Bryan330i said:
The Republican tax plans have been particularly brutal to those single persons without children that earn any type of income past the lower brackets. Unfortunately, this is going to be even more pronounced under Bush or Kerry. Basically, if you make $75, $100, or $150 annually you are screwed either way. Clinton had a bit more sympathy for the professional wage earner that was not married and did not have children but this did not get too far.
I will take my new tax deductions (almost have 2003 taxes done after 2 extensions) and it will be interesting to see how everything falls in place. However, I am still not sold on the tax plan that asks people like you, My Harley, to bear an unfair burden because you don't have the same deductions.
My wife and I were in this position for 12 years and it's the segment everyone ignores, Clinton being the exception, and it's the segment that will continue to shoulder an unfair portion of the tax burden while marriage and child tax credits continue to increase.
![[sing]](/images/smilies/icon_smile_sing.gif "Sing [sing]")
Here comes .02 times 10.
Child tax credits had better increase, or people are going to stop having kids, and there won't BE a country! Wages are down, jobs are 'still' not where they were 4 years ago.. Yet the cost of living is still going up. Yes, people with kids need bigger breaks.
Raising a child is EXPENSIVE. Daycare itself can go from $600-$1000 a month, not to mention food, clothes, god forbid you buy your kids some TOYS or something. Planning for their future education? Better get on it from day 1. God forbid your kid gets sick! Got insurance?
I have no sympathy for any single (or married w/ no kids) family making 75k or more a year getting a tax hike. Until this year, my wife and I were in that bracket - and living (and saving) just fine. Anyone making that sort of money can pay a little more, to keep enjoying their single way of life. And please enjoy yourself being single! I'm also not saying that 'because you don't have kids we're going to pick on you and tax you more', but rather 'because you are furthering yourself and not the human race by pro-creating, we're going to take more of your 'play' money to help balance things out for everyone'. On an individual level, that really doesn't sound fair, but in the overall scheme of things it makes perfect sense to me, especially now having been on 'both sides of the fence'.
On gay marriages - sure allow them, and sure, allow them the same tax breaks a family w/o kids gets. Short of that, why should gay/lesbian couples get anything more than straight people? being gay is not a race, it's a psychological difference that makes THEM different, in no way does that justify distinction as being a seperate RACE.
Should they be allowed to raise children? I'm still out on that one personally. I do realize that a gay couple can raise a child, and not impart their sexual tendacies on a child. I also realize, that this is QUITE a possible thing to happen, and I would suspect more likely to happen than not. Children are open books that absorb the world around them, especially from their parents/providers. A adopted child, could have 2 incredible gay parents, who give him/her everything they could want, and raise him/her to be an outstanding person. This child, with 2 great parents, is going to absorb and become his parents to a degree (as we all do). And if he/she decides to be gay because of that? Have we then done this child a greater dis-service? Arguably not, because this child was raised to be a good person, and likely will be. But, chalk up another non-reproducer, and that is where I'm 'undecided'. Is it fair to give direction in life to another, if you yourself are 'outside' of nature's normal patterns? (substutite 'crackhead' for 'gay' at any point above, to see my point.) Is it better for this poor child, to not have a family, but rather be raised in foster care? I'm still out on this one, my heart says no, give the kid a family, my gut says yes, better to learn the world on your own, then to learn a rather jaded view of it.
Last time I checked, the single most important thing that decides if you are homosexual, was your sexual preference for same-sex relationships. Last time I checked, guys don't have ovaries in their butts, and women don't have any hidden body parts that can impregnate others. Say what you want, but until someone is born like that, then homosexual activies in my book are against nature and the way of the world at large. Now being 'against nature' doesn't make you bad, just different, and possibly (in my mind) the wrong person to raise another life.
I have to agree with brian330i about the 'gay brain' debate. So far, it's not been shown to be genetic. So, where do 'gay people' come from, what makes them gay? Hmmmm, maybe their ENVIORNMENT. And yes, that means anything from how they were raised, to what they were taught (right from wrong, 1+1=2, etc), to life experiences, to even possible hormonic imbalances. Heck, they could just be a weak willed, sorry a** person who can't make a decision to save their life, and is just latching to a stronger person for comfort (even it it makes them 'homosexual').
I'm all for anyone being whatever they want to be, as long as it does not impinge on my rights, or those of others as already set down. That includes children!
I'd say I'm getting off my soapbox, but I seem to have flattened it down to toothpicks..
![[scratch]](/images/smilies/icon_smile_headscratch.gif "Head Scratch [scratch]")
![[;)]](/images/smilies/wink.png "Wink [;)]")
![[clap]](/images/smilies/icon_smile_clap.gif "Clap [clap]"){kind=icon}
![[:D]](/images/smilies/biggrin.png "Big Grin [:D]")
