Those of you who are married do realize that you are subsidized by singles

[dsc]

whether we are single by choice or not. If you have your spouse or your spouse's kids on your insurance, or vice versa, you get a break courtesy of the singles of the world who pay more in taxes than we otherwise would, in order for that benefit to be provided to you tax free. Your Social Security benefits last until the last one of your marriage dies. Singles don't have that. We pay higher Social Security taxes than we otherwise would, in order for you to have those benefits. I don't mind doing that but I sure do mind doing that and then having you all either tell me I have benefits I don't actually have or that I am some sort of selfish bastard for daring to complain about that.

[Xipe Totec]

1. Even the singles had parents nt

[dsc]

3. I don't see how that is relevant

The issue isn't insuring children it is choosing to insure some children and not others. If I were in a partnership with a guy who had a child I couldn't insure that child, I could if I were married to a woman that had a child.

[Xipe Totec]

6. Your parents were subsidized while they raised you

No man (or woman) is an island.

[dsc]

11. that is assuming they were married

which I will admit they were but an awful lot of parents weren't.

[Xipe Totec]

17. Single heads of households get subsidized too

Look, I'm not trying to start a fight, just pointing out that singles are also beneficiaries of subsidies intended to help families.

We all depend on each other, some more than others.

I do not begrudge the tax breaks given to the elderly and the blind.

And those of us who are lucky, will live to a ripe old age when we will become totally dependent on others for our welfare and sustenance.

PS: For the record, I have no objection to gay couples having the same tax breaks as hetero couples, just as I have no objection to childless couples getting the same breaks.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. Uh, heads of some household do not get that tax break

Got to be Religio approved.

[boppers]

67. Doesn't have to be Religio approved.

Religions don't get to decide who are, and aren't, HoH. That's a function of the state.

[Go2Peace]

32. I am now married, but I spent a lot of years single and what you are saying is very true

Singles pay *much* higher taxes. So do couples without children. To some extent it should be that way, but they should ratchet down the subsidies for children a touch. I say breaks for the first two, after that it should decline.

[LisaM]

103. That's a good point

Also, going back to what another poster said, actually, two can live cheaper than one, generally, at least per person. Singles get dinged a lot, particularly with food shopping. It's very hard to shop economically for one person, since discounts are always for bulk.

[valerief]

12. Single parents. nt

[Xipe Totec]

15. Dependents are subsidized

There are tax breaks for single heads of households as well.

[slampoet]

28. Yes and we are taking care of them in their elder years while you ask us to pay for your children...

....in ways that your generation wasn't paid for.

[Xipe Totec]

29. Who is we? Who is them? Who is you?

From where I sit, there is only US.

[Sheepshank]

50. exactly! n/t

[NC_Nurse]

2. Freedom isn't free.

:P

[ruggerson]

31. and it's friggin' expensive

[BeFree]

4. Wait

The govt. discriminates against some marriages, but then discriminates against people who are single because they won't let them get married?

Something is wrong with this picture, eh?

[MedicalAdmin]

91. The Corp controlled govt discriminates?

Yes, it does. And it does so consistantly.

Neither group, generally speaking is rich. We live in a plutocracy; one dollar = one vote.

[tridim]

5. Plus we don't have two incomes, we pay at least double for utilities and rent.

I remember when everyone was complaining about the "marriage penalty" for income taxes. Basically it was replaced with a "singles penalty" and forgotten about, I guess because we only complain 50% as much as non-singles.

Right there with ya dsc, it's not fair. Nobody should be punished OR rewarded for their relationship status.

[ProSense]

7. Not really.

If a person makes $30,000 after taxes, they owe about $4,000. If a couple earns $60,000 (double), they owe about $8,000.

If the couple earned $30,000 after taxes, they would owe roughly $3,600. A single person earning half that amount, owes $1,800.

What you are not considering is that filing jointly means that an income has to be there, and the amount usually correlates to the combined individual income.

Where the difference comes in is with dependents and filing head of household .

A single person with a dependent pays less than a single person without.

