The horrible horrible world of sports

[Emily Lake]

That must be why countries that haven't outlawed polygamy are just completely baffled as to how to legislate it.

I'd be quite happy to look into how countries that allow polygamy do handle it. Do you know which do? Of course, you could also provide that information for discussion purposes rather than just looking down your nose at me with such condescension.

 

[bilby]

But we still don't have fully equal rights for all the weirdos. Polygamy is still suppressed for Biblical reasons that I have no idea why we still respect

Islamaphobia and anti-Mormon propoganda.

Meh. I don't think it's that so much as a pretty substantial Christian influence overall. I also think the government as a whole doesn't want to grant the tax benefits of marriage to larger groupings, purely for financial reasons. It would also really complicate divorce and inheritance law. If a wealthy women has five husbands, and she dies... who is the closest relative by default? Would a polygamandrous marriage be required to keep explicit wills defining every detail? What happens when a quadruple has four earners of varying levels of income, and one of them divorces the other - who pays p/alimony?

I don't have any problems at all about polyamory. To be quite honest, it would be lovely to have a housespouse who is a good cook and likes to clean! It's the legal and legislative repercussions that get complicated when I start thinking about it.

There are no tax benefits of marriage in my jurisdiction. There's nothing stopping any US jurisdictions from making taxation entirely matrimony neutral.

Tax laws are not laws of nature.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But we still don't have fully equal rights for all the weirdos. Polygamy is still suppressed for Biblical reasons that I have no idea why we still respect

Islamaphobia and anti-Mormon propoganda.

Meh. I don't think it's that so much as a pretty substantial Christian influence overall. I also think the government as a whole doesn't want to grant the tax benefits of marriage to larger groupings, purely for financial reasons. It would also really complicate divorce and inheritance law. If a wealthy women has five husbands, and she dies... who is the closest relative by default? Would a polygamandrous marriage be required to keep explicit wills defining every detail? What happens when a quadruple has four earners of varying levels of income, and one of them divorces the other - who pays p/alimony?

I don't have any problems at all about polyamory. To be quite honest, it would be lovely to have a housespouse who is a good cook and likes to clean! It's the legal and legislative repercussions that get complicated when I start thinking about it.

Ok. But why are married couples given tax benefits at all? Could it possibly have something to do with the Christian influence? Shouldn't we rather give tax benefits to single people? Married people already have the benefit of a partner. Single people don't. Single parents? Tax benefits to married people makes no sense. It's the least economically vulnerable group in society.

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/default/files/jrc125690.pdf

 

[Toni]

Meh. I don't think it's that so much as a pretty substantial Christian influence overall. I also think the government as a whole doesn't want to grant the tax benefits of marriage to larger groupings, purely for financial reasons. It would also really complicate divorce and inheritance law. If a wealthy women has five husbands, and she dies... who is the closest relative by default? Would a polygamandrous marriage be required to keep explicit wills defining every detail? What happens when a quadruple has four earners of varying levels of income, and one of them divorces the other - who pays p/alimony?

I don't have any problems at all about polyamory. To be quite honest, it would be lovely to have a housespouse who is a good cook and likes to clean! It's the legal and legislative repercussions that get complicated when I start thinking about it.

Ok. But why are married couples given tax benefits at all? Could it possibly have something to do with the Christian influence? Shouldn't we rather give tax benefits to single people? Married people already have the benefit of a partner. Single people don't. Single parents? Tax benefits to married people makes no sense. It's the least economically vulnerable group in society.

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/default/files/jrc125690.pdf

Governments tax things they want to discourage and give tax breaks to what they want to encourage. This is not the only reason for a tax but it is one reason for some taxes/tax breaks.

The thinking is that marriage provides stability for the populace and therefore for the country. Also, the thinking is that marriage often leads to children which is a good and useful thing to encourage.

Obviously, this is an imperfect scenario, particularly these days when so many are eschewing marriage and/or children and certainly see no reason to insist that they go hand in hand.

