View Full Version : Benefits for same sex couples?
05-23-2001, 10:03 AM
I got a call from a telemarketer the other day whom was taking a poll. I usually don't chat with them but she caught me at the right time. The line of questioning started out asking about major retailers like Walmart etc.. if I was familiar with them shopped there, was my opinion favorable or not , that sort of thing. Much to my amazement it quickly turned into a how do you feel about companies giving "Same sex" couple the benefits traditionally available only to married couples. Since this was a pick A, B, C or D type of poll I really could not articulate my true position on this issue. None of the above was not an option. They wanted to know how companies offering benefits to "Same sex" couples would affect my opinion of companies. The gal also named some major corporations that now do this They also threw in questions like does a company who cares about its employees make you more or less likely to shop there. Any thoughts?
05-23-2001, 10:06 AM
Personally, I could care less. More benefits to more people is good. Period.
I don't care what you do with your hanky or doddle as long as I don't have to watch you enjoy it...:p
05-23-2001, 10:11 AM
I suppose I should be able to get benefits for my "flavor of the month" girlfriends? what criteria do they use? live together a year first?...I don't expect my employer to provide coverage for my lady until/IF I marry her...IF/Until then, she better have a job that provides benefits....I guess we should support paying for vet bills for people who live with dogs/cats too?.
Why "buy the cow if the milks' already free"?
And I don't want to hear the "homophobic" crap....."Phobia" impies a fear of something....I've said before that I think people eating poop is nasty, but I'm not afraid of it....I guess I'd be a "turdaphobic" ;)
05-23-2001, 10:19 AM
Pretty much my thoughts. I agree with equal treatment for all. If ya don't have to be legally married to qualify for these benefits then they should be available to "any" couple straight or gay. I honestly don't know the particulars it probably varies from company to company. The gal taking the poll didn't know anything she was basically a human parrot repeating what she had been trained to say.
05-23-2001, 10:26 AM
Alright goddammit - I posted a lengthy response and the effing server 'hiccupped' - now it's gone. :mad:
Summary: What were the qualifications for benefits? If it is merely "live-together couple", then no WAY should this be allowed - unless it is allowed for hetero couples as well. To allow it would be preferential treatment based upon sexual orientation - this is JUST AS BAD as DISCRIMINATION based upon sexual orientation - just on the other side of the spectrum.
05-23-2001, 10:28 AM
If we allowed them to marry, would that placate you?
05-23-2001, 10:30 AM
I think you should have to be married to get the benefits. Personally, I could care less if two guys or two chicks marry each other, but until then there should be no benefits.
05-23-2001, 10:34 AM
Brock - if that is the requirment of one group, it MUST be the requirement of ALL groups. We cannot start setting aside special case laws to benefit OR discriminate against people due to race, sex, age, etc.
05-23-2001, 10:44 AM
Don't we already, in states that do not recognize same-sex marriages?
05-23-2001, 10:46 AM
My personal oppinion is that the sacrament of marrage is already abused. I don't aggree with the concept of same sex marrage.
I suppose I could get a roomate with a better job, claim to be a turd burglar and get dental/vision coverage that My employer doesn't provide......after all..who would check...would I have to do a "test" to qualify as a ...?
Maybe I would like to see a fund set up to provide free rent for persons who speak with a drawl....after all, the public perception is that we are all less intelligent, ignorant, and fornicate with farm animals.....even get called culturally biased names like "redneck"
Its just not fair...my feelings are hurt, and I want some free stuff.
05-23-2001, 10:46 AM
My company provides such benefits...But it is also available to opposite sex domestic partners...You have to be living together for at least one year to qualify...
I was able to put my wife on my benefits before we got married since how we lived in sin for a few years...So that was pretty cool..
I am like the rest of you guys. I would only have a problem with it if the company didn't allow opposite sex partners to participate.
05-23-2001, 10:50 AM
You have to be living together for at least one year to qualify...
If that's the rule, then I have no problem. :)
Sure, it leaves room for abuse - someone (like Iowanian ;)) could claim their roomie on their coverage. I ask you: what system does NOT have 'loopholes'?
05-23-2001, 10:54 AM
The loophole will allow you to put one flavor of the month on the policy but after that you would have to wait at least a year after canceling their policy before you could do it again...So it is kinda self regulating after the first loop hole.
