Tax Single Mothers

Canada_First · July 3, 2015

Taxes need to be based on income. Dont tax Single mothers more but dont encourage them to have more children. Even encourage them to get fixed. Pay them if need be so they stop having babies.

Shady · 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.

You gotta wonder if people knew that they weren't guaranteed tax credits, and tax money payments to support their irresponsiblity, if they'd actually take steps to not have children they can't support. The more we subsidize it, the more we'll get.

cybercoma · July 3, 2015

You didn't explain why.

Because he's trolling you. That's why.

cybercoma · July 3, 2015

You gotta wonder if people knew that they weren't guaranteed tax credits, and tax money payments to support their irresponsiblity, if they'd actually take steps to not have children they can't support. The more we subsidize it, the more we'll get.

You gotta wonder at what point you decided that children living in poverty aren't worth helping.

Canada_First · July 3, 2015

You gotta wonder at what point you decided that children living in poverty aren't worth helping.

irresponsible people put them in poverty. If they cannot afford a child. They shouldn't be having any. Shouldn't force the rest if us to pay for all the bastards of the country.

cybercoma · July 3, 2015

irresponsible people put them in poverty. If they cannot afford a child. They shouldn't be having any. Shouldn't force the rest if us to pay for all the bastards of the country.

Only rich people should have kids. :rolleyes:

Look, I know your schtick is to just troll the forum like an idiot, but the sad thing is people actually believe this stupidity. The fact is children don't choose to be born into poverty and they deserve every opportunity to succeed that their parents may not be able to provide for them. It's through no fault of their own that their parents are poor and we shouldn't be exacerbating their situation. And since your argument is fundamentally selfish, the reason you should help is so that the society you live in doesn't see rising crime and lack of education, along with all the other negative outcomes of children living in poverty. Those negative outcomes affect everyone, not just the children themselves.

bush_cheney2004 · July 3, 2015

You gotta wonder if people knew that they weren't guaranteed tax credits, and tax money payments to support their irresponsiblity, if they'd actually take steps to not have children they can't support. The more we subsidize it, the more we'll get.

Agreed....1990's welfare reform in the U.S. was partially based on this very premise. Now it's time to ramp it up with a "Knocked Up" tax.

Edited July 3, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

cybercoma · July 3, 2015

Yeah, make it harder for children to succeed. Great social policy. :rolleyes:

On Guard for Thee · July 3, 2015

irresponsible people put them in poverty. If they cannot afford a child. They shouldn't be having any. Shouldn't force the rest if us to pay for all the bastards of the country.

So you think all the bastards of the country are a draw on it eh. Well I can tell you I and my mother have contributed a truckload more money to the country's coffers than we have ever drained out of them. I may be a bastard, but I'm not a stupid bastard.

Michael Hardner · July 3, 2015

Yeah, make it harder for children to succeed. Great social policy.

It's the tired old punish-the-poor agenda, which is in the process of breeding a giant new wave of socialism that will come north, eventually, from south of the border.

The math doesn't work, as single mothers will have children who will get to vote and you can't gerrymander out a majority.

WIP · July 3, 2015

Because he's trolling you. That's why.

Only difference I see from before, is he's taken down that butchered Phil Jones quote.

WIP · July 3, 2015

Honestly, I don't know why I'm starting this thread except to express my outrage that derogatory statements can be made against 'single mothers' without a means of women sticking up for themselves. I think that Shady and others should provide contributions to this thread to back the statements that we should tax single mothers because we don't want them.

This is a horrific and sad statement that is allowed to be promoted on this forum.

this thread is the first thing I noticed today. After reading most of 9 pages, it doesn't look like anything's resolved.

I'll blow rightwing minds by quoting Noam Chomsky on the core problem of capitalism:

"in a world devoid of community spirit, where selfishness is encouraged, “If the kid next door is hungry, it’s not your problem. If the retired couple next door invested their assets badly and are now starving, that’s not your problem either.”

So, in a world that promotes selfishness and self-absorption, should it come as any surprise that concern for young mothers AND their children, is considered a luxury/ rather than a social obligation? Something to be relegated to the whims of charitable gift-giving if that!

I would venture to say that liberals need to stop patting themselves on the back on this and other issues, because they take most of the same approaches to public policy decisions as conservatives. Only difference is they try to hide or divert attention from what their doing, while the Ayn Rand-worshiping rightwingers openly brag about it.

msj · July 3, 2015

I would venture to say that liberals need to stop patting themselves on the back on this and other issues, because they take most of the same approaches to public policy decisions as conservatives. Only difference is they try to hide or divert attention from what their doing, while the Ayn Rand-worshiping rightwingers openly brag about it.

What does this statement even mean?

Do you mean "passive aggressive" policies like the Child Tax Benefit? Or the Universal Child Care Benefit?

Let's look at a scenario:

In Canada we have a system where, in BC, a single parent who earns, say, $25,000, and has a 5 year old kid, will pay less than $100 in income tax, get about $3,750 of Child Tax Benefit, get the $1,200 UCCB amount, get the GST credit of $687 and the BC Climate credit of $231.

The responsible single person making $25,000 per year gets to pay tax of $2,177, does not get any CTB nor UCCB (of course not, no kid), gets about $415 for the GST credit and $116 for the BC Climate credit.

IOW - the single parent gets $5,768 (net) whereas the single person pays $1,646.

That's a swing of $7,414 for having the kid.

I think many liberals and conservatives agree that enough is enough.

Yes, to tax a single parent is dumb - leads to unhappy and unhealthy relationships.

But to continue to ask for handouts from us working stiffs who have to live and pay for our choices while paying for their choices too, is getting a bit long in the tooth in the age of birth control.

cybercoma · July 3, 2015

But to continue to ask for handouts

Who's asking for more handouts? The only thing I can see you calling a handout is the demand for a universal childcare program, which doesn't just benefit single parents, but all parents. And besides, it gets more people working which helps the economy and generates more tax revenues.

The_Squid · July 3, 2015

Single mothers are already taxed on their income... so saying "tax single mothers" as if they aren't taxed already is about the stupidest thing I've ever read on this forum, which is saying something....

Several "right wingers" here are charicatures that troll the boards... the more absurd and assinine, the better.

Edited July 3, 2015 by The_Squid

bush_cheney2004 · July 3, 2015

President Bill Clinton, loved by American liberals and wannabes in Canada alike, stopped the federal welfare gravy train:

....Yet when I ran for president in 1992, our system still was not working for the taxpayers or for those it was intended to help. In my first State of the Union address, I promised to “end welfare as we know it,” to make welfare a second chance, not a way of life, exactly the change most welfare recipients wanted it to be.

...In the past decade, welfare rolls have dropped substantially, from 12.2 million in 1996 to 4.5 million today. At the same time, caseloads declined by 54 percent. Sixty percent of mothers who left welfare found work, far surpassing predictions of experts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/opinion/22clinton.html?_r=0

Edited July 3, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

msj · July 3, 2015

The CTB and UCCB programs are also handouts.

"Free" education is also a handout.

They are good handouts but they are handouts nonetheless for all those who pay sweet bugger in taxes while the rest of us pay them.

As a taxpayer who actually pays these handouts, and as a voter, I think my say on to what amount the handouts get to should be considered without the "well, stop patting yourself on the back because you're still not giving enough" BS.

Canada_First · July 3, 2015

So you think all the bastards of the country are a draw on it eh. Well I can tell you I and my mother have contributed a truckload more money to the country's coffers than we have ever drained out of them. I may be a bastard, but I'm not a stupid bastard.

The ones who cannot afford to have children should have them taken away and then they can be adopted out to families that can afford them. Lots of people waiting on adoption lists for babies.

Canada_First · July 3, 2015

Yeah, make it harder for children to succeed. Great social policy.

If the mother is poor. The child should be taken away and put up for adoption. Simple. No more burden on our system.

PrimeNumber · July 3, 2015

What does this statement even mean?

Do you mean "passive aggressive" policies like the Child Tax Benefit? Or the Universal Child Care Benefit?

Let's look at a scenario:

In Canada we have a system where, in BC, a single parent who earns, say, $25,000, and has a 5 year old kid, will pay less than $100 in income tax, get about $3,750 of Child Tax Benefit, get the $1,200 UCCB amount, get the GST credit of $687 and the BC Climate credit of $231.

The responsible single person making $25,000 per year gets to pay tax of $2,177, does not get any CTB nor UCCB (of course not, no kid), gets about $415 for the GST credit and $116 for the BC Climate credit.

IOW - the single parent gets $5,768 (net) whereas the single person pays $1,646.

That's a swing of $7,414 for having the kid.

I think many liberals and conservatives agree that enough is enough.

Yes, to tax a single parent is dumb - leads to unhappy and unhealthy relationships.

But to continue to ask for handouts from us working stiffs who have to live and pay for our choices while paying for their choices too, is getting a bit long in the tooth in the age of birth control.

I agree with all of this.

Tax Credits for single parents has to stop.

Tax credits for anyone has to stop, unless everyone get's them.

Hal 9000 · July 3, 2015

The amount that taxpayers pay for fostering kids is staggering. At least double what we pay to welfare moms. It's cheaper for us to tell welfare moms to just stay home, watch Maury, collect your free ride and don't get into too much trouble.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Hal 9000

Canada_First · July 4, 2015

The amount that taxpayers pay for fostering kids is staggering. At least double what we pay to welfare moms. It's cheaper for us to tell welfare moms to just stay home, watch Maury, collect your free ride and don't get into too much trouble.

lots of ppl waiting for babies. We just take them from the mother right after birth and tell the pre screened parent to come pick up their child.

Ash74 · July 4, 2015

lots of ppl waiting for babies. We just take them from the mother right after birth and tell the pre screened parent to come pick up their child.

And now we know the thought process when native children were kidnapped and sent to schools.

Or how slave owners sold children and took them away from their parents. So much for evolution.

bush_cheney2004 · July 4, 2015

The amount that taxpayers pay for fostering kids is staggering. At least double what we pay to welfare moms. It's cheaper for us to tell welfare moms to just stay home, watch Maury, collect your free ride and don't get into too much trouble.

I'm glad you mentioned this, because the Canadian PDF slide deck referenced above made that very point. Foster care is one of the biggest negative outcomes for taxpayers and the kids as well. Huge consequence of single mothers/parents.

On Guard for Thee · July 4, 2015

Single mothers are already taxed on their income... so saying "tax single mothers" as if they aren't taxed already is about the stupidest thing I've ever read on this forum, which is saying something....

Several "right wingers" here are charicatures that troll the boards... the more absurd and assinine, the better.

Ain't it kinda funny just who chimed in right below this post of yours.