Originally posted by mossrose
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Christian anti-SSM jeweler threatened after making rings for lesbian couple
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostOne of the black pastors at our Texas Pastor Council meeting on Wednesday talked about how angry he was that the GLBTQP folks are hijacking the Civil Rights issue for their own purposes. It was interesting to hear his perspective. Then, at our Baptist Area Board meeting yesterday, another black Pastor made the exact same points.
Just keep on asking the right questions, Sam. I can't even say how much more interesting and fun conversations get when the person I'm talking to knows how to hone in on the right questions.Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Ovious View PostDo you see the word tax there? The answer you are looking for is no. Extracting money through divorce isn't a tax. A very vital distinction you missed. So obviously it's not going to be counted when considering tax savings.
So the idea of the State being interested in marriage as a way to extract money, whether through taxes or fees, doesn't hold up."I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostThe difference, and it is a very large one, is that the Virginia law, and those like it, CRIMINALIZED "white-colored" marriages."I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Spartacus View PostYep.
http://www.luc.edu/faculty/twren/phi...3/macquote.htm
By a practice I am going to mean any coherent and complex form of socially established cooperative human activity through which goods internal to that form of activity are realized in the course of trying to achieve those standards of excellence which are appropriate to, and partially definitive of, that form of activity, with the result that human powers to achieve excellence, and human conceptions of the ends and goods involved, are systematically extended.
OK, so I think we're all agreeing that the practice of marriage has value in excess of the mere certification of the government and the financial benefits granted from that certification. So I think, to be fair to Starlight, you have to acknowledge that the hurtfulness of opposing or preventing the exercise of that marital practice very often goes beyond the mere certification and often reaches to the same deep meanings that we typically afford to marriage. So I think that original first paragraph has to go.
The second paragraph:
Originally posted by SpartThe sort of language you employ is going to be used again-- is already being used-- with reference to incest and polygamy, and when those campaigns gain more steam, what will your counterargument be? How could you possibly stand against the weight of your own words about how there is nothing more hurtful, nothing that effects a more fundamental diminishment of their status as humans than denying them marriage?"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostMy point was that the revenue generated by marriage licences and divorce proceedings isn't ever going to match the money spent on tax credits to married individuals. When you're talking thousands of dollars per year going out per married individual, marriage licences and court costs related to divorce proceedings aren't going to balance the books.
So the idea of the State being interested in marriage as a way to extract money, whether through taxes or fees, doesn't hold up.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...Family-Courts#
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex...f-divorce.html
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/rele.../cb12-109.html
So it's a $50 billion a year industry. In the UK the average cost for a divorce is 44,000 pounds. Not sure how much American dollars it would translate into but you can see it's a lot and I actually expect the average to be more in America. The average child support payment per month is $430 as well, not sure about alimony but I can't imagine it wouldn't be drastically different.
Also when divorced take into account that you will go back to the higher taxes as well. You only keep getting those tax breaks when you stay married.
So if we take into account that in your example we assume a $2500 average per saving since in your example one person saved $1000 a year and the other saved $4000 per year, so we will assume the middle.
The divorce rate is 50%. So that also means that 50% of people are married for life. Even if we assume 50 years of marriage then each person saves $125,000 over their lifetime for those that stay married for life. In order to save a divorce cost of say $50,000 then a person would need to be married for 20 years to do that.
This is before we take into account child support payments and alimony payments. We have yet to also discuss payments for two sets of bills instead of one in terms of property costs i.e. House bills, council tax (not sure what your equivalent of this is).
It's a well known fact that divorcee's are financially the worst off and this is the reason why. Divorce is big money.“I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” - C.S. Lewis
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Ovious View PostAnd how do you work that out? I'm not sure about American law and it's tax credits for married individuals but they can't be saving as much as you're claiming. Thousands of dollars per year? How much does the average American pay in tax in the first place? You're link only conducted a study with a small sample size too. It was only based on 4 people.
Divorces and weddings, etc, etc. Cost a lot of money. Child support costs a lot of money. Alimony costs a lot of money. I'm not sure how you think that tax credits could possibly save you more than these big pay outs.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...Family-Courts#
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex...f-divorce.html
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/rele.../cb12-109.html
So it's a $50 billion a year industry. In the UK the average cost for a divorce is 44,000 pounds. Not sure how much American dollars it would translate into but you can see it's a lot and I actually expect the average to be more in America. The average child support payment per month is $430 as well, not sure about alimony but I can't imagine it wouldn't be drastically different.
Also when divorced take into account that you will go back to the higher taxes as well. You only keep getting those tax breaks when you stay married.
So if we take into account that in your example we assume a $2500 average per saving since in your example one person saved $1000 a year and the other saved $4000 per year, so we will assume the middle.
The divorce rate is 50%. So that also means that 50% of people are married for life. Even if we assume 50 years of marriage then each person saves $125,000 over their lifetime for those that stay married for life. In order to save a divorce cost of say $50,000 then a person would need to be married for 20 years to do that.
