Imagine two sodomites living in New York City’s Chelsea Neighborhood. Call them Ben and Phil. No, wait, Patrick and William. Well, whatever.
Having been exposed to too much testosterone in the womb (did you know that if your mother has gestated 11 boys before you that you have a 50% chance of being gay?), Patrick and William have extremely male brains. Going to extremes, they have also managed to get themselves successful careers in the nation’s economic capital, with each of them earning 200K per year. Let’s take a look at what their taxes look like.
Because they live in New York City, which is in New York State, and New York foolishly decided to join the Federal Government in 1788, they owe taxes on their income to three different jurisdictions. The Federal Brackets look like this:
| Tax Bracket (Single) | Tax Bracket (Couple) | Tax Bracket (Head of Household) | Marginal Tax Rate |
| $0+ | $0+ | $0+ | 10% |
| $8,700+ | $17,400+ | $12,400+ | 15% |
| $35,350+ | $70,700+ | $47,350+ | 25% |
| $85,650+ | $142,700+ | $122,300+ | 28% |
| $178,650+ | $217,450+ | $198,050+ | 33% |
| $388,350+ | $388,350+ | $388,350+ | 35% |
(Note that the website from which I took this doesn’t even use the word “married” for the middle bracket.) Assuming that Pat’n’Willie have about 25K in deductions each, that means they pay tax on 175K in income. Using the rates above, they each would pay 42460.50 in Federal Tax, for a total of 84921.
Their NY state brackets are as follows:
Married filing jointly and qualified widow(er):
Over $150,000 but not over $300,000 $9,041 plus 6.65% of excess over $150,000
Over $300,000 but not over $2,000,000 $19,016 plus 6.85% of excess over $300,000
Single, married filing separately, and estates and trusts:
Over $75,000 but not over $200,000 $4,521 plus 6.65% of excess over $75,000
Again, allowing 25K in deductions, they would pay tax as singles on 175K, or 11,171 each, for a total of 22,342 jointly.
Lastly, New York City has the following tax rates:
Married Individuals Filing Joint Returns:
Over $90,000 $3,071 plus 3.648% of excess over $90,000
Unmarried Individuals
Over $50,000 $1,706 plus 3.648% of excess over $50,000
So, Billy and Patty would pay $6266 each to New York City, or a total of 12,532.
Totaled up, our loving couple has paid $119,795 in income taxes as two single individuals. You might object that they can deduct their NY State and City income taxes from their Federal Taxes, but I will tell you that that will not happen, due to the wonders of the Alternative Minimum Tax. Ignoring Social Security, the governments they are ruled by allow them to keep about 280,000 of their 400,000 dollars to live on. That’s barely enough in Chelsea.
Now let’s see what happens to them if they file as married. They’ll pay 92,406.50 in Federal Tax on their $350K joint net income, plus 22,441 in state tax, plus 12,555.80 in city income tax. Their total tax burden as a married couple is thus 127403.30, an annual increase to them of 7609.30, EVERY YEAR, just for tying the knot. They really take it in the rear for that chance they each had to be the wedding planner.
So, if you really want to show society’s disapproval of sodomy, the choice is clear. Homosexuals, especially in couples where both work, must not only be ALLOWED to marry, they must be FORCED to marry. And the next time some Federal Representative complains to you about the attack on marriage, ask him what he’s done to get the government to stop penalizing it: this attack has been ongoing since the 60s.
van Rooinek
August 16, 2012 at 7:46 pm
Homosexuals, especially in couples where both work, must not only be ALLOWED to marry, they must be FORCED to marry.
But…. since they’re both the same sex, who is supposed to get all the unfair advantages when they end up in divorce court?
electricangel1978
August 16, 2012 at 8:31 pm
@vR
Are you trying to imply that they both want to get hosed in divorce court? We don’t welcome that kind of humor around here.
Will S.
August 16, 2012 at 9:33 pm
@ EA: LOL! 🙂
@ vR: Well, clearly, by being gay rather than straight, they deprived two straight would-be wives of husbands, and so there must be a special tax on gay men, to be shared as a tax refund amongst all unmarried cat ladies – and married dykes who divorce. Or should I shut up, and stop giving the government ideas? 😉
Chris
August 16, 2012 at 11:14 pm
In Canada they would be done already because if you live together you file together. De facto marriage.
In NZ you would be done regardless. There is no married or household tax rate. However, your partner’s income is taken into account if you apply for a benefit (they are all means tested) AND if you are together for three years with or without rites you will get 50% on the split.
The simple answer is a 15% flat rate and GST… but that would be giving the Federales ideas.
Will S.
August 16, 2012 at 11:18 pm
@ Chris: Fortunately, thus far, Revenue Canada has NOT decided that two male roommates living together are ‘common-law married’, thank goodness! But give it time; they’ll probably end up assuming that unless said roommates officially declare otherwise… {Sigh}
Columnist
August 17, 2012 at 5:01 am
Actually, a very good idea.
Will S.
August 17, 2012 at 5:09 am
You realize, Columnist, that EA was speaking tongue-in-cheek? I mean, why give the State more money? 😉
electricangel1978
August 17, 2012 at 8:51 am
@Will,
I was trying to speak tongue-in-cheek, but I am not certain it was. Look, I am a Catholic and believe in subsidiarity, so lowering Federal power is always important. But I am a little tired of homosexuals getting it both ways (sorry, I can’t resist these.) They want their sham “marriages”? Pay for the privilege, buddy, the way that normal, faithful Christians have for years.
Note that the marriage penalty as outlined in this article chiefly attacks two-income couples. For a traditional family where one person works in the cash economy, and one works in the household economy, there is a benefit from the tax laws. But US tax policy has been opposed for a long time to couples where both partners work, and I think this is one big reason WHY feminism and careerism was pushed: there’s MUCH MORE profit for the government in it.
They have been taxing marriage for over 40 years, and now they’re getting less and less of it. The smartest tax-wise course of action for a married couple with two children where both work is to seek a civil divorce (if Catholic, great, as there’s no annulment), and then each parent can take one child and file as head of household. In the given example, if each gay man were to adopt one child and file as head of household, his Federal taxes would drop by $2500 (not counting child credits or exemptions, of course) over the single rate, his NY State taxes would drop by about $200, and his NY City taxes would drop by about $25. That’s $2750 per person in tax savings, or $5500 annually.
When you add up the numbers, it is clear that the Federal Government is financially supporting divorce. A married couple, each earning 200K with two children, that divorces and each file as head of household will save OVER 13,000 in taxes, mostly Federal, EACH AND EVERY YEAR. If they can cohabit successfully, they get the benefits of marriage without paying the financial burden.
Will S.
August 17, 2012 at 10:15 am
@ EA: I understood what you were doing. Is the IRS treating them as married couples yet? I can’t imagine they’d forego the extra revenues. 🙂
Yes, it’s absurd that married couples should be penalized in taxation, rather than rewarded, for getting married; it’s no wonder that non-religious couples may wish to avoid marriage, partly for that reason…
Indeed, the system is stacked against marriage and in favour of either ‘shacking up’ or divorce, whether wittingly or not…
electricangel1978
August 17, 2012 at 10:30 am
@Will,
Indeed, the system is stacked against marriage and in favour of either ‘shacking up’ or divorce, whether wittingly or not…
Let me remove any doubt, Will: it is entirely wittingly! The evil one, he who offered Our Lord dominion over all the states of the world, hates those things that are actually good for us, given of God, and wants us all to be as miserable here on earth as he is in his realm.
But as I wrote at the end of The Cost of Children:
In the same vein, only truly religiously committed people (or people who ought to be committed) will make the choice for marriage today; it’s frankly a bad deal for most couples, viewed in economic terms.
Will S.
August 17, 2012 at 10:34 am
@ EA: Oh yes, certainly, I do not deny the Devil’s handiwork behind it; I just am not sure the politicians and bureaucrats crafting the absurd laws realized what they were doing, or whose interests they were serving…
Indeed, there is no reason for anyone other than committed Christians – and other religious people who similarly believe in marriage – to bother getting married today…
electricangel1978
August 17, 2012 at 10:44 am
@Will,
I’m starting to question your Patriactionarianism (I like that term, suggesting as it does the ancient Arian heresy…).
I just am not sure the politicians and bureaucrats crafting the absurd laws realized what they were doing, or whose interests they were serving…
To quote Chesterton: a man who does not believe in God does not believe in nothing; he will believe in anything. Politicians who are NOT explictly following the RIGHT path at best wander aimlessly in darkness, and at worse trudge towards the reddish glow on the horizon they presume to be dawn, but which is in fact the gaping maw of hellfire.
electricangel1978
August 17, 2012 at 10:46 am
@will,
Is the following a Patriaphorism? “Marriage is only for the religiously committed (or for those who SHOULD be committed!)”
Will S.
August 17, 2012 at 11:02 am
@ EA: “I’m starting to question your Patriactionarianism (I like that term, suggesting as it does the ancient Arian heresy…).”
