Tax Single Mothers

On Guard for Thee · July 6, 2015

Just because a man decides to walk away doesn't mean they are doing it to avoid parental responsibility. They might be leaving an abusive relationship. Maybe the two parties decide to get divorced, etc. Do you really think men 'avoiding parental responsibility' are the reason custody rates are so skewed (you would need like over 50% of the male population in cases of separation to be avoiding parental responsibility), especially when some of these men then try to get custody in the children? If they were avoiding parental responsibility, why would they want parental custody? It makes no sense.

And we know how that turns out.

Custody rates suggest otherwise.

They might be leaving an abusive relationship. And they might be the cause of an abusive relationship. Who do you think holds the upper hand there most often... You are grasping there. Again, if there is a custody battle, the courts try to decide what is best for the child, and it aint all about breast feeding.

drummindiver · July 6, 2015

No, the courts by and large have adopted a policy of deciding custody in such cases based on who is and has been the primary caregiver. That tends more often to be the mother.

Wrong.

I know due to first hand family knowledge that this is blatantly false.

On Guard for Thee · July 6, 2015

Wrong.

I know due to first hand family knowledge that this is blatantly false.

So UR saying it is more often granted to the father...dont think so.

drummindiver · July 6, 2015

So UR saying it is more often granted to the father...dont think so.

I'm saying that mothers' are granted custody more often, even if they haven't been the primary care giver.

drummindiver · July 6, 2015

Here's what one of Canada's most famous (infamous?) socialists has to say about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnNIwxkDKxw

On Guard for Thee · July 6, 2015

I'm saying that mothers' are granted custody more often, even if they haven't been the primary care giver.

I am assuming you have some stats to back that up. No idea where you are trying to go with the Neil Young connection.

drummindiver · July 6, 2015

I am assuming you have some stats to back that up. No idea where you are trying to go with the Neil Young connection.

Lighten up pal.

On a thread about Single Mothers, I thought it was appra pro.

Big Guy · July 6, 2015

What is wrong with the idea of orphanages?

cybercoma · July 6, 2015

Cybercoma, do you not see how having low income people out breed the rest of the population is problematic? Not just to creating larger income inequality in a generation but in terms of the long run implications for the species?

No, I don't see that because I'm not an insane conspiracy theorist and social darwinist. Edited July 6, 2015 by cybercoma

On Guard for Thee · July 6, 2015

What is wrong with the idea of orphanages?

I think you may need to flesh out that statement a bit so we know where you are coming from with that one.

cybercoma · July 6, 2015

I have a great idea. Let's enforce sterilization on single men and women who live in poverty. And for those whose marriage ends in divorce resulting in single moms, let's take their kids away so they can be adopted by wealthy families.

Great idea! Maybe we could have Better Baby Contests again! There's so much historical ignorance on this forum that these people don't even recognize that their making eugenicist arguments.

cybercoma · July 6, 2015

If being a single mother didn't get bailed out. Do you think they would stay single very long?

Do you think women should have to rely on other people to support them, typically men? Or are you completely blind to how this is exactly the kind of patriarchal oppression that equal rights advocates have fought against for generations?

Edited July 6, 2015 by cybercoma

cybercoma · July 6, 2015

Hell no. I'm serious. The only way to eradicate single moms since we don't want them is to remove their opportunities to get pregnant and the children from the family after a divorce. Maybe we should consider orphanages. That would be cheaper.

Of course this would go ignored. It illustrates exactly how boneheaded some of the arguments here are.

Big Guy · July 6, 2015

The final safety net for children who could not be supervised, nurtured or assisted in growing up properly used to be orphanages. This is a state controlled process where the state looks after its wards directly rather than trying to find surrogates. From most of the research that I can find, the idea should not be dismissed as a viable alternative to leaving children in dangerous family situations or children of parents incapable of proper supervision and provision.

https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/analysis/foster-families-or-orphanages-what-do-alumni-say/2793

If the state is going to support the child then why should the state not directly supervise and control the process?

The previous horror stories of orphanages are based on the lack of control and supervision of the orphanages themselves. I do believe that a stable two parent family environment gives the child the best opportunity of success but there are many two, one or no parent situations where the child is far better off in an orphanage.

-1=e^ipi · July 6, 2015

No, I don't see that because I'm not an insane conspiracy theorist and social darwinist.

You keep pretending I'm a conspiracy theorist, yet I never claim that there is a conspiracy.

There's so much historical ignorance on this forum that these people don't even recognize that their making eugenicist arguments.

Eugenics by the very broad definition isn't inherently wrong.

WIP · July 6, 2015

Thats why Harpers plan to reward hardworking responsible families is brilliant.

The other parties all opposed it saying it helps the rich. Well it's true, but it's there reward for not drinking , not doing drugs, paying their bills, being responsible, and not blowing all their money at the casino, Going home every day and making supper, having a clean loving family environment.

No doubt thanks to Harper's experience as strategist for the NCC he is 'brilliant' at misdirection. Most of the rewards would get picked off by the already prosperous and little would fall through for those who need any "rewards."

I'm sure we would all love to be partying all the time still, but we don't, Because it's wrong.

Back to slut-shaming! The open insinuation is invariably these are women who can't keep their legs closed, enjoy sex too much, and won't look after their kids.

It's like a action plan, But , to stimulate good behaviour with tax breaks. If we're going to borrow money to stimulate the economy. You might as well give it to people who behave responsibly and are raising their kids properly.
And it's accessible to everyone, all you have to do is stop making bad decisions.

If someone decides to be a burden on our society because of bad decisions he makes, They should pay more taxes. Not be rewarded with money to help them with their difficult situation they have made for themselves.

The same way that if you bare no burden on society because of your responsible behaviour, Government should give you a tax credit, For that.

Rather than depending on "big government" to dispense rewards and penalties".....and I thought conservatives were against intrusive government.....I guess it depends on who the government is intruding on....anyway, the best idea of how to deal with poverty issues is the same one first offered up over 40 years ago: a guaranteed annual income. Sure, the rightwingers are going to spin it as a reward for 'free riders,' but in the few nations that have a guaranteed income, they find very few who just take the money and sit back and do nothing! Most continue working and without the stress and burden of worry about losing the ability to earn an income, there are more people who choose self-employment or start their own businesses when a minimum income system is established. Likely because...just like many blue collar workers wait till retirement to start their dream of having their own business...having that guaranteed income takes away a lot of the risk of failure from making the attempt.

WIP · July 6, 2015

What is wrong with the idea of orphanages?

You need to discover the work of Charles Dickens!

WIP · July 6, 2015

Here's what one of Canada's most famous (infamous?) socialists has to say about it.

So, you're saying Neil Young is inconsistent in his thinking and says a lot of stupid things in his songwriting? I guess there's not enough musicians who study philosophy or political science.

WIP · July 6, 2015

Please tell this to the feminists that are convinced that men were oppressing women since the dawn of time.

Feminists divide on all sorts of issues, none more than what is intrinsic in male and female gender. Some early feminist writers over 100 years ago, were enthused by the writings of the first generation of anthropologists, who were studying 'wild' hunter/gatherers around the world and 'primitive' horticultural' agrarian societies. With a few exceptions, simple hunter/gatherer bands tended to be strongly egalitarian, while more complex agrarian societies were deemed "matriarchal" by those early anthropologists because their family life was structured around mothers and grandmothers, and not fathers. Part of the reason was that since there is no clear evidence of any clear understanding of paternity before 5000 years ago, men in a family group would not understand paternity and in the modern hunter/gatherer tribes being discovered at the time, still did not understand that one man and one man only fathers each child. That realization seems to have played a big part in leading towards patriarchal systems of "civilization."

But, I recall several decades ago, when Gloria Steinem was writing on these subjects, that she was attacked by some other feminists...especially those who subscribed to strict behaviourist theories of psychology that male and female behaviour is completely malleable, and rejected any theories from whatever sources that there was a fundamental human nature that included differences in gender.

Edited July 6, 2015 by WIP

LesActive · July 6, 2015

This thread is very revealing in its presentation of the divisiveness of entitlement inherent in the allegedly forced income tax scheme. I'm no economist, by any stretch, but it's pretty easy to see that those who are hoarding money by the truckload are harming the economy more than those who are, for whatever reason, too poor to help themselves out of the mess that they find themselves experiencing. If the analogy of economics as the body and money is the economy's blood, then the overly rich (yes there is such a thing) are clots. What happens when the body is forced to deal with too many clots?

There seems to be a lot of blaming going on and it's the ones who suffer the most who are getting the brunt of the anger. There is certainly enough revenue generated to make everyone comfortable. Moral superiority is not a trump card with which you bash the poor

bush_cheney2004 · July 6, 2015

....There seems to be a lot of blaming going on and it's the ones who suffer the most who are getting the brunt of the anger. There is certainly enough revenue generated to make everyone comfortable. Moral superiority is not a trump card with which you bash the poor

Agreed...there is plenty of revenue to go around, but that isn't the point at all. Single parent welfare payments are a relatively small portion of government budgets, but the trump card is political and the perceived unfairness to working taxpayers is real. That's why "workfare" and lifetime welfare maximums were enacted in the United States.

cybercoma · July 6, 2015

Workfare and welfare maximums were enacted in the United States because voters are selfish and ignorant cannibals.

drummindiver · July 6, 2015

Workfare and welfare maximums were enacted in the United States because voters are selfish and ignorant cannibals.

...again with the anti-American bigotry, wtf

There are many people of all stripes, single mothers included, who abuse the welfare system, both in Canada and the US. There should be maximums, and in some cases (younger ppl on perpetual welfare because they don`t want to work) workfare.

-1=e^ipi · July 6, 2015

I'm no economist, by any stretch, but it's pretty easy to see that those who are hoarding money by the truckload are harming the economy

Saving money and not spending more than you can afford = hoarding. Being irresponsible and spending well above your means while racking up debt = oppressed. Got it.

Freddy · July 6, 2015

Do you think women should have to rely on other people to support them, typically men? Or are you completely blind to how this is exactly the kind of patriarchal oppression that equal rights advocates have fought against for generations?

Don't you realize that's what marriage is all about. That's why it's called loving one a other. Literally you take care of one a other. It's not oppression it's love. Wow.