This is before we take into account child support payments and alimony payments. We have yet to also discuss payments for two sets of bills instead of one in terms of property costs i.e. House bills, council tax (not sure what your equivalent of this is).
It's a well known fact that divorcee's are financially the worst off and this is the reason why. Divorce is big money.
And, again, the divorce doesn't really play into anything here. This HuffPo article puts it at $15k-$20k but we're talking about the difference between single tax filers and married tax filers, principally. Taxes are going to state and federal governments while divorce costs are going to state and county governments — and the biggest part of divorce costs are going to private attorneys and custody evaluators, anyway. The point is that the government is mainly offering up benefits for getting married and, either directly or indirectly, conferring penalties for non-married cohabitation."I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostGotta read deep in that article, as it linked to a more intensive study piece at NYT, too:
And, again, the divorce doesn't really play into anything here. This HuffPo article puts it at $15k-$20k but we're talking about the difference between single tax filers and married tax filers, principally. Taxes are going to state and federal governments while divorce costs are going to state and county governments — and the biggest part of divorce costs are going to private attorneys and custody evaluators, anyway. The point is that the government is mainly offering up benefits for getting married and, either directly or indirectly, conferring penalties for non-married cohabitation.“I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” - C.S. Lewis
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Ovious View PostLike I mentioned before it was you that said tax, not me. I did not mention tax."I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostWhy is that relevant?
If Virginia simply had refused to grant or recognize interracial marriages, would that be acceptable today?
Would you say that interracial couples do not, in fact, have the right to marry?
I'd like to address something else you said below:
One does need a compelling reason why consenting adults, in one case, are to be afforded the legitimacy of "marriage" while others are left out.
The "right to marry" is like the "right to use the VA". As long as you meet the requirements, the right is uncontested (with a few exceptions). But if you don't meet the requirements, then you don't have the right.That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostYe gods that's hard to parse!
OK, so I think we're all agreeing that the practice of marriage has value in excess of the mere certification of the government and the financial benefits granted from that certification. So I think, to be fair to Starlight, you have to acknowledge that the hurtfulness of opposing or preventing the exercise of that marital practice very often goes beyond the mere certification and often reaches to the same deep meanings that we typically afford to marriage. So I think that original first paragraph has to go.
The second paragraph:
remains strong, I think. One does need a compelling reason why consenting adults, in one case, are to be afforded the legitimacy of "marriage" while others are left out. And the hurtfulness of exclusion cannot or should not be the determining factor. I happen to think that this is a problem both "traditionalists" and progressives but agree with the critique.Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostI addressed more than just tax revenue or cost in that post.“I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” - C.S. Lewis
Comment
-
Originally posted by Spartacus View PostYeah, when we went over it in a philosophy class I took, the prof referred to it as one of the worst sentences in all philosophy. If we pick it apart piece by piece, though, I think we'll have a much clearer understanding of all the considerations that go into a redefinition of marriage.
I admit it was an attempt at a reductio, but throwing that out also means throwing out the "gay marriage won't affect you" canard: if the institution of same-sex marriage is about social acceptance as much as legal privileges, then this isn't a question of constitutional law, but of public discourse. That people (on both sides) try to hide behind the legal argument alone, I think, holds us back from the conversations we need to be having.
A'ight, I'd like to suggest going back to the MacIntyre statement and trying to figure out 1. what MacIntyre means and 2. how the "traditional" and "revisionist" definitions of marriage interact with the various elements MacIntyre describes.
So here we have it again:
Going by everything prior to "with the result that ...", I would argue that we're best able to understand (or visualize) what MacIntyre is saying by comparing his definition of "a practice" to a Platonic form: the "form" of a practice is the activity itself and the "goods" are intrinsic properties of that form. Goods are more or less perfectly achieved as the activity more or less perfectly adheres to the "form" of the activity.
Going by everything following "with the result that", I would say that MacIntyre is saying that a person's ability to achieve excellence through an activity, as well as her very ability to recognize and understand "goods" and purposes through an ability, is likewise contingent on the perfection of the activity relative to it's perfect form.
Thoughts?"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Ovious View PostSo what? I already explained what I needed to explain. You seem to think that just because some of the money goes to other institutions then that means something."I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostMy principal point, that married individuals are more likely to be a net cost to government finances, rather than a net gain, remains. You counter-argument requires treating divorce costs as though most of the money goes principally to court costs. In my experience (not divorce but family law), that's not the case and I doubt you'd find evidence of such costs exceeding the general tax benefits of marriage.
http://www.forbes.com/2006/07/25/sin...0725costs.html
Add it all up, and Chestnut’s married clients shell out practically all of their monthly income on living expenses, scraping to save anything beyond a retirement plan contribution. The single earner, by contrast, socks away more than $300 per month, nearly 5% of his or her pay.“I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” - C.S. Lewis
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 09:58 AM
|
3 responses
12 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 10:14 AM | ||
Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
194 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
419 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Yesterday, 07:43 AM
|
Comment