House GOP argues: More taxes and federal > states?

[dullard]

Am I reading the news correctly? Is the house GOP (through their chosen lawyers) going to argue today for less individual rights, more taxes for gay couples, and that federal issues should top state choices? Or did I miss something?

 

[nehalem256]

Am I reading the news correctly? Is the house GOP (through their chosen lawyers) going to argue today for less individual rights, more taxes for gay couples,

And so by the same token liberals are arguing for tax breaks for millionaires...:hmm:

and that federal issues should top state choices? Or did I miss something?

Why should the federal government be forced to recognize a state's definition of marriage? What if some state allowed it citizen's to say marry their car; should the federal government be forced to recognize that marriage as valid for income tax purposes?

 

[dullard]

And so by the same token liberals are arguing for tax breaks for millionaires...:hmm:

Exactly. I am laughing at this turn around.

Why should the federal government be forced to recognize a state's definition of marriage? What if some state allowed it citizen's to say marry their car; should the federal government be forced to recognize that marriage as valid for income tax purposes?

I personally think the state (state as in presence/absence) of marriage shouldn't be a factor in tax laws. But let's keep this focussed on the 180° roll reversals in court today.

 

[sunzt]

And so by the same token liberals are arguing for tax breaks for millionaires...:hmm:

or maybe just tax break for being straight? I mean being gay means you're financially well off and the impact of a dollar is less on gays than straights.

 

[Fern]

What the heck are you talking about?

How about a link.

Fern

 

[nehalem256]

What the heck are you talking about?

How about a link.

Fern

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57576588/supreme-court-skeptical-of-doma/

After living together in New York for more than four decades, Windsor and Spyer finally married in 2007, when Spyer became seriously ill. When Spyer died in 2009, she left Windsor her estate. Because DOMA didn't recognize their marriage -- even though the state of New York did -- the IRS hit Windsor with $363,053 in estate taxes.

 

[ElFenix]

Why should the federal government be forced to recognize a state's definition of marriage? What if some state allowed it citizen's to say marry their car; should the federal government be forced to recognize that marriage as valid for income tax purposes?

the feds have no jurisdiction over the definition of marriage, so it's clearly a state issue. the federal gov is not compelled to recognize anyone's marriage for tax purposes, but once it recognizes some it is required to recognize all.

 

[Fern]

Am I reading the news correctly? Is the house GOP (through their chosen lawyers) going to argue today for less individual rights, more taxes for gay couples, and that federal issues should top state choices? Or did I miss something?

1.Re: Individual rights - I don't think the GOP has ever argued that gay marriage is a right. So, I see nothing at odds with that position.

2. Re: More taxes for gay couples - This one specific case involves increased taxes. However, because our income tax brackets include a marriage penalty, the fed govt's refusal to allow MFJ status for gays who are married results in a tax advantage for gay couples when both work. So, any across-the-board-statement that says increased taxes for gays is incorrect. In fact, I think it more correct to say why are they giving gay couples a tax benefit?

3. Re: States' rights/powers - I haven't seen it reported anywhere that the feds are refusing to allow states to recognize gay marriage for their state tax purposes. So, this just involves the fed govt's own policies and in no way infringes on states' rights etc.

I.e., you did miss something.

Fern

 

[nehalem256]

the feds have no jurisdiction over the definition of marriage, so it's clearly a state issue. the federal gov is not compelled to recognize anyone's marriage for tax purposes, but once it recognizes some it is required to recognize all.

So if a state were to recognize human-dog marriages the federal government would also be compelled to recognize them?

 

[ElFenix]

2. Re: More taxes for gay couples - This one specific case involves increased taxes. However, because our income tax brackets include a marriage penalty, the fed govt refusal to allow MFJ status for gays who are married results in a tax advantage for gay couples when both work. So, any across the board statement that says increased taxes for gays is incorrect.


Fern

"this one specific case" makes it seem like the marriage tax benefit is rare and the tax penalty is common when, the marriage tax benefit is now more common than the tax penalty (and has been since 1996, when the two were roughly equal anyway).

So if a state were to recognize human-dog marriages the federal government would also be compelled to recognize them?

yes. :twisted:

 

[sunzt]

So if a state were to recognize human-dog marriages the federal government would also be compelled to recognize them?

for the love of humanity won't somebody think of the dog children!

 

[sunzt]

2. Re: More taxes for gay couples - This one specific case involves increased taxes. However, because our income tax brackets include a marriage penalty, the fed govt's refusal to allow MFJ status for gays who are married results in a tax advantage for gay couples when both work. So, any across-the-board-statement that says increased taxes for gays is incorrect. In fact, I think it more correct to say why are they denying MARRIED gay couples a marriage tax benefit?

FTFY

 

[Fern]

"this one specific case" makes it seem like the marriage tax benefit is rare and the tax penalty is common when, the marriage tax benefit is now more common than the tax penalty (and has been since 1996, when the two were roughly equal anyway).
snip

Umm. No.

This case has nothing to do with income tax and the marriage penalty. She's suing because of estate tax.

The marriage penalty (or benefit for gays) under income tax is far more common than any estate tax issue. Few people are subject to the estate tax. (In accordance with the OP's post why are Libs supporting lower taxes on millionaires?)

If you think the income tax brackets are now roughly equal please have a look at the 2013 rates. (The marriage penalty was eliminated for a period but is now back.)

Fern

 

[werepossum]

Am I reading the news correctly? Is the house GOP (through their chosen lawyers) going to argue today for less individual rights, more taxes for gay couples, and that federal issues should top state choices? Or did I miss something?

For the first two, pretty much. The GOP today is all about social conservatism, much more so than fiscal conservatism or freedom, and when they collide, social conservatism almost inevitably wins. For the third, no. The GOP is arguing for a state to have the right to not be forced to recognize a marriage another state recognizes. I'm a Republican and I reject that position, because I think we should all have maximum personal liberty and be treated equally unless there is a compelling societal reason to do otherwise, but also because I think as Americans we should all have the same basic rights wherever we are and if states must differentiate, let's adopt the position of maximum liberty. (Note that this also argues for national right-to-carry and against strict gun laws.)

for the love of humanity won't somebody think of the dog children!

You, sirrah, are made of win.

 

[werepossum]

Umm. No.

This case has nothing to do with income tax and the marriage penalty. She's suing because of estate tax.

The marriage penalty (or benefit for gays) under income tax is far more common than any estate tax issue. Few people are subject to the estate tax. (In accordance with the OP's post why are Libs supporting lower taxes on millionaires?)

If you think the income tax brackets are now roughly equal please have a look at the 2013 rates. (The marriage penalty was eliminated for a period but is now back.)

Fern

For which we can thank the Democrats; if they cannot discriminate against someone, anyone, government just isn't fun for them. Although this issue argues against the Pubbies being any better . . .

Have to say though, in this instance I think the Democrats have the better position even setting aside the actual underlying issue. The Democrats are arguing for taxing all millionaires at the same rate, even though they very much disagree with that rate. Arguing for not treating people differently where it involves hypocrisy is surely better than hypocrisy in treating people differently, no?

 

[nehalem256]

For which we can thank the Democrats; if they cannot discriminate against someone, anyone, government just isn't fun for them. Although this issue argues against the Pubbies being any better . . .

Have to say though, in this instance I think the Democrats have the better position even setting aside the actual underlying issue. The Democrats are arguing for taxing all millionaires at the same rate, even though they very much disagree with that rate. Arguing for not treating people differently where it involves hypocrisy is surely better than hypocrisy in treating people differently, no?

The whole point of marriage is to treat people differently. So the Democrats are arguing for treating more people differently in a way that benefits millionaires.

 

[dullard]

1.Re: Individual rights - I don't think the GOP has ever argued that gay marriage is a right. So, I see nothing at odds with that position.

2. Re: More taxes for gay couples - This one specific case involves increased taxes. However, because our income tax brackets include a marriage penalty, the fed govt's refusal to allow MFJ status for gays who are married results in a tax advantage for gay couples when both work. So, any across-the-board-statement that says increased taxes for gays is incorrect. In fact, I think it more correct to say why are they giving gay couples a tax benefit?

3. Re: States' rights/powers - I haven't seen it reported anywhere that the feds are refusing to allow states to recognize gay marriage for their state tax purposes. So, this just involves the fed govt's own policies and in no way infringes on states' rights etc.

I.e., you did miss something.

Fern

So you agree that you want a more intrusive federal government (preventing legal rights in this case), you want more people to pay estate taxes (note this wasn't about marriage penalty/bonus which actually is more of a bonus now than a penalty), and you want federal laws to override what a state decides is a legal marriage (for some or all purposes)?

 

[Wreckem]

Umm. No.

This case has nothing to do with income tax and the marriage penalty. She's suing because of estate tax.

The marriage penalty (or benefit for gays) under income tax is far more common than any estate tax issue. Few people are subject to the estate tax. (In accordance with the OP's post why are Libs supporting lower taxes on millionaires?)

If you think the income tax brackets are now roughly equal please have a look at the 2013 rates. (The marriage penalty was eliminated for a period but is now back.)

Fern

The old marriage penalty is still gone. It used to be that the standard deduction for two single people was more than a married couple filing jointly and tax rates at all levels screwed married people. There is a new "marriage" penalty at higher income levels, which effects tax rates in regards to single/married as well as phaseouts. The new marriage penalty only effects higher income married people, which is a tiny fraction of married people.

 

[Fern]

So you agree that you want a more intrusive federal government (preventing legal rights in this case),...

I don't even follow this. What's intrusive here?

you want more people to pay estate taxes (note this wasn't about marriage penalty/bonus which actually is more of a bonus now than a penalty),...

Marriage penalty in income tax is more a bonus? For whom? If gays the answer is yes. If for anybody married, no. Most couples are two earners so it harms them.

and you want federal laws to override what a state decides is a legal marriage (for some or all purposes)?

As I said above, the fed govt is not overriding the states. The states can tax as they wish. The fed govt's position only concerns it's own tax policy. To my knowledge no one has ever argued that state law supersedes fed law.

Fern

 

[ElFenix]

Umm. No.

This case has nothing to do with income tax and the marriage penalty. She's suing because of estate tax.

that's nice. you brought up the marriage tax penalty.

The marriage penalty (or benefit for gays) under income tax is far more common than any estate tax issue.

or benefit for gays? the marriage tax benefit is when married people pay less in taxes than two people making similar money that aren't married. that's a very real government benefit and right now MM and FF couples can't use it.

If you think the income tax brackets are now roughly equal please have a look at the 2013 rates. (The marriage penalty was eliminated for a period but is now back.)

Fern

if we went all the way back to the brackets and laws as they were in 1996, married people paying more (the 'penalty') would only go back to being even with married people paying less. we didn't. so i'm going to gander there's still way more married people out there paying less than they would if they were single than married people paying more.

 

[Fern]

-snip-

or benefit for gays? the marriage tax benefit is when married people pay less in taxes than two people making similar money that aren't married. that's a very real government benefit and right now MM and FF couples can't use it.

That mostly happens when you have a one-worker family. There aren't many of those. Most are two worker families and many of those would get a benefit by filing single instead of MFJ.

if we went all the way back to the brackets and laws as they were in 1996, married people paying more (the 'penalty') would only go back to being even with married people paying less. we didn't. so i'm going to gander there's still way more married people out there paying less than they would if they were single than married people paying more.

Sorry, I've read the above a number of times but cannot understand what you're trying to say.

I don't know of any data to suggest that the vast majority of taxpayers filing MFJ are better off than if they could file as single.

Fern