Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-24-2013, 07:38 PM
 
Location: San Antonio Texas
11,431 posts, read 18,993,162 times
Reputation: 5224

Advertisements

Rand Paul: Give LGBT Americans a flat tax instead of marriage rights | The Raw Story

I was starting to look up to this guy for his guts in his recent filibuster episode on the Senate floor. But, he just spouts off his ignorance by saying things like this. He overlooks how many OTHER rights automatically go with marriage and ONLY marriage. Civil unions don't touch all of the extra legal, inheritance, adoption and cohabitation rights that marriages do. If everyone were to pay a flat tax just so we don't have to give marriage to the gays, could you imagine all of the hetero couples who would be irate when their tax bills would nearly double, (if not more)?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-24-2013, 07:42 PM
 
11,768 posts, read 10,257,576 times
Reputation: 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by wehotex View Post
Rand Paul: Give LGBT Americans a flat tax instead of marriage rights | The Raw Story

I was starting to look up to this guy for his guts in his recent filibuster episode on the Senate floor. But, he just spouts off his ignorance by saying things like this. He overlooks how many OTHER rights automatically go with marriage and ONLY marriage. Civil unions don't touch all of the extra legal, inheritance, adoption and cohabitation rights that marriages do. If everyone were to pay a flat tax just so we don't have to give marriage to the gays, could you imagine all of the hetero couples who would be irate when their tax bills would nearly double, (if not more)?
Remove taxation and where is the special benefit of marriage, any marriage? Ok, your spouse can't be forced to tesify against you, but other than that isn't it all taxation?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2013, 07:51 PM
 
26,464 posts, read 15,053,236 times
Reputation: 14615
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679 View Post
Remove taxation and where is the special benefit of marriage, any marriage? Ok, your spouse can't be forced to tesify against you, but other than that isn't it all taxation?
Hospital visitation...

Yes another tax, but estate taxes can be avoided if it is your spouse.


Quote:
Originally Posted by wehotex View Post
Rand Paul: Give LGBT Americans a flat tax instead of marriage rights | The Raw Story

I was starting to look up to this guy for his guts in his recent filibuster episode on the Senate floor. But, he just spouts off his ignorance by saying things like this. He overlooks how many OTHER rights automatically go with marriage and ONLY marriage. Civil unions don't touch all of the extra legal, inheritance, adoption and cohabitation rights that marriages do. If everyone were to pay a flat tax just so we don't have to give marriage to the gays, could you imagine all of the hetero couples who would be irate when their tax bills would nearly double, (if not more)?
I agree with you and it does look ridiculous. But this is also more than Obama was publicly willing to give gay couples just 10 months ago. Perhaps he can evolve more?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2013, 07:56 PM
 
Location: Baltimore
8,299 posts, read 8,603,285 times
Reputation: 3663
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679 View Post
Remove taxation and where is the special benefit of marriage, any marriage? Ok, your spouse can't be forced to tesify against you, but other than that isn't it all taxation?
Are you kidding? Try 1,138 benefits from the civil act of marriage.

According to the Government Accounting Office, "[A]s of December 31, 2003, our research identified a total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges."
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2013, 08:02 PM
 
14,917 posts, read 13,095,708 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679 View Post
Remove taxation and where is the special benefit of marriage, any marriage? Ok, your spouse can't be forced to tesify against you, but other than that isn't it all taxation?
Spousal immigration visas, right to make emergency medical decisions, spouses gain the right to sue for wrongful death in courts of law, co-habitation base housing for those in the military, right for military spouses to shop at base commissaries, social security survivor benefits, spousal death benefits if a military member or cop or firefighter is killed in the line of duty, prison visitation (such as conjugal) rights, inheritance rights..........
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2013, 08:03 PM
 
Location: #
9,598 posts, read 16,560,593 times
Reputation: 6323
Randstanding: The act of spouting off pointless nonsense.

That is all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2013, 08:07 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,596,242 times
Reputation: 18521
So gay married couples, would not have a Progressive tax bracket. The rich gays should pay for the poor gays, right?


See how getting lumped into a group, only benefits the government dead set on making us fight between us, so they can come in and save the day.


Look, you are an individual, not a group.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2013, 12:29 AM
 
3,040 posts, read 2,577,825 times
Reputation: 665
Last I checked, Rand wants a flat tax for everyone...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2013, 06:56 AM
 
8,060 posts, read 3,941,959 times
Reputation: 5356
Sheesh, read past the headlines people (better yet watch the clip and see what he really said):

“I think the way to fix it is maybe to try to make all of our laws more neutral towards the issue. And I don’t want the government promoting something I don’t believe in, but I also don’t mind if the government tries to be neutral on the issue.”
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2013, 07:22 AM
 
Location: Land of Thought and Flow
8,323 posts, read 15,164,623 times
Reputation: 4957
Okay, so a flat income tax for all persons regardless of marriage. I can stand behind that.

But what does he propose for marriage benefits like FMLA? Anybody being able to claim anybody?

What does he propose for inheritance tax? Everyone get hit with it regardless of marital status?

Sorry, not sorry, Rand Paul, but I while you "don’t want the government promoting something [you] don’t believe in", I don't want the government promoting something I don't believe in, either - the discrimination of people based upon gender or sexual orientation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultor View Post
Sheesh, read past the headlines people (better yet watch the clip and see what he really said):

“I think the way to fix it is maybe to try to make all of our laws more neutral towards the issue. And I don’t want the government promoting something I don’t believe in, but I also don’t mind if the government tries to be neutral on the issue.”
To make the laws neutral, it would essentially end up with (or should end up with) heterosexual married couples being treated no different than a married/unioned/etc homosexual couple. I honestly doubt that many heterosexual married couples would be happy getting their tax bills doubled. Or losing out on many of the non-monetary benefits that they enjoy without realizing it.

Right now, if my spouse was in need of consistent medical care, I would be able to use FMLA to ensure leave without pay in order to care for him. If I became pregnant, I would be able to use FMLA to ensure that I would have adequate leave (without pay) for prenatal appointments and to take care of myself and the child after delivery. My spouse would also get FMLA to take care of myself and the child. To make FMLA equal between heterosexuals and homosexuals would require either providing the benefit to homosexual couples or removing the benefit from heterosexual couples. Which one is more appealing?

Take away the ability for a spouse to care for a spouse
or
Add an addendum for a spouse to care for a same-gendered spouse
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top