Tax Single Mothers

-1=e^ipi · June 30, 2015

Would 'Tax Single Mothers More' be a more appropriate thread title? Unless you are suggesting that single mothers should be exempt from all tax.

This is about the children. Not the parents.

Well it should be about the children, but in my experience child support often became spousal support and often essentials were not bought for me and my sibling. There aren't any checks to ensure that the support is going to the child.

Big Guy · June 30, 2015

A government can effect the family make-up through the funding of domestic policy. If we want more children and in two parent families then we give tax incentives or bonus in escalating process. For example, provide a baby bonus of $4,000 for the first child, $6,000 for the second $8,000 for the third etc. - IF - it is a family with two parents. Single parents are out of luck.

Before you go ballistic - this was just an example.

To discourage large families you do the reverse. There are many other financial initiatives that a government can use to promote two parent families or discourage or encourage single parent families.

I continue to believe that a stable two parent family is a better atmosphere than a stable one parent family. I also believe that there are times and situations where children should be taken over by the state for their own safety. There is a place for orphanages rather than some of the horror stories I read of child abuse by incompetent parents and foster parents.

-1=e^ipi · June 30, 2015

For example, provide a baby bonus of $4,000 for the first child, $6,000 for the second $8,000 for the third etc.

The problem with that is it incentivizes inequality of family sizes. So you will have few people having more kids. This increases future income inequality and results in less support per child.

Canada_First · June 30, 2015

Single mothers happen but they shouldn't be encouraged. We encourage them by letting them go on welfare so easily. Fat welfare cheques plus fat baby bonuses equals women who will refuse to look for work. Instead we should encourage 2 parent homes through tax breaks for 2 working parents. Daycare bursaries and allowances. Perhaps even outright cheques for real Canadians who get their real Canadian spouses pregnant.

Bryan · June 30, 2015

I started a thread to hold a member accountable to their statement. Status updates are far too easy a method of posting an opinion and not backing it up (even if it's rhetorical). Especially when it's directed specifically at single mothers. One of the more vulnerable groups in society that don't always stand up for themselves.

It's quite telling that after all this you still don't even understand the point that was made by that original statement.

WestCoastRunner · July 1, 2015

It's quite telling that after all this you still don't even understand the point that was made by that original statement.

What is telling is what everyone missed in shadys statement. He said:

Maybe we should tax what we don't want. Single mothers.

Now, please tell me how this is not offensive to single mothers, regardless of whatever point he was trying to make.

-1=e^ipi · July 1, 2015

Maybe we should tax what we don't want. Single mothers.

Now, please tell me how this is not offensive to single mothers, regardless of whatever point he was trying to make.

Saying we should tax what we don't want is often used to justify Pigouvian taxes (for example: taxes of alcohol, cigarettes, CO2 emissions, etc.). Perhaps Shady was trying to look for consistency. In which case, Pigouvian taxes require a negative externality to be justified and the argument of 'we should tax what we don't want' is an oversimplification. If there are no negative externalities associated with single mothers, then there is not good justification to tax single mothers more than other individuals.

WestCoastRunner · July 3, 2015

Saying we should tax what we don't want is often used to justify Pigouvian taxes (for example: taxes of alcohol, cigarettes, CO2 emissions, etc.). Perhaps Shady was trying to look for consistency. In which case, Pigouvian taxes require a negative externality to be justified and the argument of 'we should tax what we don't want' is an oversimplification. If there are no negative externalities associated with single mothers, then there is not good justification to tax single mothers more than other individuals.

That is my point. There are no negative externalities and for shady to suggest otherwise is insulting to every single human being.

bush_cheney2004 · July 3, 2015

But there are "negative externalities" associated with single motherhood/parenthood. Tax 'em !

WestCoastRunner · July 3, 2015

But there are "negative externalities" associated with single motherhood/parenthood. Tax 'em !

Can you please state them?

bush_cheney2004 · July 3, 2015

Read them here....CanCon style:

http://www.vanierinstitute.ca/include/get.php?nodeid=1147

WestCoastRunner · July 3, 2015

Read them here....CanCon style:

http://www.vanierinstitute.ca/include/get.php?nodeid=1147

Sorry, summarize and put them into your own words. Stand behind what you post.

bush_cheney2004 · July 3, 2015

Sorry, summarize and put them into your own words. Stand behind what you post.

No...read the "cite" if you want the answer.

WestCoastRunner · July 3, 2015

No...read the "cite" if you want the answer.

No, summarize what you believe is negative to single mothers. I don't want to read through a multi-page pdf. You are hiding behind a document. Do you not have the balls to say out loud what you believe.

For gods sake, Kimmy had to bail you out with Obamas racists comments the other day. Do you need someone else to bail you out here.

Edited July 3, 2015 by WestCoastRunner

bush_cheney2004 · July 3, 2015

No, summarize what you believe is negative to single mothers. I don't want to read through a multi-page pdf. You are hiding behind a document. Do you not have the balls to say out loud what you believe.

I believe you are afraid to read the requested cite. There are very negative consequences for children and society stemming from single parent motherhood/families. Those consequences are well documented. Tax 'em !

WestCoastRunner · July 3, 2015

I believe you are afraid to read the requested cite. There are very negative consequences for children and society stemming from single parent motherhood/families. Those consequences are well documented. Tax 'em !

Tell me what they are!

bush_cheney2004 · July 3, 2015

Tell me what they are!

Thank you for your interesting response and demands. The answers that you seek are in the Canadian slide deck.

I am taking this opportunity to demonstrate that somebody who always demands a "cite" is now reluctant to read it.

Edited July 3, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

-1=e^ipi · July 3, 2015

Read them here....CanCon style:

http://www.vanierinstitute.ca/include/get.php?nodeid=1147

Using CNTRL + F, the word externality is not contained within the pdf.

There are very negative consequences

Consequence != Externality.

Do you not have the balls to say out loud what you believe.

You are using gender conditioning and reinforcing traditionalist gender roles with this statement btw.

bush_cheney2004 · July 3, 2015

Using CNTRL + F, the word externality is not contained within the pdf.

Consequence != Externality.

In economics it is:

ex·ter·nal·i·ty

ˌekstərˈnalitē/

noun

noun: externality; plural noun: externalities

1.

Economics

a side effect or consequence of an industrial or commercial activity that affects other parties without this being reflected in the cost of the goods or services involved, such as the pollination of surrounding crops by bees kept for honey.

-1=e^ipi · July 3, 2015

And that is not the same thing as consequence, since you can have a consequence that is internalized.

WestCoastRunner · July 3, 2015

In economics it is:

ex·ter·nal·i·ty

ˌekstərˈnalitē/

noun

noun: externality; plural noun: externalities

1.

Economics

a side effect or consequence of an industrial or commercial activity that affects other parties without this being reflected in the cost of the goods or services involved, such as the pollination of surrounding crops by bees kept for honey.

You guys are fuc...in kidding me.

bush_cheney2004 · July 3, 2015

You guys are fuc...in kidding me.

I am not kidding....tax them...tax them now.

WestCoastRunner · July 3, 2015

I am not kidding....tax them...tax them now.

You didn't explain why.

bush_cheney2004 · July 3, 2015

You didn't explain why.

Already explained and the premise for this thread. Single mothers/parents cause several negative consequences for society with uncompensated costs and liabilities. Tax 'em to offset the marginal costs to society and provide a disincentive for such outcomes.

WestCoastRunner · July 3, 2015

Already explained and the premise for this thread. Single mothers/parents cause several negative consequences for society with uncompensated costs and liabilities. Tax 'em to offset the marginal costs to society and provide a disincentive for such outcomes.

Right. You are shadys mouthpiece. I forgot.