Gay marriage the new tax shelter??

[danfromwaterloo]

So, as I was driving on the 401 the other day, I heard on 680 News that two guys in Toronto are getting married that aren't gay...they're just friends that decided to get married for the obvious tax incentives associated with getting married.

While I still feel that marriage is a right everybody should enjoy, these guys are legally abusing the system. All I could think about is "Man, these guys are *******s for abusing what gay men and women have been striving for."

What do you guys think (without getting into a whole gay people should/shouldn't be allowed to marry flamewar)...?

[TenzoR]

it happens to non-gay marriage too so what's your point? it's just no one give a rats ass about it ..

now with the new gay marriage newspaper are digging up all these kinds of stuff to stir up more sales and trouble

[Emancipated]

What do I think? I think they're a couple of low life scum bags. That's pretty pathetic because the honest ones are paying for their loop hole.

[sonick]

how is that any different if a man and a women decide to do the same thing?

[LuuC]

haha my dentist told me about this. that so rocks. i would do that...you get free money for being in a gay marriage.
ah...government stupidity.
who wants to get married with me? :lol:

[Tiberius]

Ummmmm....

I'm pretty sure that the way things are currently set up, you are *penalized* when it comes to taxes when you are married!

I guess if you utilize/qualify for enough special exemptions and whatnot it may work out in your favour, but for straight-forward taxes, I remember reading an article that highlighted how married couples are penalized under the current system/rules (kinda stupid if you ask me... ).

[devious9191]

it happens to non-gay marriage too so what's your point? it's just no one give a rats ass about it ..

now with the new gay marriage newspaper are digging up all these kinds of stuff to stir up more sales and trouble

When have you last heard about a heterosexual couple being 'married' for tax purposes? I don't doubt that it happens.. just can't say I've ever heard of it.

I also wouldn't imagine two women that are straight getting married for tax breaks... Maybe that's stereotypical, but that's how it goes.

[15-20_God]

what about gay marriage for citizenship?

or same-sex russian mail order brides?

[guest10586]

You can get a fake heterosexual marriage too. What is the difference...this is not news worthy.

[gilboman]

When have you last heard about a heterosexual couple being 'married' for tax purposes? I don't doubt that it happens.. just can't say I've ever heard of it.

I also wouldn't imagine two women that are straight getting married for tax breaks... Maybe that's stereotypical, but that's how it goes.

b/c in a heterosexual marriage, its not unusual and not news worthy... hence why you dont hear about it.

two straight guys got married for tax breaks...what makes you think two straight women wouldnt?

you do know the guys are HETEROSEXUAL in this story right ;)

[d_jedi]

With same-sex marriage legalized, it's fair game... could get messy though, if one of them actually decides to get married for real (you know, to a woman).

BTW: What are these alleged tax advantages to being married?

[gman]

BTW: What are these alleged tax advantages to being married?

The only thing I can think of is one of them is unemployed so that he can be "his" dependent. However, it is not much of tax break. What if the "poorer" guy want a divorce? 50% bye bye.

[Blunt]

I never hear of tax benefits of being married...
otherwise it would have been posted in the Hot Deals section already...
:cheesygri

[Roninvancouver]

BTW: What are these alleged tax advantages to being married?

if one spouse makes more money it can be balanced with lesser money making partner...lowers overall income tax rate..

ie...a makes 60k...b makes 20k....combined rate of tax lower than individually...

[guest10586]

The only thing I can think of is one of them is unemployed so that he can be "his" dependent. However, it is not much of tax break. What if the "poorer" guy want a divorce? 50% bye bye.

Hmm...couldn't you get an anullment (sp?)? No 50-50, but redividing assets would be a pain.

[ill_mango]

I'm sure if they are getting married for tax purposes, they have worked out a pretty good prenuptual agreement

therefore no 50-50

[gman]

I'm sure if they are getting married for tax purposes, they have worked out a pretty good prenuptual agreement

therefore no 50-50

If they are so cheap to get that tiny tax break, they probably have not thought it through.

