Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Brian Groven
459 Followers
marcochaoui yahya
4295 Followers
Şerver Ģeek
1364 Followers
Darrell Burgess
202 Followers
JimPie11Feb 6, 2012
The worst case of federal discrimination towards single/unmarried people can be found in the military. Everyone wonders why people in the military get married so young. Military people get married young because then they are allowed to move out of the barracks and live outside of the base. If you are single, you are forced to live in the barracks which are the equivalent of a college dorm and you may not even get your own room. A lot of the barracks/dorms do not have a basic kitchen to cook in nor are they large enough for furniture.
You could technically serve 20 years in the military and retire without even living outside of the barracks/dorms. Meanwhile, someone who gets married right as they enter the military service will collect BAH (basic allowance for housing) every month and potentially have a house paid off with that tax free money they have received every month for 20 years.
If for some reason there isn't enough room in the barracks, then you may be allowed to move off post, out of the barracks and the military will grant you BAH (basic allowance for housing) at the single rate. For example in San Antonio, BAH for a single E-5 (enlisted pay grade 5 aka Sergeant/Staff Sergeant) would be $1,104. But a person in the same pay grade who was married would receive $1,362 a month. They don't do any extra work...the only difference is that they are married so their receive $258 extra a month in tax free pay. When separated from their spouse for a period of greater than 30 days, married individuals receive an extra $250 separation pay while the unmarried military service member receives nothing!
Why are single people discriminated against in the military? Why do they receive less pay and are forced to live in small rooms while their married counterparts are collecting tax free money that could be put towards a mortgage? That is why the military also has some of the highest divorce rates because people rush into marriage to collect extra money. Then if the spouses are married long enough to the military service member, then they receive benefits for life...which ends up costing the military more money in the end. Married service members get free healthcare for all of their dependents which costs the government more money than that of a single service member who only requires healthcare for him or herself.
If anything, the single military service member should get extra money because they cost the government less money? Thumbs up if you agree!!!
hillsfarFeb 7, 2012
Personally I think everyone should be paid the same pay for the same work.
I am married and have children. I feel sorry for gay couples and single people. I used to be single for many years.
That said, the military system is extremely bloated. Not just jet fighters that cost 10 times more than 1970s fighters, but only deliver 50% more performance. Hopefully, President Ron Paul will put an end to the endless wars and empire bases so we can better afford benefits to career military and veterans.
MrFrogyFeb 6, 2012
As a single person in my late 30's I can verify the things the article talks about. It is subtle, and sometimes it's not. I have learned that when I go for a job interview I put on a $10 fake wedding ring, because I was tired of being discriminated against when searching for a job.
Interviewers think that married people are more stable, but as a manager who hires and deals with personnel issues, I have more problems with the married employees than the single ones. They always need time off for family related thing, and half the time the time off is short or no notice. I don't see hardly any of that from singles without kids.
We singles generally work harder and longer for the same pay, and all the money I "invested" into government benefits for my retirement are gone if something happens to me - nobody I care about gets to benefit from them. If that is not discrimination then I don't know what is!
drich255Feb 6, 2012
I don't doubt that most companies would lean toward hiring married candidates, but it seems like I read somewhere that Microsoft was the exception (at least for a time). It has been a while, but I thought I read that Bill Gates did prefer programmers that were single and that could put in a lot overtime. They would work them hard and then they would burn out in about 5 years and move on to other jobs -- but Microsoft didn't mind.
blydchyldFeb 7, 2012
You beat me to it, i see vastly more problems with Married staff with families vs single people or those without families.
the more complex the home dynamic is the more issues there may be.
darwininmotionFeb 7, 2012
Take a professional woman in her 30s, married but with no kids. Imagine the discrimination there because they assume you're going to start pushing out babies and need maternity leave.
Singles > Married no kids > Married
yurmutha412Feb 7, 2012
I take the whole thing with a sense of humor, but I've always noticed that it's single people that are the first evicted from federal programs, and they are also the ones that are considered to be the most taxable. Homelessness is really bad for everyone right now, but the majority of them seem to be single men. They're the disposables in our society.
frankwhite8536Feb 6, 2012
why get married again? what is the benefit? Is there a tax break?
