Texas GOP proposes tax cuts for heterosexual parents who’ve never been divorced

[Anonymous]

FTR, I’m a lifelong Dem.

My FT job has related to antipoverty work for decades.

The most common poverty indicator is a single parent. It transcends race and other demographics.

There are decades of studies backing this up.

And ICYMI: the Feds have thrown money at this problem for a long time. But investing in ngo-led efforts to promote marriage and coupled-parenting only goes so far.

The research seems to indicate subcultural norms that frustrate marriage.

If you are interested in learning more, google the research or visit one of the many reputable think tanks with decades of research and recommendations (they exist on both sides of the aisle).

Anyway, incentives like money have worked in a number of efforts to change behavior. I’d keep an open mind. A federal tax credit that incentivizes marriage for parents rather than a marriage penalty could work if properly communicated to those at the lowest end of the spectrum. But ultimately it takes a lot more to change subcultural norms.

I think everyone realizes that two incomes are better than one, right? And delaying parenthood until you have a healthy relationship and sufficient wages and housing makes life better for your family, right? It also decreases poverty rates, instability, stressors, community resources such as police/courts/public assistance, etc.

BIPOC single-parenting rates dramatically outpace those of whites. Perhaps the biggest end result is more stability and money in the two-parent white households which has prompted better outcomes for whites for generations. Bipoc families with two-parent HHs have similar outcomes. In short: there’s legit data backing up the (very obvious) reality that HHs with two parents are better than those with just one.

Note: data would support gay married parents as well. No need to draw that distinction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if Biden wanted to send a $10,000 check to every LGBT American. Republicans would be so mad but they think it's okay to openly discriminate against people that are queer, people that are single parents, and people that have had a divorce. They're trying to create The Handmaid's Tale one law at a time.

Well yes of course. You incentivize things you like and punish things you don't like. That's governing 101.

Republicans should promote intact heterosexual families because they are the foundation of the nation. Democrats support anything that undermines a healthy society, so they subsidize LGTBQP+ people, single parents, divorcees, criminals, etc...

How does my gay brother undermine your “healthy” society? He works in a hospital saving people’s lives. He and his husband adopted two kids from the foster system. They pay taxes. And as everyone knows, gay men make the best neighbors. They keep their home and yard immaculate. They nelp out the elderly widow next door including shoveling the snow off her sidewalk.

Oh and no one “subsidizes” them. They give a ton of money to charity and tithe to their church.

And Democrats have been trying to get the divorcee Trump to pay his taxes for ages, so what a bonkers comment that divorced people like him, Giuliani, and Newt Gingrich are being subsidized by Dems.

And nice dig at widowed parents. Shame on you.

Hateful people like you undermine a healthy society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FTR, I’m a lifelong Dem.

My FT job has related to antipoverty work for decades.

The most common poverty indicator is a single parent. It transcends race and other demographics.

There are decades of studies backing this up.

And ICYMI: the Feds have thrown money at this problem for a long time. But investing in ngo-led efforts to promote marriage and coupled-parenting only goes so far.

The research seems to indicate subcultural norms that frustrate marriage.

If you are interested in learning more, google the research or visit one of the many reputable think tanks with decades of research and recommendations (they exist on both sides of the aisle).

Anyway, incentives like money have worked in a number of efforts to change behavior. I’d keep an open mind. A federal tax credit that incentivizes marriage for parents rather than a marriage penalty could work if properly communicated to those at the lowest end of the spectrum. But ultimately it takes a lot more to change subcultural norms.

I think everyone realizes that two incomes are better than one, right? And delaying parenthood until you have a healthy relationship and sufficient wages and housing makes life better for your family, right? It also decreases poverty rates, instability, stressors, community resources such as police/courts/public assistance, etc.

BIPOC single-parenting rates dramatically outpace those of whites. Perhaps the biggest end result is more stability and money in the two-parent white households which has prompted better outcomes for whites for generations. Bipoc families with two-parent HHs have similar outcomes. In short: there’s legit data backing up the (very obvious) reality that HHs with two parents are better than those with just one.

Note: data would support gay married parents as well. No need to draw that distinction.

History also reminds is that black families were destroyed and torn apart for generations because of white-created slavery, segregation, lynching, and racism. Generational trauma is a thing. So how does society repair what it ripped apart?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FTR, I’m a lifelong Dem.

My FT job has related to antipoverty work for decades.

The most common poverty indicator is a single parent. It transcends race and other demographics.

There are decades of studies backing this up.

And ICYMI: the Feds have thrown money at this problem for a long time. But investing in ngo-led efforts to promote marriage and coupled-parenting only goes so far.

The research seems to indicate subcultural norms that frustrate marriage.

If you are interested in learning more, google the research or visit one of the many reputable think tanks with decades of research and recommendations (they exist on both sides of the aisle).

Anyway, incentives like money have worked in a number of efforts to change behavior. I’d keep an open mind. A federal tax credit that incentivizes marriage for parents rather than a marriage penalty could work if properly communicated to those at the lowest end of the spectrum. But ultimately it takes a lot more to change subcultural norms.

