you're right, I've been paying taxes, not attention.  So, I hit good old
google with "marriage penalty", where I discovered that said "penalty" is
simply the fact that if you both work, filing jointly doesn't necessarily
pay off.  Big deal, outdated tax benefits gone awry in these days of
two-(and largely equal)-income families.  Solution?  In the immortal words
of Homer Simpson, "File separately, doh.".  But never fear!  Just as the
folks in California who were of enough means to be active voters passed the
grossly unfair Prop 13 several years ago, effectively ripping off the other
taxpayers by freezing their own property taxes, new totally unfair benefits
are in the works at the federal level.

I was surprised though, based on the calculators I saw, to find (not really
sure that I did find, but credit my attention span;-)) that there's no
longer any benefit for keeping rug rats!  That's new to me - my dad's
attitude included maximizing the rug rats for tax bennies!  Of course he
also instilled in me near-zero respect for the institution...

On the other hand, the INtangible "benefits" mentioned (some offlist) by
others here can be quite significant, emotionally at least.  For which
reason I applaud Vermont & Massachusetts for recognizing that RIGHTS are
bestowed upon married pipple - quite unfair, and they're trying to fix that.


But I still have to wonder: why does marriage have anything to do with
deciding who gets to kiss you goodbye when you die?

Tracy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Denys Beauchemin [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 5:40 PM
> To: Tracy Pierce; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: [HP3000-L] OT: Enlightenment?
>
>
> Ahem, what "tax benefit?"  You obviously have not been paying
> attention
> these last few years when the "marriage penalty" in the tax system has
> been discussed at length.
>
> Denys
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
> Behalf Of Tracy Pierce
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 5:15 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Enlightenment?
>
> > We all have our own morals even though they differ from person to
> > person.
> > This is not a question about morals. It's a question of
> legal rights.
> > FW
>
> more or less.  consider:
>
> why do gays want to marry?  because they see married people
> benefitting
> from
> the arrangement, primarily in a tax setting.
>
> why is marriage sanctioned (word?) in the first place?  because it's
> believed that kids produced in marriages are more successful
> than those
> produced outside of marriage; that's deemed 'good for the society'.
>
> The whole idea of marriage in the legal has now been
> completely upended
> by
> 1) legislation of privilege 2) equal rights (actually meaning "equal
> privileges") demands.  I suggest that tax benefits for married couples
> simply be removed, after which it makes no difference at all whether
> gays
> marry.
>
> This cart-before-horse scenario reminds me of a TV snippet I
> happened to
> watch last night, in which minor children were arguing for
> their 'right'
> to
> eschew reciting the pledge of allegiance (their parents' wishes be
> damned),
> equating same to 'free speech', including the right to burn
> the american
> flag.
>
> Politically correct my ass.
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *