Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The same interest as straight people. When the marriage is dissolved, someone has to account for and be responsible for properties and children. Anarchy is not a good way to exist in a country and we have chosen NOT to take that path - thus state laws.
Seems to me that the cost of this constant filing of claims against each other and the resulting crush on the courts is greatly reduced when paperwork is required up front. Why is this a bad thing?
Non of the above requires government to regulate marriage.
Tell me, is there really no part or portion of you life that you think that the government should not be able to stick it's nose into?
Non of the above requires government to regulate marriage.
The government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. If people wish to have a government sanctioned civil union though that helps to enforce a civil contract that would be more of a case of the government providing a service, not regulation. The government has no business dictating the gender or the number of people getting involved in these civil unions though, and no business regulating what a church or private entity requires to sanction a marriage.
It is rather easy, only if you are self employed and have all the control. Lifetime employees don't have the option. It is taken, without a say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dothetwist
I call BS on this. ONLY self-employed Ministers can opt out and only for their religious based income. Yes, cities, counties, etc. can opt out of SS with the right kind of approved plan.
"The law is very specific about the requirements for exemption from the Social Security program, and most taxpayers do not qualify. But yes, exemptions do exist for a small number. Certain religious groups, students, U.S. citizens who decide to forfeit their national citizenship, employees of foreign governments and self-employed workers who make less than $400 annually are all examples of taxpayers who are not responsible for paying Social Security taxes. Of course, since they are exempt, they are also ineligible to receive any Social Security benefits."
Are you a NA who has renounced US Citizenship? Or are you a NA who never had citizenship? If this is the case then why are you always commenting (complaining really) on things that effect citizens and not you?
Or are you are pauper who makes less than $400 a year? Have your own religion?
When I was in business, that didn't mean I could skirt SS taxes, in fact I had to go out of the way to report and pay all the taxes myself. Are you hinting again that you are a tax cheat? If so, why should anyone take anything you say seriously when you don't pull your fair share of the weight?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dothetwist
It is not easy....it is in fact illegal unless you are an ordained minister and have gotten a ruling from IRS.
Pray tell please share how you do this when all of my SE relatives are required to pay into SS at both the employer and employee combined rate. Curious minds want to know.
FYI, trump's new tax laws have made it even more difficult to avoid SE taxes.
The only way that makes sense is that your business is small potatoes and never turns a profit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist
I was self-employed for over 40 years and had to pay in double all those years. And I do know the tax laws. I did my own business taxes all those years.
OP has no answer for us. His claim is false and he knows it.
I wonder what initial laws and rules were in cities - when did Planning Commissions become gods, re: building/remodeling homes? When was individual power turned over to government?
Today the religious act of marriage is a government approved privilege, that requires asking government for the privilege, in the form of a License.
Being shacked up and committed to each other, takes no government approval and is your every right, to associate.
"Government approved" marriages give each person rights you can't get from shacking up. Pension rights if one dies, Same with Social Security. Marriage gives you the right to property and bank accounts if someone dies without a will. Being married gives you the right to be in a critical care unit with your loved one and make life and death decisions about treatments or pulling the plug if you have hadn't signed a Medical Power of Attorney appointing your live-in mate. Even planning a funeral can be a fight with other relatives if you're not married. If you don't trust a person enough to marry them, why would you give them your power of attorney for financial and medical affairs if something bad happens? I've seen a case where a parent and an adult child of someone who died came in and kicked the shacked up mate out of a house he called home for 15 years and worked on to improve but was still in the woman's name and it was perfectly legal. A shake up person has just as many if not more legal entanglements if that person plans to protect their future. Most don't bother and pay a heavy price for burying their heads in the sand.
You can do all those things without regulation in Somalia. Go for it.
This.
It's funny watching some of the conservatives try to tell people they are not "free" just because some laws exist. Under this bizarre reasoning, we are not "free" because there are laws against murder. If people like BentBow really dislike laws, they are free to move to places like Somalia or Chad where there are few laws, and what laws do exist, are very frequently unenforced. Places like Somalia are a libertarian's paradise, they should move there if they don't like how laws are impeding their freedom.
So arguing in extremes again, huh. Is that all liberals can do?
We must have government regulate and control almost every facet of life or live in total anarchy? Nothing in between?
Where does one draw the line between what is absurd, and what isn't? If invoking laws against murder is a reducio ad absurdum, what about speed limit laws absurd? Or jaywalking laws? Why is somebody "not free" if they have to apply for a building permit to build a house, but they are still free if they have to live in a place with laws against murder?
Originally Posted by BentBow
Today the religious act of marriage is a government approved privilege, that requires asking government for the privilege, in the form of a License.
"Government approved" marriages give each person rights you can't get from shacking up. Pension rights if one dies, Same with Social Security. Marriage gives you the right to property and bank accounts if someone dies without a will. Being married gives you the right to be in a critical care unit with your loved one and make life and death decisions about treatments or pulling the plug if you have hadn't signed a Medical Power of Attorney appointing your live-in mate. Even planning a funeral can be a fight with other relatives if you're not married. If you don't trust a person enough to marry them, why would you give them your power of attorney for financial and medical affairs if something bad happens? I've seen a case where a parent and an adult child of someone who died came in and kicked the shacked up mate out of a house he called home for 15 years and worked on to improve but was still in the woman's name and it was perfectly legal. A shake up person has just as many if not more legal entanglements if that person plans to protect their future. Most don't bother and pay a heavy price for burying their heads in the sand.
In addition, state licensed marriage is a civil affair, the religious ceremony is an unnecessary add on as far as the government goes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If people like BentBow really dislike laws, they are free to move to places like Somalia or Chad where there are few laws, and what laws do exist, are very frequently unenforced. Places like Somalia are a libertarian's paradise, they should move there if they don't like how laws are impeding their freedom.