It is probably something like this:

$7000 credit. Tax saved in high bracket (assuming 50%): $3500. Split it to 2: $1750 per year per person. $146 per month.

[bambam]

Although they might claim to be straight, at least one (or both) of these two 'hetero' guys must have some sort of homesexual desires somewhere deep inside.

Come on, for whatever reason if you are straight would you touch another guys hand, let alone getting married.

One of the guys in this case is playing a big trick on the other one at least. Let's wait until the ink dries on this news on media and watch the results.

Total BS.

[ainsane]

haha my dentist told me about this. that so rocks. i would do that...you get free money for being in a gay marriage.
ah...government stupidity.
who wants to get married with me? :lol:

Hey I'll marry you! I would probably be able to get OSAP if I was married :D PM me if interested! ;)

I could care less about this. I don't consider it even close to the same as abusing welfare for example.

[Daemar]

You don't even need to get married to qualify for these so called 'tax breaks'. The government of canada recognizes Common-Law couples. If I have a common law (live together for more than 6 months) then they are entitled to share my benefits AND to the extent of my knowledge also count towards household income during tax calculations.

So what's the big deal, if you have had a roommate for more than 6 months, technically you can declare yourselves common-law.

This is not newsworthy and it's another attempt by someone in the media to make a story out of something.

[deep]

I found it odd that members of the gay community were saying that THIS particular marriage was "for all the wrong reasons". So what is the purpose of marriage, anyway? And, for whichever reason you feel is correct, why does the government encourage it?

Is it to procreate, as many people who denouce gay marriage claim it to be? Obviously, the government has a vested interest in Canadians begetting Canadians.

Or is it for love, as many gay-marriage supporters claim? If so, what possible reason could the government have for subsidizing it?

Should there just be no benefit to being married? Should there only be parenting benefits? Or is it all about support, so that one person can minimize society's burden by caring for one or more other people? In that case, should anyone be allowed to be "married", as long as they can prove they're supporting someone?

[d_jedi]

I found it odd that members of the gay community were saying that THIS particular marriage was "for all the wrong reasons". So what is the purpose of marriage, anyway? And, for whichever reason you feel is correct, why does the government encourage it?
I go back to my Simpsons quote:
Kent Brockman: Homer, will marriage become something so meaningless that anyone could marry anything?
Homer: Oh, Kent. Not anything. It has to exist... or does it?

[psiwashing]

ITs called a "marriage of convenience" and is illegal and wrong. Marriage is for ANY two people, regardless of sex, that are in love and should not be used as a tax haven. This has been done many times between men and women, now there are no restrictions on sex, but it is still illegal. Hard to prove though.

[HeatSeeker]

There's a simple solution to the whole thing. Drop the tax benefits for married couples. I don't really understand why we even have it anymore. More and more people are chosing to stay single. Why should married people get a tax break? They already get a break in that they have shared revenue and resources.

[mbg]

Of course gay marriage didn't allow this type of scheme, but it DID affirm what many people have known for some time -- that marriage means a lot less than it used to to many people. If marriage still meant something, gay marriage would not have been permitted.

[mbg]

There's a simple solution to the whole thing. Drop the tax benefits for married couples. I don't really understand why we even have it anymore. More and more people are chosing to stay single. Why should married people get a tax break? They already get a break in that they have shared revenue and resources.

Married people should get a tax break because society wants to encourage such bonds as stable households for producing and raising children.

Well, that was the old reasoning.

The new reasoning is that marriage is no longer about children, but about two adults loving each other -- an incredibly broad and rather meaningless category. In that context, we have no reason to give tax breaks to married couples.

[NG]

With same-sex marriage legalized, it's fair game... could get messy though, if one of them actually decides to get married for real (you know, to a woman).

Agreed. Part of the reason why triad/group marriages need to be legalized

I go back to my Simpsons quote:
Kent Brockman: Homer, will marriage become something so meaningless that anyone could marry anything?
Homer: Oh, Kent. Not anything. It has to exist... or does it?

Agreed.

