BF2S Forums Why does marriage give you tax benefits and other such things?

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

El Beardo wrote:

Narupug wrote:

Well reproduction IS neccessary to the continuation of our race so a few incentives for that won't hurt

All my married friends tell me sex pretty much stops after marriage. 

I've never understood that

fucking the same pussy, seeing the same tits and ass gets boring.

Some time ago the government decided to incentivize certain behaviors through tax policy, hence lower tax rates for married couples, homeowners, owners of certain types of vehicles, parents, deductions for charitable giving, college education, loan forgiveness for certain careers/military service, etc.

SEREMAKER wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Getting married does not guarantee kids, also having kids does not guarantee you're married. Stupid laws imo. Why not give tax breaks to people with kids, like say... the way its done here?

they do ................ been doing it for years

Then what's all this bullshit about incentives to have children and future tax payers etc?

FEOS wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I think it's supposed to encourage/promote creating a family, i.e. generate the taxpayers, producers and consumers of tomorrow. Capitalism heavily relies on steady population growth.

And socialism doesn't? It's irrespective of economic model, Cam.

What part of modern socialism precludes capitalism....? Communism on the other hand doesn't necessarily rely on population growth.

FEOS wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And socialism doesn't? It's irrespective of economic model, Cam.

What part of modern socialism precludes capitalism....? Communism on the other hand doesn't necessarily rely on population growth.

Am I confusing economic and political models?

Or are you?

I wasn't making any kind of absolutist comment and I was referring to an economic model, and capitalist economic principles apply in modern 'socialist' states (for instance in Europe).

FEOS wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Am I confusing economic and political models?

Or are you?

I wasn't making any kind of absolutist comment and I was referring to an economic model, and capitalist economic principles apply in modern 'socialist' states (for instance in Europe).

The point being that most economic models today are blended, thus making the economic model moot as some sort of deterministic variable.

Hard-core communist countries need to produce stable populations, as well.

Hence the fact my comment was not meant in an absolutist manner. Things are rarely either black or white. Communism, in theory (absolute), should not rely on a growing population, just a stable one.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-10-18 06:53:19)

Shahter wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Communism, in theory (absolute), should not rely on a growing population, just a stable one.

still, cam, even in the case of absolute communism wether or not it would rely on a growing population would depend greatly on the productive capabilities of said population, which in turn depends on a whole lot of other things, like technological level and stuff like that.

That's why he said stable...