[dsc]

18. But if I have a partner and make 30k and he doesn't work

I pay the single rate on my 30k and can't insure him. Plus my SS won't go to him where as the married couple would. BTW if you make double my income but are paying the same percent of your income in income taxes that is subsidizing. My rent is half that of a two bedroom, my utilities aren't half, etc. But income taxes are supposedly progressive which means that there is enough subsidizing to make the rate no longer progressive.

[ProSense]

20. If you're married and your spouse doesn't work, you

pay the single rate or head of household rate. You cannot file jointly with one income.

There are a lot of benefits to marriage, but the income tax is not the problem.

Making DOMA history

by John Kerry
United States Senator

In 1996, I voted against DOMA because I believed -- and still believe -- that it was unconstitutional and unconscionable for Congress to actively legislate against gay Americans. I stood on the floor of the Senate to implore my colleagues to reject this bill. From the Senate floor, I argued that this legislation was wrong, "because not only is it meant to divide Americans, but it is fundamentally unconstitutional, regardless of your views. DOMA is unconstitutional. There is no single member of the U.S. Senate who believes that it is within the Senate’s power to strip away the word or spirit of a constitutional clause by simple statute."

I thought back on this last week when a United States District Court declared DOMA’s restrictions unconstitutional. Judge Tauro ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act violates Fifth Amendment protections because " irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest."

We’re not just talking about a violation of the Constitution -- DOMA violates our very core principles of civil rights and equal justice under the law.

There are 1,138 provisions in law that use marriage to determine rights and federal benefits. These include Social Security, joint parenting and adoption rights, Medicaid, tax benefits, inheritance rights, next-of-kin rights in emergency situations and with medical decisions, immigration rights, survivor benefits, and many more. These thousand injustices have taken an immeasurable toll on loving, committed couples who are routinely forbidden from making hospital visits, or adopting children, or receiving survivor benefits.

And as I’ve seen firsthand, these spouses can even be kept from living together in the same country. For the last two years I have been working with Tim Coco and Junior Oliveira, a married couple from Haverhill, Massachusetts. They married in Massachusetts, but Junior is a Brazilian citizen whose legitimate asylum claim was denied in immigration court based on an erroneous and discriminatory ruling. He was forced to return to Brazil, which has the highest hate crime rate against homosexuals in the world. For three years this legally married couple lived half a hemisphere apart because DOMA kept their marriage from being recognized in immigration matters. Their marriage was even used against them. Junior was denied a travel visa to visit his husband because the government argued he didn’t have a compelling interest to return to Brazil and leave Tim. Just last month they were finally reunited through a Humanitarian Parole Visa for Junior based on the persecution he suffered. But this is only a temporary solution -- and countless other couples have not been so lucky.

The good news: if the Court’s ruling stands, we can finally help Tim and Junior receive a family based visa that they should have been eligible for years ago.

It is widely believed that this ruling will be appealed and that it could make it all the way to the Supreme Court. For the sake of all those who have suffered under DOMA, I hope the Court upholds the decision. Congress made a horrible mistake passing DOMA in 1996, and we’ve lived with the destruction and pain it has caused for the last 14 years. Now it’s time -- long past time -- to make DOMA history once and for all.

[dsc]

21. If even that is correct, and I don't think it is, a married couple can take two

exemptions while I would only be able to take one. That alone would make my taxes higher. But my central point wasn't income taxes, execpt when it comes to the insurance deduction, it was Social Security taxes.

[ProSense]

25. A single person with a child can take two exemptions.

The fact is the income tax structure really can't be used to make this argument. There are too many variables.

[dsc]

26. I was talking about two childless couples

as was clear in the post.

[ProSense]

27. An exemption is an exemption. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

37. You are assuming either zero income from one party

or equalish income from both. I make way way more. Of late, he makes nothing to speak of, but not nothing. If we could file jointly for all the years in which it would be available to other couples, we would have tons of savings instead of debt. Deal with it. The tax law is deeply bigoted and unfair. Some are given options and advantages others are not allowed.

[ProSense]

39. No, I'm not. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

41. Yes you are.

And you are also trying to lecture those who live and pay taxes as we do about the facts of our lives with little links. This is a time you should be asking, and listening.

[ProSense]

43. No,

I'm not.

