Why should single people have to support other people's spouses?

[Progress]

It's hard enough to be single in this country. Why should single people, whether gay or straight, have their tax dollars support other people's spouses. It's enough that we have to help support other people's kids (and I'm talking about middle class and up, not those in poverty). Why should two people living together -- a homosexual couple, close platonic friends, even siblings -- not be entitled to share employee health benefits, for example? But two other people can run off to Vegas and have full spousal privileges even if the marriage doesn't last a year? Let's eliminate spousal benefits altogether if we're not going to give everyone access to them. It's economic discrimination pure and simple.

[Progress]

1. c'mon DU singles... back me up

Who's looking out for the needs of single people in America?

[doc03]

4. Looks like they are all happy with their tax breaks, don't rock the boat!

If you have a job that provides health and retirement benefits you are
working for lower wages in addition to paying a greater tax burden.
My gross income is about twice my brothers, but yet with his deductions, tax credits and earned income credit his take home pay equals mine. Granted it takes more to raise a family but that is not our fault. I got a $6.00 Bush tax cut, didn't families get a $600 additional tax credit per child. I guess those who have the votes get
the benefits!

[notadmblnd]

69. It was not a tax break

it was an advance on our refunds this year and when I file my taxes it will be added back in as income. Smoke and mirrors is all it is. My tax cut was about 6 dollars same as yours.

[hlthe2b]

20. Thank you. I've been waiting for a single to speak up... Every

time I have, I've gotten no response or the couples with children have mistaken what I was saying and become upset.

I agree with you, that singles ar going to bear this burden, as both gay couples and singles do already to help pay for our nation's children. No one seems to give a damn and the expectation seems to be that there is no reason for someone to remain single. Yeah, right...


At the least, I think we should be eligible for sibling benefits or else the entire structure of tax benefits and death benefits needs to be looked at very closely by ethicists!

Sadly, though, who WILL advocate for singles?

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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

[Larkspur]

23. Join Unmarried America group

http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/main.htm

They used to be called the American Association of Single People. They speak up for all singles, child-free and childed.

[Progress]

30. I posted a link from them in post 5, but...

...are you sure they're on the up & up? Why are they quoting from the Cato Institute? I was worried that they are using a legitimately liberal issue as an excuse to dismantle social programs, but I don't know...

[kcwayne]

2. Yeah, I'd like someone else to support my spouse and give me a break

I didn't know about this program where single people will support my spouse. Where do I sign up?

[Progress]

3. Do you honestly not know what I am talking about?

Married couples get certain financial advantages that are subsidized by tax dollars. Single people, including gay couple who cannot be married, do not have access to these advantages. Understand?

[kcwayne]

7. What certain financial advantages?

I pay higher income taxes because I am married.

All the other taxes I pay (state income, real estate, FICA, Medicare, auto plates, and sales taxes) are marriage agnostic.

When I invest in stocks, savings accounts, or IRAs I get no break just because I am married.

So, no, I don't have a clue about what financial advantages I am supposed to be getting from the government. I am getting penalized for being married by government from what I know.

[doc03]

9. How do you figure that?

[kcwayne]

15. How do I figure what?

[doc03]

18. That you pay higher taxes.

I get a $4750 standard deduction. You get a $9500 standard deduction.
If you have children you recieve a $1000 tax cridit each, that is $1000 subtracted from your tax burden for each child.

[hlthe2b]

21. Here's a biggie.... Singles are subsidizing health insurance

for families. Plain and simple. Look at the single rates and the much lower add in rates for spouse and children. Ask any insurer and the costs are spread over the plan. Singles are clearly subsidizing.

In terms of children, clearly singles and couples without children are subsidizing them through property and sales taxes to pay for schools and other programs. I'm not arguing that we should not, parents, before you get mad... Just pointing out that this is a societal sacrifice that we make to support the children in our community.

[doc03]

34. I recently considered early retirement

This what I discovered, my employer pays all our health and retirement
for current employees. We lost our retiree health insurance so I
found that if I paid into our insurance plan my cost was less than
$300, married couples were almost double that and families were better than triple that. In other words I have been working for lower wages all my life. In addition to that if you have a spouse you receive an additional 50% retirement befit and the non
working spouse continues getting that until their death.

[kcwayne]

25. 4750*2=9500

Isn't my wife entitled to a deduction? If she filed separately she and I get $4750 in deduction same as a single. But since we both cannot claim head of household when filing, we pay a higher tax rate than a single does. Congress has been talking about eliminating the marriage penalty for some time, but as far as I know, it hasn't happened.

[doc03]

37. Example

Ran a quick comparison with my taxes verses a married couple with two children. Their taxes about 40% of what I paid.

[kcwayne]

56. That is an invalid comparison

The tax rate for a married couple filing jointly with a net income of X is higher than your tax rate at a net income of X. That is what they call the marriage penalty. Look it up in the tax tables.

You are not comparing equal net incomes if you are paying 60% more. I don't know how that could happen based on a $6500 difference in adjusted gross, especially when the tax rate for the family is higher, so I would have to see your figures. And really, it should only be a $2000 difference in adjusted gross, because you are proposing that the spouse is not entitled to a deduction.

So is a $2000 deduction (which is a net savings of $300 of taxes for the average family) a government largess unfairly squandered on those fatcat married couples? Their disposable income is substantially less than yours because it costs a whole lot more than $150 per year to raise a child.

So do you think the wealthy should pay a higher share of taxes? If so, you have more disposable income than a famility of 4 with the same gross income, and by this logic should pay more tax.

If not, then you should have no problem with someone like Ken Lay taking 140 million in pay but only paying whatever the government decides is the going rate of taxation based on number of people in the household.

So the bottom line is, what should be taxed, gross income, disposable income, or households?

[doc03]

62. It came of the tax tables

I compared my income with a married couple making the same income. Naturally if you compare someone making $40000 to a couple making $80000 you pay more taxes, shouldn't you? Let's say I make $40000 and your household income is $40000 why should I pay 60% greater taxes.

[kcwayne]

78. I have discovered the problem! You aren't any good at math

At 40,000 taxable income, assuming the only deductions are the standard deductions, you pay 28% more than a family of 4.(5046 vs 3931), and this is because the family gets more deductions than you.

The tax codes are intended to tax disposable income, not gross income. If you think this is unfair, then you should get behind right wing proposals like Steve Forbes flat tax idea. There would be no deductions. Its totally based on whatever you make, you pay a flat percentage on.

If you do think that taxes should be based on some idea of net disposable income, a family of 4 certainly has more than $1115 of expenses than you do (and I am talking about living expenses such as food an clothing). Under that basis of taxation, the family should pay less than you.

[doc03]

93. Double checked With my income $3438 difference or about 45%

Done my taxes all my life never had a problem with the math. What if
they gave me a tax credit equal to 60% of my propriety taxes since that is what goes to fund schools? I am not suggesting this just trying to make a point, that wouldn't be fair would it?

[kcwayne]

101. I don't know, did you go to school?

Did a bunch of single people pay taxes to build and operate schools that you took advantage of growing up? Are you willing to go back and credit them for getting "screwed".

Are you a sports fan? Have a bunch of citizens who don't care about pro sports paid taxes to build stadiums that you take advantage of, either in person or on TV?

Taxes are about pooled funding for things that society needs to operate jointly. I have never had a fire in my house, but that doesn't entitle me to not pay taxes to insure that a fire station is available in my neighborhood.

There is no end to the exclusions that people can come up with to match their personal funding interests and what they think is fair. Its way too complicated for a government to operate.

For my part, I would prefer taxes based on consumption, exclusive of food and healthcare. What you spend, other than what you have to spend to survive is a true measure of your wealth.

[doc03]

112. I don't believe it I agree 100% about the consumption tax

I am sure someone will find fault with that.
Pittsburgh is a good example, the taxpayers were blackmailed into building two new stadiums, a convention center and an airport for US Air. Now the Penguins want a new facility and US Air is bankrupt and threating to leave. From what I have read Pittsburgh is basically bankrupt. They lost all the steel mills and they have been replaced by non-taxable property, such as hospitals and Universities. Pitt is now the largest employer there. The people in town are getting sqeased to death, now they want to increase parking fees and such to milk the people in the suburbs.

[RapidCreek]

124. Having 4 kids is a choice.

My parents had 1. And no...I don't think that someone who has 4 kids is entitled to my money to educate their spawn. If you're gonna procreate irresponsibly it's your problem, not mine.

RC

[Frodo]

126. So now having children is "irresponsible procreation"??

Maybe the taxes we heap on you singles are merely the penalty for your parents irresponsible procreation?

[Pithlet]

128. Then my spawn

shouldn't support you in your old age. You don't get to benefit from anything those educated spawn bring to society. Sound like a fair trade?

Public education is essential to a free and equitable society. If my spawn aren't educated, they don't contribute to the society that everyone, whether they have children or not, lives in.

[Larkspur]

67. When I look at the tax tables married filing jointly and singles pay the

same rate.

Go back and look at the tax tables.

[doc03]

74. Rates are the same but deductions and credits make a huge difference

[notadmblnd]

70. 9500 divided by two is 4750

n/t

[Progress]

19. If you are talking about the so-called "marriage penalty"...

...I think the tax and compendsation benefits of being married still outweigh the penalties. In any case, if you believe that married people are being discriminated against, you should favor laws and tax codes that are "marriage-neutral," so we're really on the same side, right?

[kcwayne]

28. Yes, I agree tax codes should be marriage neutral

[Larkspur]

27. You pay more income taxes because you make more income

not because you are married.

If you go to the tax tables you will see blantant marital discrimination. The tax in the tax tables for singles who are not head of households and married filing seperately are the highest across all taxable income layers. Married filing seperately are treated as singles.

[Progress]

5. Okay, I found this...

http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/laws-affecting.html
http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/cost-discrimination.htm

"A person who dies may leave assets to a spouse without paying any federal estate tax at all. However, the feds impose up to 60% in taxes when a single person dies with an estate over $675,000. Many states also discriminate against single people in inheritance taxes. Singles are shortchanged in the social security system too. They pay the same employment taxes into the system but receive fewer benefits than married couples do. Workplace benefits for a spouse are tax free, but domestic partner benefits are generally taxable. Many married couples pay lower income taxes because they can file a joint return, while unmarried partners do not have this tax-saving option. A single person may not claim "head of household" status for an unrelated household dependent. Federal law does not allow a taxpayer to claim an unmarried partner as an income tax dependent if the couple lives in one of the states with criminal laws against unmarried cohabitation or fornication. Spouses are exempt from vehicle and real estate transfer taxes when ownership is transferred, but a single person who transfers title to a friend or domestic partner must pay the transfer tax."

"The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Act does not prohibit marital status discrimination.

Only 21 states have laws that prohibit employers from discriminating on the basis of marital status."

"Unmarried consumers often experience marital status discrimination. Some auto insurance companies charge higher rates to unmarried drivers than to married drivers with a similar driving record. Other companies issue joint auto and renter policies to married couples but won’t give the reduced joint-policy rate to unmarried partners. Some companies won’t allow a single person to name an unrelated adult as a beneficiary on a life insurance policy, on the theory that the intended beneficiary would not have an insurable interest in the life of the insured."

For starters...

ON EDIT
I really only glanced at that site, so I don't know much about it. It just came up in a google search I did a few minutes ago. Most of the members seem to be Democrats but no one I'd heard of. They praised Clinton for vetoing a Republican plan that would have increased the discrepancy between married and single people. They mentioned Lieberman as being "marriage-neutral" but they also quoted from some right-wing groups like Cato and Rand, and it sounded like some of their solutions had an anti-Social Security bias. Anyway, I still think there is some decent information on the site and that they make some good points.

[kcwayne]

8. Fact check

They pay the same employment taxes into the system but receive fewer benefits than married couples do.

If this is true, why do elderly couples, like my mother, not marry because it would reduce their social security? I don't know that my mother would want to marry her "boyfriend" just because she would not lose benefits, but if that is the case, I should tell her.

[shimmergal]

14. kcwayne, this used to be the case.

Now you only lose your social security that's based on a spouse's earnings if you remarry before age 60. They changed it, I believe, because of so many situations like you describe.

Remarrying might still cancel any income she gets from a private pension from your father.

[RandomKoolzip]

6. Oh yeah...I'm married, and my life is just peaches and fuckin' cream!

Dude...I can't find a job, my wife is temping for WAY below her earning potential (in fact, a few cents above minimum wage)....our bills are piling up and we're going into debt because our employment situation is grim and getting grimmer...we have no health care, we had to sell our car to amke rent this month...I'm typing on some shitty old laptop from 1995 because we can't afford anything better....and we can't go back to school because we can't afford it....I'm putting on some Ramen nooles for breakfast as we speak. But thanks for the sentiment that somehow we're more priveliged than you! That was awesome! Oh, and sorry to be such a burden on you, sir. Us social parasites just can't help but get married impulsively.

