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

[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.

Wealthier people with more stable sources of income are the ones who are more likely to get married. The “norms” may say less about who wants to be married — and more about who has access to the financial stability that makes marriage make sense in the first place.

This measure also potentially incentivizes staying in an abusive marriage— something that “norms” of various kinds also supports.
tldr: You may be looking at the data from the wrong direction. Perhaps people with stability and money — who are better set up to reach “good outcomes “ are the ones who chose to get married.

[Anonymous]

I don’t oppose incentivizing marriage.

I oppose this bill in its current form.

[Anonymous]

The fact that they want families to have kids is gross. They want future uneducated slaves.

[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.

They understand exactly what they are selling. This is simply part of a larger attack on anything that isn't a nuclear family with a man as the master of the house. They finally won the war against Roe and they will keep chipping away. They haven't figured out how to repeal no fault divorce laws, partly because those laws also went a long way to reduce social stigma of divorce. This is a way to re-introduce the concept.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They understand exactly what they are selling. This is simply part of a larger attack on anything that isn't a nuclear family with a man as the master of the house. They finally won the war against Roe and they will keep chipping away. They haven't figured out how to repeal no fault divorce laws, partly because those laws also went a long way to reduce social stigma of divorce. This is a way to re-introduce the concept.

+1

It’s theocracy. They know what they’re doing. They want more dumb, unquestioning voters who mindlessly parrots phrases and call people names like “demopukes.” They want women where they were around 1950 - back at home, a few very lucky and incredibly talented women at college and then in the workplace. White men with all the power.

[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.

Wealthier people with more stable sources of income are the ones who are more likely to get married. The “norms” may say less about who wants to be married — and more about who has access to the financial stability that makes marriage make sense in the first place.

This measure also potentially incentivizes staying in an abusive marriage— something that “norms” of various kinds also supports.
tldr: You may be looking at the data from the wrong direction. Perhaps people with stability and money — who are better set up to reach “good outcomes “ are the ones who chose to get married.

I merely gave a super quick overview to inform the discussion.

Re your comment: the research is fascinating. Depending on the author, it often points to women who would prefer to marry the baby daddy but he’s either unwilling or isn’t bringing anything to the table. In short: some women forego marriage because they have access to better safety net benefits as a single mom and/or they think they can find a better partner/breadwinner if they stay single.

It’s quite the conundrum.

I agree that more affluent people are more likely to marry, although data also shows plenty of affluent whites remaining single.

This stuff is complicated…which is why it isn’t easily addressed.

But subcultural norms are very real and they inform things like marriage, family stability, etc.

[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.

Wealthier people with more stable sources of income are the ones who are more likely to get married. The “norms” may say less about who wants to be married — and more about who has access to the financial stability that makes marriage make sense in the first place.

This measure also potentially incentivizes staying in an abusive marriage— something that “norms” of various kinds also supports.
tldr: You may be looking at the data from the wrong direction. Perhaps people with stability and money — who are better set up to reach “good outcomes “ are the ones who chose to get married.

I merely gave a super quick overview to inform the discussion.

Re your comment: the research is fascinating. Depending on the author, it often points to women who would prefer to marry the baby daddy but he’s either unwilling or isn’t bringing anything to the table. In short: some women forego marriage because they have access to better safety net benefits as a single mom and/or they think they can find a better partner/breadwinner if they stay single.

It’s quite the conundrum.

I agree that more affluent people are more likely to marry, although data also shows plenty of affluent whites remaining single.

This stuff is complicated…which is why it isn’t easily addressed.

But subcultural norms are very real and they inform things like marriage, family stability, etc.

Across the income ladder, a man is generally a burden for a woman raising kids. He might bring some things to the table, but more often than not he doesn’t pull an equal share on the domestic front and is a source of stress for the woman. A man will often undermine the woman’s decisions when childrearing.

It’s often a happier and less stressful home when the woman can raise the child(ren) alone, especially if the man is problematic (anger issues, mental illness, substance abuse, not to mention physical/verbal abuse or a criminal).

[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.

Wealthier people with more stable sources of income are the ones who are more likely to get married. The “norms” may say less about who wants to be married — and more about who has access to the financial stability that makes marriage make sense in the first place.

This measure also potentially incentivizes staying in an abusive marriage— something that “norms” of various kinds also supports.
tldr: You may be looking at the data from the wrong direction. Perhaps people with stability and money — who are better set up to reach “good outcomes “ are the ones who chose to get married.

I merely gave a super quick overview to inform the discussion.

Re your comment: the research is fascinating. Depending on the author, it often points to women who would prefer to marry the baby daddy but he’s either unwilling or isn’t bringing anything to the table. In short: some women forego marriage because they have access to better safety net benefits as a single mom and/or they think they can find a better partner/breadwinner if they stay single.

It’s quite the conundrum.

I agree that more affluent people are more likely to marry, although data also shows plenty of affluent whites remaining single.

This stuff is complicated…which is why it isn’t easily addressed.

But subcultural norms are very real and they inform things like marriage, family stability, etc.

Across the income ladder, a man is generally a burden for a woman raising kids. He might bring some things to the table, but more often than not he doesn’t pull an equal share on the domestic front and is a source of stress for the woman. A man will often undermine the woman’s decisions when childrearing.

It’s often a happier and less stressful home when the woman can raise the child(ren) alone, especially if the man is problematic (anger issues, mental illness, substance abuse, not to mention physical/verbal abuse or a criminal).

+1

[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.

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?

After being together for 10+ years until he passes, yes, legally I would not have benefits to his TSP if we weren't married and our understanding if that our son would not get it either because it is only dispersed to employee or spouse. You know, the amount taken out of his paycheck every month reducing our total income available and to which, in every other financial benefit that we go into (housing, life insurance, etc) me or our son is the beneficiary.

I dont care whether I am married or not. It is not important to me to have the label of married. I am in a committed relationship that I chose to be in. That's why LGBTQ lobbied so hard for marriage because without it, regardless of your time and commitment together, you arent legally protected. It is a requirement for certain legal issues like making health decisions or benefits to certain retirement accounts. And as we get older, it becomes more important that we get married to cover one another versus marriage for any other reason.

Dont be so daft.

[Anonymous]

I thought Republicans hated social engineering. I guess it's "social engineering for me but not for thee."


Republicans' "Marriage Bonus' Is Social Engineering At Its Worst
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/552796-republicans-marriage-bonus-is-social-engineering-at-its-worst/

[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.

Wealthier people with more stable sources of income are the ones who are more likely to get married. The “norms” may say less about who wants to be married — and more about who has access to the financial stability that makes marriage make sense in the first place.

This measure also potentially incentivizes staying in an abusive marriage— something that “norms” of various kinds also supports.
tldr: You may be looking at the data from the wrong direction. Perhaps people with stability and money — who are better set up to reach “good outcomes “ are the ones who chose to get married.

I merely gave a super quick overview to inform the discussion.

Re your comment: the research is fascinating. Depending on the author, it often points to women who would prefer to marry the baby daddy but he’s either unwilling or isn’t bringing anything to the table. In short: some women forego marriage because they have access to better safety net benefits as a single mom and/or they think they can find a better partner/breadwinner if they stay single.

It’s quite the conundrum.

I agree that more affluent people are more likely to marry, although data also shows plenty of affluent whites remaining single.

This stuff is complicated…which is why it isn’t easily addressed.

But subcultural norms are very real and they inform things like marriage, family stability, etc.

Across the income ladder, a man is generally a burden for a woman raising kids. He might bring some things to the table, but more often than not he doesn’t pull an equal share on the domestic front and is a source of stress for the woman. A man will often undermine the woman’s decisions when childrearing.

It’s often a happier and less stressful home when the woman can raise the child(ren) alone, especially if the man is problematic (anger issues, mental illness, substance abuse, not to mention physical/verbal abuse or a criminal).

No offense, but you sound like a right winger trying to drive the narrative that Democrats hate men. You wrote some twaddle about how men are useless burdens and how homes without men are often happier, then you failed to cite any sources whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/texas-republicans-tax-cuts-straight-couples-many-children-1234689876/

How is this not discriminatory?

The never divorced would not be an issue. The hetro could be. But the issue is a lot closer than you would think but probably not valid.

[Anonymous]

Of course, none of you hysterics will acknowledge that it is only ONE person who proposed this bill - and it isn’t even law. But don’t let facts get in your way!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course, none of you hysterics will acknowledge that it is only ONE person who proposed this bill - and it isn’t even law. But don’t let facts get in your way!

I believe your ilk used to say the same thing about abortion. So… no one listens to you anymore when you in your deep misogyny try to tell us we’re crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course, none of you hysterics will acknowledge that it is only ONE person who proposed this bill - and it isn’t even law. But don’t let facts get in your way!

I believe your ilk used to say the same thing about abortion. So… no one listens to you anymore when you in your deep misogyny try to tell us we’re crazy.

“My ilk”? You mean people who actually want all the facts first before spiraling into an endless cycle of outrage - like YOUR ilk? Oh.