Spin-off of the Same Sex Marriage Threads

---

Posted by michele31

So if women's right would cost you ANY money then you would not want that. If everyone in this country thought 'oh, if this is going to cost me a dime I will not have it' then our country would have a serious problem.

The worst thing is that this is about Equal rights for people who live in our country. Equal rights do not cost us more money- it actually will cost us a lot more than money someday. Right this second we are all paying so people in Iraq can try and live within a democacry (that the US controls, of course). So we are paying billions of dollars for others to live free when people in this country don't.

Did you know that the number 1 reason of teen sucide is the that the child thinks they are gay? That is right...we make being gay soooo awful that a child would rather take their own life then live as a gay individual. And what would a law like this say to those kids?

Sorry, but this is NOT about money and even moron Bush isn't saying that it is. He is all about the 'morale' high ground...funny...he seems to forgot that on many other occassions!


The marriage tax is being phased out over many years but it is still there at this time and was there for many years.

---

*standing ovation*

---

Posted by michele31

If you have an issue with money, then let's discuss welfare reform and saving social security...those itemss will cost us billions more than gay marriage will.

---

I am just trying to look at this issue from another angle: the pocketbook. I am in no way against same-sex marriages; if people love each other, government should not stand in the way. Currently, about 40% of my paycheck goes to taxes, etc. and I am tired of the ever increasing deductions.

Clearly, many government program are in need of desperate reform, it was not my intent to address those other issues in this thread. My point is purely about cause and effect: same sex marriages will cause an increase in payroll deductions, and I was wondering what people's opinions were.

---

Posted by Mary
If more people are insured, the cost of insuring them will increase and will ultimately come out of our pockets (whether it be increased premiums or cost-cutting measures, like diminished raises or downsizing). Any increased costs will fall ultimately upon the taxpayers/employees.

---

Actually that's not exactly correct.
Insurance works off the law of large numbers. The more same-like units there are the more units to spread premiums out upon. So more units (risk) then the LOWER the premium, not the higher.

This explains why you get a fleet discount for having more than one vehicle.

Sorry to butt in just thought I'd clarify.

PS: Insurance companies are definatley looking for ways to get money... why not.. average joe and jane Attorney at law are suing insurance companies over fivirlous and fraudulant claims all the time. If Fraud were to be better handled and other reforms made to better protect us from useless court spending, you'd see a decrease in premiums. For now, that's not possible.

The doctor gets sued for trying to save a life, pays more in Mal practice insurance and the hospital gets dragged in and has to charge more for rooms in the hospital and insurance companies can't afford the higher rate, so it passes on to the average joe who had NOTHING to do with this case. Fraud is a nasty cycle.

*hops off her insurance box*

---

Posted by Xelindrya

Actually that's not exactly correct.
Insurance works off the law of large numbers. The more same-like units there are the more units to spread premiums out upon. So more units (risk) then the LOWER the premium, not the higher.

---

I used to work for an insurance company and that same company is a client of my firm, so unfortunately, I know quite a bit about insurance. The above is only only one way to measure the risk. Another way is based upon losses under a policy.

---

Posted by Mary

I used to work for an insurance company and that same company is a client of my firm, so unfortunately, I know quite a bit about insurance. The above is only only one way to measure the risk. Another way is based upon losses under a policy.

---

100% agree.
God knows NY is already pretty messed up with including your CREDIT as part of the underwriting process. More than just one factor goes into an underwriting process.

But saying that gay marriages will increase insurance rates because there is just more people to insure so it must cost more doesnt seem right.

ETA: also you'd have to somehow prove that gay marriages carry a higher risk. (possible if you include AIDS as a bias form of risk)


Editted a second time: let me say this a little clearer. yes more cars equals more payments overall, but it doesnt affect the cost of each individual policy. Make sense?

denying someone equal rights was never OK...is never OK..will never be OK IMHO

regardless of money


ETA: Its the same way that the ACLU backs the KKKs right to march...


you take away one groups rights...the next thing you know your rights are taken away...like that old Holocaust poem...first they came for the Communists, but I wasn't communist - so I did say anything...then the trade Unionists...then the Jews...then the Catholics...then they came for me and there was no one left to stand up for me

---

Posted by Sassyz75

40% of your salary goes to taxes because the money has to come from somewhere- President Bush has decided that those making 1 million plus really don't HAVE to pay so many taxes.. that's the real problem.. if the rich were paying their fair share, it wouldn't BE a question of the pocket book.

---

Sassyz, I thought the difference was that once you've reached the highest tax bracket its not that you don't pay taxes, its just that you tax rate doesnt continue going up.

If you overtax people (even if they're wealthy), at some point their incentive to work and earn that taxable income will be so reduced that they'll stop working, which won't do the Tax budget too much good.

The weathy are getting a disproportionate amount of tax cuts than the middle and upper-middle class.

for example- there are no taxes on any dividends and no estate tax (these obviously benefit the wealthy).

And since Bush is doing nothing about the AMT, the upper middle class will really be put through the ringer.

So not only do the very rich have every reason to work- because they pay no tax on their stock options anymore- but they have every reason to commit corporate fraud- to keep their stock prices up or moving up (i.e. Enron, MCI, etc).

However- it's the middle class and poor who have to sacrifice while the rich are given the tax breaks.. and a lot of the sacrifice also comes in a reduction in services for the poor and middle classes- by 2009 the budgets for everything outside of homeland security will be reduced 11% however there is enough $ to push the marriage program.

Edited to add: Bush may have reduced the income tax- but your PAYROLL tax has gone up (especially because state funding has gone down).. so are YOU seeing a big difference in your paycheck? I know I'm not.. and if we aren't seeing our paycheck go up from tax cuts- someone IS!

---

Posted by yabbobay

denying someone equal rights was never OK...is never OK..will never be OK IMHO

regardless of money

---

This is the real issue with same sex marriages.

Mary you asked the question which is the reason, Bush doesnt want to the change the law

Its about $$$$$$$$$, Im ready to pay... Id rather not pay for people who stay on welfare, but I never was asked