I think everyone realizes that two incomes are better than one, right? And delaying parenthood until you have a healthy relationship and sufficient wages and housing makes life better for your family, right? It also decreases poverty rates, instability, stressors, community resources such as police/courts/public assistance, etc.

BIPOC single-parenting rates dramatically outpace those of whites. Perhaps the biggest end result is more stability and money in the two-parent white households which has prompted better outcomes for whites for generations. Bipoc families with two-parent HHs have similar outcomes. In short: there’s legit data backing up the (very obvious) reality that HHs with two parents are better than those with just one.

Note: data would support gay married parents as well. No need to draw that distinction.

History also reminds is that black families were destroyed and torn apart for generations because of white-created slavery, segregation, lynching, and racism. Generational trauma is a thing. So how does society repair what it ripped apart?

You have to start somewhere, right?

Maybe you incentivize stability with tax credits or cash?

ICYMI: plenty of federally and locally funded cash incentive pilots have been implemented (several related to truancy, at risk youth, etc).

At some point you need to focus on the future and work like hell to break the dismal cycle of generational poverty (which still occurs in whites btw).

Honestly, I don’t think this is simple. It’s simple at the individual level but seemingly impossible to scale to the masses absent a massive shift in societal norms as well as…wait for it…seismic shifts in education and job opportunities in every community across the country.

I could spend hours typing up my manifesto on why the US is struggling and what it would take to fix things, but I really should get back to work.

But to answer your question: Personal responsibility. At some point everyone must play the cards they were dealt and do the best they can regardless of what life throws at them. Easier said than done, but what’s the alternative? Meanwhile, good people will continue to fight for systemic change through law, policy, and investment in infrastructure and services.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ha ha, most republicans I know have been divorced.

LOL

Family values!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ha ha, most republicans I know have been divorced.

LOL

Family values!

Regardless: society benefits when kids are raised in dual-income homes.

Divorcing once kids are launched doesn’t impact the gains made during the formative years.

A robust incentive for married parents of kids up to age 21 or even 25 would be interesting to track—particularly in low to moderate income families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ha ha, most republicans I know have been divorced.

LOL

Family values!

Regardless: society benefits when kids are raised in dual-income homes.

Divorcing once kids are launched doesn’t impact the gains made during the formative years.

A robust incentive for married parents of kids up to age 21 or even 25 would be interesting to track—particularly in low to moderate income families.

Circling back to underscore the conundrum in the antipoverty arena:

How can you incentivize behavior related to parenthood/marriage without promoting increased childbearing?

You don’t want a per kid credit or incentive because the end result could be more babies.

A flat rate for married couples of minor children would be the best way to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FTR, I’m a lifelong Dem.

My FT job has related to antipoverty work for decades.

The most common poverty indicator is a single parent. It transcends race and other demographics.

There are decades of studies backing this up.

And ICYMI: the Feds have thrown money at this problem for a long time. But investing in ngo-led efforts to promote marriage and coupled-parenting only goes so far.

The research seems to indicate subcultural norms that frustrate marriage.

If you are interested in learning more, google the research or visit one of the many reputable think tanks with decades of research and recommendations (they exist on both sides of the aisle).

Anyway, incentives like money have worked in a number of efforts to change behavior. I’d keep an open mind. A federal tax credit that incentivizes marriage for parents rather than a marriage penalty could work if properly communicated to those at the lowest end of the spectrum. But ultimately it takes a lot more to change subcultural norms.

I think everyone realizes that two incomes are better than one, right? And delaying parenthood until you have a healthy relationship and sufficient wages and housing makes life better for your family, right? It also decreases poverty rates, instability, stressors, community resources such as police/courts/public assistance, etc.

BIPOC single-parenting rates dramatically outpace those of whites. Perhaps the biggest end result is more stability and money in the two-parent white households which has prompted better outcomes for whites for generations. Bipoc families with two-parent HHs have similar outcomes. In short: there’s legit data backing up the (very obvious) reality that HHs with two parents are better than those with just one.

Note: data would support gay married parents as well. No need to draw that distinction.

No need for the qualifiers that it must be for heterosexuals, that the marriage must have occurred before the children were born or that it has to be for people who’ve never been divorced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ha ha, most republicans I know have been divorced.

LOL

Family values!

Regardless: society benefits when kids are raised in dual-income homes.

Divorcing once kids are launched doesn’t impact the gains made during the formative years.

A robust incentive for married parents of kids up to age 21 or even 25 would be interesting to track—particularly in low to moderate income families.

Circling back to underscore the conundrum in the antipoverty arena:

How can you incentivize behavior related to parenthood/marriage without promoting increased childbearing?

You don’t want a per kid credit or incentive because the end result could be more babies.

A flat rate for married couples of minor children would be the best way to go.

More babies is exactly what this bill desires. We need future workers to pay into SS, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FTR, I’m a lifelong Dem.