The amount is relative whether is 60:40 or 50:50.

And if you don't mind, I can express my opinion without you trying to characterize it as a lecture.

[kelly1mm]

63. A married couple does not need two incomes to file jointly. In fact,

if you are married you cannot file single or head of household. Your options are Married filing joint or married filing separate. Single is unmarried with no (or non-HOH-qualifying dependants) and head of household is unmarried with qualifying dependants

[dccrossman]

66. This is incorrect

I'm married. My wife has spent her time at home with kid(s) since the first one was born in '03. We continued to file jointly with the help of a CPA, though it's really not that hard on your own. (I was running a side business for a few years.) I effectively have 3 dependents, in the eyes of the state. It is one of the economic benefits of a government recognized union.

There's also the insurance benefit, in that my wife can be on my employer's insurance, set up as my primary beneficiary, and so on.

[Ms. Toad]

73. Your comment is not correct. Your tax filing status is determined

by your marital status (there are a couple exceptions, typically related to changing family status during the year, or divorced individuals - but the income of one or both parties is completely irrelevant to filing status). Even if only one of you has an income, you still file joint. Particularly if there is a discrepancy in incomes (as there is in my family) there is a MAJOR difference in taxes between single, head of household (which is how the IRS legally classifies me) and married (my legal status which the IRS refuses to recognize). The difference was about $5000 in taxes last year.

The tax code presumes evenly balanced incomes when it phases things out so they phase out for a single person at half of the income they phase out for a married couple. I have 80% of the income in our marriage - so when I am forced to file single, I hit phase outs that I would not if we were permitted to file joint.

[Gormy Cuss]

75. "You cannot file jointly with one income" --that's wrong.

In general married couples with only one person earning income do file jointly. For one thing, it's the only way a spouse without income can claim a deductible IRA.

[Arkansas Granny]

94. The IRS says that you can file jointly even if only one spouse has income.

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p501/ar02.html#en_US_publink1000220742

See the first paragraph under "Married Filing Jointly". You can file a joint return even if one of you had no income or deductions.

[mopinko]

51. if a married couple both work, the wife is pissing her ss away.

when she retires, she can get her own benefits, or she can get half of her husband's, whichever is more. so, if the half the husbands is the greater, her own payments for her whole lifetime evaporate. many other pensions screw working women.

[Recursion]

30. It's kind of an anachronism; assumes a single breadwinner

Or at least one partner who makes significantly more than the other.

[fishwax]

64. but married couples do save money on taxes if their incomes are disparate

A married couple who make 40k and 20k individually will have a lower tax than an unmarried couple who make 40k and 20k.

[slackmaster]

8. Yes, and people who have children (in public schools) are subsidized by people who don't

I'm happy to pay my share to keep the little bastards out of prison.

[awoke_in_2003]

10. "keep the little bastards out of prison"

hell, I just want to keep them off my lawn :rofl:

[dsc]

14. If you can find even one post where I denegrate funding public education I will ask for this thread

to be removed. Lots of luck finding that though.

[slackmaster]

74. I didn't mean to suggest that dsc had ever denigrated public education

For the record.

[Virginian]

65. The cost of a public education is a loan to the child.

While you go to K-12 you pay nothing.
When you become an income earner, you start paying back the cost of your education through taxes.
The more you make, the more you pay because, the better your education.

You got into a good college? Then you got good basics in K-12.

You went to private K-12? The public schools were still available to you as a safety net if your parents had a reversal in fortune.

I try to think of it this way to keep from resenting the people with children who get a deduction for each child yet use more public resources than a "Family" of two adults with no kids.

[lynne]

95. One of those "little bastards" could well end up your surgeon, lawyer or senator in the future -

- so you'd better hope he got a decent education. Investing in children is investing in your own future.

[Ishoutandscream2]

99. Amen. People can be so short-sighted here

[hlthe2b]

9. Absolutely...

As demographics and societal changes insure more and more singles--of all ages--I wonder if there will become a backlash. Certainly all manner of public policies have ignored the inequities towards single people.

Frankly, I think the only fair thing in society is to allow every adult to select one person to be their direct beneficiary--to receive health care and social security benefits, as a spouse would. This could even be a sibling, something that would greatly benefit many as our population ages.

[Booster]

I haven't read them all, but there are over 1750 benefits married

people have that single people don't have. Talk about out of balance. I like your idea of everyone being able to select one person. For instance, if I were a single mother I couldn't even leave my own kid my pension - it can only be left to a spouse. Does anyone know if there are benefits that single people have that married people don't have, except that they are single?

[valerief]

13. And the poor subsidize the wealthy. Again and again and again. nt

[stray cat]

22. How? Certainly not taxes or social security if you really mean the poor

[valerief]

84. The poor are the not rich. nt

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

16. Not necessarily....

Some employers extend benefits to same-sex couples, and other employers allow any person who can be claimed as a dependent to be included in family coverage. So an unmarried, co-habitating couple where one works and the other doesn't would both have insurance coverage (gay or straight). And in any case, there are no negative tax consequences to unmarried persons because the person up the street has a health plan.

Social Security taxes are based on individual wages, not combined household income. It doesn't enter into the equation at all. While it's true that the surviving spouse of a married person receives a benefit that is subsidized by the taxpayer, so do young widows and orphans and persons who are permanently and totally disabled.

So I've have to say that you're pretty much a selfish bastard to complain.

[dsc]

19. ah we pay taxes on those benefits as if they were income

so yes, there most assuredly is a negative tax effect on us. Oh and I can't insure a partner even if I paid the whole entire cost. If you can't get the facts then don't comment at all.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

53. How so?

If you have a health plan provided to you by an employer, you don't pay taxes on that whether you're married or single, gay or straight. And assuming that your partner is insurable, you most certainly CAN pay the cost of his/her insurance premiums. There's nothing (other than the cost) that prevents that.

If you were not married and had an employer that provided life partner insurance, you would pay tax on your partner's portion of your life insurance as ordinary income. That's assuming, as I said in my first post, that your partner doesn't qualify as your dependent.

But considering that the tax you're paying is only a fraction of the actual cost of the insurance (a few hundred dollars per year as opposed to a few hundred), you're still getting a pretty good deal -- as opposed to going out and purchasing insurance on the open market.

And I'm an Enrolled Agent with the Internal Revenue Service, so I pretty much do know what I'm talking about.

[dsc]

57. yes you do

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/your-money/01benefits.html

On Thursday, Google is going to begin covering a cost that gay and lesbian employees must pay when their partners receive domestic partner health benefits, largely to compensate them for an extra tax that heterosexual married couples do not pay. The increase will be retroactive to the beginning of the year.

and what part of what you said in any case disagrees with my OP? The simple fact is that gay couples, if they can get the insurance at all, pay taxes on it when straight couples don't. Incidently, I couldn't insure a partner here no matter what I did except on the individual market. The fact is you get a tax free bene that I don't simply because you are straight.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

58. That's not why I get the benefit...

I get it because the government discriminates against gay couples. Gays should be allowed to be legally married (who gives a rip what the church says) and they should get equal tax treatment and government benefits as straight couples. It's an unconsionable and unconstitutional violation of due process, and every fair-minded person should be opposed to it.

[Bluenorthwest]

40. A straight spouse gets survivor's benefits from Social Security

based on the other spouse's income. This is not true for those of us whom are called single when we are not. Your spouse gets that, mine does not. Still, I'd not call you a selfish bastard. Think it over. What makes your household better than mine, Harvey the Invisible Rabbit? Moloch the Fire God?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

56. Dial it back a notch

I agree that anybody who wants the benefits of marriage should be allowed to have them, regardless of their sexual orientation. Gay couples should get the same treatment under the law as straight couples. But if you know any widows living on Social Security, they're not exactly living La Vida Loca and your argument that they're not deserving strikes me as a bit harsh.

[phleshdef]

23. You aren't subsidizing anything for me and my wife. We pay our taxes and plenty of it.

[dsc]

24. if you are on her insurance or she is on yours then yes I am

and I surely am subsidizing your Social Security benefits unless you both die on the exact same day.

[SharonAnn]

83. No, we both pay Social Security. We both pay income tax. We pay more because we're married.

We paid less when we were single. Ever heard of "the marriage penalty"? It's not completely gone.