 

[Emily Lake]

There are no tax benefits of marriage in my jurisdiction. There's nothing stopping any US jurisdictions from making taxation entirely matrimony neutral.

Tax laws are not laws of nature.

For federal income tax, married filing jointly is almost always a better choice than filing as two singles.

Additionally, there are other entitlements that marriage confers: right to attend and make decisions in health emergencies, shared life insurance and health insurance at lower total premiums (and depending on situation tax benefits as well like for a joint Health Savings Account).

 

[bilby]

There are no tax benefits of marriage in my jurisdiction. There's nothing stopping any US jurisdictions from making taxation entirely matrimony neutral.

Tax laws are not laws of nature.

For federal income tax, married filing jointly is almost always a better choice than filing as two singles.

That's simply untrue in my jurisdiction.

This is the Internet, not the United States.

You are discussing an oddity of US law (which could be eliminated in the US by any legislature that chose to pass a suitable bill), as though it were universally true of all jurisdictions worldwide, and/or an immutable characteristic of US law. It is neither. Like all law, it is an arbitrary requirement set by lawmakers, and could be repealed by them at any time.

Additionally, there are other entitlements that marriage confers: right to attend and make decisions in health emergencies, shared life insurance and health insurance at lower total premiums (and depending on situation tax benefits as well like for a joint Health Savings Account).

Again, these are arbitrary benefits conferred by law. None of these currently apply in my jurisdiction*, but there's nothing whatsoever to prevent my government (or yours) from making marriage entirely benefit neutral, and certainly nothing to prevent them from making it entirely tax neutral.




*All costs and benefits of marriage here are, in law if not always in fact, automatically applied to 'de-facto' relationships - our government declares as 'de-facto' all people who "have a relationship and live together as a couple for two years or more but are not married". It's even possible to register a de-facto relationship with various agencies to ease the process of claiming those benefits, such as attendance and decision making in health emergencies, without getting married.

 

[Toni]

For federal income tax, married filing jointly is almost always a better choice than filing as two singles.

Additionally, there are other entitlements that marriage confers: right to attend and make decisions in health emergencies, shared life insurance and health insurance at lower total premiums (and depending on situation tax benefits as well like for a joint Health Savings Account).

Again, these are arbitrary benefits conferred by law. None of these currently apply in my jurisdiction*, but there's nothing whatsoever to prevent my government (or yours) from making marriage entirely benefit neutral, and certainly nothing to prevent them from making it entirely tax neutral.




*All costs and benefits of marriage here are, in law if not always in fact, automatically applied to 'de-facto' relationships - our government declares as 'de-facto' all people who "have a relationship and live together as a couple for two years or more but are not married". It's even possible to register a de-facto relationship with various agencies to ease the process of claiming those benefits, such as attendance and decision making in health emergencies, without getting married.

I would not say that these benefits are arbitrary: they are designed to encourage marriage (and child rearing). You may see no benefit to such benefits but apparently the US government does see such benefit. In most states I believe that common law marriage is assumed after 7 years of cohabitation as a couple. Even so, some benefits are NOT conferred unless a legal marriage takes place. For instance, my husband's retirement account is assumed to be half mine. If we were not married but merely cohabitating, his retirement account would pass to his children, even if they were also my children. His will could leave me other property but by our state law, not that account.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I would not say that these benefits are arbitrary: they are designed to encourage marriage (and child rearing).

By arbitrary, he doesn't mean that someone threw darts at a board. There's a goal or design, sure, but nothing intrinsic to the state of being married. This is not the only way to set up taxes if you adopt state licensing of marriages.

If priorities or goals change, the laws can be changed to any degree, even to the opposite polarity as easily as they were set up this way in the first place.

 

[Emily Lake]

For federal income tax, married filing jointly is almost always a better choice than filing as two singles.