05-23-2001, 10:55 AM
I lived with a dude for 3 years at college and 2 other guys for 3 years after college....So I guess we should have all manipulated the system and gotten some good stuff.....the only problem is that I was the only one with a benefit paying job while they went to college....
-but I GUARAN-damn-Tee!!! that I never thought about poop shooting them....;)
Enough flaws in the system....who checks the 1 year minimum? do "buddies" that live together qualify?...insurance is already high enough.
05-23-2001, 10:58 AM
what about Hugh Hefner's of the world...
7 girlfriends who live with him.....If they move in the same day, and are all "recieving" my services....do they all qualify...
"I wanna be wanna be wanna be like Hef, like Hef"
~feeling difficult and argumentative today.
05-23-2001, 11:00 AM
They don't research the one year thing...Just an honor system...As far as the cost, it doesn't raise the cost of insurance in general, it just rasies the expense for the company that wants to provide the extra benefit...
05-23-2001, 11:02 AM
I would like to be like Hef also...I would imagine that he could only cover one bunny with insurance. The others would have to be covered with something a little more tangible...:D
05-23-2001, 11:05 AM
That's exactly my point. Tey MUST be married. Just as the rest of us. No discrimination is better than another.
05-23-2001, 11:10 AM
It seems to me some people believe that anyone living together could get bennies. I would think, or hope at least, that one of the requirements outside of living together for a year is that the couple, of any sexual orientation, would also be able to prove that they are financially together, ie. joint checking account. I doubt that you and some college buddy would have shared financial responsibilities. If the couple could prove that they are in this together by ownig a home together, a car, a checking account, then it's only fair that they recieve the same bennies that married couples do. The only reason that it is called benefits for same sex couples is because hetero couples have the option to get married if they want. Having said that, the benefit should apply to everyone who can prove they are really a couple, gay or not. A gay couple, or a straight couple getting bennies isn't going to stop me from getting bennies, so ultimately why do people care? As long as it doesn't take away your rights to bennies or anything else, why would you care if a gay people got benefits. If it didn't take away your right to get married, why would you care if gay people were able to get married.
AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T INFLICT ON YOUR RIGHTS, WHY WOULD PEOPLE WANT TO INFLICT ON THEIRS? PEOPLE SCREAM ABOUT OTHERS TAKING AWAY THEIR RIGHTS, YET THESE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE READY TO TAKE AWAY OTHERS' RIGHTS. THIS JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
There..I said my peace.
05-23-2001, 11:52 AM
When I worked in San Francisco you had to prove you lived together for a year, and usually meet 2 of 3 qualifications... forget them all, something like have a shared bank account, etc..
I was going to cover my roomate but decided it wasn't really worth it.
And yes, it did cover "domestic partners" of any sex...
05-23-2001, 12:19 PM
Hmm.. if I am going to post about San Fran and talk about 'Domestic Partners' I better change my name from Sunshine lest anyone get the wrong impression.. ::chuckle::
05-23-2001, 12:28 PM
"flavor of the month" was an expression I was using to describe a gal/guy that another person is dating.....women come and women go....until I/we make a legally and morally binding agreement that says we are married....chill....its just an expression.
roomates and sharing expenses...I guess you'd be wrong...the whole point of having roomates is to assist in paying bills etc....While most bills were in my name, the lease and a couple smaller ones were in their names....we did share financial responsibilities......and I DO know several married couples who maintain separate checking accounts and take responsibility for different bills....one make pay car while other pays house etc....If living together, sharing expenses aren't the same qualifications...I guess that means that You would agree that what happens/doesn't happen in the bedroom IS and issue and criteria.
I see a distinct difference between dating/living with someone and marrying them.....maybe the loss of clarity of this definition is partially whats leading to the astounding % of divorces today.
I also DO see that same sex marrages can harm some...My opinion is that it demeans/takes away from people like my grandparents who have been married for more than 60 years.
If they want to call it a domestic union or whatever I don't care....maybe they should come up with a heterosexual similarity....more of a "lease" or "rent to own".....instead of marraige.
05-23-2001, 12:36 PM
BIG DADDY doesn't have any issues with providing domestic partners insurance as long as long as they meet certain parameters.
1. Qualification: The time they lived together would certainly be on of them. There would have to be others in order to insure that they truly are their domestic partner.
