Quote:
Originally Posted by mlmpetert
I dont think either of you guys are right. But i guess i think youre more wrong:
a) If youre subject to entitlements dont get married.
That is unless your spouse to be makes a lot of money relative to your income. Getting married in this situtation can cut your rate down significantly. Perhaps progressively in "half", but "progressively in half" isnt real in half
b) less population also means less revenue
A and B are arguable but i completely disagree with your last sentence.
Entitlement reform needs to change because it discourages marriage. 47% of us pay no income tax. 20 some percent pay a negative income tax (get money for showing up). 10-20% pay a negative income so high they effectively pay no payroll tax. If all these people were married they would loose out on a lot of loot.
Social security benefits straight up hook married people up. You never worked a day in your life, but your husband made tons and is subject to the full benefit amount? Cool, you get half of his straight up.
|
You should reconsider and reevaluate your thoughts. What part of what I said offends basic logic? Is it the fact that people who are single pay more in taxes than married people? You know, the tax law that requires two unmarried people to file separately and thus forfeit certain tax benefits afforded to married couples? Or is it the part where having less people means less spending on infrastructure, entitlement and various other general welfare such as student loans and educational grants?
Here's is a simple brain exercise that can help you sort out your thoughts. Ask yourself what would happen to this country's revenues and expenditures if:
a) You eliminate tax breaks for married couples.
b) You kill off 2.5% of all those over the age 65 and increase the infant mortality rate to 2.5%. Or if you wish just kill off 5% of the population.