Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (5383)	3/15/2004 3:44:45 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

She's around. Go visit her. Member 9080458

To: American Spirit who wrote (5383)	3/15/2004 3:56:02 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

Kerry has come out in favor of gay civil unions but not gay marriage. Bush opposes both. Kerry wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts for those making over x per year (the number last time I heard was 200K, though that may be subject to change since the revenue he wants to raise from that would require a repeal of the cut all the way down to around 100K per year or less). Here are some questions that came up over the weekend when I was discussing these issues with some people. Much of the benefit of the Bush tax cut is in marriage penalty relief. I know in my case it has saved us several thousand per year because we were paying pretty close to the maximum marriage penalty. We still pay a marriage penalty but it is far more modest than it was (hundreds instead of thousands per year). 1. When Kerry says he wants to repeal the Bush tax cut for those making over 200K per year, does that include repealing marriage penalty relief or only rate relief? (If it's only rate relief he will lose a lot of the potential revenue gain.) 2. When Kerry says he favors civil unions, does he mean that gays can form a civil union which will be recognized for purposes of things like medical insurance and intestate succession laws, but not for the federal marriage penalty tax? Under federal tax law, if you are married and both work you pay more than if you were divorced. Since a civil union is not a "marriage", then it appears that gays could skirt around the marriage penalty for tax purposes, but still get the ability to share insurance benefits etc. as a "family" unit. Does that seem fair? 3. If gays can get tax advantages and insurance and other benefits from civil unions, can my wife and I have a civil union instead of a "marriage" and take advantage of the same benefits? What is Senator Kerry's view on the imposition of marriage penalty rates of taxation on man/woman marriages but not on the man/man or woman/woman "civil unions" he favors? As with many highly politicized issues, there is more here than meets the eye. The devil has many details to address before this whole "gay marriage"/civil union debate can be resolved.