• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it? (PART II)

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it? (PART II)


  • Total voters
    154
If there are no tax and benefits attached to marriage you would be right. If all government support of all married couples is stopped, then that changes the argument. But that is unfortunately not the case.

The tax and benefits tied to marriage are not huge at all, and in fact can be taxes on marriage itself and punishments. For instance, being married can prevent a person from being able to testify against a spouse that they know has done something wrong. It can cause some problems when it comes to debt. It can tie a person legally to another person's family, which then could reflect negatively on them, even if they have very little contact with their inlaws.

It still comes to the fact that we give incentives, including tax incentives for things that we view as benefiting society. Marriages, even non-child bearing marriages benefit society. Many studies have been done on this. But considering how little the majority of couples actually gain from this benefit they give, it really cannot be how you want to believe it is.
 
As I pointed out to another member here, that is not true. I know that most people do not think easily in economic terms. But this is rather straight forward in first incidence. The The easiest way you might think about it would be to think about where the money comes from, when the sum of taxes falls, while spending stays or increases. This is what happens, when a group receives a tax break and new government benefits.

You are the one not being truthful or ignoring what is the truth about government benefits of marriage. Most of those are not financial benefits, but rather protections from the government and familial rights. You want to see it differently, likely because you have set your mind that single people are not being treated fairly. You simply are not correct.

Married people are not receiving this huge tax break, nor any huge government benefits. Much of what they do receive is easily compensated for by what they provide to society.
 
I do not really think I said that. As a matter of fact, that is so off the wall that I can hardly believe you said it.

No what you are saying is completely off the wall. You pretend that allowing gays to marry will cost you $$$ that is false and plain stupid. You can only pretend this if you believe all money belongs to the govt as a communist does. So either you are a communist or you are just pretending to be outraged to try and hide your anti-gay bias.

I am pretty sure every one on this forum knows which is the real reason
 
True economists have been studying marriage and how it affects the government's income for a while. They say the same thing those of us who support same sex marriage have been saying, that marriage, despite what some want to claim, brings in more money to the government. It does not cost the rest of society any money for same sex couples to marry. In fact, it is highly likely that it would in fact save other taxpayers money for them to marry.

The Economic Benefits of Gay Marriage | PBS NewsHour

However, more than a decade of research by myself and other economists and analysis by the Congressional Budget Office under the direction of Douglas Holtz-Eakin suggests just the opposite: that state and federal budgets will actually get a positive boost if gay couples are allowed to marry. Any additional state and federal spending on benefits would be outweighed by savings from lower cash assistance and Medicaid spending. Moreover, many same-sex couples would also discover - unhappily, one imagines - the marriage penalty in the federal income tax system, resulting in a likely increase in tax revenue.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/55xx/doc5559/06-21-samesexmarriage.pdf

Economic Impact Reports | Williams Institute

If individual states bring in more tax revenue, that is less money that is needed from other sources, such as the federal government for those states. Plus, if more people are covered, by law, under private insurance, it means less qualifying for Medicaid/Medicare. It also means that both partners' incomes must be considered when applying for assistance. A person could get assistance if they are single but not qualify if their spouse makes a good amount of money.

There is plenty of research that proves wrong the belief that same sex marriage will cost anyone else money. Not allowing same sex couples to marry in fact costs taxpayers a ton of money in just fighting it alone. Such as the recent costs incurred from defending DOMA just this past year+.
 
You are the one not being truthful or ignoring what is the truth about government benefits of marriage. Most of those are not financial benefits, but rather protections from the government and familial rights. You want to see it differently, likely because you have set your mind that single people are not being treated fairly. You simply are not correct.

Married people are not receiving this huge tax break, nor any huge government benefits. Much of what they do receive is easily compensated for by what they provide to society.

Most subsidies are small in themselves. But here one, there one and a few more over there and government closes down.
 
No what you are saying is completely off the wall. You pretend that allowing gays to marry will cost you $$$ that is false and plain stupid. You can only pretend this if you believe all money belongs to the govt as a communist does. So either you are a communist or you are just pretending to be outraged to try and hide your anti-gay bias.

