Originally Posted by kittygilchrist (Post 989154)

Jan, the nugget above is..if we didn't embrace change women wouldn't vote....

People with a lord's advantage over others go to great lengths to rationalize that it is actually fair and just, perhaps to keep from experiencing the cognitive dissonance of admitting they enjoy having rewards while others are denied. And perhaps in fear that if their hoarding of privilege is openly known, they might lose their special status and become equals with those whom they can consider lesser.

Nobody married even wants to glance at why singles have a higher tax bracket because it is damnably impossible to justify. Singles are a minority class, and we are treated as less important and less due rights.

Originally Posted by biker1 (Post 989174)

Actually, there is a marriage penalty - two earners will generally pay more in total tax is they are married than if they are single. If you have a single earner in a marriage, the tax rate is lower than if they were single - essentially the Government gives you a tax break for a stay at home spouse raising children. The Government, has, does, and will continue to try to encourage certain behaviors through the tax code. If you are unhappy then you can work to enact change.

Originally Posted by 2BNTV (Post 987806)

Being a single person, I have only one complaint about TV.

You only get one resident I.D. and married couples get two. I know the rules that it goes by the names on the deed, etc. I still think this is unfair.

If a single person meets someone outside of TV and who wants to take their date to a resident function where they need to produce a resident I.D. and or gets into a relationship, the other person does not have access as the resident does, because the single person has one resident I.D.

I know people will respond that "it is what it is", but the singles get screwed. IMHO

It indicates one needs to live with a person, if they want to enjoy their company in TV environment. It seems to be a little far fetch option, as opposed to, getting two resident I.D's. Would it kill everything about TV, if single people got an second or resident/guest I.D? How many extra I.D's. would need to be distributed?

I know it's the developer ballpark and he/she can take his/her bat and ball home, if someone states a different point of view. It seems like a form of discrimination, against the single populace.

This has been discussed before but would like to see if there are any options, to changing this scenario.

Just waiting for the married people to say BOO-HOO!!! :D

Originally Posted by gratefulparrot (Post 989118)

First off. I'm not a villager, but plan on buying a house next year. I won't be looking for a relationship as I'll be coming off of a long one, but you never know where the path takes you.

Having said this, this discussion has gone a bunch of different directions. It started with Joe just wanting to bring a date to a function. What's wrong with that? Are villager's so snotty that you can't welcome a date from someone who lives there? I see nothing in his posts that says his date wants to start taking over clubs and facilities, nor attending without Joe. I've read the rules and I get it, and I'm ok with it. But geez, it's a guy wanting to bring a girl that doesn't own a house here. What's the big? Some of these comments come off as we can only breed with our own. Seems pretty one sided. I also understand, that many are married an could care less about the singles, but doesn't everyone at least have the chance to find that someone?

Originally Posted by In awe of TV (Post 989230)

These were my thoughts exactly as I read all the responses. TV residents (not all obviously) seem greedy and have a sense of entitlement. What exactly is being taken away from the married residents if a 'single' Village resident wants to bring a date to the golf course? If it's about the amenity fee - the 'single' resident is still paying the SAME amenity fee as the married residents! If the single should get married, then of course, everyone is in agreement.

Doesn't make sense to me - 'single' discrimination I say.

Originally Posted by mickey100 (Post 989236)

Another example of an inequity for singles is the price of priority golf memberships. A single pays $740, while a couple pays $925. $925 for two people comes out to $462 per person. That's quite a discount from $740.

Originally Posted by In awe of TV (Post 989230)

These were my thoughts exactly as I read all the responses. TV residents (not all obviously) seem greedy and have a sense of entitlement. What exactly is being taken away from the married residents if a 'single' Village resident wants to bring a date to the golf course? If it's about the amenity fee - the 'single' resident is still paying the SAME amenity fee as the married residents! If the single should get married, then of course, everyone is in agreement.

Doesn't make sense to me - 'single' discrimination I say.