Divorce Support Forums: Community Property in the 21st Century

===========================================================
I think there is an argument to be made here. At least to some degree, however the reason for community property didn't start because of divorce but a way to collect unpaid tax's. Look at it from the IRS, state or county tax view. You have unpaid tax's from one person the husband yet the wife or common law spouse doesn't work. Tax's are piling up and they only thing they own is a house. They can't take just his half of the house or put a lien on just his half. They can't lien just half of there joint account. If they both work and have seperate accounts but he gets behind so to avoid paying back tax's he stops working. Why should he work when his spouse make plenty after all. The only recorse is for the tax's to come fromt the working spouse yet they can't take it unless it is community property. I say lets do away with tax's and community property but then how do we pay pay the government.
===========================================================

Am I missing something here? You're right, if a person is living off of their spouse he is not making any taxable income. But then, the total amount being made is less, and they have less money to spend. Whether there is community property or not is irrelevent, and its existence may even make the total tax less. It is anyone's right not to work if they can find someone foolish enough to take care of them, whether the income is community property or not.

If you are talking about IRS taxes, then whether they can put a lien on the house is determined by how it is titled, since the IRS doesn't care or want to know about state marital property laws. A joint account is the same way, whether the partries are married or not, since each party has the right to withdraw the FULL amount in such an account. Other joint ownership interests, when there are third parties involved, such as annuities, trusts and limited partnerships depend entirely on how they are set up, and usually are immune to liens, judgements or assessments on personal taxes.

The point is not so much that they want to have community property so as to collect more taxes, but rather so that they will have to PAY OUT less tax revenue as welfare. If they "give" a woman one-half of a man's house, even if it is titled in the man's name, as "community property" in a divorce, then at least the state will not have to house her. If they further award her alimony, then they will not have to feed her. So, you see, any theory that the woman somehow must have done something for her husband, during the marriage--even though it can't be proven--to justify this continued housing and support from her ex-husband, is nothing but a RED HEERING presented to deceive all observers into being blind to the real motive for this theory: the desire to avoid, at any and all costs in terms of honesty, justice or fairness, the woman becoming dependent upon the state for support. "What about the man in all this?", you ask? Never mind him! If he made it once he can make it again, and men are naturally tuffer than women. It might do him some good to sleep on a hard cot at the shelter for a while, and to eat donated canned food!

The correct replacement for ALL other taxes is excise (sales) tax, which is authorized by the constution.

Edited by jbar (05/07/08 06:54 AM)

Post Extras