I don't think that just because it's policy makes it fair. And I think the mortgage deduction is an unfair transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. It's not just that poor people don't get the deduction, it also drives up rent. </derail>
It's impossible for you have read his post in good faith and gotten "because it's policy" out of his rationale.
You're missing (or ignoring) one of the primary reasons why the Government likes marriage - it promotes a more stable population. Married people tend to live longer, have a lower crime rate, earn more money (and pay more taxes) and so forth. Long story short, there's a whole host of societal benefits to marriage that is advantageous for the government. Hence there's a good reason why government should encourage marriage. What you see as an "unfair cost" is really just society providing incentives to married people since marriage tends to strengthen the community as a whole.
Did you miss the part where there are hardly any actual monetary gains to being recognized as being married by the state? There are, however, several legal matter or gains if you like, such as legal next of kin and similar things. This is what recognizing legal marriages brings to the table and it far outpaces your simplistic perception of "marriage=teh moniez."
In the "It's a good thing evil is incompetent" file we've got secret NOM documents about their plan for "'fanning the hostility' between black voters from gay voters and by casting President Obama as a radical foe of marriage" Why would you write this down let alone keep it for so long??
100% agreement with this, the fact that you made the choice to buy a home should not in any way mean I need to support you with my taxes because I rent. You want to buy a home fine, just don't expect me and others who rent to pay more in taxes to subsidize you.
You renters benefit from the mortgage interest deduction, as well, unless you mistakenly believe that your landlord pays his property taxes out of his own pocket and doesn't pass the costs along to you. So I don't really see how you are in any way "subsidizing" home owners. If the property tax burden for home ownership goes up, your rent is going to go up as well.
I pay those same local taxes as part of my rent. But I don't get the ability to have a tax deduction because I did't make the choice to buy a home. I feel the same way about the deductions for having children, I should not have to subsidize your choice to have children.
My point is that you do get the deduction. Or rather, your landlord does, and you pay correspondingly less in rent as a result.
Hell, if you don't drive, you shouldn't have to subsidize the roads. If your house never burns down, you shouldn't have to subsidize the fire department.
You know, I'll tell you what: I'll take it a step further. Not only is a renter not subsidizing me as a homeowner--arguably*, I'm subsidizing him. I pay considerably more in taxes as a result of having a house, even with the home interest deduction, and why is that, exactly? Do I use more public services than a renter? Does my home ownership mean that I produce more garbage, or use more water, or use schools or roads or bridges more than a renter does? As a homeowner, I bear a disproportionately large burden when it comes to supporting my community's infrastructure, so when renters bitch about the OH NOES INTEREST DEDUCTION that still leaves me paying thousands of dollars more per year in local taxes than they do, all I can say is :Cry me a fucking river, freeloader. *(Of course this argument ignores the fact that a renter pays these taxes indirectly through their rent, but since Brett is also ignoring that, I thought it might be interesting to take his argument to its logical conclusion.)
You are doing it wrong. Homes are rented out at the cost of the mortgage and taxes plus 25%. Not only as a rentee do you not get any benefit from the home mortgage deduction but as the renter I don't either. There is no mortgage deduction for rental properties.
Where am I ignoring that last point? You even quoted where I say I am paying those taxes through my rent. If you can't even acknowledge things I actually posted why are you even discussing things?
I just went through and liked a bunch of posts out of sheer admiration for some folks' willingness to continue arguing with dartwick in good faith even after it became evident that he's just got sour grapes cos the gubment won't subsidize the fact no one can stand to be around him.
A modest proposal for Dartwick. STEP ONE: Make gay marriage a right that can't be easily revoked. STEP TWO: Convince conservatives to reduce the benefits for married couples just so that gay spouses don't get them. Bam! Win-win. No "unfair advantage," and everyone can get married.
So the NOM "wedge" strategy is turning into a thing. Whether it's their search for “Glamorous Non-Cognitive Elites” to be their spokesmen or their defense, which is basically, "Yeah, we tried to start a race war to defeat gay marriage, but at least we included other races in the plan!"
Same-Sex Marriage Amendment In Ohio Gets Green Light 'Atsa bit of an exaggeration. It's more like a step forward Boston appeals court hears gay-marriage law case The "Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group" you'll recall, is the GOP controlled anti-gay rights legal task force that's been picking up the defense cases Obama ordered the DoJ to stop defending. Their track record ain't so hot. Their only defense is "B-b-b-b-but Big Government is on our side!!" On a side note, I'm sick to death of the editorials saying Obama needs to come out in full support of gay marriage or risk losing the gay vote. He has done everything but and, the other side, is on record as saying they want gay marriage perma-banned everywhere in the United States (at the very least). It's like saying you should add more sugar to the Kool-Aid because people might opt for drinking the poison instead. England's push for gay marriage is America's push five years ago so...go back and read, both sides are saying the same things. Anti-gay group in Liberia issues hit list, threatens to ‘get to them one by one’ This is a few days old but I wanted to wait 'til the Boston trials were underway. I think, after the election, things will really start to happen. The US is already putting political pressure on countries to make gay rights part of "Human Rights". I think that'll increase.
Except that in the UK, the push for gay marriage is being led by the conservative establishment and is being opposed by a small fringe of mostly religious interests rather than by half of government.
Yes, also the resolution will be swifter and more positive and be badly cooked with lots of slang. The arguments made by both sides are the same but you're right.
I live in NC and am semi-closeted. As much as I would like Amendment 1 to fail, it's on the May Republican primary vote. Which means mostly Republicans will be voting i.e. old and/or stupid religious people. The equation is pretty simple: More old people need to die.
Everyone's still talking, Nevada is being sued, nothing too big. Marvel comics is having it's first gay marriage. One of the local comic book store owners around here is having an event/protest with other gay couples. And here's Romney's impression of a gay man. He's asking for a pink tie get it!! Oh Romney, you card!
For what it's worth, my state has a renters' refund program you can apply for if you meet certain conditions where your rent is a certain percentage of your income. I make too much compared to my rent to be eligible for it now, but maan was it nice to have when I didn't. http://www.maine.gov/revenue/taxrelief/tnr.htm
This IS what libertarians believe, actually, so you aren't going to get brett this way. That's their actual view. It should all be privatized, so that you only pay for what you use. Set aside the fact that many of these things would not be profitable if privatized, so no one would ever do them. That's not the point. The point is that libertarians believe that taxes are inherently evil, regardless of their purpose. Now some of that evil MIGHT be justified, usually for defense of the nation. But it is still theft, and as such it is still wrong. You can't argue with libertarians using the tactics you just use. The best approach is to point and laugh.
Seems to me that privatizing the fire department would be an excellent way of creating an organized arson syndicate. "Dis is a nice place youse got here. I'd hate to, eeeh, see it accidentally set ablaze."
Fire departments in the US used to be privatized, actually. It didn't work very well, for reasons that are pretty obvious in retrospect. So now they are publicly run.
Yep, some insurance companies in the UK started off as private fire companies. You would have a big logo on your house so they would know if they had insured you. As an aside, due to the class thing in the UK, conservatives tend to be gay (well, camp) friendly. High Tory/ High Chuch types are a backbone of the conservatives. E.g. Norman St John-Stevas. I love this quote from his obituary 'He lived in that period where gay politicians never came "out", yet were happy for everyone to know. He lived life as a camp performance'
Okay, I promise not to beleaguer this thread by belaboring my earlier points, but I just ran across something that has me a little pissed. I'm altering my student loan, and I would be at more of an advantage with said alteration if my family size were 2 instead of 1. If I were married, I could automatically say 2. Since I'm not, I can only count my partner in the calculation if I can prove she "(1) live(s) with (me) and (2) receive(s) more than half of their support from (me) and will continue to receive this support for the year (I) certify (my) family size. Support includes money, gifts, loans, housing, food, clothes, car, medical and dental care, and payment of college costs."
My girlfriend and I would lose a lot of money if we got married, as it would end the generous child benefits she gets from the government as a single working mother making only a little more than minimum wage. Regardless, a very stupid argument against gay marriage. Let them do what they want, it'll spur your local economies (good money in the marriage business).