I'm currently living with my gf of 5 years with our son and her son. What changes after the ceremony except for a ring and debt? I can't get a straight answer out of anyone without emotions involved. I.E. why DON'T you want to be married?! OMG?! Uh, we are doing fine.
antialiasFeb 6, 2012
There are a ton of things that happen "automatically" with a marriage such as hospital visitation rights, automatic property transfer if one member dies without a will, one can't be forced to testify against the other in court, wife gets a portion of the husbands social security after he dies even if she didn't every have a job, and yes there is a pretty decent tax break. Many of these can be mitigated if the two single parties set up Wills/Trusts and take other steps. That isn't to say you can't be totally fine without being married, but there are are a lot of benefits to being married with the way the laws are now.
tsuruchibrianFeb 6, 2012
Poor people can be convinced to to vote for things that hurt poor people because they are hopeful that they will one day be rich too.
By the same token, single people can be convinced to vote for (or not vote against) things that hurt singles because they are hopeful that one day they will be married too.
Most poor people will never be rich, but while a much higher percentage of single people will become married, this is still not a good justification to have special benefits for married people.
Even if 100% of people will one day be married, then giving special benefits to married people causes people who are married longer to be subsidized at the expense of those who are married for less time. Is there any good reason to incentivize people to get married when they are 18? I think not.
Even if we wanted to incentivize families because we needed more children (which I am fairly sure we don't), why wouldn't we simply subsidize children rather than also including married couples who don't have children?
These kind of subsidies are rooted in our most negative tenancies towards majoritarisnism (i.e. mob rule) and our willingness to unfairly exploit those in outgroups.
I think instead we should be fostering a sense of fairness rather than fostering a mentality of collectively rigging the system for personal benefit at the expense of minorities (or silent majorities).
quisquisFeb 7, 2012
Huh?
It cost MORE money per person if you were married than if you were single.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty
tsuruchibrianFeb 7, 2012
From the article you cited:
"The marriage penalty in the United States refers to the higher taxes required from *some* married couples, where spouses are making approximately the same taxable income, filing one tax return"
Not only does this penalty only affect *some* married couples, these couples are not required to file jointly. So in the worst case, married couples pay the same income tax as single people and in the best case, far less.
Also, income tax was just one benefit given to married people.
abcedarianFeb 7, 2012
The reason this exists today is because for thousands of years family has been seen as a function of government and society. The family in Rome was considered to be a microcosm of the entire empire... see the wikipedia page on Pater Familias for more info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pater_familias
I'm not making a judgment call on whether it's right or not, just offering some historical info.
drich255Feb 6, 2012
Public school funding has always been one to stump me. One side of my brain argues that people with no children have a vested interest in helping to fund the education of the children in society, because these are the future leaders, lawyers, doctors, etc. But then the other side of my brain argues that people having children made the decision to have the children and need to pay for their schooling, it isn't the responsibility of anyone else. Plus that would help with transparency of the supply and demand of education. The more you feel it in the wallet, the more likely you will be involved and pay attention.
In the end, I would like to see a compromise. Society in general helps, but parents with children in school pay part of the tuition for that school.
hillsfarFeb 7, 2012
Consider that the average school district in the U.S. spends roughly $10,000 per pupil per year to deliver an education, teachers, staff, administrators salary and benefits, facilities, classrooms, headquarters, supplies, equipment, etc. a typical kid will use up some $120,000 in tax dollars in the course of their educational life from 1st grade through 12th grade (more if you count deferred liabilities like retiree pensions and health care). And yet 25% fail to graduate high school.
That is a lot of money to put into each child at taxpayer expense. I wonder how much value is being received for that?
fertilebastardFeb 9, 2012
If you don't provide that education, what will the cost to the taxpayers be to support and/or incarcerate these kids? How much more tax revenue will that educated kid generate over his or her lifetime vs. the kid with no education?
Having said that, you can provide an education for a lot less than what we spend now.
bdbrFeb 7, 2012
In the Asian countries that typically have the best scores educationally, most of the schooling beyond elementary is not covered by the taxpayers (even public schools have tuition). I don't know how much of it is just cultural, but it might affect the commitment.
fertilebastardFeb 9, 2012
Yes.. Families may have to kick in as much as 25 - 50% (King and Guerra).. That kind of money will get the parents to take an interest in little Johnny's education.
You have to remember too that in many Asian countries they don't waste money on marginal students that are only going to be working the fields anyway. The Chinese score better because the bottom students aren't bringing down the average.
penglustFeb 7, 2012
Did you go to public school and benefit from it?
drich255Feb 7, 2012
Yes I did. And currently my two kids go to public school. I just don't think it is fair for people without children to have to pay an equal share of my kids school tuition.
Do people without kids benefit from an educated generation that follows them? Of course.
But should parents bear more of the burden for educating their own kids? I think so.
helmsbFeb 7, 2012
We always joke around the office during tax season that I work to pay for all their kids public schooling. Being single with no dependents I pay substantially more in taxes.
quisquisFeb 7, 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty
macdaddy357Feb 7, 2012
Just try going to a table service restaurant alone. You will be stuck in a corner and ignored. Groups of two or more get service, and singles are treated as a nuisance.
quisquisFeb 7, 2012
That has nothing to do with whether or not you are single. That has to do with efficiency. I can wait one table with 4 people or 4 tables with 1 person. Which group is going to get more attention?
rudegarFeb 7, 2012
if you have a wife, kids and a mortgage you're less likely to pack-up and leave for somewhere else
ellainecFeb 7, 2012
even insurance discriminates single people. unmarried individuals are high risk clients. gotta get married soon!!
ImperatoreChicoFeb 7, 2012
yes
barackalypseFeb 7, 2012
As an under 40, un-married, college educated, white male with no dependents and no mortgage, I'm pretty much screwed over in all possible scenarios except for a Police stop where being white helps.
ka5p3rFeb 7, 2012
hell i knew this 30 years ago,my so called wife never complained about not being married because her single friends paid more tax,insurance,rent than her so she went along with me on this scam.and as a "married" man was entitled to benefits a single man could never receive from employers.
penglustFeb 7, 2012
That just sounded weird.
angelface13Feb 7, 2012
As a single parent government assistance will require money back from child support acquired through the attorney general. If you are married then you don't have to pay anything back.
tpvmanFeb 7, 2012
I've made this point in the past and people respond as if it's completely acceptable to discriminate against single people but never have a good answer why.
jhw539Feb 6, 2012
The tax argument sounds extraordinarily thin. I know my wife and I would pay LESS taxes if we weren't married. The 'marriage penalty' is alive and well.
quisquisFeb 7, 2012
indeed it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty
fertilebastardFeb 9, 2012
Something else to remember.. When you get married, you're giving away half of your stuff.
fertilebastardFeb 9, 2012
The article is false regarding health insurance. For the Blue Cross plan that I provide, Single coverage is $328.96/mo., Married coverage is 912.52/mo. That's 177% more foir married coverage. It is actually less expensive to cover the two people as two single people.
ansjc09Feb 7, 2012
My boyfriend and I have run into the health insurance issues. I'm a grad student and the health insurance I have is tied to the university, so you have to be referred through the health center for EVERYTHING and I, of course, have to pay for it. So every year, he asks the HR dept at the company he works for if the policy has changed from "married/family" to "living in the same household" because it would be convenient to A) add me onto his policy so it would be my secondary policy or B) get rid of my student insurance and pay the same price (more or less) to hop on his. Of course, they say no, you must show proof of marrriage/family/whatever. Also, I technically can't see him if he's in the hospital, since we are not married, even though we've been together for 5 years. And then, since he owns a house, he has to pay taxes to the school district, which has been raising its taxes for the past 2 years b/c they don't know how to budget. We have no children, but we have to pay the same amount as the people across the street with 3 kids in school. Yes I went to public school, so I'm sure you could say my education was subsidized by single people, so it's the circle of life, but it's still not fun. On the other hand, the credit union at his company ROCKS!!! and allows people to join as long as they "live in the same household," so that credit union is where I got my car loan-yay for a progressive thinking credit union!
fertilebastardFeb 9, 2012
To cover you as a couple, the company will have to pay more than twice as much for a so called family plan. (177% more in the case of Blue Cross) Good luck getting "living in same household" coverage.
ansjc09Feb 13, 2012
When the insurance plan is an HSA, there is no cost the to company, unless they chose to supplement the HSA account.