An upper income, single income married couple pays less in Social Security taxes and it covers two people.

Here's how the Social Security part works:

One-income married couple with earnings of $212,000. They pay Social Security on $106,000 of earnings and it covers two people.

Two-income married couple with equal) earnings). They pay Social Security taxes on $212,00 of earnings and it covers two people.

So, there are plenty of cases in today's world where there are two earners where they pay a lot more in Social Security than single-earner married couples.

Then there are the income taxes.

[high density]

33. I hate the insurance thing

At my last job the company would give an employee who happened to be married with kids $12,000 more every year in health insurance benefits than they would a single person. Everybody paid for the same percentage of their insurance so the employees with more costly policies which covered more people got vastly more valuable benefits. (Three times more valuable!)

At my current job only the employee is covered completely by the company and people pay more for their dependents and/or partners. It seems like the fairest way to do it.

[Hello_Kitty]

78. This is a point I raised repeatedly during the "Cadillac plan" excise tax debate

"Waaaah!! It's sooooo unfair that those yeeeeewnion workers get more expensive health plans than the rest of us!!!!"

I was like, and? My married co-worker with 4 kids gets thousands more in (mostly tax-exempt) compensation than I do even though we're doing the same job at the same salary. At the same time, I'm getting more compensation as a 42 year old female than my 28 year old male counterpart because my coverage is more expensive.

Employer based health insurance is inherently unequal.

[Luminous Animal]

34. I'm subsidizing people who own a home... waaaaaaaaa!

I'm also subsidizing many people who, because they own a home, can itemize. Waaaaaaa!

Grow up.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sheepshank]

52. where I live statistically more married people own homes that single people

About 50% of property tax from the home property taxes goes to school districts. ergo Home owners subsidize school fees for renters that have kids.

Not sure where all of this is "who is subsidising who" backlash is heading, except towards sour grapes and trying to create an us. vs. them mentality. :eyes: I'm more of a "it takes a village....." kind of person.

[Luminous Animal]

68. I'm more of it takes a village, too. I find this OP repulsive.

[dsc]

72. yes I am just evil

never mind that I am the one BANNED BY LAW from having a tax break you get for just being you.

[dkf]

89. Unless you are single with no kids you probably would find this repulsive.

[Spazito]

38. Did you know your education was subsidized by those who had no children?...

Did you know that when you collect SS, it will be those still working who will be subsidizing it?

You subsidize the highways you may never use, the transit system you may never use, etc, etc, etc.

We all help pay for somethings that don't benefit us so that, in the larger sense, all can benefit.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Spazito]

44. Wow, I can see you wanted honest responses to your OP...

or not.
:eyes:

[bvar22]

48. You know, I'm OK with ALL of that stuff,

but I am furious at having to subsidize Wall Street, Private Schools, For Profit Global Corporations, For Profit Prisons, For Profit Private "Intelligence" Corporations, Armed "Private Contractors", and the god damned useless immoral Occupations!

[Spazito]

49. I have no argument with you there...

at all!

[GreenPartyVoter]

85. Hear, hear!

[kiranon]

45. Someone's child is the fireman, police officer, doctor, nurse, teacher

who helped you once and will again. Someone's child is the researcher who discovers what may save lives from disease and someone's child in the military protects you. And so on.

[jberryhill]

46. And some of you who are divorced are subsidizing annoying people /nt

[JoeyT]

47. Yep.

And if I'm living with someone I can't get the same breaks a married couple does, no matter how long we're together.
Government should stay the hell out of marriage. Period. From telling X group they can't get married to subsidizing and granting blessings on groups it approves of.

[CreekDog]

54. .

.

[Jennicut]

55. Marriage is highly overrated anyway....

Take it from someone who knows. Everyone should have the right...to be miserable. I should be so lucky.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

59. My joke in support of gay marriage...

Should gays be allowed to get married? Sure! Misery loves company!

I tell that joke at parties and then my wife slugs me.

Ah, married life...

[BeyondGeography]

60. And my kids will help pay for your retirement

Next.

