Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
2.7 million is statistically insignificant just as I stated and I am sure they will make exceptions for the elderly as everyone has to get old.
BTW MOST political issues ARE emotionally driven unless we went to an absolute flat tax where no one gets any write offs other than businesses for business expenses.
That's 12% of the 22 million who use HoH. What would be a significant percentage? What about the people who care for relatives? 24% of single parent households are fathers. What about divorced couples who alternate HoH every year? Like I said, not all HoH are baby mamma with biker boyfriends. In trying to take vengeance on women you feel have wronged men, you are hurting a lot of innocents who are just trying to do the right thing and get a break. And in the end, the money saved is insignificant/ a drop in the bucket. There are bigger fish to fry to save tax dollars.
Grandparents raising little kids is rare, single dads are rare. This is some much needed social engineering as another poster put it to encouage women to make better decisions in picking a partner. Now that biker guy is going to cost you even more in the long run.
It will suck for women who already have the thug biker guys kids but the piper has to come some time and men were pretty much checked out of society because there were vitually no consequences for womens spring break shenanigans, girls gone wild partying, etc.
This is a good start and I am glad trump is using finanical conseqeunces so that people cant claim he is violating civil rights.
Maybe they will bring back at fault divorces because every now and again a guy will have a good job be doing the right thing being responsible when he meets girl and then he goes off the deep end at some later time which is unfair to the girl. Rather than said girl knowing he was a bad boy and she liked the excitedment because he was not "boring" but now does not want to deal with the conseqeunces.
Nothing there has anything to do with the topic which is removing HOH as a filing status, it appears you are just taking the opportunity to tell us how how you feel about women. I find both your premise and your conclusions to be antiquated and quite misogynistic.
Seriously? Divorced fathers all dirtbags who don't "deserve" women? Can't wait to tell my boyfriend this since he's a divorced dad.
You do realize a dad need not be deadbeat for his ex wife to claim HoH. In fact, I'm pretty sure divorced dads who have custody declare it. Most divorced couples with joint custody alternate who can claim it according to an article posted earlier in this thread.
Your attitude sounds more emotional than logical and it focuses solely on one type of person who can claim HoH, the baby mamma. You ignore amicable divorced parents, grandparents who raise grandchildren (2.7 million in the US), and caretakers of elderly relatives or relatives who can't care for themselves (65 million in the US. Although many of those can't file HoH tone fair). In comparison there are 12 million single parent families (80% are single moms and 20% are single dads).
Sources: US Census, Pew Social Trends, and PBS.org
Actually what he is saying that if a woman with children ends up divorced, it is entirely her fault for having made a poor choice for a husband. It seems to just be an opportunity for him to denigrate women.
Completely flat taxes are extremely regressive and would never fly so come back if you have a legitimate suggestion
A regressive tax is one in which the rate decreases as income increases. A flat tax doesn't do that. If you mean that a flat tax would have a disproportionate impact on those with lower incomes, you're right. But EVERY cost/expense has a disproportionate impact on those of lower incomes. Your condemnation of a flat tax rings rather hollow if you aren't also arguing for income-based pricing of everything else as well.
2.7 million is statistically insignificant just as I stated and I am sure they will make exceptions for the elderly as everyone has to get old.
BTW MOST political issues ARE emotionally driven unless we went to an absolute flat tax where no one gets any write offs other than businesses for business expenses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations
Completely flat taxes are extremely regressive and would never fly so come back if you have a legitimate suggestion
And what is so special about business expenses ?? Does not that "small business" known as a "family" have expenses ?
A regressive tax is one in which the rate decreases as income increases. A flat tax doesn't do that. If you mean that a flat tax would have a disproportionate impact on those with lower incomes, you're right. But EVERY cost/expense has a disproportionate impact on those of lower incomes. Your condemnation of a flat tax rings rather hollow if you aren't also arguing for income-based pricing of everything else as well.
You are correct I mislabeled it but a flat tax isn't happening unless you give some credits to offset some expenses and/or income levels at which point it won't be flat
Because it means you were off the market with a dirt bag while a more deserving guy was alone. If this was rare no one would care but there seems to be a proliferation of this sort of thing so the guys that have had to deal with watching the dirt bags get the women are not going to be so forgiving on the back end. Especially if said guys lost years dealing with this paradigm.
Demeaning someone does not help but guys get tired of the dead beat dad discussion and child support, its bad enough that it even pops up when I have to renew my professional licence. Sometimes people just have enough of society stuffing this topic down their throats and finally say something not so nice.
Well, that's a false premise because dirt bag/alkie was the only choice I had. This mythical "deserving guy" didn't want someone like me. I never rated highly on the arm candy scale. Eh, water under the bridge now.
I know responsible guys must get tired of being lumped with deadbeats, just as women who struggled to support their kids and got nothing but mountains of debt in the divorce get tired of hearing about women who took their exes to the cleaners.
You are correct I mislabeled it but a flat tax isn't happening unless you give some credits to offset some expenses and/or income levels at which point it won't be flat
I agree that it's not happening, but not because of the disproportionate impact on the poor. It won't happen because the current tax code is one of, if not the greatest source of political power ever created, for both Democrats AND Republicans. They will never get rid of it.
And what is so special about business expenses ?? Does not that "small business" known as a "family" have expenses ?
Because you can use buisness write offs as MASSIVE social engineering. Thats how we got thing like Bell labs back in the day. The govt said invest in R&D or we tax your profits at 90%, if they invested back into their own company in the form of R&D then they paid no taxes (but they created jobs and cool stuff).
Maybe on the personal level give tax breaks for not having more than one kid ... ? Or not getting divorced?
Maybe on the personal level give tax breaks for not having more than one kid ... ? Or not getting divorced?
Isn't the married filing stratus already the best tax break? If you get divorced you'd no longer qualify which is essentially what you are proposing, it's already in place.
When I looked that up, I also learned that those filing as married but widowed can only do so for two years. If the widowed person has kids, does that mean they have HoH as their next best option? If so, there's another group you want to punish by eliminating HoH.
Honestly, the guy who talked about potential fraud had good points about problems with HoH even if itemized deductions and business deductions are fraught with a lot more fraud than HoH. Your whole argument is sour grapes from the sound of it. You want to punish women who may not have dated some type of "fantasy deserving men" and you don't mind throwing every else who benefits from HoH under the bus to do so.
Last edited by BellaLind; 01-11-2017 at 04:16 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
