Rand Paul: Let’s get marriage out of the tax code

Hotair ^ | 03/14/2013 | AllahPundit

[MrB]

This is where libertarianism veers away from conservatism.

The basic assumption difference is that conservatives view our culture as something worth preserving,
while the libertarian sees nothing special about our culture and would let it deteriorate and die.

The libertarian has a blindspot where he doesn’t see that a “moral and religious people” is NECESSARY for the liberty that he sets as the highest goal.

[Texan5]

I agree that an amendment is needed-it is needed now, because the government already encroaches on private business bigtime, where it should not.

If I were king, the rule would be-my business, my rules, in a non-union shop. The law of profit and loss will take care of the companies who play the government’s silly games-they will raise prices to non-competetive levels to pay for the endless rules of government compliance.

[Texan5]

I’ve been told there was a time when employers only provided benefits to a legal designee-people had to name a beneficiary for life insurance you bought at work, etc, and it could be your cat’s aunt if you wanted, because employers didn’t provide health insurance-people bought their own, which is how I think it should be again...

[JCBreckenridge]

It’s no different from asking, “what happens if they were to suspend Habeaus Corpus.” They can’t suspend it and they can’t change the definition. They can only protect it.

[Orangedog]

The basic assumption difference is that conservatives view our culture as something worth preserving, while the libertarian sees nothing special about our culture and would let it deteriorate and die.

Or it could just be that sanctioning marriage isn't one of the clearly defined powers granted to the fedgov in Article 1, Section 8. But far be it for me to throw that in the way of a good demonizing of libertarians.

[Texan5]

Since removing the government from something that ends up in endless discrimination suits, I’m sure the lawyers will be needing another source of income-let them sort out the minutae of the religious marriage contracts in relation to custody, immigration, etc...

[MrB]

The Constitution was framed based on the assumptions of a Judeo-Christian value system,

and “it is inadequate for the governing of any other”.

[Texan5]

Well stated, sir...

[Orangedog]

Then they should have allowed for that in Article 1, Section 8. It’s not “a living, breathing document.”

It amazes me that people who know fedgov can’t even fill pot holes properly are so eager and willing to let it micro manage the most intimate of their affairs.

[longtermmemmory]

spousal contracts = marriage

divorce = about marriage

marriage in not about mere religion

if you go down to your nearby staples / office depot / office max / or look online there are a plethora of “cohabitation agreements” which ARE enforcable under contract law.

civil unions = marriage

[MrB]

Sorry, can’t refer to the authority of the Constitution without recognizing the assumptions on which it was based and written.

[Orangedog]

Whatever. Get back to me when you find granting sanction marriage in Article 1, Section 8. It wasn’t written in pencil.

[longtermmemmory]

we have the marriage penalty tax when both people work.

When the husband works and the wife does not it seems to be more tax effective.

when the government defines marrige via legislative act then they are essentially taxing sex.

[cornfedcowboy]

If tax policy is intends to influence society, then marit tax deductions are in order. We need children(future taxable asset).

[Orangedog]

when the government defines marrige via legislative act then they are essentially taxing sex.

Well, according to justice roberts (anyone here feel stupid for carrying water for that asshole during his confirmation?), fedgov has unlimited taxing power. Good thing we have strict constructionists like him to squeeze a convoluted excuse for raw government power from a plainly worded document that was supposed to restrict it to something less powerful than a local home owner's association.

[Monkey Face]

But listen to them cry when we say we want heterosexual everything. Bunch of whiney wusses.

[Mad Dawgg]

Paul is on to something here. The only argument the Gays have on marriage is being treated equal under the law. Remove the monetary goodies for traditional marriage and that argument is moot.

[w1andsodidwe]

I actually think it would be a good thing if marriage was taken out of the tax code. If everyone was just treated an a person for taxing purposes then there really would be no push for gay marriage. They just want the perks that families get. As someone who has never married, I think it is the right thing to do. For example, I run a household, but because I am the only member of it, I cannot claim head of household. If I had an illegitimate child, why then I could claim it. Makes no sense.

[Mad Dawgg]

"How does the government administer laws like immigration, spousal contracts, divorce, social security, etc. if we do away with the recognition of marriage?"

Let's see allowing people into the country based on who they are married to? Yeah I am good with doing away with that one being its abused regularly.

Spousal Contracts is easy. You want to decide who gets what when someone dies its called a will, who gets the children note it in the will. easy peasy japaneezy

Divorce as far as the financial part is covered with a legal document now and still can be. In fact it should be a standard 50-50 split so the lawyers can't bleed the clients dry.

Social Security is in trouble anyway. It needs revamped and this is a good way to start. grandfather in everyone who is already getting it and from now on there are no automatic spousal goodies. a survivor can be designated but at a greatly reduced rate and keep the standard kids bennies till 18 (but I am willing to bet for SS to stay solvent this is gonna have to go too!)

[GraceG]

I like this because it takes the wind out of the ghey liberal argument that the tax code is unfair towards ghey couples.