I think it refers to the fact that when each of the two married taxpayers earn about the same amount of money and they file jointly, they have to pay more tax than they would've had they filed separately. If they earn quite different amounts of money, it's not a problem.
Sounds like if you and Cyn earn roughly the same amount, 2004 is a good year for you to get married and file jointly. But, ack, I hate tax law and rely on the advice of an accountant.
If you are two people both working, you pay more in taxes if married than not married. The tax scheme was invented at a time where if you weren't married, you didn't live together. Therefore, they were just trying to make it more fair, because if you are living on your own you obviously have fewer expenses. However, if one spouse stays home, the tax scheme is more favorable than joint filing, because it is taken into account that there are two people living on the one salary. If the two people are not married and one stays home, that one person earns no income and pays no tax, and the other person earns income and pays tax on it as if she were only paying for herself.
Therefore, this tax scheme encourages people to live together instead of getting married - unless one wants to be a stay-at-home parent.
It's amusing. Because theoretically Bush should be encouraging stay-at-home parenting. The current tax scheme does that.
I thought single people were taxed more than married. We know from his speech though that he sure wants to 'protect the sanctuary of marriage' and I wonder why it needs protecting in the first place. The man confuses me especially when he starts talking about educating the nation's children to read more than a third grade level. I think that is probably where he stopped at those many years ago. :).
I haven't a fucking clue...it seems like all of a sudden he's trying this lame-ass backpedal on all the marriage stuff he was trying to push on everybody. I have no damn idea what that moron's going on about anymore, the lies are jut so thick and contradictory. I was listening to MPR and it was all I could do not to throw my radio out the window screaming "STOP IIIIT!!!"
Er.... there was no backpedaling that I could see, and vague statements are not lies - they're just not particularly truth, either - so I don't get what you're saying. I listened to the speech and thought "wow... when did you leave the Republican Party?"
The penalty occurs when two people get married - they fall immediately into stronger tax brackets because it costs less to live together. Thing is, if two people live together and never get married they gain significant tax benefits. So, the tax problem is that people aren't taxed on themselves alone, but on their circumstance as well.
. ."people aren't taxed on themselves alone but on their circumstances as well. It's up to you if that's fair or not". . .
Maybe it's a combination of "themselves" and circumstances. Married or not, own a home or not, a college student working or being supported by a trust fund or by a parent are all circumstances. I'm not sure if we would say being over 65 is a circumstances or "myself". So, I agree with that statement. However. . .
In addition, we've known for a long time that tax law encourages those things that the Powers That Be want encouraged and discourages those things they want discouraged. For instance, the intent to encourge home ownership fueled the tax advantages for home owners.
It seems to me that what anyone thinks is "fair" is determined more by a value system than by neutral economics. If a person values one woman/one man legal marriage AND strongly devalues unmarried people living together, even if in a committeed relationship, then they feel it is fair to give married couples a boost. If not, something else will feel fair.
I said in these comments, previously, that I valued putting richer people in higher tax brackets. That value is determined, for me, by the Christian faith which I follow. Other may agree for different reasons, or disagree because of their faith.
I did skip over all the stuff in between, didin't I? I'll give a brief look at where I am, theologically, and then how that leads to my view.
I have a low Christology but not to the point I'm a Unitarian. Jesus is important to me because he demonstrated a God of justice, mercy, and compassion. (Not just taught--demonstrated) I do not follow or believe that "Christ had to die for our sins or we would all be separated from God forever.
Jesus had an overriding interest in the poor, disadvantaged, sick, lonely etc. and I understand that he asked his followers to have the same. I do not follow Liberation Theology.
So, how does that affect tax law? My faith tells me it's "fair" for those who have much, to give more than those who have little. Not just in absolute dollars. In % also. A person with a modest income has very little room between necessities and income. A more wealthy person has a larger amount in that space. I believe we're following Jesus' demonstration of God when higher income people do more to fund health care, schools, etc. from that cushion about necessities.
That's just me. As I said, someone with a different theology will see something else as fair. By the way, I don't use quotes from the Bible to prove points--nor do I accept them.
There is nearly nil outside the Bible to illustrate points concerning the attitude or direction of Christ, so not accepting that source means you have a position that cannot be debated. I'll have to say that the words of Christ disagree with your position, but we'll leave it at that, I guess.
I was just listening to bits of the speech in the morning and various senators talking about the tax. It probably got garbled with the morning coffee...