You know, this whole subject sounds like a WSJ editorial and I for one do not appreciate it. And the only people I know who think that the tax codes in the US are "unfair" are freepers and fat-assed CEO's lounging on their yachts. "Class warfare," my crotch! Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to find a job...a month ago, I was working 2 full-time jobs just to keep a roof over our heads.

Oh, but aren't I a "Lucky Ducky" cuz I don't have to pay those bad bad high taxy-waxies! Lucky me. I'm just living the high life while you single people are footin' the bil, ha ha ha.

[Progress]

10. I don't understand the hostile attitude.

I would guess that the majority of DUers realize the inherent financial unfairness of letting heterosexuals marry but not homosexuals. It means that homosexual couples are not eligible for the same financial benefits. That means that homosexual couples are helping to finance heterosexual married couples. Whenever one group is discriminated against in an arena that takes federal dollars, that group is, in effect, supporting the non-discriminated group. Isn't that the justification behind Civil Rights legislation? But if I extend the reasoning one step farther to show how singles not in any relationship are being discriminated against, I'm accused of sounding like a WSJ editorial? Everything Republicans do is for the benefit of what they see as a proper, traditional family. That's why married couples do better tax-wise the greater the discrepancy between the two incomes, even if the sum total is the same. It's because they expect the man to have the real job and the woman to just make "bread-and-butter" money. Your life may not be "peaches-and-cream," but as hard as it is, it's a lot harder for singles. You have your spouse for a safety net. Singles don't. You are the one who sounds like you are practicing class warfare.

[doc03]

16. What would you say if

a white family was given a $1000 tax credit per child and a black family was not.

[doc03]

45. I hope this didn't offend anyone

I was only trying to point out the unfairness of the taxes that singles are paying.

[Progress]

53. I understood your point.

:hi:

[MrsMatt]

100. Your original post

was a bit provacative

You wrote: Why should single people, whether gay or straight, have their tax dollars support other people's spouses?

The tone seems rather confrontational, in my opinion.

[hlthe2b]

22. Try being single and unemployed and TERRIFIED that you have NO

One, but yourself, standing between yourself and the homeless shelter.

Think about it, ok?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

41. try thinking about it this way...

while being in a shelter is no fun (no, I personally haven't been forced into one, but I hear it ain't summer camp) imagine that it is no only YOU in the shelter, but your precious son or daughter as well. I could handle a shelter...but seeing my child in a shelter because of financial hardship would be something I don't think I could bear.

TheProdigal

[hlthe2b]

44. I agree. Which makes the plight of low incomesingle parents all the more

poignant.

[Jane Roe]

11. One possibility

Maybe because marriage tends to take some people out of the unemployment pool and therefore lowers unemployment.

However, if this is the goal, it seems like they should incentivize more directly based on actually providing for a person who is not working for wages, rather than indirectly incentivizing through marriage.

[doc03]

12. Progress, Looks like you hit a nerve

I said don't rock the boat! I have had this argument many times over the years, people get very defensive when you try to take their tax
breaks off them.

[Skittles]

17. yes, I have noticed that too

very much so

[hlthe2b]

24. For those of us who think this warrants further discussion...

May I suggest that someone starts a thread in the meeting room so that we might flesh some of these issues out and look at the repercussions and possible solutions together in a manner that won't antagonize our married/coupled colleagues? I'd love it as a chance to do some research on the issue and share some findings.

It seems like there are at least 5 or so of us on this thread.... Interested?

[shimmergal]

13. Progress, I'm with you, sort of.

The biggest inequity is in social security, where a spouse can draw on the other person's benefit account, with the couple together getting (I think, not sure of these figures) about one and two-thirds the amount available to a single beneficiary with identical earnings credits.

This really only benefits a spouse who's never earned much on his/her own, however. Otherwise the person's own earned benefits will likely be higher, and you can't take both.

Maried people don't have it automatically easier, however. Ideally they have more of a "back-up" in case of unemployment (two earners in the family being a safety factor), but OTOH they have to worry about providing for more than one person.

Actually, I think a lot of the discrimination we singles feel is because of the unspoken stigma. It's lessening--darn well better, since now over 50% of the adult population is single--but it's still there, especially when marrieds subconsciously project a smug attitude about their status.

[FlaGranny]

26. Okay, all you so-called "progressives"

Just imagine if no one contributed to anything that was not in their own IMMEDIATE self interest, i.e., "I want everything for myself." "I don't want my taxes to help anyone else." Does that sound familiar? Geez. I thought this was a progressive board.

Edit: I don't have kids to deduct any more and my husband and I have always paid the "marriage" tax. If we divorced, our taxes would actually decrease.

Second edit: I have two sons, one single and the other married, with three kids. The single son has all the money he knows what to do with. He travels, he takes long weekends, he eats out, he has everything he wants. The second son with the family has to struggle to keep things going, has to budget carefully, and does not get everything he wants. I know, that is a choice he made, but his brother NEVER complains about having to pay too much taxes. He's a progressiver liberal. I'm also not complaining. I like my taxes to help families. I'm what you'd call a "bleeding heart" liberal I guess. I thought we had more of them on this board.

[ProfessorGAC]

29. Thanks, Granny

Man, someone needed to say that. Geez, just let's all shut up and pay our damn taxes.

Conservatives complain about taxes, not liberals.

Liberals know that the government needs money to do some things that don't directly benefit each and every one of us.

Liberals are supposed to be the smart ones who know that there are indirect benefits to almost every penny the gov't spends.

This whole thread was making me ill, until FlaGranny spoke up.

Thanks Again, Granny.
The Professor

[hlthe2b]

33. I think you too misunderstand ProfessorGAC

Please see my post below.

[Progress]

38. I'm a liberal and I do complain about taxes that discriminate

Do you think it is fair for married heterosexual couples to be eligible for benefits that committed homosexual couples are not eligible for? I don't. Should a married white couple receive benefits that a black couple cannot? Then why should two siblings or even two good friends, for example, who are living together and sharing expenses not be eligible for the same benefits a married couple receives? And why should single Jane Smith have to work a full time job to get health insurance, while John Doe, working the exact same job receives health benefits for himself and his stay-at-home wife? Single people have less of a safety net than married people and they have greater expenses (the saying "two can live as cheaply as one isn't really that far off"). Is it so much to ask not to have a greater tax burden in addition? And this has nothing to do with children or schools or welfare or anything like that, so don't you dare try to make it about that. It's about single people who actually have a greater financial need having to subsidize married people.

[ProfessorGAC]

47. Then Quit Complaining

Your reasons are not valid. Why?

Because your logic could be extending to any programs, expenditures, and systems. And, the entire progressive taxation plan could be interpreted as discriminatory, so that doesn't wash either.

Your issues are a little fraught with error, btw. If you do the research, you'll find that the cost of health insurance borne by the worker is higher for married coverage than for single. That's why some people choose not to have their spouse covered if they both work and get benefits. It cost more! So, your example is spurious.

And, my point was actually that reading all this complaining about small difference in marginal income that really, in the long run, make virtually no difference in quality of life or standard of living, seemed more like the rantings of conservative wankers without a clue.

And, btw, don't tell me what is ok to say and think and what is not. I'll make those decisions for myself.
The Professor

[G_j]

72. I'm a "progressive liberal" and I'm complaining

but, I'm complaining about the trillion plus dollars that the Pentagon can't account for, the tens of billions wasted on invading Iraq, subsidizing oil companies, Bechtel, Walmart and of course the list goes on and on.

[hlthe2b]

32. hello FlaGranny.....

If you read through the thread, I don't think that is what anyone is saying. What is being suggested is that no one is looking at the impact on singles of major societal changes, including adding to the marital base if gay marriage comes to being in a very large way. While I support the latter, I cringe when I think what may happen to things like --health insurance policies, for which singles DO bear a big burden in subsidizing spouses and children (see my post above).

I believe it is in society's interest for there to be subsidies paid to support our communitie's children-- for schools, etc. which come from property and sales tax. I also believe in taxes to generally support the greater good. All I think any of us want to consider is what the future impacts may be, and for those who are single through their life, or widowed, or whatever, to consider whether there might be ways to make the situation more equitable (i.e., can we find a means for siblings to gain benefits as they age and become in need of help/support). Even those who are coupled throughout most of life may well end up in a situation where sibling partner benefits could mean the difference in a frugal, yet comfortable old age and scrambling for food, prescription meds and heat.

I think this conversaton is jarring, simply because most have never thought about it before. Perhaps it is time that we do.

[FlaGranny]

35. Good heavens,

property taxes, when not everyone owns property, and sales tax that would cost the poor much more percentagewise than the rich? Not very good options, if you ask me. Income tax has always been the fairest way to tax. I believe just the opposite - I believe there should be no sales tax and no property tax and ONLY an income tax.

Edit: PS - hope I don't sound angry, not really, just discussing. :-)

[hlthe2b]

39. I think I confused you. I only mention that right now everyone that

owns property or pays sales tax is subsidizing children and that is pretty much a given. Not suggesting changes in any direction, just stating the facts. In addition, the chld credits on income tax mean the tax income has to come from somewhere else and it does come from singles and married couples without children.

Again, I'm not arguing that that is wrong, just pointing out the facts. Frankly I hate our tax structure and would like nothing better than to have cool minds representing all sectors of society develop a new construct. The problem with continuing to add on to the old system is that unintended consequenses may occur. An example is if we add even 20 % to the married pool with recognition of gay marriage or civil union. Given the aging boomer population, we are going to have lots of aging widowed and single elderly trying to live off fixed incomes. If, because of the additional spread of health benefits to this new pool of married spouses, the cost of single payer health care and insurance continues to rise, what becomes of these single elderly or disabled? Might society not benefit from a discussion of inclusion of siblings in the equation, so that a sick brother might gain social security benefits from his slightly younger single sister (who might also be able to work part time?)


This is an issue I think we need to consider. I don't think anyone means to imply that young, healthy working singles are whining about not getting "their" share. Only that impacts on long term singles are not being considered in terms of the tax structure and other areas where societal subsidies are occuring.

[FlaGranny]

63. I did understand that you are thinking about

long-term, but I don't really see the point of focusing on singles. Focusing on singles just makes it more of a polarizing issue. This always starts as "why should I have to pay for someone else's kids, health, etc., which is the way the original poster put it. No one argues that the tax system should be fairer.

I also don't understand your point about SS benefits (Medicare) for a sibling. The real point here is that everyone should have health coverage paid for out of tax revenues and every person who is medically proven to be unable to earn a living because of poor health should, in addition, receive SS Disability. No one should have to depend on someone else for coverage.

When a couple are married (no matter gay or straight, they would get the privilage of paying the "marriage tax" just like the rest of us married folks. When retired, both get benefits in proportion to what they earned, and then, when one dies the survivor gets whichever beneficiary's amount is more, which is just the way it is now for everyone else. This is the only place I see a problem, because when you are on a fixed income, it is more difficult to survive on what one person gets. Perhaps a single person who is retired/disabled should get 50% more to make up for not having a spouse. But that does not have any more impact on a young, healthy single than it does on the rest of us. We should just all be paying our share according to our incomes - period. That's why I'd like to have NOTHING taxed BUT income (and this should be a graduated tax) - all income, and from every source. The only deductions that should be allowed are for children (but only up to a point, maybe just for two or three). Wouldn't need deductions for medical expenses, because of singer payer (I can dream).

Property and sales taxes are the most unfair, I believe, much more so than income. I'd like to see one income tax for everything with the money being distributed to every single state, county, city, and rural area according to population with some consideration for need. Rural areas and very small towns would need slightly more to pay for services close enough that they could use them.

Will these things every come to pass? I doubt it, with current attitudes.

[hlthe2b]

68. Will these things come to pass? Well, not if we don't discuss the issues.

Your thoughtful discussion is the one we should be having on a national level, IMO. What we are continuing to do, is try to make a very out-of-date system work, but one that is already taxed to the max. While I agree that no one should be without health insurance, the reality is that is not likely to change any time soon. In the meantime, an out-of-work sibling (even if younger), could be considered for health insurance benefits from their working single sibling and be claimed as a tax deduction for that year for the working sibling. Just a thought... But, given the increasing number of singles in this country--without economic safety nets, it is worth at least discussing, IMO.

There are many ways to address these issues and certainly do not have to necessarily invoke major changes in current marital tax structures and policy. But, given that the entire subject of who can recieve these marital/civil union benefits is on the table currently with gay marriage discussion, it seems a reasonable thing to discuss and debate it seems to me.

