Why do Married People get Special Rights?

Most of my friends are women and men who have gone to college and who have embarked on careers. Those that have children (all 5 couples) firmly believe that at least one parent should be home with their children. For all five couples that I know the decision was not based on the sex of the parent but on the level of income loss. So in four of the five cases, my female friends stayed at home with the children and in one of the cases, her husband did.

Just recently, of the four couples, my friends husband was laid off so now they are trading off and she is going back to work and he is handling home and child care. Most couples that I meet consider it a balancing act and no one that I know thinks that caring for ones children full time is trivial or not fulfilling.

All of my friends call themselves "Feminists". They had serious education that led to serious careers and married men who respected that. None of my feminists friends consider caring for their children weak or old fashioned if anything, they view other couples they see who have children and have both parents work outside of the home as not being as good a parent as they are.

Personally, I think that having the choice for men or women is a really good thing. Trading off where possible is a good thing because it gives the children exposure to both parents.

.

Hi folks, Robin Sojourner asked me to stop in and talk about the US Tax Structure.

Keep in mind that I'm not a Tax Professional (nor do I play one on TV <grin> but I
am an avid role-player, and the IRS lets me pretend to be an accountant once a year --
with some very complex rules to follow -- for "free". (What more can a man ask?)

Anyway, the US tax laws were set up to reward being married. The tax rates were
lower, and the credits were higher for married people than for any other group
(save single head of household -- basically a single parent). However, the 2004
tax tables leveled the playing field.

In the following tables, I've assumed that you've already reduced your taxable income
by use of all the standard deductions and exclusions.

For a single person the rates (in 2004) are:

If taxable
income is over - - - But not over - - - The tax is:
$0 - - - - - -- - - - - $7,150 - - - - - - 10% of the amount over $0
$7,150 - - - - - - - - $29,050 - - - - - $715.00 plus 15% of the amount over 7,150
$29,050 - - - - - - - $70,350 - - - - - $4,000.00 plus 25% of the amount over 29,050
$70,350 - - - - - - - $146,750 - - - - - $14,325.00 plus 28% of the amount over 70,350
$146,750- - - - - - - $319,100 - - - - $35,717.00 plus 33% of the amount over 146,750
$319,100 - - - - - - - no limit - - - - - $92,592.50 plus 35% of the amount over 319,100


For married filing jointly:

If taxable
income is over - - - But not over - - - The tax is:
$0 - - - - - - - - - - - $14,300 - - - - - 10% of the amount over $0
$14,300 - - - - - - - $58,100 - - - - - - $1,430.00 plus 15% of the amount over 14,300
$58,100 - - - - - - - $117,250 - - - - - $8,000.00 plus 25% of the amount over 58,100
$117,250 - - - - - - $178,650 - - - - - $22,787.50 plus 28% of the amount over 117,250
$178,650 - - - - - - $319,100 - - - - - $39,979.50 plus 33% of the amount over 178,650
$319,100 - - - - - - no limit - - - - - - $86,328.00 plus 35% of the amount over 319,100

For married filing separately:

If taxable
income is over - - - But not over - - - The tax is:
$0 - - - - - - - - - - - $7,150 - - - - - - 10% of the amount over $0
$7,150 - - - - - - - - $29,050 - - - - - - $715.00 plus 15% of the amount over 7,150
$29,050 - - - - - - - $58,625 - - - - - - $4,000.00 plus 25% of the amount over 29,050
$58,625 - - - - - - - $89,325 - - - - - - $11,393.75 plus 28% of the amount over 58,625
$89,325 - - - - - - - $159,550 - - - - - $19,989.75 plus 33% of the amount over 89,325
$159,550 - - - - - - - no limit - - - - - -$43,164.00 plus 35% of the amount over 159,550

The rates seem to be lower for "joint" filers, but this is a false impressions.

Here's a concrete example (based on the assumptions that there are one or two
adults -- no children -- no itemization of deductions):

If you're single and and earn $57,950, you're paying taxes on $50,000 (after the
standard deductions and exemptions). The tax bill is $9237.50.

If you're married and filing jointly and your combine income is $115,900, you're
paying taxes on $100,000 -- $50,000 each (after the standard deductions and
exemptions). The tax bill is $18,475. (Double the single's bill.)

If you're filing separately and earn $57,950, you're paying taxes on $50,000
and the tax bill is $9237.50 (If your spouse is also earning $50,000, double
it -- $18,475.)

So I conclude that the "current" tax tables have made us all equal. (Go ahead,
check http://www.irs.gov and check the math -- I did twice.)

The marriage penalty is really that if two people are each earning a wage, their
incomes are combined before going to the tax tables. If the two incomes are very
different -- one person earning $10,000/year the other about $90,000, the combined
income will be the $100,000 of the example. However, the withholding for the spouse
with the lower income will be at the lowest rate. This will leave the couple with a big
deficit in "taxes withheld."

Questions? Class dismissed. <grin>

-Tompta

All of us are in one way or another the successors of brave people who followed their dreams to this country, so we shouldn't be so quick to damn those who want to join us. Mexico is basically a corrupt shithole if you aren't rich, and the shame is that all of these young people are coming here as exiles, rather than staying and effecting social change at home. We should welcome all who want to come and work for a better life so long as they speak English adequately and agree to observe our laws. Our inner cities are turning into ethnic ghettoes again, true, but that has happened before, with each wave of immigration. The difference now is that these new immigrants are actually being encouraged to NOT blend in and learn our ways and language while at the same time contributing welcome parts of their own cultures.