But the whole "We went into Iraq because Saddam is a bad guy with al Qaida ties, and we're rescuing the iraqi people" thing is a lie, no matter how many times he and his staff repeat it. And a half-truth is worse than a lie...and I still want to throw my poor radio out the window.
Er..... Saddam had ties with al Qaida, tis true. His children were actively seeking out connections there. Dunno if that was for the upcoming regime change (potential loss of Dad by 'accident') or just to strengthen their connections in the area. That much, though, is true. And, he was a bad guy, but for a while he was our bad guy. When he stopped being controllable, he had to go.
As to helping the iraqi people. I've been reading reports in the foreign press about the benefits to the people, and mostly they're good. Areas that were heavily pro-Saddam are suffering, but that's pent-up resentment from the rest of the country. Most everyone is happier now that things are moving towards a new system. What the west isn't quite prepared to accept, though, is that the new system will be a constitutional theocracy like in Iran.... Oops.....
Open the window first, if you must kill your radio - no point in breaking glass and ending up freezing.
Maybe I'm missing something, but if my (hypothetical) son goes and makes friends with bad kids, that doesn't mean I have ties with those kids. Especially if my son is making plans with the bad kids for the aftermath of my death or exile. To me, such "ties" seem rather tenuous at best.
As for Saddam being a bad guy, I agree with you and everybody else. However, the world is full of bad people, several of which are known to have the capacity to make and utilize nuclear weapons (North Korea comes to mind). Saddam was indeed our man in the '80s (anything to stop those damned Eye-Rainians!) but it's been years since he last did anything we told him to. He didn't just rise up, suddenly uncontrollable, and pose an immediate threat. He's been oppressing his people for years and we didn't step in to take him down until now? We had some dodgy, limited "information" about supposed weapons of mass destruction and dealings to obtain uranium that hadn't even been incorporated into weapons yet. That sounds like Terror Alert Level: Chartreuse to me.
And as for helping the Iraqi people, it comes to a question of intent, not result. The point is not that the Iraqi people are "more free" than they had been. The point is that George W. Bush and Co. did not spend billions upon billions upon billions of dollars to liberate the Iraqi people. The United States of America is not in the business of lifting up the downtrodden (at least not on foreign soil). We help other countries out if and only if it suits our interests. And I may be the only one, but I believe that we went into Iraq with perfectly noble intentions of liberating Iraqi oil products from wallets without Stars and Stripes on them. The so-called liberation of those poor oppressed Iraqi people is a cruel joke when so much other injustice exists elsewhere in the world (Israel comes to mind, but I'm not going there in this already-rambling post). If oil wasn't the goal, then re-election was. And just because the Iraqi people are free doesn't mean that that's why we did what we did.
I read an article--at least 20 years ago--that demonstrated that it is impossible to be "fair" to every combination of single and married and still be progressive. I favor progressive tax (that taxes higher incomes at a higher rate)as the first consideration. After that--I don't know.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chiming
no subject
Date: 2004-01-21 05:56 am (UTC)From:I thought that legislation had changed that, but apparently there's an end date for such change. Go here for more: http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/tax_watch/20010209a.asp
no subject
Date: 2004-01-21 06:00 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-01-21 06:07 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-01-21 06:22 am (UTC)From:Sounds like if you and Cyn earn roughly the same amount, 2004 is a good year for you to get married and file jointly. But, ack, I hate tax law and rely on the advice of an accountant.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-21 06:14 am (UTC)From:Therefore, this tax scheme encourages people to live together instead of getting married - unless one wants to be a stay-at-home parent.
It's amusing. Because theoretically Bush should be encouraging stay-at-home parenting. The current tax scheme does that.
Hi Kevin
Date: 2004-01-21 07:30 am (UTC)From:Bush=morass of stupidity....
Date: 2004-01-21 02:27 pm (UTC)From:Urrgh.
Re: Bush=morass of stupidity....
Date: 2004-01-21 03:46 pm (UTC)From:The penalty occurs when two people get married - they fall immediately into stronger tax brackets because it costs less to live together. Thing is, if two people live together and never get married they gain significant tax benefits. So, the tax problem is that people aren't taxed on themselves alone, but on their circumstance as well.
It's up to you if that is fair or not. :)
Re: Bush=morass of stupidity....
Date: 2004-01-22 12:47 am (UTC)From:Maybe it's a combination of "themselves" and circumstances. Married or not, own a home or not, a college student working or being supported by a trust fund or by a parent are all circumstances. I'm not sure if we would say being over 65 is a circumstances or "myself". So, I agree with that statement. However. . .