[FlaGranny]

75. We certainly agree more than we disagree.

Being a liberal, I just want everyone to have equal opportunity for everything - gays and singles and marrieds and kids included. But I have a feeling that sibling benefits would be just as hard-fought against as gay marriage. And, I say again, it is not fair to make a sibling carry coverage for another sibling, unless he can readily afford to do it and wants to do it. Making it mandatory would be a bad idea.

One scenario I can imagine is being tracked down by a sibling you never got along with and haven't spoken to in years, and hearing that Uncle Sam says you have to pay an extra $300-400 a month for insurance for him.

[hlthe2b]

80. Oh,no... I meant totally voluntary.... Absolutely!!! LOL

I guess the concept would be that all adults would be eligible for a domestic designee, whether a marital spouse, marital spouse/civil union spouse (depending on what is decided for gay and lesbians) or a single adult blood relative designee. It would be an option that's available for those who were not married, but who were going to voluntarily assist a struggling adult blood relative economically for an extended period...... They would be eligible (should they desire) to be added to the working sibling's insurance policy, just as a spouse would --which would be tremendously less expensive than buying coverage as an individual. The working relative would also be able to claim them as a deduction in the year that they reside with them....

Just random thoughts right now. I see problems and potential inequalities and am just looking for possible solutions....

[ProfessorGAC]

50. I Misundertand Nothing

We may be interpreting differently, but why is it you think your interpretation is the valid one, and mine is not?

Besides, i was commenting on the tone of the posts, not the content. All this "why should i pay for someone else" complaining is the stuff of blue-collar right wing nutjobs who know nothing and are proud of it.

You interpret these rantings your way, and i'll interpret them mine.

The Professor

[hlthe2b]

55. You, know, I have not in any way been confrontational with you nor rude

I simply pointed out that I thought you had misinterpreted some comments I posted. I respect everyone's right to have an opinion and to express them in a thoughtful manner. But in order for tone to remain pleasant and instructive, we all have to be respectful.

I for one, was not in any way suggesting I should not help pay for someone else via taxes. Only that society is changing, as are the needs of that society. I think it is time to take a look at these issues. Is that a ranting in your view, PGAC?

[ProfessorGAC]

88. No You Did Not

You said misunderstand. That clearly implies that you DO understand and i do not. That's pretty darned rude!

Now, you say i misinterpreted. I still say you're incorrect. We may be interpreting this issue and these posts differently, but that doesn't make mine a MISinterpretation.

Lastly, i never accused you of ranting. I am trying, for the 4th time, to make clear that my original post was apropos the tone of the posts on this thread! The notion that things are unfair, because somehow some folks have decided that they're paying for someone else's way in life, is the complaint of a selfish, oblivious conservative.

I expect DU'ers to be above that sort of self-interested, myopic complaint. I'm sorry if i'm not making that clear enough.
The Professor

[hlthe2b]

108. I said I "thought you had misunderstood" (please see the post..._

Misunderstand and misinterpret are synonyms, at least according to my memory and Roget's Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases.

To state that I thought you had misunderstood or had misinterpreted my point is not rude. It in fact gives you benefit of the doubt, since I allow for the possibility of not having made myself clear.

Your posts throughout this thread have certainly been less than cordial and unnecessarily confrontational in my opinion. While I would normally enjoy continuing to debate this or other issues with you, I think I'll simply agree to disagree and perhaps we'll meet another day when both are feeling more collegial. Enjoy your day.

[doc03]

42. My problem with this is that real wages aren't keeping up

When I started working 40 years ago we had a middle class and most families had a single wage earner. Over the years the wages have been
driven down by imports and union busting. Now most families have to have two wage earners just to survive, so can't you see that has really put a pinch on singles. I had no complaints until the last few years, our disposable income has been dropping like a rock.

[camero]

43. That's not married people's fault

That's the fault of the rich who do not pay their fair share. And of the politicians that have sold out to the corps.

[ProfessorGAC]

51. What Does That Have to Do With This Topic?

True or not, (and it's NOT universally so, and i've got the econometric data to prove it), it's got nothing to do with this topic.
The Professor

[doc03]

57. I think it's the root of the problem

We had more disposable income a few years ago. Over the years incomes
have dropped and spouses have in most cases been forced to work to
make ends meet. Part of it is the I gotta have it now thing. People today have to have a bigger house than they used to, something like
1800 sq. ft' 30 years ago, what is it now 2800 sq. ft'? Gotta have two cars, boat, RV, ATV, plasma TV, a vacation in the islands. A single has one income yet unless we work more hours.

[camero]

59. The root of the problem

Is that over the last 30 years our taxation system has become more and more regressive. Others can do much better explaining this point than I.

Your answer seems to be to just stick it to the poor some more.
Why that is so thoroughly enlightening. :eyes:

[Progress]

64. Regressive tax schemes are a problem. But not really the point here.

The point is that it is discrimination. If a single program discriminated against black people, I would be raising a cry about it even if it were only a very tiny portion of the overall budget, and I hope you would too.

[camero]

66. maybe not your point but is the root of the problem

Why don't I see you arguing that? It is discrmination that those most able to pay pay less and less all the time. Bull pucky.

[Progress]

77. Start a thread about progressive vs regressive tax schemes and I will.

This thread is not about that. It is about an inequity in this country that hurts unmarried people. We could have the most progressive tax scheme in the world and if it still discriminated, I would have a problem with it.

[camero]

83. Your thread is a bait and switch

Seeking to argue that somehow you are paying for someone else. Well guess what, we all are in some form or another. That's what taxes do. They spread the burden across society.

[Progress]

86. No it's not.

See my post #73.

[camero]

You're just substituting one group for another

RWers ask why they should pay for poor blacks on welfare, why they should pay for prescription drugs, or any social program, and especially the EITC. I see no where that you complain about corporate fraud or the disparity in tax policy as corps now account for maybe 7% of all tax reciepts.

Everybody pays for everybody and if you have a problem with that there are many countries you could go to.

[ProfessorGAC]

90. Thanks, Camero

At least somebody got what i was getting at.
The Professor

[camero]

91. Ah, maybe I'm getting smarter.

:) Thanks, that's an honor coming from you.

[Progress]

95. America - love it or leave it?

Nice attitude for a progressive. If you want me to complain about corporate fraud and corporation avoiding taxes, fine: I don't like corporate fraud, and I don't like it when corporations don't pay enough taxes. Happy? Are there any other unrelated issues I have to weigh in on here before we can discuss the one this thread is about? Global warming? Reproductive choice? The Middle East?

I wonder if you really did read my post. If welfare was available to only whites, then it would not be a case of "Everybody pays for everybody," would it? It would be a case of everybody pays for a select few. It's fine for welfare to go to poor people because that's what it is designed for. It wouldn't be fine for welfare to go only to white people. The second scenario is discrimination and the first is not.

There is nothing about the state of marriage that requires a financial benefit. It's a throwback to the days when women were expected to get married and the husband was expected to be the breadwinner. The right wants to encourage this traditional family structure and that's why singles are financially punished even though they probably have a greater financial need.

[camero]

97. Bull shit

Families have more costs than singles. That's a known fact. And welfare was something that was available to everyone until RWers got there hands on it. Yes, love it or leave it. Mexico is a good choice. They don't pay many taxes there.

Let me tell you a personal story. Years ago, I was the only one working in my household. I took care of my mother, stepfather and my siblings. I got the EITC because I was the primary wageearner in my household. My siblings qualified as foster children.

And it was perfectly legal, I even called the IRS to ask about it when the morons at H&R Block said I couldn't use the credit. And when I told them the story, the IRS agent had the biggest laugh I ever heard.

You're just not up to par on tax policy and your posts show it.

[Progress]

99. Who said anything about comparing families to singles?

That's apples and oranges. It only makes sense to compare a married person without children to a single person without children. OR a married person with children to a single person with the same number of children. And I don't know why you keep harping on the EITC. That was an analogy. This is the second time I've told you that. Just like I was making an anology when I was talking about the fire department. I don't really think my fire department discriminates against gay homeowners. Do you understand what the purpose of an analogy is? My point is and always has been that married people receive special benefits that single people help pay for. There are already special allowances for children, so they do not enter into the equation. There are married couples who don't have children and single people who do have children. And you still have not told me why you feel married people should receive special benefits.

[camero]

103. Because there are now two people to feed

as opposed to one. They are not special benefits, they are progressive benefits. I go back to my original point which you fail to see. You are just substituting one group for another. Just because both may be working at one point in their lives may not always be true over the full course of their lives. Someone gets sick or pregnant, the possibilties are endless.

[Progress]

105. And there are also two people who can work.

Yes, one may fall ill, become pregnant, or lose their job. That is also true of any single working person and they are in a worse situation because they don't have any one to support them.

I've decided to give up on this thread. The tone is getting too ugly and I don't think some of you are trying to listen to anyone but yourselves anyway.

[camero]

113. So what?

Yes give it up because it is a phantom libertarian argument. I have more of a right to complain than you do what with me having diabetes and not being able to work at one point and companies not having to hire me because of the RWers interpretation of the ADA. I paid my taxes just like you. But you're not gonna see me dump on any group because of some perceived benefits they may or may not have.

Except for the ones who are really sticking their hands in my pocket. The wealthy. They get the benefits but refuse to help pay the bill.

[doc03]

71. I agree

I remember when the top tax rate was 90%, if it wasn't for all the
Reagan and Bush tax cuts to the rich it would solve a lot of problems. We could have national health care insurance. The one that gets me is the Republicans that are bitching about the prescription drug coverage. They say it will cost $600 billion over ten years, that's only $50 billion a year, but they have no problem sinking $80 billion plus a year in Iraq or Halliburton.

[ProfessorGAC]

89. Still Has Nothing To Do WIth This Topic

Look, i understand your point, and share your view that rampant consumerism is a root problem. As a matter of fact, it's why the Republicans have been able to tap into base instincts like selfishness to make their political progress in the last 20 years. The "have it all now" philosophy is harmful.

That, however, has nothing to do with the idea that somehow liberals should now be equally selfish because they are paying a share that is somehow inequitable in some small degree.
The Professor

[alarimer]

76. true

There was a segment on NOW a couple of weeks ago where Moyers interviewed a porfessor on this very subject. I used to think that most people were living beyond their means- buying Mcmansions, etc but in reality, the cost of housing and some other things has increased so much that most people actually can barely afford what they have even with 2 incomes.

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[camero]

36. WTF?

God I gotta refute this again? I'm single but I don't fall for the fallacy that somehow my tax money goes into a little bank account with my name on it. It doesn't.

It goes into a pool and we decide where the money goes through our elected representatives. Since we are a society that would rather spend tons of money on bombs and hardly any to help ease anyones suffering, then we are a much sicker society than even I have thought.
:eyes:

Rediculous argument that goes nowhere but foments division. Which is something that I think the gay community would not want to do if they hope to win people over to their cause.

[Progress]

58. I understand that my tax dollars don't go into my own little bank account

But think of it this way. White and black people both pay taxes. And both white and black people get some money back. Let's look at a single entity -- the earned income tax credit. Suppose you could only get this credit if you were white. That would be discriminatory. And it would mean that black people were, in effect, subsidizing or supporting white people. That's all I meant. Not that you could divvy out every one's individual portion. Married people receive benefits that are denied to single people. What does it mean to be married? Two people who are not married (whether a couple, blood relatives, or even good friends) can live together, share finances, share child-rearing. And a married couple may have separate finances. Why not just take marriage out of the equation and just apply benefits on the basis of each individual's financial situation? And why not let two people who trust each other form a financial and legal partnership regardless of what their sexual arrangement is?

[camero]

61. We all pay taxes

So do you propose not to pay for schools, roads, fire departments, police, sanitation, etc? You can get the earned income credit even if you have no children if your income is below a certain level. I know, I collected it when my income fell below the threshold. You are just not adept at finding loopholes.

Your argument is hogwash.

edit: Also, the higher my income went the more loopholes I found. Should tell you something.

[Progress]

73. I never said I was or wasn't eligible for the earned income tax

I was making an analogy, not relating a personal experience. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand. Paying taxes for a fire department is not discrimination because we all rely on it. Same with paying for schools -- even though I have no children, I realize there is a societal benefit. Same with social programs like welfare -- I hope I never need to use it, but I'm glad to know that safety net is there. And even if I knew I would never have a need of it, I still think it is a benefit to society. However, if the fire department had a policy where they only put out fires in homes belonging to heterosexuals, or if the school only admitted white children, I would have a big problem with it. I might say "why are these groups being denied equal benefits?" Or I might say why are black people paying taxes to send white kids to school and why are gay people paying taxes to put out fires in straight people's homes?" If you want to twist that into me complaining about paying taxes, go ahead, but I think people who are actually paying attention will understand that it's a little more than just a complaint about too much taxes.

on edit: minor typos

[camero]

85. and a bad one at that

You wanna complain about taxes then complain how the rich are not paying. That would be a good analogy of discrimination. I don't have to twist it. Your comments are out there for all to see.

