« prev   random   next »

0
0

The biggest marriage penalty.

By REpro following x   2013 Nov 9, 5:39am 6,919 views   21 comments   watch   nsfw   quote     share    


System works from years and is trendy. Once popular between poor; now spreading rapidly to middle class neighborhoods.
A couple have two-three or more children, but they are not married. Single nonworking woman, but taking care of children, can easy qualify for Section 8 housing, food stamps, utility allowance, Medicare, and all other discounts. Housing is the highest expense for most. Section 8 recipients can live anywhere in US and receive voucher up to $2,200/mo., which is not difficult to receive in attractive and expensive areas and many times live in a single family house. Father of children has a good paid job, pays child support, has two cars, and lives together as mother’s boyfriend. If couple decides to get married, they’ll lose $26,400 After Tax in Section 8 alone!

#housing

1   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2013 Nov 9, 5:48am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Want to eliminate the marriage tax? Eliminate the use of the income tax to fund general funding. Instead tax rent income like actual rental income, capital gains, and all other income that does not come from actual work. Increase land tax. Finally make the income tax proportional to the rich-poor gap and only tax the rich, those making over $400,000.

Then there will be no marriage tax penalty. All this can be easily done if we stop paying all the parasites in the warfare industry.

2   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2013 Nov 9, 6:04am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

egads101 says

Dan8267 says

Instead tax rent income like actual rental income,

rent is taxed as regular income. In typical pat.net form, just say shit you don't know anything about.

I didn't say it wasn't. I was simply listing it as an example of income from owning stuff. In typical pat.net form, just say shit without comprehending what another person posted.

3   HydroCabron   ignore (1)   2013 Nov 9, 6:32am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

If you think the biggest marriage penalty is financial, you have clearly never been married.

(I'm here all week!)

4   Blurtman   ignore (1)   2013 Nov 9, 6:44am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goddam! I'm gonna try that with a stable of babes. Thanks!

5   REpro   ignore (0)   2013 Nov 9, 6:47am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Current tax deduction on children is a joke. If instead married couple will have tax credit e.g. 12K for a first child and some less for another or disable person staying in marriage union, game will change drastically. Many married middle class couple now complaining about not able to afford children and honestly, have right.

6   Quigley   ignore (0)   2013 Nov 9, 7:06am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

REpro says

Current tax deduction on children is a joke. If instead married couple will have tax credit e.g. 12K for a first child and some less for another or disable person staying in marriage union, game will change drastically. Many married middle class couple now complaining about not able to afford children and honestly, have right.

Yes, this is true. They just lowered the deduction also. Unless you're poor enough to qualify for "earned income" status, having kids is barely enough of a write-off to qualify as such. People got way more cash for clunkers. It's sort of ridiculous how much the deck is stacked against families. The welfare model is the only one that works for many parents. And that's more than a little sad.

7   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2013 Nov 9, 7:07am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

REpro says

Current tax deduction on children is a joke.

The joke is that people get tax deductions for children at all. They should be taxed more for having children. After all, our taxpayer dollars go to school children, feed children while at school, provide medical care to them, provide parks for them, pay for child protective services, and a crap load of other things all for the children.

If you are going to willingly choose to create a drain on our local, state, and federal treasuries, then you should be taxed more, not less, for creating that drain.

Furthermore, the last thing this planet, on the brink of ecological collapse, needs is more humans. Already a third of the people in the world don't have access to safe drinking water. There are too few jobs in this country. We certainly don't need a larger population.

8   Quigley   ignore (0)   2013 Nov 9, 7:22am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Dan, ecologically, the best thing for you to do is retire to your basement, sit down in the corner, and mold.
Since you base your policy suggestions on this model, I'd suggest you get started saving the planet immediately.

9   REpro   ignore (0)   2013 Nov 9, 7:57am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Dan8267 says

The joke is that people get tax deductions for children at all

This is perfect prescription for replacing one population for another. Yours will disappear very soon.

10   anonymous   ignore (null)   2013 Nov 9, 7:59am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Ah welfare...the wolf in sheep's clothing.

11   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2013 Nov 9, 11:14am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

REpro says

Dan8267 says

The joke is that people get tax deductions for children at all

This is perfect prescription for replacing one population for another. Yours will disappear very soon.

Honey, when the world's population drops to under 100 million, then you can argue that we need to encourage reproduction. Until then, reality is

We don't need to encourage overpopulation and all the evils that come with it such as
- famine
- disease
- war
- poverty
- pollution
- deforestation

Just to name a few.

Tax breaks for people choosing to have children is nothing more than parents being selfish. It is no more socially justifiable than tax breaks for trips to the strip joint. In fact, the later is more justifiable because it does not result in government spending on schools, food programs, parks, etc. that are spent for kids.

You want to have kids? Fine. But you should be the one paying for them. If you can't, then you shouldn't have them.

If anything, we should have a fiscal requirement for having children that proves you need to tax breaks and then require a license proving that your responsible enough to take care of them.

12   REpro   ignore (0)   2013 Nov 9, 11:24am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

This is not third world problem thread.
In meantime, our government spent billions on variety of social help, loosing track where this money really goes and who is beneficial.

13   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2013 Nov 9, 11:27am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

REpro says

This is not third world problem thread.

Overpopulation, pollution, lack of adequate water, and unemployment are whole world problems, not a third world problems.

14   REpro   ignore (0)   2013 Nov 9, 11:46am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Fine. You have subject for another thread.

15   BlueSardine   ignore (2)   2013 Nov 9, 12:58pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Why should he be fined?
REpro says

Fine. You have subject for another thread.


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions