This is an interesting conversation that's spinning the wheels (at least for me) with regard to faith-based tax incentives.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

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

The paradox of sin taxes is that as the revenue comes in, the government comes to count on that revenue.
So with one hand they restrict gambling to the lottery and the Seminole tribe, then with the other hand they buy advertisements to promote playing the lottery and visiting the Seminole tribe properties using various tax dollars.
On the one hand they keep tight control of liquor licenses and collect alcohol taxes, on the other hand our local and state governments will promote fun events (like Jaguars games) where a lot of alcohol will be served.
It kind of hurts your head if you think about it that much.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

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

The paradox of sin taxes is that as the revenue comes in, the government comes to count on that revenue.
So with one hand they restrict gambling to the lottery and the Seminole tribe, then with the other hand they buy advertisements to promote playing the lottery and visiting the Seminole tribe properties using various tax dollars.
On the one hand they keep tight control of liquor licenses and collect alcohol taxes, on the other hand our local and state governments will promote fun events (like Jaguars games) where a lot of alcohol will be served.
It kind of hurts your head if you think about it that much.

And the answer is always smaller, less powerful government.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The paradox of sin taxes is that as the revenue comes in, the government comes to count on that revenue.
So with one hand they restrict gambling to the lottery and the Seminole tribe, then with the other hand they buy advertisements to promote playing the lottery and visiting the Seminole tribe properties using various tax dollars.
On the one hand they keep tight control of liquor licenses and collect alcohol taxes, on the other hand our local and state governments will promote fun events (like Jaguars games) where a lot of alcohol will be served.
It kind of hurts your head if you think about it that much.

And the answer is always smaller, less powerful government.

So let's apply that answer.  Are you saying that the government should just stop trying to do anything with regard to drinking and gambling?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

And the answer is always smaller, less powerful government.

So let's apply that answer.  Are you saying that the government should just stop trying to do anything with regard to drinking and gambling?

Yes.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Discuss.

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

separation of Church and State.

Done. Argument over.

Why are you classifying marriage into the Church category?  

Are you telling me that Atheists don't get married?

If marriage is solely tied to the Church and not the State, why does the Justice of the Peace conduct weddings?

One could easily argue marriage falls under the State category.  After all, no marriages would exist if the State does not provide Judges and Ministers the legal authority to sign wedding licenses.

---

Discuss.

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

separation of Church and State.

Done. Argument over.

Why are you classifying marriage into the Church category?  

Are you telling me that Atheists don't get married?

If marriage is solely tied to the Church and not the State, why does the Justice of the Peace conduct weddings?

One could easily argue marriage falls under the State category.  After all, no marriages would exist if the State does not provide Judges and Ministers the legal authority to sign wedding licenses.

That's based on the false premise that you need a license to be married or someone in "legal authority" to approve it.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Why are you classifying marriage into the Church category?  

Are you telling me that Atheists don't get married?

If marriage is solely tied to the Church and not the State, why does the Justice of the Peace conduct weddings?

One could easily argue marriage falls under the State category.  After all, no marriages would exist if the State does not provide Judges and Ministers the legal authority to sign wedding licenses.

That's based on the false premise that you need a license to be married or someone in "legal authority" to approve it.

By default, legally united spouses are granted rights and privileges above blood relatives. This is what I meant by marriage being a legal partnership. 

I guess the same could be said of your assertion, but that would entail legal (and maybe not always enforceable) agreements.

---

Discuss.

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

separation of Church and State.

Done. Argument over.

Why are you classifying marriage into the Church category?  

Are you telling me that Atheists don't get married?

If marriage is solely tied to the Church and not the State, why does the Justice of the Peace conduct weddings?

One could easily argue marriage falls under the State category.  After all, no marriages would exist if the State does not provide Judges and Ministers the legal authority to sign wedding licenses.

Even though marriage is clearly a creation of religion it's become a legal agreement as well.

That's fine - I don't care if people want to get married - there shouldn't be financial incentives involved because that makes it social engineering.

People that are against the idea of marriage shouldn't be put in a different tax bracket because they choose to have children or step children out of wedlock.

---

So let's apply that answer.  Are you saying that the government should just stop trying to do anything with regard to drinking and gambling?

Yes.

How about protecting children?  Should the government do anything about that?

---

Yes.

How about protecting children?  Should the government do anything about that?

Yes.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Why are you classifying marriage into the Church category?  

Are you telling me that Atheists don't get married?

If marriage is solely tied to the Church and not the State, why does the Justice of the Peace conduct weddings?

One could easily argue marriage falls under the State category.  After all, no marriages would exist if the State does not provide Judges and Ministers the legal authority to sign wedding licenses.

Even though marriage is clearly a creation of religion it's become a legal agreement as well.

That's fine - I don't care if people want to get married - there shouldn't be financial incentives involved because that makes it social engineering.

People that are against the idea of marriage shouldn't be put in a different tax bracket because they choose to have children or step children out of wedlock.

That's like... pretty metaphysical, man.
Pretty much every ancient society had some kind of marriage and some kind of religion... I would not venture to guess which one came first though.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

A cursory search of the subject suggests I am correct, at least in this instance. The marriage tax came out in 1917, when the US needed money for WWI.

---

So let's apply that answer.  Are you saying that the government should just stop trying to do anything with regard to drinking and gambling?

Yes.

