🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 04 May 2001 05:46:01 GMT, "mapanari" <mapanari@earthlink.nut>
wrote:

>
>"Ron Natalie" <ron@stop.mail-abuse.org> wrote in message
>news:3AF14781.65D23E2D@stop.mail-abuse.org...
>>
>>
>> Dragonfly wrote:
>> >
>> > Marriage penalty?  How about just a break for single people.
>> >
>> > Consider that in general, single people, or even married people with 1
>> > income, have to provide food, clothing, shelter and insuance with 1
>> > source of income, while a marriage with 2 wage-earners are actually
>> > taking jobs which singles or married people with only 1 income might
>> > badly need, just so they can afford a jet-ski and gas for an oversized,
>> > overpolluting SUV.
>> >
>> DINKs are only a subset of married people.  If you think the exemption
>> for children goes anywhere near mitigating the cost of raising a kid you
>> are insane.
>
>That's not the point.
>The point is that why should single people pay more taxes to help you raise
>*your* children?

There is a social reason for that.

And it's actually why he marriage penalty is here.

The taxes were set up to give a break to a couple with one wage earner
and one child rearer.  The intent was for the rest of us to subsidize
couples where the wife raised the kids.  

So now we have couples who want to foist the rearing of their kids on
some commercial child care provider (many who are run by tax
subsidised churches) so both couples can work.  And they pay a tax
penalty for that.

I'm not so sure thats bad.  Their kids, the ones raised by
institutions instead of parents, are more likely to end up costing
society in later years.

As to those who want the legal protections of marriage, and extra tax
benifits to boot, but don't want to provide society with well raised
kids to give us a labor force for our old age -- well, you're the same
self-absorbed brats that brought us Starbucks -- fuck you.



Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com