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.
The US economy is setup for families, why wouldn't it be? Yes, single people are taxed a little bit more, but they also don't have mouths to feed, cloth, or educate. The gov't is about sustaining it's population, even growing it, not having it decrease.
Think about it being single as an adult in the USA sucks. Married people have all the benefits.
- They can combine their money
- They have no one telling them what kind of jobs they can work
- They can buy houses easier
- So many advantages
Single people can also combine their money
Not sure I understand the second. I'm single and no one has ever told me what kind of jobs I can hold.
Not sure I agree with the third either. If you single, have good credit and a secure job you can buy a house just as easily as a married couple. Probably easier because you don't have to consider another persons debt or credit rating or worry about a separation or divorce.
The nation has a vested interest in promoting monogamous marriage and stable households for child rearing. We should generally be concentrating on incentivizing virtuous behavior and disincentivizing antisocial behavior. Aside from any morality issues, we simply need to encourage the most productive citizens to not just be productive themselves, but to prepare the next generation of productive citizens, and it is utterly beyond doubt that children tend to have the best outcomes when both biological parents are present and active. This means incentivizing marriage and children, and disincentivizing divorce, cohabitation, infidelity, etc. This can be done both through laws and informally through culture. Obviously we are not doing so well here.
Think about it being single as an adult in the USA sucks. Married people have all the benefits.
- They can combine their money
- They have no one telling them what kind of jobs they can work
- They can buy houses easier
- So many advantages
I'm missing something here, but how is the kind of job someone can work dependent upon their marital status? I'm not aware of any systemic job discrimination against singles based on the fact that they're not married. At one time systemic job discrimination against women based on their marital status was common, but that's now illegal although I know it still occurs.
As for marriage making buying a house easier, that's not necessarily true. If you have a good credit rating and marry someone with a poor credit rating, your ability to purchase a home -- or make other purchases on credit -- can be seriously compromised. There's also no law that prevents two unmarried individuals from purchasing a home together.
That's to be expected. The most cost effective resource in the world is people. If you didn't get benefits from having kids and being married, people would have less incentive to do it. By offering these things, as well as promoting through propaganda and such, that family life is the best, the government ensures that it's people repopulate, ideally exceeding replacement value, so they have more workers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb at sea
It's a personal choice to be single or married.
Ehh... marriage, sure. But being single isn't necessarily a 'choice.' There are a lot of a factors. Someone can try their best, but have little luck in finding someone they really connect with for more than 6 months.
The US economy is setup for families, why wouldn't it be? Yes, single people are taxed a little bit more, but they also don't have mouths to feed, cloth, or educate. The gov't is about sustaining it's population, even growing it, not having it decrease.
So why do I have to pay for someone else's child to have an education? Why should a person with children get a tax break in order to feed, cloth, & educate the kids? If anything, I should get a tax break since I DON'T use public education or other services since I don't have children. I chose not to have kids because I COULDN'T afford it and yet you want me to pay for someone that did the opposite? This makes no sense to me.
Regarding job discrimination. The only discrimination that I see in the working world against single people is that they are expected to work longer hours because they don't have a family or have to go to a graduation and things of that nature. I've also heard stories of how a company is less likely to promote those without family to higher positions, but that may be an old school way of thinking.
So why do I have to pay for someone else's child to have an education? Why should a person with children get a tax break in order to feed, cloth, & educate the kids? If anything, I should get a tax break since I DON'T use public education or other services since I don't have children. I chose not to have kids because I COULDN'T afford it and yet you want me to pay for someone that did the opposite? This makes no sense to me.
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the nation has a vested interest in facilitating the bringing up of the next generation. Given the huge commitment and expense of rearing children, the state needs to incentivize it, particularly where its most intelligent, productive citizens are concerned.
So why do I have to pay for someone else's child to have an education? Why should a person with children get a tax break in order to feed, cloth, & educate the kids? If anything, I should get a tax break since I DON'T use public education or other services since I don't have children. I chose not to have kids because I COULDN'T afford it and yet you want me to pay for someone that did the opposite? This makes no sense to me.
.
So you wouldn't mind if the next generation grew up uneducated? You don't plan to need physicians to care for you, engineers to keep roads and bridges safe and to develop new sources of energy, chemists to develop life-saving medications, agricultural experts to keep a safe, affordable food supply, etc.?
Trust me, any tax deductions I got while I was raising my children was a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of raising them.
This complaint reminds me of the other recent thread, where someone complained about state income tax being deductible. This poster was not able to take the deduction because he didn't pay state income tax. Well gee whiz.....would people truly prefer to have the huge expense and the small deduction, or just not have the expense at all?
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.