Don't you think the government should make sure that the bookies are paying out when people win bets?
Shouldn't the government be making sure that there's no methanol in the liquor?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

All taxes are social engineering. If you want to disqualify all tax benefits that equate social engineering you’d have to disqualify all tax breaks.

As for separation of church and state (let’s presume for arguments sake it’s a real thing) marriage in the legal since is not a religious act it’s a contractual commitment between two parties (the ultimate reason banning same sex marriage is a doomed policy) that’s completely separate from the religious side of the act. Non religious people can enter into a marriage So it’s not an exclusively religious act.

---

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.

I’m going to assume you have no children and don’t understand the tax rate adjustments for families versus single individuals?

There’s the earned income credit which replaced welfare monthly payments from the federal government (it like all other welfare programs is directly related to the size of the household vs income). Then there is the child tax credit which reduces the taxable income based upon family size. The argument is pretty easy to follow a family of 4 living on 60k is going to require more disposable income then a single individual making 60k therefore the amount of income taxes they pay is reduced proportionally by the size of the household.

Even under flat tax or fair tax plans the size of a household is factored in, I’m not aware of any tax system ever that did not recognize this basic principle?

---

A cursory search of the subject suggests I am correct, at least in this instance. The marriage tax came out in 1917, when the US needed money for WWI.

The income tax was established as a war time fund and was supposed to be temporary

---

Why are you classifying marriage into the Church category?  

Are you telling me that Atheists don't get married?

If marriage is solely tied to the Church and not the State, why does the Justice of the Peace conduct weddings?

One could easily argue marriage falls under the State category.  After all, no marriages would exist if the State does not provide Judges and Ministers the legal authority to sign wedding licenses.

Even though marriage is clearly a creation of religion it's become a legal agreement as well.

That's fine - I don't care if people want to get married - there shouldn't be financial incentives involved because that makes it social engineering.

People that are against the idea of marriage shouldn't be put in a different tax bracket because they choose to have children or step children out of wedlock.

Ok yeah you have no idea what your talking about. If you have a child or stepchild out of wedlock you get the same tax credit if you claim them as a dependent. But if your the step dad and the real dad says it’s his dependent he gets the credit not you. It has nothing to do with social engineering it is to do with who can legally Claim the dependent.

---

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.

I’m going to assume you have no children and don’t understand the tax rate adjustments for families versus single individuals?

There’s the earned income credit which replaced welfare monthly payments from the federal government (it like all other welfare programs is directly related to the size of the household vs income). Then there is the child tax credit which reduces the taxable income based upon family size. The argument is pretty easy to follow a family of 4 living on 60k is going to require more disposable income then a single individual making 60k therefore the amount of income taxes they pay is reduced proportionally by the size of the household.

Even under flat tax or fair tax plans the size of a household is factored in, I’m not aware of any tax system ever that did not recognize this basic principle?

I have two kids and did my own taxes for the first 8 or 9 years of my marriage, including the first 3 years of my daughter's life.  I'm grateful for the little tax break, it makes sense too because I do need the money to take care of them. However if I know one thing about Congress, they don't ever get together and start a conversation with "hey let's do something that makes sense" or  "let's help some people out who are having a problem."
Its usually "let's do something to put the President in a tight spot" or "let's screw over the other party."

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Yes.

Don't you think the government should make sure that the bookies are paying out when people win bets?
Shouldn't the government be making sure that there's no methanol in the liquor?

No.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

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.

I’m going to assume you have no children and don’t understand the tax rate adjustments for families versus single individuals?

There’s the earned income credit which replaced welfare monthly payments from the federal government (it like all other welfare programs is directly related to the size of the household vs income). Then there is the child tax credit which reduces the taxable income based upon family size. The argument is pretty easy to follow a family of 4 living on 60k is going to require more disposable income then a single individual making 60k therefore the amount of income taxes they pay is reduced proportionally by the size of the household.

Even under flat tax or fair tax plans the size of a household is factored in, I’m not aware of any tax system ever that did not recognize this basic principle?

---

A cursory search of the subject suggests I am correct, at least in this instance. The marriage tax came out in 1917, when the US needed money for WWI.

The income tax was established as a war time fund and was supposed to be temporary

---

Even though marriage is clearly a creation of religion it's become a legal agreement as well.

That's fine - I don't care if people want to get married - there shouldn't be financial incentives involved because that makes it social engineering.

People that are against the idea of marriage shouldn't be put in a different tax bracket because they choose to have children or step children out of wedlock.

Ok yeah you have no idea what your talking about. If you have a child or stepchild out of wedlock you get the same tax credit if you claim them as a dependent. But if your the step dad and the real dad says it’s his dependent he gets the credit not you. It has nothing to do with social engineering it is to do with who can legally Claim the dependent.

Not too bright are you...

What makes a child a step child?

Being MARRIED to the mother.

Sometimes it's too easy.... I should have given him time to answer.

---

How about protecting children?  Should the government do anything about that?

Yes.

So what if the government decides that subsidizing marriage, handing out welfare checks, providing Medicaid, food stamps, and all the other social programs they provide are part of their effort to protect children?  What if the government claims that the war on drugs, pollution regulations, and everything else is an effort to protect children?  What if the government claims that the Department of Education, HUD, the NSA, the DEA, and everything else, is all about protecting children?  And how about discouraging alcoholism and drug use in order to protect the children of potential alcoholics and drug users?  

I'm not endorsing large scale government.  I'm just saying that when you say government should protect children, you are opening the door to the argument that large scale government is an effort to protect children.   It's a very potent argument.

---