Why do Married People get Special Rights?

THE US HAS ONE OF THE MOST COMPLICATED IMMIGRATION POLICES, THE WORLD OVER... LEGALLY or ILLEGALLY getting HERE IS A BITCH!

if all you see is the money in the canadian immigration policy, then you're looking at only 1 of the many policies.. paying money is nice.. IF YOU HAVE A CHUNK OF IT, consider that most ppl that immigrant to canada are labourers.. hence no chunks of cash.. there are many polices in place to immigrate to canada.. but nothing is more complex than american immigration

Nooo! Not the kittens!

Legally, yes.

Illegally? No. I think this has been demonstrated repeatedly, at least at the Mexican/US border.

yeah, it's a changing world, at one time women were not allowed or able to support themselves, vote and all that but now the system is more fair. A woman can be the major breadwinner of the family now far easier than in the past. Divorce doesn't ruin a woman like it would have years before, maybe that's why there is so much. Maybe marriage, a lifetime contract, is foolish to begin with, as people change, people can be greedy and selfish and in many cases are better off starting over than sticking together and not enjoying their lives.

do you know whats happening at the mex - us border right now? in terms of vigilante groups? trust me.. very hard to get across that border.

Yet, not hard enough. That is a very limited space they are patroling. We need every square inch of the US border protected like that.

Hahaha yeah RIGHT!! *lives in Southern California*

Trust me, it can be done and is done every day.

ok on tax breaks for married people, why?

married people with kids, as well as singles, deserve tax breaks as kids are important to society as a whole as well as adorable.

but two childless people, sharing a bed should pay less taxes than 2 single people sharing a bed? where is the logic? a single person in his own bed has to pay more tax because someone signed a peice of paper that they have a 50% chance of tearing up anyway?

single people need tax breaks more than married people as married people share the bills or at least the chores and don't have to spend as much money on dates etc.

Give me one GOOD, LOGICAL reason that in this modern age when women are allowed to go to school and work, that a childless married couple should get a tax break, please.

Nearly all of the more than 1000 legal benefits of being married are specific to people living in a family.

For instance, the legal right to sue for Wrongful Death. The right to allow your spouse to immigrate to the US. The right to make medical decisions for your spouse, if he/she is incapacitated. The right to legally adopt your spouse's children. The right for you, and your children, to be covered under your spouse's medical insurance.

It goes on in this vein for hundreds more rights, that cannot be achieved any other way.

The financial rights that are gained from being married are also based upon the assumption that you have combined your resources, and are financially working as a single individual, so that things owned by one of you are, in actuality, owned by both. And it's assumed that each partner is dependent on the income (if any) of the other to maintain the family.

Because of this, the rights of married couples include being able to inherit from your spouse without paying inheritance taxes. Being able to collect Social Security if one partner dies. Being able to file joint taxes, (which, by the way, sometimes means that you pay less than both of you would pay if you were able to file individually, and sometimes means paying more, which is referred to as "the marriage tax." But that's the breaks. If you are legally married, you don't get a choice. Unless you live in MA, and are married to someone who shares your gender; then you aren't allowed to file jointly on the Federal level. Which still isn't a choice.)

I agree that some of these should be expanded to cover other dependent relationships; such as taking care of a disabled relative or friend, taking care of an aging parent, and so on.

The problem, of course, is making sure that the number of such relationships that any one person can enter into is limited. Otherwise the system is open for abuse.

Marriage has the benefit of only being open to one such relationship at a time, at least in the US. So all the benefits of being married make sense.

Not all of them are about financial gain; and those that are, are really necessary to ensure the continued income of a family in case of dire emergency. Families really do need them, and IMHO all families should receive them, married or not.

But it seems to me that stripping them from everyone wouldn't solve anything.

Daz, it's not always a break. Haven't you ever heard the term "Marriage Tax?"

You have to combine your incomes, which often puts you into a significantly higher tax bracket, and causes the total dollar amount to be more than the combination of both of you filing individually.

So, while lower income couples might benefit from being married, higher income couples usually don't.

I also have friends who haven't felt that they could get married because the tax benefits of being a single head of household far outweigh anything they could (possibly) save if they were to tie the knot.

(And, ummm, only about 30% of first marriages have ended in divorce, and the stats are lower for second marriages. The 50% figure is one of those "everyone knows" that's simply not true. Like the one that we only use 10% of our brains. It was arrived at by extrapolating the divorce rate for first marriages at the end of one year, and figuring that, if that rate continued, half of them would fail. In reality, if your first marriage is going to end in divorce, it probably will do so right away.)

That's not entirely correct. First, the divorce rate for first marriages is lower than the rate for secondary marriages. Secondly, although my info is somewhat dated, the average first marriage that ends in divorce does so by year seven.

Here are some stats from the CDC:

Marriage and Divorce

(Data are for U.S. in 2003)

Number of marriages: 2,187,000

Marriage rate: 7.5 per 1,000 total population

Divorce rate: 3.8 per 1,000 population (46 reporting States and D.C.)

