The point of my post was tax fraud. It would be widespread in OPs scenario.
Should we incentivize two parent households within the tax code?
- Thread starter FAUlty Gator
- Start date
So you think that people who are miserable in their marriage are going to decide to stay married because they get a little extra in tax credits? There are already financial benefits for being married that don't seem to be keeping people from getting divorced.
Possibly but there are a lot of ways to detect that.
Remember that the people attempting that would have to get all documents and mail sent to one home. Also I would presume those people would also have to file married filing jointly in order to get the credit. So somehow two people that have broken up would have to operate their finances like they were still together.
We could also require some documentation provided to show proof that both are still living at that address.
Co-parenting has proven to be very beneficial for children. Probably much more ideal than children stuck in a household where two parents hate each other but are waiting it out until the kids are out of school
Shared parenting with shared custody is still making the best of a bad situation. The best situation is still a 2 parent household.
And quite frankly I think 75% of the problem is people quit on their marriages before they can work their problems out.
Yeah I don't think abusive people get angry about losing a tax credit, they get angry because they got left and it wounds their ego. A tax credit isn't going to change any of that.
OP said that couples living together would qualify, so many would not be filing jointly and gave separate incomes. I'm just going off what I think the OPs intention was. From what he said, fraud would be widespread.
The problem I have with that is that ultimately sales tax is a regressive tax. Those with money can save and invest and avoid the tax. Those without money usually end up spending their entire paychecks on things they need.
Only way I could get behind that is by placing a MASSIVE tax on luxuries and no tax on needs. I would extend that tax also to luxury versions of needs. For example a home is a need, but a home that costs 150% or more of the median home in your area is a luxury and we tax anything above the 150%.
A car is a need but we tax anything above $30,000
I don't know how mathematically such a massive change like that would work, but a flat sales tax on everything is a regressive tax that punishes poor families for being poor. Quite frankly every tax that isn't the income tax and maybe property taxes are like that.
Lets think of this as a general idea that the details could be worked on and tweaked a bit. I would suggest that maybe you need to file married filing jointly to claim it. Or maybe you can file married filing separately but you have to provide extra documentation proving you live together....
You don't think money plays into abuse?
Well, let's all be glad you're not in charge.
As a motive? Not really no. I think having an outsized ego and anger and violence problem play into it.
And quite frankly the abuse canard is a red herring that's always thrown in to justify doing nothing to incentivize parents to get and stay married.
The change would be massive. And yes, if a billionaire wants jet or yacht, then they should have to pay more tax, not write it off as a loss like they do now. They current system punishes the middle class. Everyone is asking for fair taxation. Flat sales tax is the only way it makes it fair. Plus, you cut the IRS down, because they will only be looking at corporations to ensure they are reporting it correctly.
But it's not a fair taxation it's a system that punishes the poor for being poor.
The only way to make it fair is to heavily tax luxuries but have no tax on needs. People shouldn't be taxed at all on the money that would be needed to sustain themselves. They should be taxed on everything above that level.
Easy for you to say. Every day 3 women are killed by their partner in the US.
A quarter of divorces list 'financial stress'.
It’s part of an overall value system that stresses responsibility. And I don’t mean you don’t have to be religious so no intent on my part to make it seem so.
So, you're against giving tax breaks to people who buy EVs because a lot of people die in car crashes. You seem to get smarter every day, somehow.
But not all divorces listing financial stress are abusive. Most are not.
In fact providing an extra tax credit might alleviate that financial stress a bit.
I'm sorry your preconceived notions on marriage weigh more than the lives of those involved. Enjoy your day.
I think your thought is a complete red herring that you believe that a tax credit is going to induce more murder.
Yeah well, we all know that you live in lala land.
If women would just submit to their husbands like god intended they wouldn't get killed all the time, amiright!
I guess the question is, what does the data show regarding two-parent house holds? Is it just the numbers or do children fair better with a father and a mother? Of course, there are exceptions to everything and this would be no different. For example:
- A single mother would be better than an abusive mother and father
- An involved homosexual parenting couple (either sex) would be better than two absent heterosexual parents (e.g. 80-hour work week types)
The data would need to show "good" mother/father combo vs "good" single parent vs "good" homosexual couple.
Good luck defining "good".
- A single mother would be better than an abusive mother and father
- An involved homosexual parenting couple (either sex) would be better than two absent heterosexual parents (e.g. 80-hour work week types)
The data would need to show "good" mother/father combo vs "good" single parent vs "good" homosexual couple.
Good luck defining "good".
No, now I'm done talking with someone with repressive views on marriage. Enjoy your day.
Seems reasonable to me. But I remember when my kids were in elementary school they canceled a program that allowed dads to come follow their student for a day at school because some kids didn't have dads. So nobody could have one. Ridick.
You’re right. There is no equivalence to the idiocy that people shouldn’t stay together because it is just going to increase their chances of murdering one another. Because we all know it’s impossible to murder someone once we break up with them. That’s some stand alone logic right there. Well done.
It probably could, but it'd be about as profound as me running into a transgender in a Texas restroom. Sure, it can happen, but I likely won't experience it or hear about it.
Bottom line: Top 2 marital issues or arguments are Sex and Money, but I don't think a tax break is going to make the needle move on either of those two issues.
That sounds stupid. Punish the majority over a few? Just let the mom, uncle, granpa, etc. fill in.
I am zero percent surprised that you have no idea about how easy divorce was one of the most beneficial sources of women's advances.
Gee, why not try to push things the other way, they're only women!
On the flipside, why shouldn't the tax code try and incentivize all behavior that is good for society. We do it with EVs, with charitable donations, with home ownership, why not marriage?
So there's a tax incentive for an abuse victim to stay married to their abuser? Sounds like a bad idea.
^THIS^
My daughter's dance team had a lesbian parenting couple as well as a few single moms, so when we had the half-time daddy daughter dance routine we had one mom out there along with some brother's grandpas, etc. Nobody gave a flying fart and we're in Texas. The stink would have risen if the traditional dance had been canceled over the lesbian mom. Again, no one cared. The 2nd mom had a blast with us uncoordinated dads.
Why do we have to jump straight to abuse? How about an incentive for the philanderer that finds it financially easier to walk out on his family than stick around? What if it was financially more difficult?