Additionally, there are other entitlements that marriage confers: right to attend and make decisions in health emergencies, shared life insurance and health insurance at lower total premiums (and depending on situation tax benefits as well like for a joint Health Savings Account).

Again, these are arbitrary benefits conferred by law. None of these currently apply in my jurisdiction*, but there's nothing whatsoever to prevent my government (or yours) from making marriage entirely benefit neutral, and certainly nothing to prevent them from making it entirely tax neutral.




*All costs and benefits of marriage here are, in law if not always in fact, automatically applied to 'de-facto' relationships - our government declares as 'de-facto' all people who "have a relationship and live together as a couple for two years or more but are not married". It's even possible to register a de-facto relationship with various agencies to ease the process of claiming those benefits, such as attendance and decision making in health emergencies, without getting married.

The blue and the red contradict each other. Your jurisdiction DOES grant privileges on the basis of marriage, but does not limit them to officially sanctioned registered marriages. Rather, they allow common-law marriages in specific circumstances.

And I agree, they could be made 'marriage neutral' in some sense, sure. But there are many situations that would require additional guidelines in order to accommodate polyandogamous marriages. I'm sure solutions exist, I just don't know what those would look like, and I don't know how they would avoid conflicts in some situations.

Also, I'm not entirely sure why you're arguing with me. Some benefits exist in law that are tied to marriage (even common law). Polyandrogamous marriages would need those to be revised in a way that makes sense. I don't really understand why you feel that needs to be argued with?

 

[Emily Lake]

For federal income tax, married filing jointly is almost always a better choice than filing as two singles.

Additionally, there are other entitlements that marriage confers: right to attend and make decisions in health emergencies, shared life insurance and health insurance at lower total premiums (and depending on situation tax benefits as well like for a joint Health Savings Account).

Again, these are arbitrary benefits conferred by law. None of these currently apply in my jurisdiction*, but there's nothing whatsoever to prevent my government (or yours) from making marriage entirely benefit neutral, and certainly nothing to prevent them from making it entirely tax neutral.




*All costs and benefits of marriage here are, in law if not always in fact, automatically applied to 'de-facto' relationships - our government declares as 'de-facto' all people who "have a relationship and live together as a couple for two years or more but are not married". It's even possible to register a de-facto relationship with various agencies to ease the process of claiming those benefits, such as attendance and decision making in health emergencies, without getting married.

I would not say that these benefits are arbitrary: they are designed to encourage marriage (and child rearing). You may see no benefit to such benefits but apparently the US government does see such benefit. In most states I believe that common law marriage is assumed after 7 years of cohabitation as a couple. Even so, some benefits are NOT conferred unless a legal marriage takes place. For instance, my husband's retirement account is assumed to be half mine. If we were not married but merely cohabitating, his retirement account would pass to his children, even if they were also my children. His will could leave me other property but by our state law, not that account.

As common law spouses, you would also not be eligible for any employer-provided health or life benefits he might have.

 

[Emily Lake]

That must be why countries that haven't outlawed polygamy are just completely baffled as to how to legislate it.

I'd be quite happy to look into how countries that allow polygamy do handle it. Do you know which do? Of course, you could also provide that information for discussion purposes rather than just looking down your nose at me with such condescension.

Nothing? Nothing at all?

 

[bilby]

For federal income tax, married filing jointly is almost always a better choice than filing as two singles.

Additionally, there are other entitlements that marriage confers: right to attend and make decisions in health emergencies, shared life insurance and health insurance at lower total premiums (and depending on situation tax benefits as well like for a joint Health Savings Account).

Again, these are arbitrary benefits conferred by law. None of these currently apply in my jurisdiction*, but there's nothing whatsoever to prevent my government (or yours) from making marriage entirely benefit neutral, and certainly nothing to prevent them from making it entirely tax neutral.




