Liberal Fallacies

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Apparently it’s wrong to tax people he agrees with and also wrong not to tax people he doesn’t agree with.

Can we conduct this discussion w/o personalizing the argument? A State-mandated expansion of the definition of "marriage" is a tax increase, for reasons I've given above. We could have a dispassionate discussion of the circumstances in which organized violence (the State) can enhance aggregate social welfare. We could have a dispassionate discussion of the costs and benefits of various tax regimes.

Or we could conduct this discussion in typical JREF style,

 

[jimbob]

Apparently it’s wrong to tax people he agrees with and also wrong not to tax people he doesn’t agree with.

I thought it was simpler than that - tax and governmental interference is wrong on all levels (unless it is to prohibit certain private behaviours).

Child labour laws and compulsory education are also somehow bad.

 

[jimbob]

Can we conduct this discussion w/o personalizing the argument? A State-mandated expansion of the definition of "marriage" is a tax increase, for reasons I've given above. We could have a dispassionate discussion of the circumstances in which organized violence (the State) can enhance aggregate social welfare. We could have a dispassionate discussion of the costs and benefits of various tax regimes.

Or we could conduct this discussion in typical JREF style,

Or we could ask what a government is for, if it is not for the benefit of its citizens? At the moment, using your argument, childless couples can get tax benefits if they are heterosexual (because they can marry) but not if they are homosexual (where they can't marry).

Allowing gay people to marry is not going to threaten family life.

ETA: and even if it was a significant cost it would be worth it because of basic fairness.

 

[thaiboxerken]

A State-mandated expansion of the definition of "marriage" is a tax increase, for reasons I've given above. We could have a dispassionate discussion of the circumstances in which organized violence (the State) can enhance aggregate social welfare. We could have a dispassionate discussion of the costs and benefits of various tax regimes.

No, it isn't. There are plenty of places where same-sex marriage is legal, yet what you propose is a consequence of it hasn't happened.

 

[lomiller]

Can we conduct this discussion w/o personalizing the argument?

I'm simply stating what your posts imply. I can't help it if you don't like what your stated beliefs imply, nor am I under any obligation to sugar coat things to make sure you don't have your feelings hurt.

 

[lomiller]

Or we could ask what a government is for, if it is not for the benefit of its citizens? At the moment, using your argument, childless couples can get tax benefits if they are heterosexual (because they can marry) but not if they are homosexual (where they can't marry).

I personally wonder why there should be any tax benefits for couples at all. If the goal is to make things easier for parents it would seem to be more effective to either provide needed services like daycare or to target tax breaks at the children rather than the parents.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I'm simply stating what your posts imply.

That's a direct admission that I don't say what you impute to me.

... nor am I under any obligation to sugar coat things to make sure you don't have your feelings hurt.

If the topic matters, dispassion helps keep the discussion on topic. Her we are on a derail about style. Furthermore, the moderators recommend civility,

 

[jj]

That's a direct admission that I don't say what you impute to me.

If you impute or insinuate something, then you said it, just not directly.

Free speech means also taking responsibility for the consequences of your speech.

Cheerio!

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I thought it was simpler than that - tax and governmental interference is wrong on all levels (unless it is to prohibit certain private behaviours). Child labour laws and compulsory education are also somehow bad.

Thanks. Enforcement of certain arbitrary rules of the road (e.g., drive on the right) facilitate commerce. Standardized measures facilitate contract enforcement. There's a "public goods" role for an EPA And I'd say "narrowly self-interested but destructive in aggregate" instead of "private", but that's a minor quibble.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

If you impute or insinuate something, then you said it, just not directly.
Free speech means also taking responsibility for the consequences of your speech. Cheerio!

You mean I'm responsible if some lunatic infers "assassinate the President" when I write "I prefer Coke to Pepsi"?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Malcolm. Same-sex marriage is legal in several states of the USA as well as several other countries. Why do you hypothesize about the consequences when/if you can show us those consequences from these places?

 

[jimbob]

I personally wonder why there should be any tax benefits for couples at all. If the goal is to make things easier for parents it would seem to be more effective to either provide needed services like daycare or to target tax breaks at the children rather than the parents.

