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.
Why not remove all financial benefits associated with marriage?
Why should non-married couples subsidize the life of married ones?
Why should single professionals support rabbits or upper class childless married couples?
Last edited by Frenchman; 05-25-2008 at 02:29 PM..
I'm a single professional, and agree with your premise to a point.
I have to do some more personal analysis to see what resonates with me, but at face value, it could work.
There would be a greater requirement for wills because assets wouldn't just pass from one spouse or generation to the next.
One point is that in a two adult person household, there are two incomes to pay for living expenses. In a one person household, the same expenses exist (rent, utilities, food, etc) but only one income pays for it.
I believe my tax rate should be the same as every other adult.
Why not remove all financial benefits associated with marriage?
Why should non-married couples subsidize the life of married ones?
Why should single professionals support rabbits or upper class childless married couples?
What subsidies do you claim exist for married people?
For one, the income tax rate is higher for single taxpayers than it is for marrieds. With nearly half the taxpayers filing single, it amounts to a subsidy of married people and is not really fair.
In most states family law sets up a marriage as a business partnership with specific benefits and responsibilities, many of which are for the benefit of children if they exist.
For one, the income tax rate is higher for single taxpayers than it is for marrieds. With nearly half the taxpayers filing single, it amounts to a subsidy of married people and is not really fair.
In most states family law sets up a marriage as a business partnership with specific benefits and responsibilities, many of which are for the benefit of children if they exist.
Right & here's something else I don't get, why should people who have kids get that tax credit? Isn't having a kids a choice? I'm single w/no kids & live alone & I have a hell of a time getting by what w/rent, bills, etc. Why are single people who choose not to have the financial burden of kids not rewarded? Oh I'm sure I'll get a huge ass-kicking for this post, but this is my honest opinion & question.
For one, the income tax rate is higher for single taxpayers than it is for marrieds. With nearly half the taxpayers filing single, it amounts to a subsidy of married people and is not really fair.
In most states family law sets up a marriage as a business partnership with specific benefits and responsibilities, many of which are for the benefit of children if they exist.
Actually there's a marriage penalty. The income tax rate is higher for a married couple who both work than for two singles.
Right & here's something else I don't get, why should people who have kids get that tax credit? Isn't having a kids a choice? I'm single w/no kids & live alone & I have a hell of a time getting by what w/rent, bills, etc. Why are single people who choose not to have the financial burden of kids not rewarded? Oh I'm sure I'll get a huge ass-kicking for this post, but this is my honest opinion & question.
You take the deduction for yourself don't you? Deduction for dependents is not related to marriage. Seem off topic.
I'm really beginning to think it's a good idea myself, but I feel like it's one of those things that will never actually happen.
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.