get tax exemptions for the kids. But you knew that, you are just a liar
They can get it when marriage leads to procreation. For me it did, twice.
t
No- couples get the marriage exemption- regardless of procreation.
You want to deny the 'marriage bennies' that you get- only to homosexual couples. While they pay for your bennies.
You think a pair of 80 year old newly weds are eligible for 'marriage bennies' but not a lesbian couple with 5 kids.
Like I said- you are fine with getting yours- but don't want other people to get it.
If they are gay.
Again, how does it make sense I want benefits when I oppose the benefits? Is all the spinning you're doing making you dizzy?
If you wanted to talk about your opposition to marriage benefits in general, why did you single out gays?
Support from anti gay bigots and more click worthy...
Actually, slut, you want married gays to pay less tax than unmarried gays, but more if the unmarried gays have children, but less than married straights who have children, who should pay more if they don't have children.
I want everyone to pay the same rate. Which according to you between promiscuous romps in the sack with random strangers you get online and call bigotry. That I want everyone treated the same and you want everyone treated differently. I'm the bigot.
What an argument. For an idiot.
Look at the guy who only got married for nookie call a happily married woman a "slut", More Kaz hypocrisy on parade.They can get it when marriage leads to procreation. For me it did, twice.
t
No- couples get the marriage exemption- regardless of procreation.
You want to deny the 'marriage bennies' that you get- only to homosexual couples. While they pay for your bennies.
You think a pair of 80 year old newly weds are eligible for 'marriage bennies' but not a lesbian couple with 5 kids.
Like I said- you are fine with getting yours- but don't want other people to get it.
If they are gay.
Again, how does it make sense I want benefits when I oppose the benefits? Is all the spinning you're doing making you dizzy?
If you wanted to talk about your opposition to marriage benefits in general, why did you single out gays?
Support from anti gay bigots and more click worthy...
Actually, slut, you want married gays to pay less tax than unmarried gays, but more if the unmarried gays have children, but less than married straights who have children, who should pay more if they don't have children.
I want everyone to pay the same rate. Which according to you between promiscuous romps in the sack with random strangers you get online and call bigotry. That I want everyone treated the same and you want everyone treated differently. I'm the bigot.
What an argument. For an idiot.
It's cute how you think you get to determine which rights people are entitled to.The only marriage we're talking about; and the only marriage the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over IS government marriage. That is to say, a marriage recognized by the state by issuance of a marriage license.Read it again ... this time, absorb it for clarity ...Repeating your lies doesn't help you. Never has ... never will.
They are not treated the same. For heterosexuals, the government allows them to legally marry the person they love; but not for homosexuals.
No, they couldn't marry "the person they love" if they were straight either. Men can't marry men and women can't marry women, it doesn't matter if you are straight or not. Men can marry women, it doesn't matter if you are straight or not. That is the job of the courts. The rest is for the legislature.
And still you can't name a law that says "who you want" or any other variable that changes the law. Should I be able to fish in hunting season since I eat fish but I don't eat other meat? That's not suppose, I am vegetarian except I eat fish and seafood
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
A gay person whose only marital option is someone he's not in love with because they're not the right gender is denying that gay person's vital personal rights, essential to the inalienable right to pursue happiness.
Yes, marriage is, government marriage is not. Positive rights are not rights for anyone, that's ridiculous. The SCOTUS has a lengthy list of ridiculous rulings to it's credit
And as you've been shown, marriage is a vital right, essential to the inalienable right to pursue happiness.
Such pursuit is only possible if an individual can marry the person, regardless of gender, race, creed, religion, etc..., whom they love and want to be married to. Since the state has to treat everyone the same under the law ... and since the state cannot deny us our rights without legitimate cause and due process ... the state has no alternative to issue marriage licenses with ease to gays as it does to straights.
And get this ... your ignorance is not a barrier to that cause.
Positive rights are a right only to leftist social engineers. No system has equality where some have the right to demand things of others, which by definition removes their rights. It's pure we are all equal, some are more equal than others, Napoleon
I take this as a, no, you don't give any of those benefits you are against to charity.Since you're against those benefits, do you give the proceeds to charity or do you just send them back to the government.Which you are fine with getting- but don't want other people to get.