I'm incredibly narcissistic and yet my state won't let me have a civil-union with myself - where's the justice in that???? Is onanism still a crime?

Kiamat you sound like you listen to too much Rush without bothering to listen to the arguements of the other side.

of course there are radical feminists, just as there are radical conservative, or radical librerals , or radical right wing extremist religeious leaders.

But in reality feminists stand for one thing. Women are every bit deserving of consideration as men.

We deserve the same pay, we deserve the same chance for promotion, we deserve not to be dismissed when were angry by men blaming our cycles.

We deserve stricter protections FROM violence cuased by men. Men are more violent than women, for whatever reason between nature and society. Becuase women last the strenght of men , and becuase we are there, women are the victims of this violence.

Do you somehow argue that violence such as domestic abuse and rape are under any sort of control?

As far as stay at home moms, your totally off base .. the struggle is for us to have stay at home moms RECOGNIZED for the contributions they make. Not dismissed becuase they arent part of the wage earning work force.

The other side is women deserve the opportunity to have a career and children if we choose.

By fighting for a return to "the way it used to be" it suggests to women that we cant have both.

Why not , if that what we want? Men can.

One POSSIBLE explaination, and I don't know if this is the actual reason why or not, but the first thing that comes to mind is that the government wants to encourage the standard "family unit" because (the theory is) it is more beneficial to society in general. The reason for encouraging this would be so that kids are brought up in a "balanced" environment; and since they have two parents they (theoretically) get more attention and can be raised better. (one would hope)

Raising kids better = better society... raising kids crappy = worse off society... I don't think that any single parent will argue that it is ALOT harder to raise kids on your own. Can it be done? Sure... Can it be done well? Sure...
But I'm also sure it's alot harder, and single parent ("broken homes"?) families at the very least put more stress on everyone involved even in the ideal cases.

If this is indeed part of the motivation for it...it's not very strong a motivator anymore--it's not working too well. Divorce rates are way up, etc.

Which "special perks" are you referring to, anyway? Are you SURE there's a big bonus for being married?

That's my best shot to answer that question off the top of my head at 3:30am, sorry.

News Flash -

Boston, Ma. - June 5th 2021: A South Carolina man in his early 50's married an eggplant today in an event officiated by an ordained kitten. The man refuted past inflamatory statements regarding the abolishment of the eggplant, human, and kitten races; statements which have drawn wild criticism from various vegetable and kitten's rights groups worldwide. Following a short honeymoon at the Dollywood resort in Branson, Mo., the man plans to relocate his new family to a small farm just outside of the long abandoned Neverland Ranch in California, and hopes to start production of a new Human/Eggplant hybrid tentatively named either "The Humegg Project" or possibly "Frodo". The bride was unavailable for comment.

Lemme just clear the air here. I do not listen to Rush Limbaugh. I dont have anything against him, I just dont listen to a lot of talk radio. I do watch Oreilley Factor and Hannity & Colmes and I have two of Ann Coulters books so far plus some other books like Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man, Weapons of Mass Distortion, etc.


-Kiamat Dusk
Doin his homework to stay on top of the Liberal lie machine

Because more often than not, marriage==breeding, and more kids means more taxpayers?

Sorry for making assumptions, Feminazi is a Rush coined term.

I actually have listened to him and Hannity's radio and TV show and even Oreily on occasion.

Hannity's basic idealoligies are similar to Rush's in many cases at least from what I have heard them both say.

I do not listen to them with an intent to pounce on every single comment they make, but rather to try to understand their point of veiw.

The same as I do listeneing to liberals.

I am a firm beleiver in ending Discrimination in all forms, and honestly wonder why many people would prefer to keep it intact.

Why are the Right wing commentators and vocal proponents simply "Conservative Thinkers" and Liberals the "Liberal Lie machine" ?

If you cant win on strength of conviction and weight of arguement, call us Liberal's lairs? IS that the way you prefer to handle it?

Interesting additional Observation -

I notice you never read or watch anything by the "Liberal Lie Machine" -- except for Colmes' points, I suppose you get all you opinions of what liberals think from the right wing's complaints?

Interesting you are willing to call people Liars based solely on the opinions of Right Wing Commentators who make their living by slamming the left.

Im not willing to make a blanket statement that Right Wing Commentators are all liars, even though i disgree with most of their opinions, and I ACTUALLY LISTEN to them and form my own conclusions.

You however come off as intolerant of dissenting points of veiw. I wonder if this is uninteded tonality in your writing style, or your honest opinion.

Citing the liberal "lie machine" though .. kind of removes doubt as to your intent.

If that all it takes to re-educate a conservative?

Maybe the Demorcratic Party should put Lorena Bobbit on retainer?

Okay, I can agree with humans and kittens. But eggplants are awesome fried! Please don't get rid of eggplants. Well, I guess technically if your abolishing humans then I am gone, so it won't really matter if you get rid of eggplants.

Okay, fine, your statement is okay

Jess

How the heck do you pronounce your name!?!?

I think its Christopher Chaos Ixtab