Bzzzzt, thank you for playing

Post #377,095 by drook 6/27/13 3:57:58 PM Reply	Bzzzzt, thank you for playing http://www.course-no...thingham_v_Mellon The taxpayerÂs interest in the treasury money is shared with millions of others and is too small to determine. There are too many uncertain and fluctuating factors to determine the effect this act might have on one personÂs taxes. Furthermore, to decide this case, where there is no controversy, would be to assume a position of review of the governmental acts of another co-equal department, an authority which the court does not possess. You don't have standing to challenge a federal law because you are a taxpayer. -- Drew
Post #377,099 by Another Scott 6/27/13 4:42:29 PM Reply	I think he means the actual case at hand. http://en.wikipedia....States_v._Windsor Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, a same-sex couple residing in New York, were lawfully married in Ontario, Canada, in 2007. Spyer died in 2009, leaving her entire estate to Windsor. Because their marriage was recognized by the state of New York, Windsor sought to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses. She was barred from doing so by Section 3 of DOMA, which provided that the term "spouse" only applies to a marriage between a man and woman. In effect, the Internal Revenue Service found that the exemption did not apply to same-sex marriages, denied Windsor's claim, and compelled her to pay $363,053 in estate taxes. HTH! :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #377,100 by drook 6/27/13 4:57:19 PM Reply	That's her standing I'm saying there's no standing to argue in favor of DOMA. -- Drew
Post #377,103 by Another Scott 6/27/13 6:40:56 PM Reply	I think the argument is... "These people are getting to pay less by having their 'marriage' recognized by the USA. That means my taxes have to go up!!!111" Something like that. Not saying it's a good argument, and I'm not saying that MM would use that language, just relaying what I think MM is getting at. So, if things are zero-sum (which I don't think they are), then wide recognition of gay marriages could affect the tax base. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #377,104 by drook 6/27/13 6:50:15 PM Reply	Even if true ... That's exactly what that case was ruling on. -- Drew
Post #377,105 by malraux 6/27/13 6:57:58 PM Reply	That's as may be... But the question then should be, "should we pay extra for all marriages, or none". Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #377,120 by mmoffitt 6/28/13 8:47:03 AM Reply	Now you're getting there. But, ... taxes should go up (imNSho) for all co-habitational romantic relationships without regard to whether they are "marriages". And I don't give a tinker's damn if they're same-sex or different-sex arrangements. ;0)
Post #377,129 by boxley 6/28/13 10:17:22 AM Reply	why pay a penalty for not being single? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #377,140 by mmoffitt 6/28/13 12:34:23 PM Reply	There's a negative economic impact in cohabitation. One dwelling, one set of property taxes, one washer, stove, dryer, etc. Besides, I paid the marriage penalty for seven years. Why shouldn't everybody? I mean, that's only FAIR isn't it?
Post #377,121 by mmoffitt 6/28/13 8:50:39 AM Reply	I was unclear. I was disagreeing with you that "It won't" affect you. Scott clarified my point. It's going to cost (at least) the federal government money and that, albeit indirectly, will affect you.

Welcome to IWETHEY!