My FT job has related to antipoverty work for decades.

The most common poverty indicator is a single parent. It transcends race and other demographics.

There are decades of studies backing this up.

And ICYMI: the Feds have thrown money at this problem for a long time. But investing in ngo-led efforts to promote marriage and coupled-parenting only goes so far.

The research seems to indicate subcultural norms that frustrate marriage.

If you are interested in learning more, google the research or visit one of the many reputable think tanks with decades of research and recommendations (they exist on both sides of the aisle).

Anyway, incentives like money have worked in a number of efforts to change behavior. I’d keep an open mind. A federal tax credit that incentivizes marriage for parents rather than a marriage penalty could work if properly communicated to those at the lowest end of the spectrum. But ultimately it takes a lot more to change subcultural norms.

I think everyone realizes that two incomes are better than one, right? And delaying parenthood until you have a healthy relationship and sufficient wages and housing makes life better for your family, right? It also decreases poverty rates, instability, stressors, community resources such as police/courts/public assistance, etc.

BIPOC single-parenting rates dramatically outpace those of whites. Perhaps the biggest end result is more stability and money in the two-parent white households which has prompted better outcomes for whites for generations. Bipoc families with two-parent HHs have similar outcomes. In short: there’s legit data backing up the (very obvious) reality that HHs with two parents are better than those with just one.

Note: data would support gay married parents as well. No need to draw that distinction.

Unmarried /= “single parent”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based

Please elaborate.

Its based AND redpilled.

Nice Redditspeak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FTR, I’m a lifelong Dem.

My FT job has related to antipoverty work for decades.

The most common poverty indicator is a single parent. It transcends race and other demographics.

There are decades of studies backing this up.

And ICYMI: the Feds have thrown money at this problem for a long time. But investing in ngo-led efforts to promote marriage and coupled-parenting only goes so far.

The research seems to indicate subcultural norms that frustrate marriage.

If you are interested in learning more, google the research or visit one of the many reputable think tanks with decades of research and recommendations (they exist on both sides of the aisle).

Anyway, incentives like money have worked in a number of efforts to change behavior. I’d keep an open mind. A federal tax credit that incentivizes marriage for parents rather than a marriage penalty could work if properly communicated to those at the lowest end of the spectrum. But ultimately it takes a lot more to change subcultural norms.

I think everyone realizes that two incomes are better than one, right? And delaying parenthood until you have a healthy relationship and sufficient wages and housing makes life better for your family, right? It also decreases poverty rates, instability, stressors, community resources such as police/courts/public assistance, etc.

BIPOC single-parenting rates dramatically outpace those of whites. Perhaps the biggest end result is more stability and money in the two-parent white households which has prompted better outcomes for whites for generations. Bipoc families with two-parent HHs have similar outcomes. In short: there’s legit data backing up the (very obvious) reality that HHs with two parents are better than those with just one.

Note: data would support gay married parents as well. No need to draw that distinction.

True, but then have incentives for married couples, regardless of gender.

Also, remove the federal marriage penalty tax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FTR, I’m a lifelong Dem.

My FT job has related to antipoverty work for decades.

The most common poverty indicator is a single parent. It transcends race and other demographics.

There are decades of studies backing this up.

And ICYMI: the Feds have thrown money at this problem for a long time. But investing in ngo-led efforts to promote marriage and coupled-parenting only goes so far.

The research seems to indicate subcultural norms that frustrate marriage.

If you are interested in learning more, google the research or visit one of the many reputable think tanks with decades of research and recommendations (they exist on both sides of the aisle).

Anyway, incentives like money have worked in a number of efforts to change behavior. I’d keep an open mind. A federal tax credit that incentivizes marriage for parents rather than a marriage penalty could work if properly communicated to those at the lowest end of the spectrum. But ultimately it takes a lot more to change subcultural norms.

I think everyone realizes that two incomes are better than one, right? And delaying parenthood until you have a healthy relationship and sufficient wages and housing makes life better for your family, right? It also decreases poverty rates, instability, stressors, community resources such as police/courts/public assistance, etc.

BIPOC single-parenting rates dramatically outpace those of whites. Perhaps the biggest end result is more stability and money in the two-parent white households which has prompted better outcomes for whites for generations. Bipoc families with two-parent HHs have similar outcomes. In short: there’s legit data backing up the (very obvious) reality that HHs with two parents are better than those with just one.

Note: data would support gay married parents as well. No need to draw that distinction.

No, not if the 2nd parent is abusive or useless.

[Anonymous]

I know more divorced Republicans than Democrats!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This legislation is bizarre on many levels.

While I can see promoting families, this is stupid.

History shows that there are many good marriages (both hetero AND non-hetero) so there's a discriminatory aspect right there. But there are also many marriages which are toxic, where abused spouses find it hard to escape... why make it even harder?

This is the usual flimsy naive crap that Republicans peddle without actually understanding what it is that they are selling.

Women being forced to stay in abusive marriages is not a problem for GOP. They want their women submissive.