Source: Births, Marriages, Divorces, and Deaths: Provisional Data for 2003

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm

ok I admit I am not an expert and you are correct that the 50% term is a number not based on hard facts, thank you for clarifying.

I do know that on my tax form there is a box for 'married but filing separatly' which confuses me on your statement that married people MUST combine their incomes, but since you were kind enough to clarfy my points before I hope you'll set me straight on that one too!

Being in a significantly higher tax bracket, I assume would mean that you'd have a significantly higher income? therefore my question again, why, if you have more money to work with under a single roof do you deserve a break, unless, as you are implying, you might actually have less money but I honestly can't see how you would have less money than a single person, this marriage tax must be gigantic and if it's so gigantic it would prevent anyone but the super rich or hopeless romantics from getting married in the first place I'd suppose.

I realise that past statement doesn't reflect your statement about higher and lower income couples possibly getting different results in terms of money but come on, 2 working adults under one roof are better off than one anyday I'm guessing. But I will graciously accept defeat if you can offer hard data on this.

I shouldn't be forced to support other peoples life choice. You have a kid. I have a shopping habit. They both help drive economy. Your needs are not more important than mine, but because I don't drive a minivan, paid too much for a quicky shack put up in what used to be a cornfield, 2.3 kids, a dog and a cat, I am treated as less of a person.



Why must single people always get the short end of the stick? And it is not just taxes, its work place benefits also.

Paolo, I'm sorry. You're right; the rates are higher than I thought. In fact, the divorce rate topped out at 41% a few decades ago. But it's been dropping since. And I know I'm showing my age here, but, to me, 7 years is "ending right away."

A link to an article from April of this year that explains why just looking at the figures for "divorce per thousand vs marriages per thousand" is misleading can be found here.

I can't find the stats on second marriages, but if memory serves, they are the most likely to last, with divorce rates climbing sharply again for subsequent marriages. But, by the same token, relatively few people get married more than twice. I'll look later; I'm afraid that I can't right now.

daz, I'm asking the guy who does my taxes, who also plays SL, to come on and answer your questions. Once again, I might be mistaken. He just tried to explain it to me, and my head is spinning.

It's possible that I was working entirely from old data, and the penalty is gone now.

But when I was married for the first time, in 1978, I was flabbergasted at how much it was costing us in taxes, as opposed to both of us filing as single.

And, since it turns out that I'm both feverish (literally) and not doing my homework properly on this topic, I'm opting out now.

G'Bye!

...now the Feminists won't let them stay home.

-Kiamat Dusk
Hijacker

Eboni, I agree with you completely. Get rid of incentives for married people-it's not working anyway, and bring in the 10% flat tax!!!

-Kiamat Dusk

wow, I agree too! 10% flat tax would be a beautifull thing (providing it really is across the board) yea!!

I can't imagine a feminist who would oppose a woman's choice to stay home and raise a family. Contrary to what anyone thinks - it IS a full-time job, usually accompanied by low pay, little to no sick-time, no weekends, limited holidays, and usually no vacations.

yeah, anyone who has seen a mom doing mom work knows it is real work and I've yet to meet a feminist who looks down upon a woman who has the option to be a fulltime mom, what the feminists want is the option to work alongside men and be treated equally if that is their choice.

As far as I know there is no feminist credo that denigrates the stay at home mom, of course the rightwing needs to feel like the left is completely unreasonable as they try and turn the clock back a century to a time when men were men. Real men welcome women who can work alongside them as equals and respect the choice of women who can be a stay at home mom....

Actually, I've spoken to plenty of *both* in my time. And while the Feminists won't cop to it, many women who choose to stay at home feel immense pressure from the Feminists to be a career woman. Stay at home moms are seen as weak and old fashioned.

Remember, we're not talking about people for equal treatment of women, we're talking about Feminists. These are the people who feel that all intercourse is inherently an act of violence.

-Kiamat Dusk

I'd bet anything the 'feminist' you're referring to is more on the extreme side of things. Do we have any feminists in the house to speak to this?

That's why I say "Feminist" with a capital F. aka Feminazis. But the sad fact is, its pervasive in our culture. We've gone so far in the opposite direction, we've started marginalizing those who choose not to pursue a career outside of the home.

I believe that is is important, though difficult in this day and age, for ONE of the parents to stay home, or at least be home when the kids get home from school. Doesn't matter which one.

I also believe that the most important thing is that women now have the CHOICE to stay home or enter the workforce.

-Kiamat Dusk

Ahhh.. ok, well then yes, they are probably a bit more on the radical side and I could see where there could be pressure to stay-at-home-moms from them.

Personally, I think the U.S. would be much better off if people quit worrying and/or trying to legislate what others are doing and focused more on themselves.

no offence but I think you're nuts dude, you don't know any feminists personally do you?

you are aparantly just quoting rightwing mouthpeices who want to turn the tide of modern civilization back to a time when men had more control over women.

Real men aren't afraid of women, why are you? trust me, feminists fuck exceptionally well...