Ted Olson, best Republican ever?

@roger,

roger wrote:

Actually, two married people of approximately equal incomes will end up paying more as a married couple than two singles.

Exactly. The marriage penalty is well known in tax circles. Tax payers may pay a little more for health insurance coverage of spouses of government workers, but since both members will typically work, insurance coverage would be split anyway. I think marriage equality is generally going to be a tax generator for the government.

1 Reply

What in hell does all this have to do with Ted Olson?

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

My my children out of wedlock illegal!!! Where does that silliness come from and how does it impact the fact that it is self evidence that straight couples married or not married are going to have far more children inside relationships on average then gay couples?

The benefits for straight couples to married is there to encourage them to set up long term stable state license relationships for the good of the children that are very very likely to be produce in such relationships and that is clearly not the case for gay couples.

Now once more I am not hundred percent against allowing gay marriages in fact I kind of favor them more then not, still they are clearly not equivalent to straight marriages and therefore for that reason the voters should be the ones to settle this matter not the courts.

3 Replies

@engineer,

Quote:

The marriage penalty is well known in tax circles. Tax payers may pay a little more for health insurance coverage of spouses of government w

Lol that is another example of the government thinking that one members of a couples is very likely not to be in the work force to the same degree as the other due to the need to raised children.

The same apply to SS benefits where we allow a married person to have benefits related to the other partner earning records or his or her own earning record once more on the theory that one of them is likely not to be in the workforce to the degree that the other one is due to raising a family and therefore would have less benefits or no benefits perhaps if we did not set this up in this manner.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

The benefits for straight couples to married is there to encourage them to set up long term stable relationships for the good of the children that are very very likely to be produce in such relationships and that is clearly not the case for gay couples.

While the percentages might be different, there are children in gay marriage households as well we straight (although I think you are clearly right that I would expect the average in straight households to be higher.) But I disagree that the rights of marriage are related to children. In a now typical two income family, being married means you pay more in taxes whether you are straight or not. The tax benefit for children is the same whether you are single or married. I think the current tax code is actually anti-marriage for everyone. My wife and I pay over $1000 in extra taxes than if we were just living together with the kids. Some of the other benefits of marriage are much more important. The right to make legal decisions on each other's behalf, the right to access during medical and legal proceedings, the rights to share in employment benefits are all things that make marriage preferable to cohabitation. There is no compelling reason not to make those rights available to gay couples.

1 Reply

@engineer,

Quote:

While the percentages might be different, there are children in gay marriage households as well we straight (although I think you are clearly right that I would expect the average in straight households to be higher.) But I disagree that the rights of marriage are related to children. In a now typical two income family, being married means you pay more in taxes whether you are straight or not.

Wrong you paid more taxes as a married couple only if both of you are in the high end of the earning range the majority of married couples by far pay far less then single people do.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

I just looked it up and I concede the point. I was remembering older tax tables but the current tax tables show that a significant marriage penalty doesn't kick in until joint income exceeds $142K, clearly much higher than the average two income household..

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

The benefits for straight couples to married is there to encourage them to set up long term stable state license relationships for the good of the children that are very very likely to be produce in such relationships and that is clearly not the case for gay couples.

That certainly is one benefit of heterosexual marriages. The other benefit of heterosexual marriages is that they allow families to raise children (regardless of whose sexual intercourse led to the production of these children).
I don't know if you are aware of this little sociological factoid, but some couples adopt children. In fact not enough couples adopt children. A benefit to same-sex marriages is that most of their children will be adopted children.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Now once more I am not hundred percent against allowing gay marriages in fact I kind of favor them more then not, still they are clearly not equivalent to straight marriages and therefore for that reason the voters should be the ones to settle this matter not the courts.

I of course disagree that regarding where the matter should be settled. I happen to think that the Bill of Rights is important (damn conservative values). A state can't legally deprive someone of civil rights in opposition to the Bill of Rights, unless it can be proven that there is substantial harm which would result by not disenfranchising a minority. This is how minorities are protected by a tyranny of the majority. To ask that it be settled by vote is tantamount to discrediting the entire governmental framework set in place to provide such protections.

Your suggestion is not a conservative position, it is a radical semi-anarchic position.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Sorry Advocate. Were you unable to access the video in the OP?
Here is my earlier response to Osso if that was the case:

Matt wrote:

The video is basically of Ted Olson explaining to Wallace why Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. Wallace in a remarkable and rare moment of clarity nearly concedes the point at the end of the interview.

0 Replies

@engineer,

My bad. I should have looked that up, too. Still, the absence of the marriage penalty doesn't imply a tax reward for marriage.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

Still, the absence of the marriage penalty doesn't imply a tax reward for marriage.

It does if the spouses earn widely disparate amounts.

0 Replies

Ted Olson, best Republican ever?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know