Date: 10/11/2003 10:47:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
It's a provision written into the tax code. As I consider the entire income tax system and the IRS to be unconstitutional than Yes I would have to agree.  |
Date: 10/11/2003 10:53:00 AM
From Authorid: 54987
A lot of things violate the Constitution but it doesn't stop people doing them. I think the perks are more to do with encouraging men and women to marry in order to provide a stable environment for children. I'm not saying that it does, I'm just theorizing that that is the reason. If that is the case, I don't think it should apply to those who marry later in life when the possibility of having children is zero.  |
|
Date: 10/11/2003 11:01:00 AM
From Authorid: 54987
BCAR I agree entirely with you last sentence!! prrrrp but don't get too excited. |
Date: 10/11/2003 11:01:00 AM
From Authorid: 16671
I think there is lots that should be done to change the way things are. They take enough money as it is and they should give better tax breaks. If two people have been living in the same house all year, rather they are married or not, they should be able to file their tax return and get the same benifits as a married couple. Take my daughters for instance , for many years, the two of them shared a house with their four kids. Yet they had to file seperate income tax, and didn't get the tax break as a married couple would. Do they think that just married people have children? Do they think that only married people need these tax breaks?  |
Date: 10/11/2003 11:14:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 1225
I agree with BCAR that the tax code would be and was unconstutional before they passed the amendment to make it ok. I say repeal the income tax, the government got along just fine before it, they'll have to adapt (i.e. pay cuts)  |
Date: 10/11/2003 11:50:00 AM
From Authorid: 15228
Yes, I think they do violate the constitution. But so do welfare programs and lots of other stuff I don't think the founding fathers ever had in mind. I think our whole tax code needs to be rewritten, but that will never happen.  |
Date: 10/11/2003 1:31:00 PM
From Authorid: 53052
i think there are better tax benifits for being two single people(but this might be different in the US then canada)... i don't consider insurance a benifit to being married... if one spouse pays for a group insurnace(it's like buying in bulk!) they pay a little more for a little extra insurance....  |
|
Date: 10/11/2003 3:33:00 PM
From Authorid: 2030
The only fair tax is a nationwide sales tax. Eliminate all income tax and then tax every dollar spent (with some breaks for food, childrens needs etc) that way EVERYONE pays a fair share according to their life style. |
|
Date: 10/11/2003 3:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 2030
Oh and it's OK Koolade, we Libertarians are an enigma, and generally considered insane. Agreeing with me won't hurt your credentials. |
|
Date: 10/11/2003 6:44:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 1225
You're a Libertarian? I had you pegged as a Republican. A thousand apologies! |
|
Date: 10/12/2003 8:11:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
Registered as such for over a decade. But also a constitutionalist who ferverently believes that when it comes to government "less is more". |
|
Date: 10/12/2003 10:31:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 1225
I have a whole new respect for you now. I no longer consider you the devil incarnate! j/k but in a way, it's true (that my opinion changed, not that you're Satan) |
|
Date: 10/12/2003 12:27:00 PM
From Authorid: 2030
Don't rush to judgement, I'm also feverently anti poltically correct. (because I think anyone with any sense doesn't need to be, and the idiots out there are just .. well idiots, and there's no hope for them). |
|
Date: 10/12/2003 1:01:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 1225
anti-politically correct? Keep this up and I'm going to ask you out! lol! |
Date: 10/13/2003 7:24:00 AM
From Authorid: 12835
Oh my, and I WAS going to agree with BCAR.  |
Date: 10/13/2003 7:58:00 AM
From Authorid: 36967
I think we should just throw the consitution out the door, and say we no-longer follow it. If the goverment would do that, then I can say that they are being honest.
 |
Date: 10/13/2003 8:52:00 AM
From Authorid: 53284
The perk that you describe for taxes and marriage is actually a penalty. That's right, married couples pay more taxes than if you were just living together.  |
Date: 10/13/2003 7:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 47296
As to whether or not the tax codes are Constitutinal or not, for years, the courts have allowed them to stand. They are not consistant with at least one of the reasons this country was formed, which is the way we were being taxed by Britain without fair representation. Personally, there should be no perks or benefits to being married. There should simply be a flat tax with no deductions.  |
|
Date: 10/13/2003 7:24:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 1225
The only reason the income tax has been unchallenged in court is because they went and got a Constitutional Amendment allowing it. |
Date: 10/13/2003 8:15:00 PM
From Authorid: 17204
What really makes me ticked is that people of the same sex can't marry. Talk about not being constitutional! But thats a whollleeee nother debate and I don't want to open that can of worms. So sticking to the topic, I agree that it is unconstitutional seeing as the constitution says we should all get equal protection under the law.  |