*All costs and benefits of marriage here are, in law if not always in fact, automatically applied to 'de-facto' relationships - our government declares as 'de-facto' all people who "have a relationship and live together as a couple for two years or more but are not married". It's even possible to register a de-facto relationship with various agencies to ease the process of claiming those benefits, such as attendance and decision making in health emergencies, without getting married.

I would not say that these benefits are arbitrary: they are designed to encourage marriage (and child rearing). You may see no benefit to such benefits but apparently the US government does see such benefit. In most states I believe that common law marriage is assumed after 7 years of cohabitation as a couple. Even so, some benefits are NOT conferred unless a legal marriage takes place. For instance, my husband's retirement account is assumed to be half mine. If we were not married but merely cohabitating, his retirement account would pass to his children, even if they were also my children. His will could leave me other property but by our state law, not that account.

They have a purpose. But there's no reason whatsoever for them to exist other than the whim of legislators. That the legislatures in your country have made the opposite choice on the question to those in my country demonstrates unequivocally that this is a local quirk of policy, and not a universal fact about marriage.

 

[Politesse]

That must be why countries that haven't outlawed polygamy are just completely baffled as to how to legislate it.

I'd be quite happy to look into how countries that allow polygamy do handle it. Do you know which do? Of course, you could also provide that information for discussion purposes rather than just looking down your nose at me with such condescension.

Nothing? Nothing at all?

Really? It's painfully easy to read up on polygamy around the world. You're not eight years' old, you know how to Google something.

 

[bilby]

I would not say that these benefits are arbitrary: they are designed to encourage marriage (and child rearing). You may see no benefit to such benefits but apparently the US government does see such benefit. In most states I believe that common law marriage is assumed after 7 years of cohabitation as a couple. Even so, some benefits are NOT conferred unless a legal marriage takes place. For instance, my husband's retirement account is assumed to be half mine. If we were not married but merely cohabitating, his retirement account would pass to his children, even if they were also my children. His will could leave me other property but by our state law, not that account.

As common law spouses, you would also not be eligible for any employer-provided health or life benefits he might have.

You would here.

Which is my point.

You are conflating local rules and regulations with fundamental and immutable universal laws. The laws on marriage could literally say anything at all about marriages.

It's your assumption that your local rules are universally important that I am trying to challenge here. There's literally nothing to prevent polyandry, polygamy, or any polyamorous family arrangements from being recognised in law, nor to prevent such laws from including any protections or benefits whatsoever. The only requirement in order for the law to make such changes is a will amongst legislators to do so.

 

[bilby]

But we still don't have fully equal rights for all the weirdos. Polygamy is still suppressed for Biblical reasons that I have no idea why we still respect

Islamaphobia and anti-Mormon propoganda.

Meh. I don't think it's that so much as a pretty substantial Christian influence overall. I also think the government as a whole doesn't want to grant the tax benefits of marriage to larger groupings, purely for financial reasons. It would also really complicate divorce and inheritance law. If a wealthy women has five husbands, and she dies... who is the closest relative by default? Would a polygamandrous marriage be required to keep explicit wills defining every detail? What happens when a quadruple has four earners of varying levels of income, and one of them divorces the other - who pays p/alimony?

I don't have any problems at all about polyamory. To be quite honest, it would be lovely to have a housespouse who is a good cook and likes to clean! It's the legal and legislative repercussions that get complicated when I start thinking about it.

This argument boils down to "It cannot change, because that would require changes". It's not particularly complicated, except in the sense that all legislative change is complicated. Literally the ONLY reason why it can't be done is that legislators don't want to do it. If and when that changes, not only can it happen, it will happen.

 

[Toni]

I would not say that these benefits are arbitrary: they are designed to encourage marriage (and child rearing). You may see no benefit to such benefits but apparently the US government does see such benefit. In most states I believe that common law marriage is assumed after 7 years of cohabitation as a couple. Even so, some benefits are NOT conferred unless a legal marriage takes place. For instance, my husband's retirement account is assumed to be half mine. If we were not married but merely cohabitating, his retirement account would pass to his children, even if they were also my children. His will could leave me other property but by our state law, not that account.