[bleedingheart]

40. The Majority of your Taxes subsidize Defense and numerous

other agencies.

Take into consideration these wise words:

"Taxes are what we pay for civilized society."

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Taxes are our dues for living in this fine country as wacky as it may be some times.

People whine about paying school taxes when they have no children but don't think anything of the fact that those school children will pay into their social security and the fact that a fine public school system actually raises the value of their home and makes it more marketable...

While I empathize with gay couples and healthcare benefits I think that we should just have universal healthcare coverage for everyone because there are loads of people single, married and living together that don't have healthcare and everyone has a right to it in my opinion...and for that I would gladly pay in taxes what I am paying for my healthcare right now just to have "health" equity. (I currently pay almost $5000 a year and my employer covers the remaining $10K)

To be honest I don't mind paying my taxes because the fact that I am paying taxes means I am actually ahead of the game because there are people out there who do not have a job.

[Progress]

46. Let me clarify some things...

It seems like this thread is getting off to a bad start. I think hlth2b has stated things very well. But I'd like to add some personal anecdotes. I have a sibling close in age. As adults we lived together and actually shared our finances. There were times that one of us was working but not the other (or perhaps we were both working but one at a place that didn't have much in the way of benefits). During those periods it would have been nice if we could have shared health insurance or enjoyed some of the other benefits that married people get. It made me angry to think that the company I worked at was effectively giving twice the benefits to employees that had spouses -- in essence reducing my share of benefits. I would have liked that same advantage, but because the person I shared my living quarters and finances with was a mere blood relative instead of someone I had a sexual relationship with, I was denied this benefit. To me, that is discrimination. But what if two people wanted to live together who were not even related and share some, if not all, of their finances? I remember the show "Kate and Allie" about two divorced mothers who were friends who did this. Shouldn't even they have the same rights as a married couple? If society is not willing to extend these benefits to siblings, gay couples, or even close friends, then they should do away with them altogether. It's not that I resent paying taxes, it's that I resent paying taxes that are used to discriminate against me.

[camero]

48. How bout a Universal System so noone suffers.

The same argument goes. It's not your little piggy bank. It is everyone's money. :eyes:

[hlthe2b]

49. Nicely stated, Progressive

The fact is that if this is not even discussed right now-- at a time when the entire marriage issue is on the table, it will never be.

So much has changed in society since the original premise of marital benefits were developed that I just think we should step back and take a look at what is needed and what is fair.

[ProfessorGAC]

52. Excuse Me, But YOU Started It Off On A Bad Tone

"Why should i . . ." is not the most inviting way to get positive responses. It's sounds like a meanspirited and selfish conservative's way of starting a comment.

Perhaps if you had given more thought to your title, the responses would been more empathetic.
The Professor

[Progress]

60. I was trying to be conciliatory...

...in order to get the discussion back on track. I think you are the one who should be looking at the "tone" of your own posts.

[ProfessorGAC]

92. Don't Lecture Me

Your original post started this whole thing. You waited until the whole thing got off track before you tried to be conciliatory. The original post smacks of conservative selfishness. On this website, what did you expect?

As to my tone; i loathe conservative selfishness. It's the root of almost everything that's wrong with this country right now. If you express that in your posts, you're going to get castigated by me. Selfishness is an ugly trait.
The Professor

[MrsMatt]

107. Thank you Professor

You have hit the nail squarely on the head. And expressed your views far more eloquently than I.

[Woodstock]

115. If we are playing that game, I have found your tone to be combative

I guess it's in the eye of the beholder.

Progress has sounded very reasonable to me.

[Progress]

117. Thank you, Woodstock!

:hug:

hlth2be is going to start a thread on this in the meeting room, I think. I'm not going to post on this one any more.

[doc03]

54. Totally agree Progressive

This is an argument you can't win. Like if you give an example to a right wing nut, it's always Clinton did this or you can't believe that
"it's just the liberal media".

[kcwayne]

65. Health benefits are not a government tax outside of Medicare

Health premiums payed by a company have nothing to do with your taxes, they are a benefit that the company pays in order to attract a workforce.

If hiring companies and health insurance companies felt like it was beneficial to offer health insurance covering every permutation of cohabitation, they would. Of course the name of the game in medical insurance now is to exclude more and more coverage, so any ideas about private insurance moving to a more inclusive model is fantasy.

But nothing about private health insurance has any bearing on the taxes that you think are discriminating against you.

[Progress]

81. I never limited the discussion to taxes alone.

Public institutions that benefit from federal dollars are not allowed to discriminate. I was not under the impression that tax dollars went directly into paying for a corporation's health benefits plan. Would such a plan be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race or religion even if the corporation tried to argue that the money was coming out of its own pocket?

[kcwayne]

98. I have been an employer, and it did come out of my pocket

What you are saying is that an insurance company should not be able to offer a policy to an individual, but should be required to offer the policy to a communal unit, and to do otherwise is discrimination, which it is not.

It would only be discrimination of the offer of a policy was based on gender, race, and sexual orientation. If the company offers a policy to married couples, then it is be required (by law) to offer the policy to white, black, Asian, Latino, etc couples.

If the laws were such that the government recognized gay marriage, then the offer of a policy to married couples would have to include gays as well. This is one reason the insurance industry is lobbying hard against states recognizing gay marriage or civil unions.

If an insurance company wants to define its risk pool, and can do so without excluding people based on attributes over which they have no control, they should be able to do so. If you take away the right of an insurance company to define the criteria by which it offers policy, you will simply make all private health care premiums go up. Some insurance companies won't insure companies based on the industry they are in, and doing so lets them set the premiums accordingly.

If insurance companies had to insure anyone that appeared under the roof of one of their policy holders, their whole risk management assessment is skewed, and they will raise prices.

What you really need to champion is Universal Health Coverage. That way everyone in the country is in the pool, and the risk is spread out across the population as a whole. Of course, when you look at government managed institutions that have direct interaction with the public, such as the Post Office, Veterans Hospitals, and the IRS, one has to wonder how well they could manage a national health care network.

[PA Democrat]

79. I'm Confused

I worked for a Fortune 500 company and every full-time employee was given a set amount of benefits dollars to spend in the company's flexible benefits plan. Married employees, employees with children and single employees were all given the same amount of benefits dollars. You could allocate your benefits as you saw fit, but people purchasing health insurance for spouses and/ or children were paying out of pocket.

I don't like seeing arguments between married verses singles. There is a lot of "unfairness" in the tax system, and in-fighting in the middle class is IMHO a very ineffective use of our time and energies.

Let's instead push for recapturing corporate taxes which are rapidly shrinking thanks to off-shoring corporate headquarters and thanks to the vast amount of corporate welfare.

Let's push for a truly progressive tax structure by reexamining the recent increase in regressive taxes which unfairly burden the poor and middle classes.

[Progress]

82. I don't see why we have to focus on one issue at a time.

There are lots of things I'm concerned about -- the erosion of the Constitution, destructive environmental policies, corporate corruption...

If I'm concerned about the environment, does that mean I have to forget about the Constitution? If I'm concerned about corporations shirking their share of taxes or about the tax scheme becoming more and more regressive, does that mean I have to forget about discrimination against unmarried people?

[PA Democrat]

84. Priorities

I've been both married and single for extended periods of my working life and, for me personally, this topic doesn't even make my list of top 100 problems in our country.

[Progress]

87. If you were poor and single, it might be. (nt)

[PA Democrat]

94. If one is "poor and single"

I would suggest that complaining about all the "advantages" that married people in the same financial straits are getting is a pretty foolish waste of time.

Instead of attacking other people who are also struggling to get ahead, it would be much more productive to attack the true causes of poverty.

[doc03]

96. Progress I guess this is a waste of time

This is like when you criticize Bush for not living up to his military obligation, it gets turned around that you are criticizing the National Guard.

[Progress]

104. I think you are correct doc.

I am not new to this site. I have been a frequent visitor from its very beginnings but only recently decided to take the plunge and actually sign up. I'm saddened by the ugly attitudes I see on this thread. I can't fathom why this is so difficult a concept for people to "get." And I'm surprised there haven't been more "regulars" on this thread to lend us some support. Oh well.

[hlthe2b]

111. I think it is worth brainstorming on.... perhaps in a meeting room

thread..... As with astrology and other specialty posts, there is more opportunity to discuss and debate in a constructive manner. That way there would be likely be less need to constantly justify the conversation to those who wish only to question poster's motives, agendas, or credentials as a "true progressive," rather than engage in an exploration of a previously ignored issue.

[Progress]

116. Perhaps

You can start one. I probably won't have much more time to discuss it the next few days though. Maybe after that.

:hi:

[hlthe2b]

120. Yes.. I think it would be good if we all stepped away for a few days...

I've got to catch up on work anyway. Welcome to DU and don't take the heat generated by this thread too seriously. As someone said, there is continuing consternation and general lack of respect for singles in this country.... perhaps the last tradition to go by the wayside?

[Woodstock]

118. Progress, doc03, hlthe2b

I'm with you. Obviously we want to talk about this, or we wouldn't be doing so. And what we are saying is not contrary to Democratic party values - we just want everyone to be treated equally. If someone disagrees, fine. But trying to stifle the discussion not only looks bad, but also one starts to suspect they doth protest too much. What kind of nerve has been hit that such a strong "Shut up about this" reaction came about?

[Pithlet]

119. It could be

the way it is being worded. The OP stated that singles subsidize spouses. How many married people do you think there are on DU who are struggling right now? How do you think it makes them feel to see such a statement?

Many of the issues being discussed, such as unfair taxation and health insurance issues, very much need to be discussed. But polarizing it in such a way as to make it seem like one is unfairly taking advantage of another puts people on the defensive, especially since that really isn't what is going on. We are all frustrated by the unfairness of the tax system, but pointing at married people and claiming that we don't care because we get our tax breaks, so screw the single people is grossly unfair. That is the tone that this thread has seemed to take, and a lot of people are going to be hurt by that.

[hlthe2b]

122. fair point, Pithlet.... I think Progress would likely word it quite

differently if given the opportunity to do again.... Ahh, we've all had threads we wish we could take a "redo" on! LOL

[Pithlet]

123. Oh yes

There have been times when I wish that edit feature lasted just a little bit longer.

[doc03]

121. We are going to have a real uphill battle in the election

Don't all our candidates want to eliminate the Bush tax cuts or most of them. No one will want to loose the Tax credits for their children.
A good percentage of people have mutual funds that pay dividends and
they will want to get their break on dividends and capitol gains when they sell them. If we don't win this election the person who follows Bush is going to get clobbered for raising taxes. The beat goes on.
Those taxcuts buy a lot of votes and will sadle your children and grandchilden with a heavy burden. I hope there will be something left over so I can retire someday. Your kids are really the ones that will get punished for it in the long run.

[Hammie]

102. What on earth are you talking about?

First off I support my own damn family with what's left over after the goverment confiscates my "volutary" contribution to its coffers.

If you object to the fact that the married tax rate is somewhat lower than the single tax rate then I will assume that you object to all efforts at social engineering through taxation. If that's the case, you will get a chilly reception on this board for sure. Are you one of those flat tax advocates? I doubt it, I think you're cool with it when other people get the shaft and you're just pissed 'cause it is you this time.

If I'm wrong I'm sure that you would be willing to send me a check for your share of what my wife and I were overcharged when we were both working. I figure we paid a good $30k-$50k over what we would have if we were still single.

If you object to your company's particular benefits policy, it is a free country. Go work at another company which has a policy that is more to your liking. At your exit interview, make sure you let then know that the reason that you quit was their backward policy. It sound like you think companies should be forced to provide insurance coverage to deadbeat roomates of their employees. Can you say "out sourcing". I can just see it now; people auctioning off their roomate benefit on e-bay.

Here's an idea, go get married and then report back to the board on what a sweet financial deal it is. I love my family dearly, but a financial instrument they are not.

[Woodstock]

109. Single people are slighted in American society

It's as though the country prefers us all to be married with kids. Anyone not fitting that description - singles, gays, widows, etc. - can just deal with it.

[outinforce]

114. One More Reason

It's just one more reason why I cannot understand the desire of many of people who are gay like me wanting to be married.

My fear is that when other gays get married, then guys like me (confirmed gay "bachelors") will suffer the same kind of discrimination -- by gays -- that single guys do now.

[MISSDem]

110. Thanks but I'll happily pay more to be single

I've tried marriage and believe me single is better. I'm worth it!

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

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

[fob]

127. Legislated incentives to cohabitat to take advantage of economies

of scale. Unless of course you're not a god-fearing repuke brain-dead zombie then you should not have "special rights" -s-