2. A time limit on switching beneficial partner. Once you have a domestic partner you cannot switch partners for say 3 years (as an example) after your last partner has ended coverage. My reason for this is these butt burglars switch partners frequently. If one of them is infected we could end up with several lifetime expenditures, driving up all of our rates. There should also be some commitment by said applicant to their domestic partner that would come close to paralleling a marriage. That is about as close as we are going to get.
3. Gay males should be considered High Risk and pay accordingly. This is not discrimination either. If I smoke cigarettes, if I drive a faster car, etc.. I pay a premium for that because I am considered high risk, even if I drive my Ferrari at the local speed limits. Aids is a very expensive lifetime ailment of which gay males make up the GREAT majority. How can that not be taken into account?
Or at least that's the way I see it.
keg in kc
05-23-2001, 12:43 PM
How exactly does a same sex marriage take away from anyone? It has absolutely no impact on anyone but the party involved, and to say that it demeans another marriage is ludicrous. It's no different than me getting married in the fall; it has absolutely nothing to do with anyone but my fiance and me. It doesn't impact my parents' 35 years together, nor does it impact my partner's parents' 30 years together. And, hey, if my gay sister and her partner get married at some point, guess what, it won't make my own marriage mean any more or less than it did before. Because it has nothing to do with me...
05-23-2001, 12:44 PM
keg in kc
05-23-2001, 12:45 PM
05-23-2001, 12:48 PM
Your point is what? Health care costs for gay males is way higher than any other group. What does that have to do with your marriage, you clown.
keg in kc
05-23-2001, 12:51 PM
Oh, I see. Sorry. I was responding to Iowanian's comment that same-sex marriages somehow demean/take away from other marriages. I hadn't even seen your post when I wrote mine...
keg in kc
05-23-2001, 12:54 PM
My response to you is that we should make same-sex marriages a viable legal option (or couples where applicable as mentioned earlier in the thread, both hetero- and homo-), and then there's no gray areas to argue about regarding the insurance. As for risk groups, I don't see any reason to argue that point, since it's a valid one...
05-23-2001, 01:02 PM
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one....
your sister issue isn't my problem..
I do see it demeans the traditional marraige in the same way I felt it demeaned Army Airborn when the entire Army was to be issued a Black Beret.....It was a Tradition, something of Honor that was earned....
I feel that marraige has been undervalued in the last decade or so....a century old tradition, an honorable commitment etc....I'm getting really tired of all the panty waste cry baby "its not fair, what about me" crap....I don't think it should be such an unreasonble thought that everyday people could hold onto something.
As far as I'm concerned, It is as much of a slap in the face of values I hold true as it would be if the NFL decided to paint arrowhead black and let the Raiders host their home games in KC.
IF people don't want me forming personal opinions about what they do in their bedrooms...don't let me know whats going on.
~tuna is better with dolphin meat in it too...and spotted owl tastes like chicken....except when the pellets from my shotgun chip a tooth.
05-23-2001, 01:39 PM
Individual liberty is exactly what it says it is. Queers are harming nobody through whatever it is they are doing in the privacy of their own home. Your offended system of values is your problem.
05-23-2001, 01:48 PM
whatever you say brock.
Anyone who doesn't think that your company paying for domestic parners insurance is crazy...Aids, hepititis, depends undergarments, childbirth, complications from said births etc.....it doesn't take much to cause a jump in Insurance across an organization....
Our insurance went up $100/family this week because of 2 heart surgeries and 2 sets of premature twins this year.....insurance companies pass on the costs...and adding coverage to unmarried couples will cause additional costs to the insurance....and where do you think that will be funded? It will be spread accross the table and shared by all of us.
I just think its going to have broader scope of effects on all of us if domestics are insured....
Its ironic to me that the people who scream the loudest about civil liberties and respecting their rights and opinions are the first to call me names due to mine.
05-23-2001, 01:52 PM
so you'd rather pay for the aforementioned problems that could happen to anybody gay or not, married or not, through.....gasp.....Medicare?
05-23-2001, 01:53 PM
Not sure what you mean by the name-calling remark.
05-23-2001, 02:02 PM
I'm not so much against medicare...I do wish it worked better though.
Actually, I just want the unmarried person(like myself) working, and paying into that insurance fund....instead of staying home watching Ricki Lake reruns while their "friend with special priviledges" works and splits the cost of their insurance with me.
I just believe that if you aren't married...you should pull your own weight. If the "spouse" wants to stay home and live off of the working one...great....but let them fund their own insurance...
My point is that in smaller corporations, it doesn't take that much additional burden to whack everyone in the pocket book. The conditions at my workplace weren't preventable and happened...that is what insurance is for.....It just happens that 3-4 major medical costs hit us all in the book....split 50-50 with my employer...whom it also affects....which affects costs which in turn lowers profit margins, which in turn lowers bonus' if you company gives them.....A two for one special
If a parent can't insure non-student children, I don't think that My girlfriend should be funded through my employer...even though she could make alot more money/hr without buying her own insurance....or "domestic parners."
do what you want to do, but not on my dime.
05-23-2001, 02:04 PM
I got nothing against same sex couples, unless of course they wanna' make their jollies public...I can't stand watching heterosexual people doing that!
But on the other hand I'm white, middle class, make over $15,000 a year, have no disibilities, got $155 back in taxes last year and only $450 on my pell grant. Part of me says "I an't gettn' $#i& so flark you and your gripey @$$!!!!" I don't get none don't ask me to care that you do.
I think any couple that endured 50 or more years of marriage despite each being more sexually attracted to members of the same sex should be given black berets. No doubt about it! :D
To be fair for those couples who complete the decidedly-less demanding task of staying married despite each being more sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex (and, hence, possibly, to each other), perhaps gold-colored berets would be appropriate.
05-23-2001, 02:05 PM
the name calling thing wasn't exactly aimed at you.....I don't think you did that....
the point was merely that those who have "more sensative views than i tend to think I'm a barbarian for not agreeing with them.
nothing personal towards you.
keg in kc
05-23-2001, 06:41 PM
Iowanian, are you offended by by the fact that I'm marrying a black woman? That certainly certainly goes against hundreds of years of "tradition" and there are definitely people out there who would at least burn crosses in my yard, if not try to kill me, because of it, bacause they consider our union a slap in the face to their "values".
Times change; things change...
Allowing yourself and your beliefs to become lessened by the actions of someone else is frankly weak, in my opinion. As I said before, the actions of two gay people getting married in no way lessens the meaning of marriage for anyone else in the history of the world...
unless they allow it to.
05-23-2001, 07:18 PM
Benefits of Gay couples through the eyes of Otter:
1. No PMS
2. No more having to decide between leaping 14 floors off my balcony to my death or answer the question “Does this make me look fat?”
3. My 5 for $15 dollar Gillette Razor Blades no longer being used to shave a pair of legs and me going to work with Band-Aids on my neck.
4. No more turning to mush in an argument because the water-works get turned on.
5. Interchangeable wardrobes.
6. Not feeling guilty for All-Football, All-Sunday days (do gay men like football?)
7. No makeup (this is my post and that’s how I imagine it) lotions, oils, 4 different types of shampoo and conditioner combos, brushes, combs, hair dryers, eye lash curlers, curling irons, panty hose ect.. cluttering up my bathroom.
8. A live-in partner who actually finds it fun to drink beer and play game after game of football and hockey on playstation 2.
9. Farting and burping would be funny and widely accepted.
10. Not being waken up by an angry girl with a wet hiney at 2:30am because I left the toilet seat up.
If I could only get past that hairy a$$, flat chest and facial hair!!!
05-24-2001, 07:33 AM
that almost pi$$es me off....I don't see anything in my post that regards anything with a racial overtone. I dont' appreciate that insinuation that I'm a F@**ing cross burning, chain dragging, lynching type....if thats what you think...you haven't been paying very good attention to my posts the last year....
I have absolutely NO problem with a white man/woman marrying a black man/woman.....I just prefer that it be 1 man and 1 woman
I don't claim to be anyone's moral torch bearer....I've said these things were MY OPINION. I read and consider yours, and for the most part don't think I flame anyone for thinking differnt.
Kyle, obviously you and I are near polar opposites.....you said you were a "big, long haired fat guy" and if i remember correctly like the hooch, and are trying to write science fiction. I am a 5'8 phsyically fit, high-n-tight, country boy with a job and have never taken a hit from a doobie... I like hunting, fishing, riding fast and jumping high on dirtbikes, rodeo and anything outdoors....I'm not a "sensative" man and may not be as "open minded and freethinking" as some of you, but I sure as hell am not a freakin' clan man.
05-24-2001, 07:50 AM
keg in kc
05-24-2001, 08:12 AM
I apologize if you misconstrued my question as some sort of statement or insinuation. It was simply a question and you answered it exactly as I assumed you would (albeit I didnt' intend it to make you think I was calling you a clansman...).
The point I was making was a simple one: traditionally speaking, my marriage goes against any number of "conventions". That however, does not make it "wrong" nor does that fact lessen the meaning of either my marriage or any other marriage, because, again, it doesn't have anything at all to do with any people outside of my fiance and myself. The same is true of any other marriage involving any two other people in my opinion.
As for us being polar opposites, I don't think you have quite enough information to make that statement, so I'll give you a few, since you seem to have some misperception about who I am. I may be a big, fat long haired guy now, but I haven't been one forever. I was once an accomplished high school athlete with a very real potential for a professional career until I was sidelined by a severe knee injury which I was never able to completely recover from (mentally, that is, physically I'm fine - it's a long story, one I don't care to repeat here). I have long hair only because I'm curious to see what I'd look like with long hair; until I was 25 I had typical hair.
I write because I happen to have saved enough money to allow me to try, and if I don't succeed in the next 3-4 months, which will take a tremendous amount of work, I should add, the trial is over and I get to go scrub toilets for the rest of my life, or maybe work in McDonald's, because that's the best I can expect with my level of training and education. I've had a number of jobs in my life, including a few years as a maintenance worker on a college campus and a couple stints as handyman in a couple of motels, as well as some time as a desk clerk, full time jobs I held while taking a 21 hour courseload for two years in college. Talk all you want about your job, I spent 15 months working nights and doubleshift weekends in a sh!thole motel to try and get myself through school, as well as working as a musician all over the east coast at the time, all while taking an overloaded classload as an honor student, finishing with a 3.75 GPA over those two years. Suffice to say, I've had a little experience with work and I'm not the fat, lazy bastard you seem to think I am. I'm simply a struggling writer who is trying to do what he's only recently discovered he wants to do, and struggling despite obvious obstacles and almost certain failure.
I've taken one hit from a 'doobie' as an experiment. Drugs aren't my thing. I may like the 'hooch,' as you put it, but in reality I drink maybe once every two weeks or so, because I can't afford to do it more often on my self-imposed limited budget.
And, guess what, I like hunting and fishing, too, and although I'm no dirtbike afficianado, I do enjoy the outdoors a great deal. One of the reasons I moved to this new house was because it's 5 miles from a lake in KC, Longview Lake.
Hopefully that will clear up who I am, because I don't like the implications of your post any more than you liked the misperception that I was painting you as a racist.
05-24-2001, 08:34 AM
I wasn't exactly trying to imply that you are a "fat lazy, drunken unemployed slob" but I can see how it reads that way....wasn't the point I was attempting to make....mearly that we have different oppinions because we look at things from different angles. My intention wasn't smack for attempting to write...My goal with the comparison wasn't a judging "i have a job and you don't"....mearly, I'm just a working man....It sounds like you've done your time in the dirt and I see nothing wrong with taking some time to do your thing....its admirable and i'll wish you luck.
I guess I have thin skin when it comes to being stereotyped too. It seems like I'm the worlds prototypical a$$hole and I'm tired of it. Often it seems that a strait, white, church going, male from rural America is the only group its "PC" to pidgeonhole......I've lived in the town I'm in for a year and a half. I hang with 6 guys...2 white guys from rural towns, 1 white guy from the "dark side" of waterloo(as he calls it) and 3 black guys who moved here from the inner city of Detroit....to avoid being killed......I'm as likely to have a beer with a black guy tonight as white....and I get tired of being lumped in with the "racist" term by people who don't know me and assume so because I grew up on a farm and speak with a slight drawl.....you just caught the response I'd like to give to others.
I respect any working man. I was on a tractor by 8, hay racks by 10, working for neigbors by 12, cattle, hogs, row crop, etc....by JR high my brother and I tied a trailer behind a mower and went to town...mowed 27 yards for 2-3 summers after chores....At 14, 15 and 16 I went on the road for the summer with an auto crushing crew...slinging iron and tires, stuffing cars...man's work if there ever was.....had a job at a grocery store all through HS, worked construction to get through college......My dad has worked 2-3 jobs(counting farming) as long as I can rememeber......I've earned everything I've had as well..................many of my values/ beliefs were engrained into my head and heart as deep as the callouses on my hands.....now i have a candy *** computer job so I don't have to work as hard but I have earned everything I do or ever will have......but I still am sometimes viewed as an ignorant redeck due to my background alone...
Lets agree that we disagree on the domestic parnter thing and move on...
keg in kc
05-24-2001, 08:45 AM
How's this for background, Iowanian:
I was born and raised in a town of less than 1000 people in southern West Virginia.
Believe me, I know all about the "ignorant redneck" label...
I just want to apologize again, I really don't want you to think I was trying to label you as a 'neck or a clansman, I'm probably the last person who'd do that since I've heard it for 27 years now...
Well, I might call you a 'neck in a joke, but never as part of a serious conversation. ;)
05-24-2001, 09:12 AM
take that statement and insert Iowa for Virginia....and its eerily similar.
I wouldn't trade my background for a million dollars though...It made me appreciate the little things of life.
Truth, depending on definition, I probably AM a Redneck.even drive the 4x4...Its too bad that word is too often associated with being 1.ignorant 2. Impred 3. Beastiality 4.racist
I do know that when you grow up in a culturally limited environment it is easy to form oppinions. my first "experiences" weren't very good....and lets just say it takes work to get where I am today.
I have no doubt that you are "good people"
keg in kc
05-24-2001, 09:24 AM
West Virginia, Iowanian, West Virginia. Even worse than Virginia (at least to the people 1000 miles east of where I live now. the midwest might not get the distinction for geographic reasons...).
I hear you on that ignorant, inbred and bestiality part, sadly. I've heard that crap for years and years. As for the racist part, that's, sad to say, a completely accurate statement about the rednecks where I grew up - to the point that I'm actually uncomfortable taking my fiance back there with me. There was one black family in my town, and they were (and I quote...) "okay because they act white". Lots of anti-black sentiment among the friendly folks of Athens, WVa for some reason or another. Crazy hill people like to stick with "their own" I guess...
I've met a lot more rednecks since I left there though, so I know it's not a universal thing, though. Hell, my fiance's dad's pretty much a redneck. Probably part of the reason we get along so well. We drink a lot together whenever he's around and we've even got tickets to the Kansas Speedway (the race is the week before my wedding).
05-24-2001, 12:58 PM
-what would it hurt...doesn't affect anyone else's marraige.
Why is it that these old ugly dudes get so many women to kiss their arses?
~just bored and trying to spark discussion now. ;)
Polygamy is another stupid "victimless crime" law.
Show me the victim.
Willing to stipulate that some might consider the husband to be the victim.
05-24-2001, 01:22 PM
any man who can put up with 5 women in the same house at the same time deserves a medal.
05-24-2001, 01:24 PM
Polygamy is also a biblical tradition. Just another example of the gummint sticking their nose where it doesn't belong.
05-24-2001, 01:31 PM
can you imagine trying to watch a ball game if the yard wasn't mowed....and 5 of those "Roseanne's" screaming and biatching....my gosh....
I suppose 13-14 of your kids would be of mowing and wood chopping age all the time....of course the girls would be ready to cash in their dowry by age 13....so they wouldn't be much help..(not for me, but them mormon's ya know)...
What's the odds of keeping 1 of them happy????I guess it is the one situation where a man can threaten a wife successfully with taking away sex.."Betty, I know tuesday's at 3pm are your time, but if you don't get those dishes done, I'll give your time to Suzi"
~seeing the humor through the pain...
05-24-2001, 05:01 PM
same sex couples should not get the same benefits . This will also open the door to a whole lot of cheating insurance companys . My brother did work at the phone company and his insurance was going up because of adding same sex coverage . Most of all this is wrong morality. Yes times have changed but for the worse .
05-24-2001, 05:30 PM
I guess one option that hasn't come up in the interest of "fairness" is taking away the coverage for all dependents.
After all, why should the employer have to foot the bill for a bunch of unemployed do-nothings? When my dependents get their asses out there and earn their own living, THEN they can enjoy "health." Don't most spouses work for companies that have benefits anyway? It's not fair to the employer to have to pay for insurance that won't be used, too.
Employers would go for it. Insurance companies would go for it. The do-nothings would have to get jobs, be productive, and earn their health. Everyone would be happier, right?