[scheming daemons]

61. ..and be the doctors and nurses taking care of the OP in their old age

...and the policemen keeping the OP safe.

[BeyondGeography]

62. I do thank the OP for his generous subsidy of my household though

Without it, how else could I afford to send them to college so they can one day have a shot at contributing the max to social security?

[dsc]

81. I am so glad you find discrimination funny

by the ms toad up thread, subsides the rest of you to the tune of 5k a year. I am sure she finds it delightful.

[BeyondGeography]

88. Thanks for checking in

And for posting one of the lamest OP's ever, which is saying a lot around here.

[bvar22]

70. THAT is the really scary thing.

Have you talked to a kid lately?

[scheming daemons]

92. I have two of them. They're brilliant. And much better adjusted than our generation was.

Have *YOU* talked to a kid lately?


I'm guessing not. Not really.

[Pholus]

69. Oh noes! Does this mean I subsidized myself for all those years I wasn't married!

Pholus! You ungrateful jerk! How dare you get married? I paid higher rates for 13 years so you could be a freeloader!

Nope, still sounds kind of pathetic even when I whine about myself. Kind of like the OP.

[Hello_Kitty]

82. Let me guess, you're straight. eom

[JCMach1]

71. No you are just paying back the subsidies you received as a child!

[dsc]

76. that is assuming my parents were married straights

which in my case is accurate but isn't necessarily true of others in my position. But show me the law banning you from a government subsidized priviledge. Bet you can't.

[JCMach1]

79. The would still get a deduction regardless... at least one of them anyway

[DailyGrind51]

77. Singles w/o kids are often asked to stay longer at work, because it is assumed their personal time

has less value.

[dkf]

90. Ain't that the truth.

And they get called at 3am in the morning to produce reports for an 8am meeting.

[DailyGrind51]

93. Sounds like you and I had the same boss!

[Hello_Kitty]

80. I don't think I've seen so many people miss the point of an OP in my whole time at DU.

People want to make this about "the children" (sound familiar?) when you are talking about being forced through law and discrimination to subsidize married straight people.

[QC]

87. But chiiiiiildren are the futuuuuuuuure!!!

:sarcasm:

[Chemical Bill]

86. Those who are ultra rich realize they are subsidized by the middle class. n/t

[suston96]

96. How do singles pay more in Social Security taxes?

It's the same for all wage earners. 6.2% - http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/cbb.html

Has nothing to do with married or single. Did you mean income taxes?

[dsc]

97. I don't pay more, I get less

If I were married my SS would be the higher of mine or my partners and last until the last of us died.

[Sheepshank]

100. Just a sec..

I was told...and now I guess I'll have to look this up and confirm...
A married couple, once both are retired, will definitely get more social security $ than a single person. But will not get the equivalent of two full social security payments.

I had planned on divorcing when we got to retirment age so we could actually get the equivalent of 2 full ss payments. Someone is messing with my plans!

not sure how being married in this particular case is preferential treatment?

I think you are saying once one of the married partners dies THEN the surviving person may get a greater ss check than someone who was never married? But isn't that dependent upon who dies first? Not sure how that is a huge benny?

[dsc]

102. I don't think it matters

you get the choice of the higher income SS check so the higher one lasts longer (at least in potential) in a married couple than a non married one.

[Skittles]

98. CORRECT

[dave29]

101. so, single people are angry at couples. Check.

I've been married for 11 years now, no kids, thought I was doing the right thing. Glad to know I'm still screwing someone over, somehow. Thanks for the heads up.

[county worker]

104. I think this comes up a couple times a year here.

Anyone of us can find some reasons why some others are being unfair to us.

[AngryAmish]

105. THat presupposes that single people contribute as much as a married person

The same things that make you a net recipient of governmental services (criminal record, illness, low IQ, poor self control) also means you are less likely to be married. (And we, of course have to put aside gay folks who can't be married under the law.)

Anyway, those people that are the marrying kind - on average - hold down jobs better, earn more, are less likely to commit crimes, own homes and all that other good stuff that makes you a productive member of society that support those people who cannot support themselves.

So who supports whom?

[Scout]

106. well, i'm married and child-free, so i guess i get a pass ... subsidizing children of others. n/t