[pfdude]

I still don't get why they're bothering. I had to pay back money to the govt when they found out we got married.

[Ferman]

Some provinces allow for spousal exemptions, which means that if one spouse stays home, they can add their 'tax free' provincial amount to their working partner's amount.

In this case, a married 'couple' would pay less tax if one of them is working, and the other isn't.

It actually applies to any common law relationship, so shacking up for 6 months or so qualifies you.

Where it gets scary is if your same sex roomate decides to leave for whatever reason, he can claim that he was your 'spouse', then your screwed for 50% of your assests that you've accumulated since you were 'common law'.

I think that there should be a term for marriage in taxation law for those that raise children, since its those couples that historically are what the tax breaks were meant for.

[Prometheus]

Sounds like the values that once made marriage special can only go downhill from here... Thank you Paul Martin :(

[guest10586]

Sounds like the values that once made marriage special can only go downhill from here... Thank you Paul Martin :(

Marriage? Special? So single people should get taxed more since they couldn't get married, or didn't want to. Yeah...discrimination is a good word here. Why should single people get taxed more then married couples? Do they use less oxygen? Less water? Less food? Take up less space? This is total BS!

...end rant...

[gman]

Marriage? Special? So single people should get taxed more since they couldn't get married, or didn't want to. Yeah...discrimination is a good word here. Why should single people get taxed more then married couples? Do they use less oxygen? Less water? Less food? Take up less space? This is total BS!

...end rant...

Well, you got it wrong. In the normal double income case, getting married pays MUCH more tax than 2 individuals.

The question should be:

why should married couples get taxed more than 2 single people?
Not the other way around.
Your final comment is right though. This is total BS!

[guest10586]

Well, you got it wrong. In the normal double income case, getting married pays MUCH more tax than 2 individuals.

The question should be:

why should married couples get taxed more than 2 single people?
Not the other way around.
Your final comment is right though. This is total BS!

If what you say is true then it is BS. Equality for all! Well, except in America but lets not go there...

[manixc]

Although they might claim to be straight, at least one (or both) of these two 'hetero' guys must have some sort of homesexual desires somewhere deep inside.

Come on, for whatever reason if you are straight would you touch another guys hand, let alone getting married.

One of the guys in this case is playing a big trick on the other one at least. Let's wait until the ink dries on this news on media and watch the results.

Total BS.

High Five, buddy!

Back on topic, I see this coming way before same-sex marriage is legalized. Next on the news will be the first case of marrying into the country.

[gravCY]

If one of them decide to divorce the other, can he claim alimony from the other guy? :D

[gman]

High Five, buddy!

Back on topic, I see this coming way before same-sex marriage is legalized. Next on the news will be the first case of marrying into the country.

And, they can't check lack of opposite sex underwear as evidence of illegal 'hetero' marriage anymore. :(

[luthair]

If one of them decide to divorce the other, can he claim alimony from the other guy? :D

Haven't you heard, men never get alimony.

As far as I know the only tax advantage people get through marriage is that expenses from the person with smaller income can be used on the higher earners tax form.

[thelefteyeguy]

this really isnt news worthy...fake marriages happens all the time...why do you think there are so many new immigrants?

ppl pay lots for a canadian citizenship esp from China. Once you get that...you bring the whole posse over

[pfdude]

Sounds like the values that once made marriage special can only go downhill from here... Thank you Paul Martin :(

Dude, the values that you're speaking of went downhill 10-20 years ago!

[HeatSeeker]

Dude, the values that you're speaking of went downhill 10-20 years ago!

Yeah so let's keep on bashing our values and throw them out the window. That'll make us a better society! Oh! Wait! Our values are improving. We let gays get married. What was I thinking of! ;)

[quazzimofo]

Wow think of the possibilites!!!

Last year i needed root canal. I didn't have insurance and it cost me a fair chunk of change. If I married one of my friends who had a dental/prescription drug plan it would have cost me peanuts. Another one of my friends is very well off. He's a member of an exclusive golf club. The membership dues are greater then my whole salary. If I married him I could be a member for free and play all I want. Heck, I could marry someone who worked for Air Canada and fly around the world for squat!!! The possibilities and benefits are endless!!! If the government legalized polygamy, I could marry a couple hundred guys at once and be living large!!! Now I understand why heterosexual women push so hard for marraige, you get all the benefits and don't have to work for it. And here I was fighting against gay marraige. I just didn't see the benefits.

[Dog5]

This is what is known as 'blowback'.

[firehawk12]

If you guys would just go out and, say, meet friends of the opposite sex, you could have done the same thing years ago.

It's like this is "new" or something. :lol:

Hell, even the Prince if Monaco is looking for a woman to be his "legal" wife. :lol:
(All you have to be is "a socialite" and willing to provide a few babies.)

[stevethewheel]

The real tax break ended years ago.

It used to be that in your year of marriage the couple only paid taxes on earnings after the date of marriage. If you got married on Dec. 31 then no taxes were paid for the whole year.

Ask around, folks that cashed in on that should be about...45+ by now.

[Jim123]

The real tax break ended years ago.

It used to be that in your year of marriage the couple only paid taxes on earnings after the date of marriage. If you got married on Dec. 31 then no taxes were paid for the whole year.

Ask around, folks that cashed in on that should be about...45+ by now.That's not quite right. What happened was that the spousal deduction was reduced only by net income earned after the marriage date.

This meant that if two individuals, who were both high income earners, "married" the tax savings could pay for a Caribbean vacation and a quickie divorce while on that vacation. :)

A number of people took advantage of this "loop-hole" in the tax law to get "married" every year and then get divorced two weeks later.

So I guess people trying to take advantage of "marriage" to reduce taxes is nothing new.

[gman]

That's not quite right. What happened was that the spousal deduction was reduced only by net income earned after the marriage date.

This meant that if two individuals, who were both high income earners, "married" the tax savings could pay for a Caribbean vacation and a quickie divorce while on that vacation. :)

A number of people took advantage of this "loop-hole" in the tax law to get "married" every year and then get divorced two weeks later.

So I guess people trying to take advantage of "marriage" to reduce taxes is nothing new.

There is NO tax advantage for 2 high income earners to get married. In fact, it has less advantage than 2 singles.

To take advantage, one is high income and one is low (or no) income. The advantage is not big either. The cost of getting married and divorce offset the tax advantage you gain quite a bit.

[Jim123]

There is NO tax advantage for 2 high income earners to get married. In fact, it has less advantage than 2 singles.

To take advantage, one is high income and one is low (or no) income. The advantage is not big either. The cost of getting married and divorce offset the tax advantage you gain quite a bit. I think you missed the point. I was replying to stevethewheel's post about a loophole in the tax laws that ended in 1987.

In 1985 the marriage deduction (now a non-refundable tax credit) was $3,630 and was reduced by the lower earning spouse's net income since being married in excess of $510. If you got married on Dec. 31st the spouse's net income after marriage was $0 and the supporting individual (higher income) could reduce their net income by $3,630. If that person was taxed at a marginal rate of 40%, for example, this would save $1,452. More than enough in 1985 to pay for a marriage license, Caribbean vacation for two and an uncontested quickie divorce while in the Carribean. :)

[go leafs]

I bet it's so they can get cheaper car insurance!

[stevethewheel]

I think you missed the point. I was replying to stevethewheel's post about a loophole in the tax laws that ended in 1987.



Jim, yep that's the one. Thanks for clarifying as I had somewhat misunderstood the savings. I do know couples who got married on Dec. 31 to take advantage of it. (though I don't know any who did the instant divorce) Yes the tax savings easily paid for an exotic honeymoon.

[Ferman]

To take advantage, one is high income and one is low (or no) income. The advantage is not big either. The cost of getting married and divorce offset the tax advantage you gain quite a bit.

The advantage is not big? Sure it is, the higher income earner gets to claim the spousal exemption of the basic personal amount, in some provinces, can add close to $10,000 of additional tax free income.