What do you mean? Unlike Blue Pill socons, who want all men to ‘man up’ and get married, regardless of the cost, I see the ills of Marriage 2.0, and while I would rather not have to go through them, I recognize the religious duty of Christians who wish to have a life-long helpmeet and families to nevertheless go through marriage, hopefully having a more traditional Marriage 1.0-type one with a woman who loves them and ideally won’t divorce them, but I see no reason to encourage others to do so; in fact, I’d rather reserve marriage for those who understand what it is: a sacred covenant (or sacrament, for Catholics and Orthodox), between God and two people. Seriously, what reason is there for non-believers to get married, anyway? They don’t believe in the transcendent in terms of God; why should a special ceremony, and a legal joining of their worldly possessions together, be so important? Frankly, I don’t pretend to understand why ANY non-religious types bother to marry in the first place, except that I get that it has to do with man’s inherent religious nature, which I would redirect them towards God, if I spoke to any: Why are you doing this; if you are, and you somehow see marriage as a special act, what makes it special; if you acknowledge that, why DON’T you acknowledge the ONE who is joining you together? Anyway…
If anything, that’s the difference between us Red Pill socons, or patriactionaries, and our Blue Pill socon cousins; I don’t get my knickers in a knot about unmarried heathen couples shacking up. It’s funny; once, a few years back, at another church, I mentioned to my pastor about the unmarried boyfriend / girlfriend couple living next door to me, and his eyebrows raised and he shook his head; I thought, “What the hell does it matter; they’re godless heathens, anyway?”, and internally shook my own head at HIM, for his wishing to apply OUR standards to them…
It’s not that I’m an actual relativist; it’s more that I’m a functional relativist, in a way… I’m not going to hold others who don’t hold our values or our faith, to our standards; why should I? Why should we?
I don’t worry that the world is going to hell in a handbasket; I expect it to; I worry more about the church…
“To quote Chesterton: a man who does not believe in God does not believe in nothing; he will believe in anything. Politicians who are NOT explictly following the RIGHT path at best wander aimlessly in darkness, and at worse trudge towards the reddish glow on the horizon they presume to be dawn, but which is in fact the gaping maw of hellfire.”
Agreed!
“Is the following a Patriaphorism? “Marriage is only for the religiously committed (or for those who SHOULD be committed!)””
Yes; you’ve just coined it! Let’s add it.
Will S.
August 17, 2012 at 11:09 am
I suppose in part, my functional relativism arises out of my Calvinism; I recognize that while it WOULD be ideal for everyone to come to faith and live accordingly, not everyone WILL, and so, in a way, one can say that for those who reject the faith, ultimately, it wasn’t for them; they preferred to end up damned, whether they realized that or not. And so, perhaps I have a bit more of a “live and let die” mentality. 😉
Why that former pastor of mine didn’t feel likewise, I don’t know; except perhaps he wasn’t thinking as consistently as I am. 😉
electricangel1978
August 17, 2012 at 11:11 am
@Will,
I think we should always remember that even the heathens have eternal souls that they are endangering with sin. In the Catholic tradition, however, if you are never TAUGHT that something is a sin, there is less punishment. In this sense, better to be a heathen in Hell than a Christian who received the Law and the Good News, and spurned it. Even so, your pastor was correct to worry about them; he will, I believe, be held accountable for what he did for his flock, and the lost sheep of the world.
I was chiding you not on marriage, but your white-knighting for politicians: “I just am not sure the politicians and bureaucrats crafting the absurd laws realized what they were doing, or whose interests they were serving…”
Just got the order of my posting wrong. They KNOW what they are doing, especially the Catholics who are personally opposed to abortion, but don’t think it should be illegal. I wonder if they could get away with saying the same about rape? “I’m personally opposed to rape; I would never countenance committing it, and would personally try to intervene to prevent it from happening. But I would not vote to make it illegal.”
Will S.
August 17, 2012 at 11:21 am
@ EA: “I think we should always remember that even the heathens have eternal souls that they are endangering with sin.”
Oh, indeed, and I try to witness, in terms of how I live my life, and sharing that I am a believer with them, but I don’t push it.
“In the Catholic tradition, however, if you are never TAUGHT that something is a sin, there is less punishment.”
I see. In a sense, we hold somewhat similar, in that:
“In this sense, better to be a heathen in Hell than a Christian who received the Law and the Good News, and spurned it.”
Agreed; we hold the same; Scripture does say something to that effect.
“Even so, your pastor was correct to worry about them; he will, I believe, be held accountable for what he did for his flock, and the lost sheep of the world.”
Ah, but they were not nor ever had been part of his flock (i.e. our congregation); they weren’t anyone who had ever had any connection to them; he won’t be held responsible for them – and neither will I. They were thoroughly non-flock, not part of any flock (AFAIK), alas for them…
“I was chiding you not on marriage, but your white-knighting for politicians: “I just am not sure the politicians and bureaucrats crafting the absurd laws realized what they were doing, or whose interests they were serving…””
I wasn’t intentionally white-knighting for them, so much as not trying to explain by wilful malice what can be explained by ignorance. (I made a similar observation about another scenario at Dalrock’s, recently; I note that he didn’t bother to answer me…) Certainly they’re still responsible, though, for the ills they do… Even Christ pleaded, on the cross, “Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do”, fully knowing that God is a God of Justice, and would do whatever was right, yet was also a God of Compassion and Mercy…
“They KNOW what they are doing, especially the Catholics who are personally opposed to abortion, but don’t think it should be illegal. I wonder if they could get away with saying the same about rape? “I’m personally opposed to rape; I would never countenance committing it, and would personally try to intervene to prevent it from happening. But I would not vote to make it illegal.””
Yes; I agree, it is far worse when people KNOW what is right and what is wrong, but fail to oppose evil, that which is wrong…