If they are gay.
They can get it when marriage leads to procreation. For me it did, twice.
t
No- couples get the marriage exemption- regardless of procreation.
You want to deny the 'marriage bennies' that you get- only to homosexual couples. While they pay for your bennies.
You think a pair of 80 year old newly weds are eligible for 'marriage bennies' but not a lesbian couple with 5 kids.
Like I said- you are fine with getting yours- but don't want other people to get it.
If they are gay.
Again, how does it make sense I want benefits when I oppose the benefits? Is all the spinning you're doing making you dizzy?
Right, Sparky. A low tax libertarian is a hypocrite for paying your progressive taxes then taking tax breaks.
You who advocate progressive taxes are not the hypocrite for taking the tax breaks. Even the ones not everyone gets like marriage and home deductions. No hypocrisy there. People who oppose the progressive taxes and tax breaks should pay more. Not the ones who want higher taxes
Idiot
[
No, they couldn't marry "the person they love" if they were straight either. Men can't marry men and women can't marry women, it doesn't matter if you are straight or not.
That is a limitation on marriage that only serves the purpose of denying gays the right to marry according to their sexual orientation.
You give a man a right to marry a woman, but you don't give a woman the right to marry a woman. That is gender discrimination.
Good argument for the legislature. But since it's literally not treating people different due to their orientation since straight woman can't marry a woman either, it's not a job for the courts
The Supreme Court disagrees.
They may ultimately agree with your position- but the Supreme Court absolutely believes it is their job to decide whether denying same gender couples equal access to marriage is Constitutional.
Same sex couples weren't "denied" access to marriage until the courts started legislating, then it was a response to that. Before that it just wasn't recognized
Read it again ... this time, absorb it for clarity ...Repeating your lies doesn't help you. Never has ... never will.
They are not treated the same. For heterosexuals, the government allows them to legally marry the person they love; but not for homosexuals.
No, they couldn't marry "the person they love" if they were straight either. Men can't marry men and women can't marry women, it doesn't matter if you are straight or not. Men can marry women, it doesn't matter if you are straight or not. That is the job of the courts. The rest is for the legislature.
And still you can't name a law that says "who you want" or any other variable that changes the law. Should I be able to fish in hunting season since I eat fish but I don't eat other meat? That's not suppose, I am vegetarian except I eat fish and seafood
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
A gay person whose only marital option is someone he's not in love with because they're not the right gender is denying that gay person's vital personal rights, essential to the inalienable right to pursue happiness.
Yes, marriage is, government marriage is not.t
In the United States the only valid marriage is government marriage.
Anything else is a fiction of mutual consent. You can call your relationship to your car a marriage- but unless you have a valid marriage license- you are only married in the eyes of yourself and other car lovers.
Well, when you define "valid" as "government" it's a truism that only government marriage is valid.
As for in general, the government in my marriage is irrelevant to me, so that only government marriage is valid is false
You're not supposed to get anything out of a gay couple raising a family.I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:
1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.
2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended
So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.
If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?
The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question
They just want you to stop telling them what to do, and stay away
Tell that to the baker who was fined $135,000.
I will tell the baker the same thing I would tell any business man who breaks the law:
"Break the law- face the consequences"- Christians don't get special exemptions from the law that they are protected by.
Moving the goalposts
If you wanted to talk about your opposition to marriage benefits in general, why did you single out gays?
That's pretty lucid for you. Granted I've addressed it repeatedly, but it's not on the actual op. Progress.
Because gays are a trap you are in of your own making.
You want progressive taxes and the death tax.
You then want gays excepted from it when they couple because straights have that and you want to send them the you're gay and that's OK message.
g
They can get it when marriage leads to procreation. For me it did, twice.
t
No- couples get the marriage exemption- regardless of procreation.
You want to deny the 'marriage bennies' that you get- only to homosexual couples. While they pay for your bennies.
You think a pair of 80 year old newly weds are eligible for 'marriage bennies' but not a lesbian couple with 5 kids.
Like I said- you are fine with getting yours- but don't want other people to get it.
If they are gay.
Again, how does it make sense I want benefits when I oppose the benefits? Is all the spinning you're doing making you dizzy?
