[biker1]

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 kittygilchrist

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.

[njbchbum]

IF singles were to be given a permanent generic guest pass that could be used to bring any person from within the tri-county/50 mile radius area to enjoy villages amenities with them, should marrieds be given the same generic guest pass so that they can bring in one of their friends with whom to enjoy things?

[kittygilchrist]

Originally Posted by biker1

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.

Can marrieds not file as single? I think so...
And single parents get what "break"?

[MelZ]

Stop the insanity

Because as my Daddy used to tell me

"Life is not fair"

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by 2BNTV

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!!!

Boy, you guessed right, Joe! Can of worms.

How many singles are living in TV? How many more people would be on the golf courses?

If they can throw a wall up where none existed, they can correct an inequity. It's their show; they can do anything they want. You singles hopefully can find some way to effect a change.

[In awe of TV]

Originally Posted by gratefulparrot

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?

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.

[mickey100]

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.

[kstew43]

whoops....

[kstew43]

Originally Posted by In awe of TV

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.

absolutly right......

its as if the developer is once again attempting to bring in more buyers, one way or another...

[kstew43]

Originally Posted by mickey100

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.

do you have to be a same household couple or can you join with the guy next door and still be a couple?

is couple specific anywhere?

[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by In awe of TV

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.

Interesting that you don't see the single villager as being 'greedy' [your word - not mine] for wanting something they knew that the 'rules/covenants/restrictions' do not allow for.

Are amenities not charged to a property and passes issued to resident[s] of that property?

[Bonny]

I understand all sides. I get what everyone says.
However, we all knew all of this when we chose to buy here.

[villagerjack]

"TV residents (not all obviously) seem greedy and have a sense of entitlement"...we are only entitled to what we pay for. Calling someome greedy because they do not agree with you is below the belt. I disagree with you and never in my life have I been characterized as greedy, anything but. So we must be careful about throwing unfounded criticisms around especially towards people we do not know otherwise your Moms advice in your slogan are just empty words. We must look at the very successful business model which we buy into when we sign the contract. It has worked for decades and while we, even I, do not agree with some of the rules, like color of roof and home which I tried to change but couldn't, I understand it may be for the greater good. Have a happy new year. Count your blessings.

[Villages PL]

I have had a friendship with someone outside the villages for about 10 years and this has never been a problem. That's because there are so many activities available were a pass is not needed.

If you like to dance you can dance every evening at one of the town squares.

You can go to any restaurant to eat.

You can go to any of the theaters to see a movie.

You can go to paid entertainment at the Savannah Center as long as you buy a ticket.

You can go to a health or travel expo.

You can go to any of the parades .

You can participate in the Senior Olympics.

You can take a romantic walk on the boardwalk.

What more does one need?

[rubicon]

I believe that describing village residents regarding this topic is misleading and incorrect. That is not their motivation or reason. The concern is that of setting precedent for breaking agreed upon rules. Once you step out of the batters box......

someone wrote that priority memberships were also unfair. First many who buy into priority buy as single membership. I did for six years. Frankly you have to play championship golf courses often and you have to be asking for prime tee times for any pay back.

One poster wrote and said something to the effect that i don't live in The villages yet but it seems unfair........Please after you moved here and struggled to get t a tee time then tell me it isn't fair.

These buyers remorse threads can give you "agita"