A.C.L.U. Sues City of Anchorage to Get Tax Breaks for Homosexual Groups of Two (or More?)

When the A.C.L.U. sued the city of Anchorage to get tax breaks for homosexual pairs equal to that of married heterosexuals they brought up the entire idea of taxes, tax exceptions and the reasons for that. Rather dishonorably talk radio and some writers locally have compared the tax breaks for heterosexual couples as being as unfair as that for those over the age of 65. I will make a few comments therefor about the philosophy of taxation in this region over history.

Originally in the early 2oth century married couples commonly had women getting pregnant and one male breadwinner supporting with cash the entire family. Not only was that tough, yet it was considered socially responsible, for society had to reproduce itself and times were often hard. If all were just quakers or homosexuals society would die out. Tax breaks were thus give. to married people.

Groups of two or more homosexuals might approximate some sexual activities of heterosexual couples in a cargo cult sort of fashion, and triadic or quadratic relationships of sex and house-holding culture could be satisfying, possibly, four some. The reasoning behind equalizing the dyadic house-holder tax rate beyond that of heterosexuals who are young and disadvantaged is not valid in the A.C.L.U. suit parameters though.

Life was shorter than today. At the turn of the 20th century an average American life span was about 45 contrasted with todays three extra decades. The Federal Government seldom ran significant deficits back then either, and the working family needed to save a few extra bucks if they could beside s growing their own vegetables at home.



There weren't too many older people either. Giving tax breaks to those over age 65 that were not working was just plain compassionate. America wasn't a perverted evil empire or anything seeking to exploit everyone possible to run up more debt.

If everyone gets tax breaks then no one pays taxes. Today the rich and homosexuals want special tax breaks not uncommonly.

The government runs up huge debts and globalist Republicans support multi-trillion dollar foreign wars of dubious competence and the rich want tax breaks. Homosexuals who are not know to reproduce want tax breaks equal to that of married people.

To be fair, the reason for tax breaks is that the people as a class need them in these special circumstances. I suppose the retarded might deserve tax breaks too, and of course politicians. Married couples beyond child bearing age (the wife) and without minor childred perhaps no longer deserve tax breaks just for being married.

Not only is marriage and good sex, savings on housing and shared work advantage not only not a disadvantage, it is an advantage over single people perhaps homeless that must pay 10% for self-employment tax while global corporations pay no net taxes. Plainly homosexuals deserve no tax breaks. Neither iis there any reason why three or four homosexuals in group 'marriage' should not have a tax break equal to the poor, young heterosexual couple struggling to have housing, afford diapers and feed their screaming kids that are not happy when they don't get fed. Someone may get a government grant to find out why starving children don't just fast and show monastic discipline.

Tax breaks are supposed to help those that really need the help. Homosexuals don't deserve breaks for living together. Retired people or those over age 65 with plenty of income and savings also don't deserve tax breaks.

Ia a retired senior citizen or married couple over 65 has a huge Wall-Street income why should they get tax breaks? The idea for giving tax breaks to senior citizens is that they don't have any more earnings opportunities and are poor and need to make the savings last a lifetime (the remainder of it). Thats a valid point. Already at age 65 here in Anchorage I encounter age discrimination in getting a job. ts just more difficult--even Russian speaking youth at the state Job Service might feel they have a right to get hired first...and I disagree.

Today one must work perhaps until 75 or 80 if single and homeless. I had to pay my lot for living on to a physician for surgery, and then got a bill from an anesthesiologist wanting more. If I had property to get tax breaks on, I would deserve that as much as homosexual pairs or threesomes living together.

It would be possible to reform tax rates I suppose, yet the powerful want things their way and so the interests of the nation sink traditionally, and that just the way it is. I commend the A.C.L.U. for having an interest in securing justice for the oppressed, yet homosexuals wanting heterosexual tax breaks for raising kids are not amongst the oppressed. The tax breaks should be reformed so just those financially poor and vulnerable in a social class for whatever reason such as the elderly and young couples front-loaded with huge living expenses, get them.

If no one really needs to pay taxes at all and the government runs a surplus from the manna from heaven phenomena then that would be fine. In the meantime the nation already runs on a substantial amount of borrowed money that almost everyone will want t pay off or have some kind of war and new deal (I am not for that).

While Alaska does have some oil income,its state budget has experienced challenges in meeting expenses in recent years, and the city of Anchorage cannot even afford a decent Internet wireless access speed at the public library or a year round bike-path system, much less tax cuts for homosexuals that own their own homes.