Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Discuss.

Shouldn't be allowed because it's unconstitutional...

separation of Church and State.

Done. Argument over.

Marriage is a legal partnership, is it not?

(02-02-2020, 01:33 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]Discuss.

Shouldn't be allowed because it's unconstitutional...

separation of Church and State.

Done. Argument over.

What about state laws that presume some property is shared after marriage takes place?
Instead of having to go file all these joint ownership papers, it's part and parcel of the marriage certificate. So they make it simple.
Is that also impermissible in your opinion?

(02-02-2020, 01:39 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Marriage is a legal partnership, is it not?

It's an antiquated system of male dominance.

People who decide to get married, great, do it, enjoy it. Shouldn't be any tax benefits to it. It's a system to ensure people keep getting married... social engineering.

---

(02-02-2020, 01:41 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-02-2020, 01:33 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]Discuss.

Shouldn't be allowed because it's unconstitutional...

separation of Church and State.

Done. Argument over.

What about state laws that presume some property is shared after marriage takes place?
Instead of having to go file all these joint ownership papers, it's part and parcel of the marriage certificate. So they make it simple.
Is that also impermissible in your opinion?

That's different from a tax incentive for being married and having children together or step children together as a married couple.

The separation of church and state doesn’t mean the state can’t be influenced by religion or have laws with religious origins. Marriage isn’t exclusive to the religious anyway. I don’t believe it’s as much about social engineering as it is buying votes.

Either way, we’re taxed too damn much. You shouldn’t be punished for not having kids.

(02-02-2020, 02:21 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]The separation of church and state doesn’t mean the state can’t be influenced by religion or have laws with religious origins. Marriage isn’t exclusive to the religious anyway. I don’t believe it’s as much about social engineering as it is buying votes.

Either way, we’re taxed too damn much. You shouldn’t be punished for not having kids.

Anytime you give money as incentive to do something it's gotta be considered a form of social engineering, doesn't it?

I wonder how long ago they decided that a family's income tax rate should be reduced based on how many kids they have.
Many times I've heard people justifying it as society needs kids and we should encourage people to have them.
It's obvious that society needs kids. But I'm not sure those little tax incentives really cause more women to get pregnant and carry their pregnancies to completion.

(02-02-2020, 01:33 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]Discuss.

Shouldn't be allowed because it's unconstitutional...

separation of Church and State.

Done. Argument over.

The whole of the tax code is failed social engineering.  The only thing we've successfully created is the accounting industry.  

Consumption not income.  Fair not income based.

Married people create more future tax payers than non-married people.

Marriage is the bedrock of our society. Its denegration leads to the fatherlessness that is our major social burden. Structuring the tax code to encourage it is a social good. Right now our tax code and court system encourages bastardry and we see the resulting sociatal dysfuntion all around us.

---

(02-02-2020, 03:52 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Married people create more future tax payers than non-married people.

True, unmarried people create future societal burdens.

(02-02-2020, 06:32 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Marriage is the bedrock of our society. Its denegration leads to the fatherlessness that is our major social burden. Structuring the tax code to encourage it is a social good. Right now our tax code and court system encourages bastardry and we see the resulting sociatal dysfuntion all around us.

---

(02-02-2020, 03:52 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Married people create more future tax payers than non-married people.

True, unmarried people create future societal burdens.

Nah, Bernie is here to save the day.

(02-02-2020, 06:32 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Marriage is the bedrock of our society. Its denegration leads to the fatherlessness that is our major social burden. Structuring the tax code to encourage it is a social good. Right now our tax code and court system encourages bastardry and we see the resulting sociatal dysfuntion all around us.

---

(02-02-2020, 03:52 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Married people create more future tax payers than non-married people.

True, unmarried people create future societal burdens.

So you agree it's social engineering.

So... it's a violation of your core libertarian beliefs... that everyone, regardless of who they are, can achieve anything. Social engineering is only necessary if you think someone is inferior to you.

(02-02-2020, 09:49 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-02-2020, 06:32 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Marriage is the bedrock of our society. Its denegration leads to the fatherlessness that is our major social burden. Structuring the tax code to encourage it is a social good. Right now our tax code and court system encourages bastardry and we see the resulting sociatal dysfuntion all around us.

---

True, unmarried people create future societal burdens.

So you agree it's social engineering.

So... it's a violation of your core libertarian beliefs... that everyone, regardless of who they are, can achieve anything. Social engineering is only necessary if you think someone is inferior to you.

Yes, but most people are inferior to me, so there's that. I also believe that individuals must agree to engineer a society or there's no civilization. Libertarianism isnt anarchy, it's the belief that small, limited government is best.

I'm sure the reasons you listed above were used when proposing new taxes, but I'd wager your motive is wrong. I would bet (without having any evidence), that the motive was simply to generate more tax revenue. Like most taxes, it's hard to get through if a majority of the voting base is affected, so it was probably easier to raise taxes by excluding people who are married (the majority), so that the government could collect more taxes from those who aren't (the minority). I could do a quick google search to see if I'm right, but I felt like rolling the dice.

(02-03-2020, 08:20 AM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sure the reasons you listed above were used when proposing new taxes, but I'd wager your motive is wrong. I would bet (without having any evidence), that the motive was simply to generate more tax revenue. Like most taxes, it's hard to get through if a majority of the voting base is affected, so it was probably easier to raise taxes by excluding people who are married (the majority), so that the government could collect more taxes from those who aren't (the minority). I could do a quick google search to see if I'm right, but I felt like rolling the dice.

I'm opposed to taxation based on income in principle. In the system we have today (that I don't think we'll ever be free of btw), the problem is no controls on spending not lack of revenue.

(02-03-2020, 11:36 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-03-2020, 08:20 AM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sure the reasons you listed above were used when proposing new taxes, but I'd wager your motive is wrong. I would bet (without having any evidence), that the motive was simply to generate more tax revenue. Like most taxes, it's hard to get through if a majority of the voting base is affected, so it was probably easier to raise taxes by excluding people who are married (the majority), so that the government could collect more taxes from those who aren't (the minority). I could do a quick google search to see if I'm right, but I felt like rolling the dice.

I'm opposed to taxation based on income in principle. In the system we have today (that I don't think we'll ever be free of btw), the problem is no controls on spending not lack of revenue.

Exactly!  Theres no amount of money congress can't appropriate in an afternoon.

Of course. Let me clarify: I am suggesting people in power wanted more tax revenue, and questioning the idea that people in power wanted more married families.

The original poster makes it seem like there was a set tax rate, and that it was adjusted to socially engineer more nuclear families. This implies that there was a shortage of nuclear families, and the powers that be schemed to create more.

I am suggesting that there were already nuclear families, and that the powers that be wanted more tax revenue. Knowing that it would be an unpopular idea, it excluded nuclear families so the majority wouldn't push back against the idea.

I am also stating that I am doing this with no proof, so I could be dead wrong. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that the latter is a far more likely option. I could probably google it to find out more, but I wanted to take a stab in the dark.

(02-03-2020, 11:46 AM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]Of course. Let me clarify: I am suggesting people in power wanted more tax revenue, and questioning the idea that people in power wanted more married families.

The original poster makes it seem like there was a set tax rate, and that it was adjusted to socially engineer more nuclear families. This implies that there was a shortage of nuclear families, and the powers that be schemed to create more.

I am suggesting that there were already nuclear families, and that the powers that be wanted more tax revenue. Knowing that it would be an unpopular idea, it excluded nuclear families so the majority wouldn't push back against the idea.

I am also stating that I am doing this with no proof, so I could be dead wrong. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that the latter is a far more likely option. I could probably google it to find out more, but I wanted to take a stab in the dark.

Tax rates and carve-outs have fluctuated up and down many times over the 100 years of federal income tax.  It probably happened as you describe a few times, and some other way other times. 
The instinct that people see taxes as punishment, and that they will look to punish people that they stereotype as "other," is spot-on.  The "punish others" instinct also explains prohibition and the drug war.

(02-03-2020, 11:46 AM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]Of course. Let me clarify: I am suggesting people in power wanted more tax revenue, and questioning the idea that people in power wanted more married families.

The original poster makes it seem like there was a set tax rate, and that it was adjusted to socially engineer more nuclear families. This implies that there was a shortage of nuclear families, and the powers that be schemed to create more.

I am suggesting that there were already nuclear families, and that the powers that be wanted more tax revenue. Knowing that it would be an unpopular idea, it excluded nuclear families so the majority wouldn't push back against the idea.

I am also stating that I am doing this with no proof, so I could be dead wrong. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that the latter is a far more likely option. I could probably google it to find out more, but I wanted to take a stab in the dark.

There's a significant amount of research available the proves the existence of The Nudge. Soda taxes are the big one to point at today, the idea that soda consumption (a societal evil as it increases health care costs) can be reduced through taxation, and thus far it has within small geographic limits. Whether health care costs should be a societal concern at all is a different conversation though. Cigarette and alcohol taxes work the same way and we've seen reductions in their use over time. Likewise, we see the tax code encourage or discourage other behaviors as well including marriage, family planning, and home ownership. I am not saying that every instance of taxation was intended as a societal benefit, most really are just cash grabs to feed the mouth of the Federal Machine, but there's significant documentation that shows that tax policy can elicit desired behaviors. The problem for most of us is exactly whose desires are we achieving and how many people didn't get to fulfill their own as a result?

(02-03-2020, 12:22 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-03-2020, 11:46 AM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]Of course. Let me clarify: I am suggesting people in power wanted more tax revenue, and questioning the idea that people in power wanted more married families.

The original poster makes it seem like there was a set tax rate, and that it was adjusted to socially engineer more nuclear families. This implies that there was a shortage of nuclear families, and the powers that be schemed to create more.

I am suggesting that there were already nuclear families, and that the powers that be wanted more tax revenue. Knowing that it would be an unpopular idea, it excluded nuclear families so the majority wouldn't push back against the idea.

I am also stating that I am doing this with no proof, so I could be dead wrong. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that the latter is a far more likely option. I could probably google it to find out more, but I wanted to take a stab in the dark.

There's a significant amount of research available the proves the existence of The Nudge. Soda taxes are the big one to point at today, the idea that soda consumption (a societal evil as it increases health care costs) can be reduced through taxation, and thus far it has within small geographic limits. Whether health care costs should be a societal concern at all is a different conversation though. Cigarette and alcohol taxes work the same way and we've seen reductions in their use over time. Likewise, we see the tax code encourage or discourage other behaviors as well including marriage, family planning, and home ownership. I am not saying that every instance of taxation was intended as a societal benefit, most really are just cash grabs to feed the mouth of the Federal Machine, but there's significant documentation that shows that tax policy can elicit desired behaviors. The problem for most of us is exactly whose desires are we achieving and how many people didn't get to fulfill their own as a result?

Hence my fear of social engineering. No, it doesn't truly affect the intelligent because we can see it happening... but 80% of people aren't intelligent enough to know when they are being nudged by the government to a particular way of acting or thinking. They merely see it as an extra fee or tax they have to pay and therefore stop doing it... exactly what the social engineers want