If you wanted to talk about your opposition to marriage benefits in general, why did you single out gays?
Support from anti gay bigots and more click worthy...
Actually, slut, you want married gays to pay less tax than unmarried gays, but more if the unmarried gays have children, but less than married straights who have children, who should pay more if they don't have children.
I want everyone to pay the same rate. Which according to you between promiscuous romps in the sack with random strangers you get online and call bigotry. That I want everyone treated the same and you want everyone treated differently. I'm the bigot.
What an argument. For an idiot.
That's an Oxymoron - you moron .anti gay position, bigot.
No. Putting your JACK BOOT ON THE NECK OF GAY COUPLES AND TELLING THEM THEY CANT GET MARRIED TO EACH OTHER, is not the same as them being allowed to marry each other. This is pretty basic stuff. I'm surprised you don't get it yet. Maybe you would if the JACK BOOTS WERE ON YOUR NECK.When being gay became "legal" that opened the door to gays having rights. The 14th clarifies what rights the states can and can't restrict. Get over it.Keep going, that document was amended. See the 14th amendment.Cite the statute that criminalizes certain Supreme Court decisions and cite the cases where the statute has been enforced.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
Do you know what that's from?
Yes, and zero gays had who they could marry change based on being gay, so the 14th was not applicable
Yes, it gave gays the rights everyone else had. What you want them to have are rights others don't have. No one could "marry" the same sex. Including my grandmother who took care of her sister for 10 years and got no marriage break, childcare break or any other break. And you think that's the same as blacks getting water canons and tear gas shot at them.
And also what you want for them is only because of progressive taxes. I oppose progressive taxes, they should be flat. But I'm a big-ot for not letting liberals out of your own trap. You are a big-idi-ot...
Don't understand the Full Faith and Credit clause, do you slut?
I do bigot, but apparently you don't.
What you just said shows that's a lie, slut
Really? My marriage license issued by the state of CA is treated differently than my brother's, despite both being issued by the state of California, his is valid in all 50 states while mine is not.
A 40 year old Dugger relative marries his 15 year old 1st cousin in Arkansas...THAT marriage is valid in all 50 states. DOMA violates FF&C.
Actually READ the Full Faith and Credit cluase, don't just say oh yeah, I know what that says. You don't, slu
Slu? What's a slu...or a cluase, Bigot?
I do know what it says and I know where you think you've got wiggle room. We'll see in a couple weeks, shall we?
I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:
1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.
2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended
So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.
If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?
The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question
The Duggars are a very traditional family and marriage. Care to update your comments or let em stand?
I do bigot, but apparently you don't.
What you just said shows that's a lie, slut
Really? My marriage license issued by the state of CA is treated differently than my brother's, despite both being issued by the state of California, his is valid in all 50 states while mine is not.
A 40 year old Dugger relative marries his 15 year old 1st cousin in Arkansas...THAT marriage is valid in all 50 states. DOMA violates FF&C.
Actually READ the Full Faith and Credit cluase, don't just say oh yeah, I know what that says. You don't, slu
Slu? What's a slu...or a cluase, Bigot?
I do know what it says and I know where you think you've got wiggle room. We'll see in a couple weeks, shall we?
No, nothing in a couple weeks affects this discussion at all. Unlike you, my intellect isn't controlled by others
]Which you are fine with getting- but don't want other people to get.
If they are gay.
They can get it when marriage leads to procreation. For me it did, twice.
t
No- couples get the marriage exemption- regardless of procreation.
You want to deny the 'marriage bennies' that you get- only to homosexual couples. While they pay for your bennies.
You think a pair of 80 year old newly weds are eligible for 'marriage bennies' but not a lesbian couple with 5 kids.
Like I said- you are fine with getting yours- but don't want other people to get it.
If they are gay.
Again, how does it make sense I want benefits when I oppose the benefits? Is all the spinning you're doing making you dizzy?
You currently are receiving the benefits that you supposedly oppose. You are fine with getting your benefits- you don't
And you want to deny those same benefits to other couples- but only if they are gay- that is the topic of this thread you started:
What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?
Those are the facts.
You are fine with getting your bennies- you want to deny them to other couples.
If they are gay.