I am pretty sure every one on this forum knows which is the real reason

I am afraid it is stupid because it is true. If it were not true, there would be no issue at all.
 
Most subsidies are small in themselves. But here one, there one and a few more over there and government closes down.

I gave the proof of what I said. Research shows I am correct. Any advantages some married couples get are easily made up for in other ways. You want to counter what I am saying, do the research, show it. Don't simply claim what you are saying is true. You are thinking way too simplistically about this. You are ignoring, either intentionally or ignorantly, all the things that go into taxes and what they are used for, where they come from and who they come from.
 
Most subsidies are small in themselves. But here one, there one and a few more over there and government closes down.

Also, I know you aren't trying to imply that same sex marriage recognition is in any way responsible for this or any other future government shutdown. That would be beyond insane and stupid. It simply lacks logic or facts to support it.
 
I gave the proof of what I said. Research shows I am correct. Any advantages some married couples get are easily made up for in other ways. You want to counter what I am saying, do the research, show it. Don't simply claim what you are saying is true. You are thinking way too simplistically about this. You are ignoring, either intentionally or ignorantly, all the things that go into taxes and what they are used for, where they come from and who they come from.

Have a link to a study?
 
Also, I know you aren't trying to imply that same sex marriage recognition is in any way responsible for this or any other future government shutdown. That would be beyond insane and stupid. It simply lacks logic or facts to support it.

No. Only that we are spending more than the tax we are paying. One of the things that reduces Taxes is the married couples thing.
 
I am afraid it is stupid because it is true. If it were not true, there would be no issue at all.

I agree your position is stupid but what do you want me to do about that? Only you can change your opinion to a logical one
 
No. Only that we are spending more than the tax we are paying. One of the things that reduces Taxes is the married couples thing.

Sigh once more you go off on your communist rant where you think all money belongs to the govt.
It doesn't Mao.
 
No. Only that we are spending more than the tax we are paying. One of the things that reduces Taxes is the married couples thing.

Which has nothing to do with married couples or same sex marriage. In fact, some of that wasted spending is in preventing same sex couples from being married.
 
Which has nothing to do with married couples or same sex marriage. In fact, some of that wasted spending is in preventing same sex couples from being married.

His position has nothing to do with money he is just pretending that it is.
Just thought I would point that out in case you somehow hadn't figured it out yet.
 
Actually, you could not be further from the truth.

Some people try to mask their bigotry with arguments about money...
 
Sure. There is always a reason. But why offend people without a real reason. I do not understand why some here and "many others" want to be rude. But, as the man said: "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." ;)

If you are offended by what others do with no real involvement with you, frankly you need to get a life. Being offended because David and James are husband and husband means you are too much of a busy body. Why would that offend anybody why would anybody care?
 
So you are for gay couples being married if they have children then, okay.

Nothing against that. No kids, no subsidies. Though, the subsidies need to be well structured. I read this morning that the German government subsidies to families (mostly a tax reduction for married couples with an impact judged negative in the study) is about $ 240 Billions pa.
 
If you are offended by what others do with no real involvement with you, frankly you need to get a life. Being offended because David and James are husband and husband means you are too much of a busy body. Why would that offend anybody why would anybody care?

As I pointed out and you seemingly do not understand, I have no problem with guy screwing guy or girls doing with ants. As long as my taxes are not involved? Why not?
 
Nothing against that. No kids, no subsidies. Though, the subsidies need to be well structured. I read this morning that the German government subsidies to families (mostly a tax reduction for married couples with an impact judged negative in the study) is about $ 240 Billions pa.

A tax reduction is not a subsidy Mao
 
A tax reduction is not a subsidy Mao

True. It is a negative subsidy, where I come from in quantitative economics.
 
And there, the math and system says you are wrong.

I don't recall having to acquire government funds to get married. So no, it wouldn't cost you anything. Your math sucks and your understanding of the system is terrible.
 
Back
Top Bottom