In addition, we've known for a long time that tax law encourages those things that the Powers That Be want encouraged and discourages those things they want discouraged. For instance, the intent to encourge home ownership fueled the tax advantages for home owners.
It seems to me that what anyone thinks is "fair" is determined more by a value system than by neutral economics. If a person values one woman/one man legal marriage AND strongly devalues unmarried people living together, even if in a committeed relationship, then they feel it is fair to give married couples a boost. If not, something else will feel fair.
I said in these comments, previously, that I valued putting richer people in higher tax brackets. That value is determined, for me,
by the Christian faith which I follow. Other may agree for different reasons, or disagree because of their faith.
Re: Bush=morass of stupidity....
Date: 2004-01-22 09:33 pm (UTC)From:(as a theologian, it's an interesting argument!)
Re: Bush=morass of stupidity....
Date: 2004-01-23 09:02 pm (UTC)From:I have a low Christology but not to the point I'm a Unitarian. Jesus is important to me because he demonstrated a God of justice, mercy, and compassion. (Not just taught--demonstrated) I do not follow or believe that "Christ had to die for our sins or we would all be separated from God forever.
Jesus had an overriding interest in the poor, disadvantaged, sick,
lonely etc. and I understand that he asked his followers to have the same. I do not follow Liberation Theology.
So, how does that affect tax law? My faith tells me it's "fair" for those who have much, to give more than those who have little. Not just in absolute dollars. In % also. A person with a modest income
has very little room between necessities and income. A more wealthy person has a larger amount in that space. I believe we're following Jesus' demonstration of God when higher income people do more to fund health care, schools, etc. from that cushion about necessities.
That's just me. As I said, someone with a different theology will see something else as fair. By the way, I don't use quotes from the Bible to prove points--nor do I accept them.
Re: Bush=morass of stupidity....
Date: 2004-01-25 07:01 pm (UTC)From:Re: Bush=morass of stupidity....
Date: 2004-01-22 01:56 pm (UTC)From:But the whole "We went into Iraq because Saddam is a bad guy with al Qaida ties, and we're rescuing the iraqi people" thing is a lie, no matter how many times he and his staff repeat it. And a half-truth is worse than a lie...and I still want to throw my poor radio out the window.
Re: Bush=morass of stupidity....
Date: 2004-01-22 09:43 pm (UTC)From:As to helping the iraqi people. I've been reading reports in the foreign press about the benefits to the people, and mostly they're good. Areas that were heavily pro-Saddam are suffering, but that's pent-up resentment from the rest of the country. Most everyone is happier now that things are moving towards a new system. What the west isn't quite prepared to accept, though, is that the new system will be a constitutional theocracy like in Iran.... Oops.....
Open the window first, if you must kill your radio - no point in breaking glass and ending up freezing.
I respectfully disagree.
Date: 2004-01-25 05:02 pm (UTC)From:As for Saddam being a bad guy, I agree with you and everybody else. However, the world is full of bad people, several of which are known to have the capacity to make and utilize nuclear weapons (North Korea comes to mind). Saddam was indeed our man in the '80s (anything to stop those damned Eye-Rainians!) but it's been years since he last did anything we told him to. He didn't just rise up, suddenly uncontrollable, and pose an immediate threat. He's been oppressing his people for years and we didn't step in to take him down until now? We had some dodgy, limited "information" about supposed weapons of mass destruction and dealings to obtain uranium that hadn't even been incorporated into weapons yet. That sounds like Terror Alert Level: Chartreuse to me.
And as for helping the Iraqi people, it comes to a question of intent, not result. The point is not that the Iraqi people are "more free" than they had been. The point is that George W. Bush and Co. did not spend billions upon billions upon billions of dollars to liberate the Iraqi people. The United States of America is not in the business of lifting up the downtrodden (at least not on foreign soil). We help other countries out if and only if it suits our interests. And I may be the only one, but I believe that we went into Iraq with perfectly noble intentions of liberating Iraqi oil products from wallets without Stars and Stripes on them. The so-called liberation of those poor oppressed Iraqi people is a cruel joke when so much other injustice exists elsewhere in the world (Israel comes to mind, but I'm not going there in this already-rambling post). If oil wasn't the goal, then re-election was. And just because the Iraqi people are free doesn't mean that that's why we did what we did.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-21 06:03 pm (UTC)From: