Do Single People Deserve equal protection that Married couples have?

[milhouse24]

One money saving feature of "marriage benefits" is that inheritance is given to spouses tax-free or at a reduced tax.  (according to the Windsor case).  So a SS or Male-Female couple can inherit the deceased assets without paying a high tax penalty. 

But a Single Mother cannot give her inheritance to her biological (or adopted) son or daughter at a reduced tax rate. 

I feel that this is a punishment to single people (whether divorced or widowed) that punishes single people and their biological offspring, when it comes to inheritance tax. 

Why should a Same Sex couple without the "procreation theory" of marriage, get a reduced tax rate on inheritance, when a Single Mother cannot get a reduced tax rate of inheritance to her biological children???

I understand and accept that Marriage laws and Marriage benefits no longer abide by "procreation theory" but why should those people who have chosen to procreate and have children be punished. 

I would rather just have "marriage licenses be outlawed for everyone" rather than have discrimination of Singles (which make up over 50% of the United States). 

We want to give "marriage benefits" to SS couples.  But we should also give "benefits" to Singles who are being punished for being widowed, divorced, or having children out of wedlock. 

I just think that "Marriage licenses are just pointless and over" because someone is being discriminated and financially punished by the government for "not being married."  That is plain wrong and unjust.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Sadly, the tax code discriminates against single people. It wasn't always this bad, before the right-wing media started bumping its gums about the nonexistent "marriage penalty", and Bush changed the tax code to discriminate against singles.

[MaxQue]

Even more, it is discriminating against couples deciding against marriage, for personal reasons.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Well, the theory is that it won't be too long before the spouse dies anyway and the money is inherited by the children and be taxed.  Of course, if it disturbs you excessively that spousal inheritance is treated differently than inheritance by children, we could just repeal the death tax.

[Cory]

Well, the theory is that it won't be too long before the spouse dies anyway and the money is inherited by the children and be taxed.  Of course, if it disturbs you excessively that spousal inheritance is treated differently than inheritance by children, we could just repeal the death tax.

Yeah, because the rate of the Walton family fortune's inheritance is somehow fundamentally intertwined with a single mother trying to leave something for her children.

[afleitch]

Oh you're back again.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I'm not saying it's a non-issue--how the Hell would I know?-- but the way you present it gives off the vibe that you're trying to make a lot of noise for nothing. Take a communication class or something, I dunno.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Well, the theory is that it won't be too long before the spouse dies anyway and the money is inherited by the children and be taxed.  Of course, if it disturbs you excessively that spousal inheritance is treated differently than inheritance by children, we could just repeal the death tax.

Yeah, because the rate of the Walton family fortune's inheritance is somehow fundamentally intertwined with a single mother trying to leave something for her children.

Shesh!  Even with a smiley face you took my modest proposal seriously.  (No doubt because there are those who do advocate that, but that is why I made certain to include the smiley.)

[AggregateDemand]

Yeah, it's a serious problem. Tax code penalizes single people with higher marginal rates. Corporations often refuse to let single people add non-spouses to healthcare plans. Community property is difficult to establish. Non-married couples are penalized heavily by the death tax.

But the problems are not limited to single people. Affluent dual income married couples get fleeced as well. If a man makes $150,000 and his wife make $50,000 when she returns to the workforce, they get penalized with excessive FICA tax compared to the married couple with a $200,000 bread-winner.

Economic discrimination exists for everyone except the traditional one-income married couple with children.

[milhouse24]

Well, the theory is that it won't be too long before the spouse dies anyway and the money is inherited by the children and be taxed.  Of course, if it disturbs you excessively that spousal inheritance is treated differently than inheritance by children, we could just repeal the death tax.

why can't the death tax be repealed?  If its discriminator against single Americans, then it should be repealed or at least challenged by some lawyer.

[milhouse24]

Well, the theory is that it won't be too long before the spouse dies anyway and the money is inherited by the children and be taxed.  Of course, if it disturbs you excessively that spousal inheritance is treated differently than inheritance by children, we could just repeal the death tax.

Yeah, because the rate of the Walton family fortune's inheritance is somehow fundamentally intertwined with a single mother trying to leave something for her children.

Well, if you follow the NFL, most owners are unable to pass the ownership onto their children because of the high inheritance tax.  The redskins were sold after JKC died.  Al Davis died and his son is saving money to pay for the inheritance tax when his mom dies, so he can try to keep the team. 

Besides, why shouldn't the children be taken care of after their parents die, instead of being taxed into poverty.  Remember, spousal inheritance is "TAX FREE" - that is saving potentially "hundreds of thousands of dollars"

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

What you are really asking is about how other family relations besides marriage are treated, not about being single vs. married.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Oh you're back again.

Yeah, hey milhouse! What's up? Still stridently homophobic for mind-bendingly complicated reasons?

[milhouse24]

What you are really asking is about how other family relations besides marriage are treated, not about being single vs. married.

Well, if procreation has nothing to do with marriage, would it be possible for blood relatives to obtain marriage licenses so that they can get "tax-free inheritances" 

Does marriage have to be denied between blood relatives?  What would be the harm of marriage between blood relatives?  The tax-free inheritance would save thousands of dollars, that I think every American deserves to keep.  The law is unconstitutional if it discriminates to un-married Americans.  Each American should be able to designate one person to give a tax-free inheritance.

[afleitch]

Does marriage have to be denied between blood relatives?  What would be the harm of marriage between blood relatives?

MARRIED PEOPLE TEND TO HAVE SEX

SEXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!
Straight married couples have sex and create babies

Some straight married couples have sex but don't create babies

Some straight married couples have sex but can't create babies

Gay married couples can have sex but can't have babies as a result of sex

------

Would you like it a pop up book, or book with lift up flaps to help explain it better. I'll pay the shipping charge?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why should sex be considered a fundamental part of marriage?  We've already eliminated the link with property transfer (that of transferring ownership of woman from her father to her husband).  We're already in the midst of eliminating whatever links it previously had with procreation.  Why then should we not expect that marriage will continue to be reduced down in law to nothing more than a contract between two adults.  If sex were a part of what makes a marriage a marriage would not those idiots who say it is impossible for a husband to rape his wife be correct?

[MaxQue]

Why should sex be considered a fundamental part of marriage?  We've already eliminated the link with property transfer (that of transferring ownership of woman from her father to her husband).  We're already in the midst of eliminating whatever links it previously had with procreation.  Why then should we not expect that marriage will continue to be reduced down in law to nothing more than a contract between two adults.  If sex were a part of what makes a marriage a marriage would not those idiots who say it is impossible for a husband to rape his wife be correct?

Consensual sex, then. Stop playing on words.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

But words are so much fun!  But, playing with them aside, even limiting it to consensual sex, can it truly be considered a defining attribute of marriage these days? As nclib's signature points out, some Democrats clearly don't think so.  If sex is to be a defining characteristic should we treat those who engage in extramarital sex the same as any other sex offender?  (Or would scarlet letters suffice in lieu of jail time?  Of course, we'd probably run out of scarlet cloth if we did that.)

[MaxQue]

But words are so much fun!  But, playing with them aside, even limiting it to consensual sex, can it truly be considered a defining attribute of marriage these days? As nclib's signature points out, some Democrats clearly don't think so.  If sex is to be a defining characteristic should we treat those who engage in extramarital sex the same as any other sex offender?  (Or would scarlet letters suffice in lieu of jail time?  Of course, we'd probably run out of scarlet cloth if we did that.)

We could probably settle on marriage not meaning the same thing for everybody.

[bedstuy]

But words are so much fun!  But, playing with them aside, even limiting it to consensual sex, can it truly be considered a defining attribute of marriage these days? As nclib's signature points out, some Democrats clearly don't think so.  If sex is to be a defining characteristic should we treat those who engage in extramarital sex the same as any other sex offender?  (Or would scarlet letters suffice in lieu of jail time?  Of course, we'd probably run out of scarlet cloth if we did that.)

Society considers sex to be a key part of a marriage.  Sex is a key part of intimate relationships.  I don't see your point.  The fact that we don't treat women like property or gays like subhumans means we're all going to forget to have sexual relationships?  It's pretty hard to forget to have sexual relationships. 

Also, we do actually consider sex to be an element of marriage in the law, so I don't get that point.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Also, we do actually consider sex to be an element of marriage in the law, so I don't get that point.

At one point we also considered other things to be elements of marriage in the law, but we no longer do.  So, what is it about sex that requires that it be considered part of marriage?

[bedstuy]

Also, we do actually consider sex to be an element of marriage in the law, so I don't get that point.

At one point we also considered other things to be elements of marriage in the law, but we no longer do.  So, what is it about sex that requires that it be considered part of marriage?

The reason we have marriage is that people have relationships, right?  Do you know people who date and get married but never have sex?  I don't.  That element of society is based on our desire for sex and love, which is constant and based on our most primal nature as animals.  How is that going to fade away? 

To me the legal illustration of this fact is wrongly death tort damages.  If your husband/wife is killed by someone's tortious act, you can recover monetary damages for loss of sexual relations from your spouse.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That element of society is based on our desire for sex and love, which is constant and based on our most primal nature as animals.  How is that going to fade away?

I agree that the link between sex and love won't fade, but the link between love and marriage and/or sex and marriage could.  While love and sex have remained largely unchanged, marriage has changed over the centuries.

[Redalgo]

I am unconvinced the state should be involved in either creating incentives or deterrents to being married. Government ought to interact with citizens on an individual-by-individual basis rather than having special rules for households of varying populations or couples of certain types.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

To trigger the estate tax, you need to be transferring assets worth over $5.34 million (in 2014). Repealing it is a pretty killer tax cut exclusively for the rich. Not a huge priority for me.