November 20, 2009
Maritalphobic Democrats Strike Again!
Generally we use the "Matrimonial Madness" category for discussions of same-sex marriage; but not this time. Today, in a bolt from the blue (staters), the Senate Democrats have snuck a ringer into Majority Leader Harry "Pinky" Reid's (D-NV, 70%) version of ObamaCare... they created a new tax with a nasty "marriage penalty" to punish dopes who actually tie the knot, instead of simply living together (evidently the Democrat preferred option):
Senate Democrats' health care bill would create a new marriage penalty by imposing a tax on individuals who make $200,000 annually but hitting married couples making just $50,000 more....
"Yes, this structure can create a 'marriage penalty' for some couples. It also creates a 'marriage bonus' for others," [Jim Manley, a Reid spokesman] said. "A married couple with one wage earner can earn up to $250,000 without facing this higher tax, whereas a single person in the same job with the same pay would be hit by it."
But a married couple in which each earner makes $150,000 would be hit with the tax, whereas an unmarried couple living together with the same incomes would not.
Ryan Ellis, tax policy director at Americans for Tax Reform, said the new marriage penalty comes on top of an existing one that's always been part of the payroll tax, which funds Social Security and Medicare.
Say what they will, it appears that Democrats simply cannot abide the institution of marriage. They seek to destroy it any way they can:
- "No-fault" divorce;
- Enacting adoption laws that don't "discriminate" against unmarried adoptive parents;
- Altering the very definition of marriage willy-nilly;
- And now by heavily taxing marriage -- but not shacking up.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY, 80%) is beside himself:
"If you have insurance, you get taxed. If you don't have insurance, you get taxed. If you need a life-saving medical device, you get taxed. If you need prescription medicines, you get taxed," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, who is leading the fight against the bill.
And now, if you get married, you get taxed.
But it's not just marriage that Democrats hate and fear; they also despise patients who want to control their own medical care:
Several relatively small tax increases will be aimed at health savings accounts and medical savings accounts. One will change the definitions for medical expenses that qualify as itemized deductions. Another will raise the penalties for withdrawing funds from these vehicles. A third would limit health-related flexible spending arrangements.
"All of these changes are designed to make health savings accounts less attractive and cripple consumer-directed health care plans," said Michael Cannon, director of Health Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. Altogether, they would raise about $20 billion through 2019.
Take that, you villains trying to decrease your own health-insurance premiums via MSAs and catastrophic care! We can add a couple more to McConnell's collection: If you have an expensive health-insurance plan, you get taxed. If you have a cheap health-insurance plan... you get taxed.
Liberals and Democrats: They're nothing if not consistent in their hatred of every traditional American virtue, from self-reliance to traditional marriage to fiscal sobriety to self-defense to American exceptionalism.
Say... let's put them in charge of all energy production, all financial transactions, defending the nation against the Iran/al-Qaeda axis, and the medical care of every individual American. What could possibly go wrong?
Hatched by Dafydd on this day, November 20, 2009, at the time of 4:52 AM
TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/4065
The following hissed in response by: Xrlq
Yawn. The whole "marriage penalty" business is a canard. The real issue is the progressive income tax. Without it, there would be no marriage penalty or marriage bonus for anybody. With it, we have no choice but to arbitrarily discriminate against someone, the only question being, against whom.
As to no-fault divorce, do you really think we'd be better off in a world where every divorce required a nasty court battle to prove that one party or the other really was at fault? Really? [Bear in mind that by "we" I mean society in general, not plaintiff lawyers in particular.]
The above hissed in response by: Xrlq at November 21, 2009 9:17 PM
The following hissed in response by: Sabba Hillel
An interesting point can be learned from the history of the Jews in Europe. The Austro-Hungarian Empire banned the marriage of all Jews in a family other than the eldest son. What happened? The Jews ignored the restriction and ignored the "government marriage" because marriage is a religious commitment. Similarly, religious people would still get married, but they could just ignore the government interference and not get the "marriage license" that is actually of no valid meaning anyway. During the early days of the country, there was no such thing as a government sanctioned marriage, marriage was what you did in church and you kept your own records.
Post a comment
Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)
© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved