"Singles Seek Financial, Legal Perks Offered Marrieds" says this FoxNews article; it mentions a lot of the standard issues with cohabitating couples and same-sex couples &c., but none of those apply to me. What I'd like to comment on here is the fact that single people are essentially forced to subsidize the families of married people, which I think is economically unfair.
Singles get smaller capital gains breaks when they sell a house than married couples, and spouses don’t get taxed on inherited estates. Also, according to Coleman, married persons get paid more on average for the same job during the same length of service when spousal health benefits are factored in.Or better yet, just pay me cash for the healthcare costs of the wife and kids I don't have."We need to encourage employers to create single family workplaces, provide cafeteria-style benefits," he said. Under such a plan, health care money not used for a spouse or child "could go toward an elderly parent, or maybe [toward] putting a domestic partner on the plan."
William Doherty, a professor of family social science at the University of Minnesota, said the complaints sound a bit foolish and selfish.Yeah, that's right! Why should I give you a break? Are you saying it's fair that someone gets extra time off just because they have a kid? That's totally incidental to the workplace, and it's fundamentally unfair to people without children who'd also like a personal day."The single person in the workplace is resenting the fact a parent gets time off to tend to a sick child. Give me a break," he said.
But Doherty said not all relationships should be treated equally under the law.If there's no next generation, I don't see how that affects me. It sucks for the non-existent next generation, I suppose, but why should I care? Anyway, it's absurd to think that people will stop having kids... and if they can't afford them, maybe that's a good reason not to have them.Marriage is not a lifestyle choice, but a "public commodity," critical for the survival of the human race, he said, adding that it deserves special supports and incentives.
"If there is no next generation, we are gone, we are dead," he said.
People with kids get child tax credits, public education, and public healthcare, all at the expense of people without kids. People with kids are a greater drain on our common infrastructure, and kids are destructive and disruptive. If anything, people with kids should pay more taxes.
However, since I hope and expect to have kids of my own one day, my complaints are mostly hot air. I don't think the current system is fair, but since most voters have kids there's no way it's ever going to change. Eventually I'll have kids too, and then I won't want it to change either. Still, it's an obvious socially-motivated redistribution of wealth, which I'm generally against.
Michael wrote:
That's totally incidental to the workplace, and it's fundamentally unfair to people without children who'd also like a personal day.
No, it's not. It recognizes parental responsibility which is a part of the institution of marriage which, on the one hand you want to support because it is a foundation of society and the church, but on the other, you'd really like a free day off. And that's what you would be getting, a free day off. It certainly is not a free day when I have to take my wife or one of my children to the doctor. It is, however, a responsibility that I gladly shoulder as a husband and father. Maybe when you become one, you will note the difference.
See also this.
But your responsibilities as a father are incidental to the workplace, and irrelevent to your co-workers. Why should they bear any burden because of your choice in lifestyle? You should bear the entire cost of that yourself.
There have been many times when I've had to do extra work because a co-worker has taken off to take care of their kids. It's absurdly unfair.
Naturally, however, all employers should have the right to pay their employees whatever is agreed upon between the two parties. This discrepancy is always something I negotiate and point out whenever I apply for a job.
My main concern is over publically-funded discrimination.
Michael wrote:
It's absurdly unfair.
No, Michael. It's life.
What you tax you discourage. What you subsidize you encourage. We tax singles and seniors for schools even though they enjoy no direct benefits. They enjoy the indirect benefits of streets free of roving gangs of adolescent toughs with nothing to do, and they enjoy the prospect of an economy continuing to function.
The marriage penalty in tax terms is a special break given to couples where one spouse works and one stays home supporting the marriage in non-commercial ways. If both spouses work, you're penalized by being in a higher tax bracket. You also get an extra deduction for each minor child you support. Our tax laws encourage this arrangement. Some feminists argue that this encouragement is wrong--the government should treat everyone as individuals, and spouses that only do "homework" should be paid prevailing wages for their work.
My wife argues that marriage is religious, and that the government has no business either approving or disapproving of marriage.
There ara a lot of "intangible" benefits to society of stable marriages that many studies have shown however. Would adding the government marriage subsidies to same sex couples encourage or discourage a prosperous and free society? That is the question for our secular government to answer. Whether you or I disapprove of someone's consenual sexual practices in an adult consenual monagamous relationship should be irrelevant from the U.S. government's point of view. Just as whether I kneel down before an idol (a statue of a saint in a Catholic church) should not be encouraged or discouraged by the government.
I'm with you Michael---almost
"However, since I hope and expect to have kids of my own one day, my complaints are mostly hot air. I don't think the current system is fair, but since most voters have kids there's no way it's ever going to change. Eventually I'll have kids too, and then I won't want it to change either. Still, it's an obvious socially-motivated redistribution of wealth, which I'm generally against."
What about the many singles who are not going to ever have children and who don't expect to marry. I have a fab life and don't want it to change -- dates yes, husband(s) no. I think the reason why the schools get less and less support from the public, is because those with children expect more and more benefits and the childless resent it.
And if marriage benefits are extended to gays, straight singles are discriminated against twice.
If there's no next generation, I don't see how that affects me... but why should I care?
- Who do you expect to pay your social security? Or change your sheets at the nursing home? Or serve your slurpees and wax your car? Do you think a generation can continue without the support of the younger ones that follow? BTW, for a case study on what a civilization with a negative growth birthrate looks like, watch Europe.
People with kids get child tax credits,
- Well, if you have kids, the government will pay you to not make too much money... In this case it is poverty that is subsidised, not family status.
public education,
- HA HA HA HO HO HO You break me up with that one! Public education is a benefit? I think not. (By the way, my taxes pay for schools that my homeschooled child does not use... wanna compare gripes about fairness?)
and public healthcare,
- My family's healthcare is not paid for by you or any other taxpayer. Once again, the subsidy is aimed at poverty rather than family status. Make enough money, and you get to pay for your own prescriptions!
People with kids are a greater drain on our common infrastructure
Sorry for draining your infrastructure... although I missed how that happenned exactly. Was it the increase in housing starts that is predominately driven by families with children that caused the drain? Or was it the money being invested into the stock market for college funds for Jr.? Or was it all those boy scouts gathering food for the elderly that put the strain on the economy? I know, it was all those unnecessary teachers paying unnecessary union dues that could have gone to tax breaks for the unmarried!
kids are destructive and disruptive
- Speak for yourself. I am personaly offended by this general mischaracterization. SOME kids are such. Please do not include my son in this lot until you have observed his character yourself. I know you made this statement flippantly, with no intent to offend. Nevertheless, you owe him and countless other well governed children an apology.
people with kids should pay more taxes.
- To the contrary, I think EVERYONE should pay less taxes. What you don't see though, is that families with children do pay more... Twice as much for food, twice as much for clothes, more for housing, etc.
I think same-sex marriage and/or civil unions will force a reduction in all sorts of marriage benefits.
As for many of your justifications for why people with kids should get some of my money:
who do I expect to take care of me when I'm old? Me, or people I pay. Everyone my age knows there's not going to be social security when we're old.
Public education is a benefit, whether you take advantage of it or not. Sure, it keeps gangs of kids off the streets, but why should I have to pay for that? Parents should assume that responsibility when they have kids.
And please, money that wasn't invested in college funds would be invested in other things. Don't be silly. Children aren't a net producer of economic activity.
I work with kids, from 1st grade through college, and I know they produce a net increase in disruption and social disturbance. Your specific kids may not, but we're talking about the average effects in the population.
I think everyone should pay less taxes too; as should have been pretty clear, my point was that people with kids should pay more taxes than people without kids, or at least the same amount. A flat tax system with no child deductions would be an improvement.
It's redistribution of wealth for social purposes, that's incredibly obvious. You may think the social purposes are good in this case, but in principle I'm against it.
I don't want your money (unless your are buying my product). However, the government has decided that it serves the general welfare of society to burden us with the outrageous tax system we have. Because of that, I get tax advantages you may not have, while I'm sure you have advantage to me in some other regard. Either way, we are both involuntarily contributing to causes or persons we don't wish to support or associate ourselves with.
You don't wish to subsidize marriage. I don't want to subsidize californian debt. I will never use medicaid, but I know plenty of folks that use my tax dollars everytime they get a sniffle. And food stamps? why can't I contribute that portion of my tax dollars to the food pantry of my choice? We send millions to washington, our locals spend thousands going there to beg for some of it back, and after we buy a mile or two of Robert Byrd's highway, or some other pet projects in re-election pandering we get some of it spent here on own roads... Why can't my money be used here instead?
I could go on... the point is this- I agree our tax system is unfair. So is life. We all suck it up and get on with it anyhow, at least until such time as meaningful change can be brought about. Tinkering with the difference between married deductions verses singles is not meaningful. It may make some folks jump and shout, but the fact is that their wealth is still being redistributed against their better interest. I agree- flat tax, no cap gains, local control over local resources.
I fail see how government controlled ingnorification of our kids is a benefit. As for parents assuming responsibility for their kids education, the government mandated system is stacked against those that would try. With the tax structure already working against the family, the easier choice is to use the government school. Is that the fault of the working, tax-paying parents that can't afford private schooling, or is the blame to lie at the feet of the bureaucrats, unionists, and pandering politicians that want to give everyone a "free" education?
"Children aren't a net producer of economic activity."
-I think the retailers of soccer uniforms would dissagree... sure there is demand for adult soccer uniforms, but it is swamped by the children's demand. And Disneyland... just for grownups? Saturday morning cartoons -- and the commercials they spawn -- demonstrate that there is demand for the dollars kids cause to be spent. How can you know that a college fund would be invested anyhow? Why would it not be blown on a trip to Tahiti? (I have nothing against trips to Tahiti.)
As for the "the average effects in the population", that is not how you phrased it. I do not dispute that our government schools and un-christian culture has resulted in a generation of kids that is generally disruptive and destructive. The way you stated it earlier applied this characteristic to all kids, and was wrong.
who do I expect to take care of me when I'm old? Me, or people I pay. Everyone my age knows there's not going to be social security when we're old.
By the way, my point wasn't so much how these services would be paid for, but rather that these services would be provided by the younger generation that you said would have no ill effect on your life if it didn't exist. Do you truly expect that when you're 72 years old and can't wipe the drool off your face, you'll be able to hire a 74 year old to do the job? When you're playing golf at 55 years of age, do you expect to hire a 60 year old caddy? When you go into burger king at 45 years of age, do you expect to see no one under thirty serving your meals? To contend that there being no generation after you would not bother you is plainly silly in itself, for these plainly secular reasons of the need for the older to be served by the younger.
Please allow me to shift the focus from the secular and to the christian... How is God's purpose served by there being multiple generations? Why does God have generation after generation continuing seemingly without end? I think this is a rich subject for consideration, which goes beyond the self-centered focus on trivial tax structures.
For example, when God promised Abraham that "all the nations of the earth would be blessed by his seed", why did he not send the messiah in the next generation? Forty-two generations later, Christ came. Many more generations have passed since He came to "finish the transgression, put an end to sin, and atone for iniquity." In spite of this, the "seed time and harvest" cycle continues, and we still continue to spawn generation after generation. Surely God has some grand purpose for the continued production of new generations, and I think there is rich wisdom to be found in seeking knowledge of that purpose.
Now that I have posed the question, I find that I don't have the answer... Except to say that continuing the human race through multiple generations serves God's purpose in some way, and that should be a cause to support the idea of marriage and children.
Michael says, "What I'd like to comment on here is the fact that single people are essentially forced to subsidize the families of married people, which I think is economically unfair."
True enough. Wealthy people have to subsidize poorer people. That's unfair, too.
The solution? A national sales tax to replace the federal income tax?
[Michael, by the way, first-time visitor (by way of The Puppy Blender); great site. Thanks].
gaw: I agree with you on many of these things; my point was that this inequality is annoying to me, not that there aren't plenty of other problems with our tax system. Don't take it so seriously :)
Rick: Thanks! I'm glad you like it.
Sorry, I forgot to properly close out my "rant" tag...
I'd still be interested to hear others reflect on the divine purpose of multiple generations.
Well, apparently the purpose is to make more people. But why? I don't know if we have enough information to answer that.
Actually it is the people who can least afford kids who are the most likely to have them.
It impacts their life style less than it does a middle class person. Especially when it comes to higher education.
When children are a net loss the incentive to have them will be less.
Uiversal Social Security is destroying the need for children as old age protection. Did some one mention France?
Financial incentives for kids? Rome once paid women to have children (for the future) and look what happened to them.
Children are a privelege and blessing. Not a right. Contrary to Hillary - they are the responsibilty of the parents who have them not everyone else. It therefore does not take a village (unless the village is extended family members)- but responsible parents (or a parent) to care, love and provide for their children. No one else should have to sacrifice for your children - only you.
But, yes, once a child is here, if as a parent one fails in their duty and responsibility, then others have a right to step in and remove the children to a place where they can get the love and care they deserve.
Only when we give kids a first chance, versus parents a second, third, or fourth, chance, will our general future be assured.
So what your saying is that since I don't make as much money as you I should be robbed the blessing of children? And Michael maybe society would be better if there wasn't such a thing as marriage at all. Then there's no need to worry about tax breaks. And those "jerks" who complain whould have nothing to complain about.
It's not fair... I work 8 hrs a day but I only make $6/hr, When others work 8 hrs a day and make $600/hr. We do equal amounts of work and so therefore should make equal amounts of money. :D
You want to know the real problem with America? Everyone is a victim. If someone is getting ahead of us or getting something we aren't we cry. We're no better than a bunch of kids.
Woocls: I'm saying that I shouldn't have to pay for your kids. If you can't afford to have them, then don't have them. It's none of my concern.
What makes you think you do work that's as valuable as someone who makes $600 per hour? I doubt you do, or you'd be making $600 per hour yourself. Just because work is hard doesn't mean it's valuable. There's a difference.
I both agree and disagree with the previous post.
I agree, because law-abiding, taxpaying United States citizens are FREE individuals....NOT the mandatory participants in the government's state-supported livestock-breeding program.
However, I would take issue with the definition of "valuable"...
If you accept anybody else's criteria for the definition of "valuable", you then become a "slave" and a "pimp" who essentially "whores" the opinions & ideas of others upon everyone else.
Only YOU can choose what is "valuable" for YOU.
Be well.
PM: Sure, only you can choose what is valuable for you, whatever that means. However, all that's relevant is how valuable you are to other people.