That is a different matter- however he is also complaining about next of kin pension rights being extended to homosexual couples - I think the argument is that if they work for the state, their state-funded pensions* will cost the state more because they will have to cover a surviving spouse.

Again - my view is that even if the cost is significant it is still the right thing to do.



*I am not familiar with how pensions work for state employees in the US, oior indeed whether they are different in each state.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I personally wonder why there should be any tax benefits for couples at all. If the goal is to make things easier for parents it would seem to be more effective to either provide needed services like daycare or to target tax breaks at the children rather than the parents.

Perhaps the marriage custom is a relic of a time before reliable contraception, when regular sexual intercourse reliably meant children. Directing benefits to children rather than couples might make sense.
Whether resources or parents in early life make the difference in adult outcomes is an empirical issue.

Those of a tempermentally conservative disposition will no less reluctantly dismiss tradition than they would surgically dispense with an organ whose function they cannot identify. "It's useless" does not necessarily follow from "I have no idea what this dang thing does".

 

[Ausmerican]

You mean I'm responsible if some lunatic infers "assassinate the President" when I write "I prefer Coke to Pepsi"?

No. He said "consequences of your speech" not 'consequences of the fact that you spoke'.
There is a difference.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

No. He said "consequences of your speech" not 'consequences of the fact that you spoke'.
There is a difference.

There's also a difference between "you said" (or "wrote") and "I inferred".

 

[Ausmerican]

There's also a difference between "you said" (or "wrote") and "I inferred".

Scott.

 

[Spindrift]

Unless Martians provide resources dedicated to the expanded care and barred from all other uses, it does. "Tax" is all government command of resources.

So you can't name any tax that is going to go up as a result of same sex marriage legalization. Thanks what I thought.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

So you can't name any tax that is going to go up as a result of same sex marriage legalization. Thanks what I thought.

Where legislators shift the burden when the exempt category increases is up to them. That they will is a certainty.

 

[Ladewig]

So you can't name any tax that is going to go up as a result of same sex marriage legalization. Thanks what I thought.

While I am in favor of legalizing same sex marriage, I do think that Malcolm's argument is not mathematically flawed. Mr. K. already mentioned estate taxes. Let's run an example. Adam and Steve want to get married but the law prevents them from doing so. Adam dies (in 2013) and leaves $10,000,000 to Steve. If they are not married in the eyes of the state, then the federal government government will step in a snag a share^[1] of that money. However, if Adam and Steve are married, then the government doesn't step in to grab that money because money left to a widow is exempt from estate taxes.

If the government collects less money and keeps spending constant, then either the deficit goes up or someone is going to have to pay more federal taxes.

One might then say, the amount of money lost in that manner is so negligible that it would be silly to even consider it. I would disagree with that assertion. If one truly believes a tax to be unjust, then making that tax very, very, very small does not make it a just tax.

Note: there are other taxing scenarios and situations which would involve gay couples keeping more of their income. I do think it is necessary to spell each one out in detail in order to validate the claim that if gay marriage were legalized, the federal government would collect less money.

Disclaimer: Malcolm, I apologize if I have mischaracterized any part of your position.

...................
[1] upwards of $ 1,500,000 if I am reading the tax tables correctly.

 

[Praktik]

My dad has had a long and storied career in HR - in the 90s, when this issue was emerging, he couched his arguments against gay marriage in arguments about defecits and benefits. He was socially supportive, but I dont think has had much exposure to the LGBT world. I didn't feel this was a mask over bigotry, but a product of his professional perspective and some lack of exposure.

I never found purely economic arguments to hold much water, when so much is misspent and there is plenty of opportunity to recover the costs involved in correcting an injustice by finding the extra flex in waste and foolish priorities.

This argument becomes stronger when the whole budget is in a much more efficient place, such that this would introduce a cost for which there would be no potential to recover the lost revenue from another program that is wasting it. But even then, you could always raise revenues.. so even then I don't understand why we should accept an economic argument against gay marriage, unless your position is that all tax expenditures on marriage should be revoked across the board, after which point you will let gays get married anyway.