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

[Anonymous]

Interesting at a time when R’s also want “child support reform.”

Always punish the woman

[Anonymous]

What about parents that were fruitful and multiplied but their children are now grown, will they also be compensated? It’s not fair for them to have put in the work and suffered through for others to come behind and benefit in ways they did not. Will their property taxes be paid back? Doesn’t seem right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about parents that were fruitful and multiplied but their children are now grown, will they also be compensated? It’s not fair for them to have put in the work and suffered through for others to come behind and benefit in ways they did not. Will their property taxes be paid back? Doesn’t seem right.

Agree!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about parents that were fruitful and multiplied but their children are now grown, will they also be compensated? It’s not fair for them to have put in the work and suffered through for others to come behind and benefit in ways they did not. Will their property taxes be paid back? Doesn’t seem right.

Something something student loans

[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.

Maybe some women prefer to be single parents?

[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.

Maybe some women prefer to be single parents?

PP, this legislation is not about promoting two-parent, stable households (which I agree tends to provide children with better chances at success in life). There are limitations on who can qualify for the tax benefit. "In order to qualify for the tax benefit, couples need to be: heterosexual, never divorced, and their children born or adopted after their date of marriage."

So who doesn't qualify?
*LGBTQ couples
*single parents
*divorced parents
*unmarried couples with children born or adopted outside of marriage

How can everyone not see this as anti-LGBTQ, anti "living in sin," anti-divorce, anti blended families, and anti "out of wedlock" children. Basically, all things that religion preaches against.

[Anonymous]

So women who decide to leave abusive husbands will be punished?

[Anonymous]

If the benefits to staying married with kids are so great, then why does it need to be further incentivized? Aren’t there already enough built-in benefits, financial and otherwise? Yeah, maybe do away with the marriage penalty but as far as everything else goes, the playing field should be level.

Do you really think most divorces happen for willy-nilly reasons?

[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.

Unmarried /= “single parent”

Yeah I would check your bias PP. Maybe you've been in it too long but I am a white female who on paper is a single parent as I claim my son but we live in a house with his father and my long-term partner (together 10 years this October). We own the house together. We have comingled finances. The only reason we will end up getting married is because of issues with rights to his retirement/etc.
I am aghast that you think that unmarried = single parent. On some level, you are just as bad as Republicans considering you work in the job you have.
I also think that incentivizing marriage with money does a disservice to women who are more likely to stay in a relationship that is not beneficial for them because it is that much harder financially to separate. Divorce is already hard and you are making it into a financial argument vs a healthy relationship and mutually beneficial arrangement. It is reverting back to when marriage was for finances and men were allowed to escape their marriages but kept all of the benefits of marriage while stepping out. Women were stuck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Unmarried /= “single parent”

Yeah I would check your bias PP. Maybe you've been in it too long but I am a white female who on paper is a single parent as I claim my son but we live in a house with his father and my long-term partner (together 10 years this October). We own the house together. We have comingled finances. The only reason we will end up getting married is because of issues with rights to his retirement/etc.
I am aghast that you think that unmarried = single parent. On some level, you are just as bad as Republicans considering you work in the job you have.
I also think that incentivizing marriage with money does a disservice to women who are more likely to stay in a relationship that is not beneficial for them because it is that much harder financially to separate. Divorce is already hard and you are making it into a financial argument vs a healthy relationship and mutually beneficial arrangement. It is reverting back to when marriage was for finances and men were allowed to escape their marriages but kept all of the benefits of marriage while stepping out. Women were stuck.

DP. Kind of confused here, You don't waant to be married, but you do want his retirement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Maybe some women prefer to be single parents?

PP, this legislation is not about promoting two-parent, stable households (which I agree tends to provide children with better chances at success in life). There are limitations on who can qualify for the tax benefit. "In order to qualify for the tax benefit, couples need to be: heterosexual, never divorced, and their children born or adopted after their date of marriage."

So who doesn't qualify?
*LGBTQ couples
*single parents
*divorced parents
*unmarried couples with children born or adopted outside of marriage

How can everyone not see this as anti-LGBTQ, anti "living in sin," anti-divorce, anti blended families, and anti "out of wedlock" children. Basically, all things that religion preaches against.

Someone decided to give tax cuts to "good Catholics".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Maybe some women prefer to be single parents?

PP, this legislation is not about promoting two-parent, stable households (which I agree tends to provide children with better chances at success in life). There are limitations on who can qualify for the tax benefit. "In order to qualify for the tax benefit, couples need to be: heterosexual, never divorced, and their children born or adopted after their date of marriage."

So who doesn't qualify?
*LGBTQ couples
*single parents
*divorced parents
*unmarried couples with children born or adopted outside of marriage

How can everyone not see this as anti-LGBTQ, anti "living in sin," anti-divorce, anti blended families, and anti "out of wedlock" children. Basically, all things that religion preaches against.

Someone decided to give tax cuts to "good Catholics".

It's religious dogma (Catholic or not) dressed up as a tax credit. So much for the separation of church and state.

[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...

This also incentivizes making your spouse disappear instead of divorcing them if you want out.

[Anonymous]

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

Most republicans are hypocrites

Too many manehores, thots and deviants running around the country on both parties

There needs to be a massive shift to more small c conservative life and large state support to

This is why I prefer European politics more. Switzerland and Austria and Bavaria especially - great state capacity with people living small c conservative lives

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know more divorced Republicans than Democrats!

1. You are only comparing white Dems to white r’s….Dems have huge variability in social/family life due to being way more diverse than r’s

2. If you adjust for education and income, this isn’t true but overall yeah becsuse white republicans are less educTed and becoming poorer than white Dems

So I also know more divorced r’s but that’s Becsuse thr r’s I know are poorer.

Within the wealthy set, I know more dem divorces