05-24-2001, 05:36 PM
If a company wants to give the same benefits to homosexual couples that it gives to hetrosexual couples that's thier business. I'm not sure if our government giving the same tax breaks to homosexual married couples that is given to hetrosexual married couples is the same. My question is... For what reason do we give hetro married people tax breaks? I've never really known the exact rationale for doing this. Does anybody know why we do this?
05-24-2001, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by philfree
My question is... For what reason do we give hetro married people tax breaks? I've never really known the exact rationale for doing this. Does anybody know why we do this?
They don't...You get kicked in the teeth if you are married...
The standard deduction is $4,400 if you are single or $7,350 if your married...Thus two single people get $8,800 worth of standard deductions...You also get kicked in the a$$ in many other areas also...
It cost me about $4,300 per year in additional taxes because I am married vs being able to file single...
05-24-2001, 06:01 PM
Really! I thought that by filing jointly you paid less taxes? Hmmm?
05-24-2001, 06:02 PM
They beat you like a rented mule...The people that get all of the tax breaks are those with kids.:mad:
05-24-2001, 06:53 PM
Jl80, I'm pretty positive that by filing jointly me and wife pay in less income tax. And people raising families deserve deductions for their children. Raising kids is expensive! So my question is what logic did they use to determine that married couples deserved to pay less taxes?
05-24-2001, 07:04 PM
You definitely don't pay less taxes being married...If you have a low income then it won't have hardly any effect one way or another. But if you have a decent income you pay more taxes being married.
To answer your question...There should be absolutely no difference between your tax bill if you are married or single...
Why do you think people should pay less taxes for having kids? Do you receive less military protection if you have kids? Do you receive less police protection? Don't you still drive on the same paved roads?
05-24-2001, 07:32 PM
I don't think you answered my question at all. And people who have children have more neccessities or needs. These cost money! If you have kids your income is spread thinner as you add members of your family. It only stands to reason that couples with children do not have as much to pay in as individuals or couples who don't have. I don't know what logic was used when we came to this conclusion but I think it's fair. My question was.. What logic was used to justify giving married couples a break by not having to pay in as much taxes when they file as married and jointly? Why would anybody file as married and jointly if it caused you to pay more? I mean, you don't have to file jointly you can file seperately if you choose!
05-24-2001, 08:04 PM
If you are married you can file "Separate but Married" which they punish you even worse than they do if you filled "joint"...If you are married and file separate they not only hit you higher on taxes but they won't allow you to deduct IRA contributions, they won't even allow a ROTH IRA contribution along with the fact that if one spouse itemizes their deductions then the other spouse can't itemize and also loses their standard deduction...
As for you comment about children...There is no doubt that they cost money and stretch your income a little thinner but children aren't mandatory, they are a choice....Why should everyone else have to pick up more of someone else's tab if they choose to have children? English Bulldogs cost a lot to buy and maintain but it shouldn't be someone else's responsibility if I choose to have one should it?
05-24-2001, 08:10 PM
jl80 - Tax cut for having kids because they don't bring in any income, and as for a choice, well, where would America be today if all of our parents decided not to have children? Pet's are for enjoyment, kids are for our future and if they live long enough they pay taxes, unlike the dog who never pays taxes because he does have a social security number.
Just tossing out stupid, random thoughts.
05-24-2001, 08:13 PM
After conversing with others I have decided you are right. I am probably paying more taxes for being married. As far as the deduction for children I don't know the logic they used to justify it but I somehow think it's fair.
As far as my original post on this thread "Nevermind!"
05-24-2001, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by morphius
jl80 - where would America be today if all of our parents decided not to have children? .
Where would America be today if there were only children brought into this world by parents who choose to have them because they really wanted children and because the had the financial ability to provide them a quality up bringing? Probably a better country than we are today without hungry and abused children that end up resorting to violence, drugs and crime...
05-24-2001, 08:25 PM
Don't get me wrong...I love children and obviously we need them for the world to continue...I believe the government can and should create breaks for parents...Such as not taxing them on money that is spend for daycare. IMO any and all education expenses should be completely tax deductible. But I think the concept of giving tax breaks that can equal up to about $600 per month to parents just for the sake of having a kid is not right...I think it just continues the losers mentality that it is not my responsibility, it is someone else's...There are many parents that don't come close to spending that much money on their child...
80, My children are citizens of the U.S. They deserve and are entitled to military protection whether they pay taxes or not! Actually that is one of the primary concerns of our forefathers when they drafted the Constitution.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States.
I already have too much Police protection. The frikin cops seem to be everywhere.
Have you driven on the roads in MO. lately? They sure aren't spending any tax money on roads.
don't mind paying taxes...just wish the gov't spent it better
80, Obviously you do not have children. I would love to give up my deductions for my kids if I could deduct childcare and education expenses. I am pretty sure I would be way ahead.
Soooo......How do you feel about personal property taxes and the bulk of it going to public schools when a person doesn't have children.
just stirring the pot
05-24-2001, 11:41 PM
Please name all the tax breaks I get for having and raising kids...
I mean, there must be at least 100 or more right? I can only count one, and that is the deduction for a dependent. Please list all of the others...
There's the Child Tax Credit, the Child Care Credit, and the Adoption Credit. Here's a brief description of them, from the IRS website: http://www.irs.gov/prod/tax_edu/teletax/tc606.html
A single person becomes a head of household by having a child. That means that their AGI (adjusted gross income) gets subject to lower taxes. (Also note that the exemption for the dependent means that the AGI for the parent would be that much lower than for the nonperson.) Anyway, for example, an AGI of $40,000 in the year 2000 would have been taxed $7,795 for a single person versus $6,638 for a single person with a child. Here's a link to the IRS's online 2000 Tax Table:
I think there's also a variety of estate-preserving schemes that involve gifts to children and so on, but you get the point. There aren't hundreds of credits, but the few that are there aren't insubstantial, either.
05-25-2001, 08:31 AM
I'm ok with property taxes paying for education even if I don't have kids...Education is a very important aspect for society so we all benefit whether it be directly or indirectly...But I do wish those school systems that aren't up to par were held to a much higher standard in order to be receiving my property tax $'s....
05-25-2001, 09:48 AM
""Is this bill about just sex? Is it about just health insurance," Flory asked rhetorically, responding to her critics. "It's about all Vermonters. It's about giving everyone protections."
Gay and lesbian Vermonters, though, said the bill was an insult because it sought to equate their committed relationships to those they have with a mother, sibling, aunt or uncle. The relationships are significantly different, they said. "
Its an insult to "domestic parnerships" to give benefits to siblings that live tother for years??????If "domestic parnerships" aren't an insult to marraige, then they shouldn't be "insulted" by others gaining the same benefits...after all...it doesn't hurt them?
If my brothers and I choose to buy a farm house and be bachelors, while living together and sharing expenses until we die....is that less committment? after all...this doesn't have anything to do with sex....for some reason I see a double standard from the "pink team".
keg in kc
05-25-2001, 10:17 AM
Iowanian, I think you're oversimplifying that issue or maybe didn't read all the information contained in the article. As I understand what's contained in the article (I didn't know anything about this...), Conservatives in Vermont wants to repeal the "civil union" (gay equivalent of a marriage, but a separate entity...), but cannot because the Vermont supreme court would then require marriage licenses to be given to gays and lesbians. So, they write this bill instead, which is intended to weaken the meaning of the "civil union" without actually repealing it. So, I can understand the statements by the "pink team" because shey apparently to see this as a step backwards (and of course the "morality police" on the right see it as a step forward as one member says in the article).
In other words, this is obviously about a lot more than just the one bill and it doesn't really seem to be about who gets benefits than the fact that it's a not-so-subtle attempt to go back on last year's legislation and legalization of gay/lesbian "civil unions".
I have no problem with the idea of everyone getting the benefits, discussed, but it's obvious that's not what the real story here is...
05-25-2001, 10:23 AM
I guess we just read it differently. I didn't put much thought into how it makes a group of people "feel".
My translation was merely that it "expanded" last years legislation to allow benefits to more than gay people...which is why I thought it was "petty" for them to be offended....
How does this hurt them? I really don't see how it does...they still get the benefits etc...it just allows the same options to other groups....not just one special interest.
keg in kc
05-25-2001, 10:32 AM
I think you're missing the point, or maybe I didn't make it well enough. I'm not talking at all about how anyone "feels" so I'm not sure what you mean by that.
It's not about the benefits, it's about how they want the "civil union" to be the equivalent of the marriage. Gays see this not as an expansion of last year's legislation, but as a thinly-veiled attempt to repeal, or, rather, make the "civil union" meaningless.
This is political double-speak, in other words, juke left and go right...
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.