As common law spouses, you would also not be eligible for any employer-provided health or life benefits he might have.

This is true, but it doesn’t have to be true. Actually, it’s a result of extending marriage rights to gay couples. Prior to the legalization of gay marriage, at least some employers, including my husband’s, allowed for benefits for domestic partners as a way to avoid excluding gay couples who were married in very way except under the law. Now, gay couples have to suck it up and get hitched just like straight couples.

 

[Toni]

I would not say that these benefits are arbitrary: they are designed to encourage marriage (and child rearing). You may see no benefit to such benefits but apparently the US government does see such benefit. In most states I believe that common law marriage is assumed after 7 years of cohabitation as a couple. Even so, some benefits are NOT conferred unless a legal marriage takes place. For instance, my husband's retirement account is assumed to be half mine. If we were not married but merely cohabitating, his retirement account would pass to his children, even if they were also my children. His will could leave me other property but by our state law, not that account.

They have a purpose. But there's no reason whatsoever for them to exist other than the whim of legislators. That the legislatures in your country have made the opposite choice on the question to those in my country demonstrates unequivocally that this is a local quirk of policy, and not a universal fact about marriage.

It’s not a whim: such laws are based upon the desire to promote marriage as a stabilizing force in society. You may not agree with the reasoning but that doesn’t mean that the reasoning doesn’t exist.

Similarly, in the US, certain types of expenses can reduce the tax burden. Previously, the interest paid on a mortgage and local taxes were deductible but now such expenses rarely reach the required threshold fir most taxpayers. There are tax deductions for children and for child care as well. These tax credits help families afford to have children which is seen as a benefit to society.

Governments tend to give tax breaks rewarding behaviors they want to encourage and to tax what they wish to discourage (see sin taxes on say, cigarettes).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's simply untrue in my jurisdiction.

So you don't have married filing joint? Or does it have a penalty? The benefit of married filing jointly is because it's unlikely both earn exactly the same amount.

 

[Toni]

I would not say that these benefits are arbitrary: they are designed to encourage marriage (and child rearing). You may see no benefit to such benefits but apparently the US government does see such benefit. In most states I believe that common law marriage is assumed after 7 years of cohabitation as a couple. Even so, some benefits are NOT conferred unless a legal marriage takes place. For instance, my husband's retirement account is assumed to be half mine. If we were not married but merely cohabitating, his retirement account would pass to his children, even if they were also my children. His will could leave me other property but by our state law, not that account.

As common law spouses, you would also not be eligible for any employer-provided health or life benefits he might have.

You would here.

Which is my point.

You are conflating local rules and regulations with fundamental and immutable universal laws. The laws on marriage could literally say anything at all about marriages.

It's your assumption that your local rules are universally important that I am trying to challenge here. There's literally nothing to prevent polyandry, polygamy, or any polyamorous family arrangements from being recognised in law, nor to prevent such laws from including any protections or benefits whatsoever. The only requirement in order for the law to make such changes is a will amongst legislators to do so.

Your laws regarding sharing benefits, inheritance, spousal privilege, etc. are equally arbitrary by your definition of arbitrary. It seems as though what you really are asking is why isn’t your country like my country? Answer: Because we don’t wanna.

As far as I can tell, none of the Americans are asserting that our laws and customs are superior to yours. We’re merely stating what our laws are because that’s what we are familiar with. You, otoh, frequently tell us Yanks how backwards we are. Your privilege, I guess. I assume that Australia does what it thinks right for Australia.

 

[Emily Lake]

Nothing? Nothing at all?

Really? It's painfully easy to read up on polygamy around the world. You're not eight years' old, you know how to Google something.

Got it. You don't know of any, but you're certain that they exist, and I'm a dummy for not knowing them. Better to just be condescending, that way you "win".