Modest Proposal on Same Sex Marriage
I have never understood the argument that allowing same sex marriage would weaken marriage. I couldn't possibly fathom why allowing two men to marry made my marriage worse. This same argument was made by John Stossel arguing with Ann Coulter on his show. Coulter said it was not an issue about one's own marriage getting worse, but about a general loss of respect and strength for the institution as a whole.
I am still not buying it. But I want to help. If we really want to improve the general respect for the institution of marriage, here is my modest proposal: Allow gay marriage and ban Kardashian marriage.
You're welcome.
Brilliant. I couldn't have said it better.
Every person gets 3800 exemption in the USA - so why would you exclude kids - are you discriminating against them? Is this the subsidy you are talking about? Hilarious.
But I agree with you now Larry you won me over, down with kids - not only should we not subsidize them we should create an incentive to not have them, by not allowing tax deductions allowed to everyone else over 18.
"actually I do not but I do insist that we speak the truth on these things - not propaganda or wishful thinking or unrealistic political thinking."
You insist this for everyone else, but not yourself.
And you totally and grossly miss the point. Even if you don't think schooling is a personal subsidy, I am paying for the schooling of my own kids through my taxes, over my lifetime. I could do a better job for less money if the government would just give me the portion of my taxes spent on my kids back to me. Sure lets leave a little in the pot for the poor - but I think private charity and parent teaching circles might be a better plan for the poor as well.
except it's simply not the case. Many people with kids don't even pay any Federal taxes. They actually get refundable credits. That's been pointed out plenty of times right here. We call these folks "takers" and "parasites" and the "subsidy" is not small... it's thousands of dollars per family not only in Federal taxes but local taxes where even homeowners pay about 2-3000 per year in property taxes and receive 10K per year in public school education - for EACH KID. Other people, singles and married without kids and local businesses make up the difference.
over the 12 years in school, the total Fed and local tax subsidies add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I'm not arguing against it - or for it - I'm just saying this is the reality and that we DO give very serious preferential tax treatment to married AND divorced.. if there are kids involved.
nope. I try hard to stick to facts and if you catch me saying something other than the fact, then let me have it.
you are paying for your kids but you are not paying ALL of the costs - others are helping. You don't get your taxes back any more than single people and those without kids don't get their taxes back right now either - and if they did - you WOULD be paying a LOT MORE than you are now. You would be paying 5K or more than you are now even if you sent them to private school if you still wanted them to get all the things they get at the public schools.
your "idea" would have no taxes for schools from anyone - and in the end - you'd ended up paying much more than you do now unless you only paid for core instruction.
Just out of curiosity - have you actually checked to see how much tuition would be in a private school? Home schooling seems to be popular these days.. and cheaper...
here's tuition at one school - looks pretty pricey.
http://www.fredericksburgchristian.com/document.doc?id=1752
it would be far more than what most would pay in property taxes.
Yes, I agree, in fact all kids should be taken by the government and put in re-education camps, for the sake of a handful of orphans. It is only fair!
Nobody is subsidizing my education. Property taxes (paid by parents because in those days, homeowners were parents) paid for my K-12. The state did subsidize some of the university, and some was paid by the VA since I was a Vietnam Vet, but the VA part was earned.
My daughter's education was paid for by my family, at the same time that we were paying property taxes for other folks' kids. My mother was a public school teacher and insisted that her grandchildren not go to public schools.
But the key point is that kids have always helped their parents in retirement. Only in the modern era, where children have moved away and the government has created a socialized system has that changed.
The real free riders are the folks who never have kids. In the old days, there would have been a lot fewer of them, and they still would have been cared for by relatives or the community.
Society needs children - at least at the replacement rate (2.1 kids per woman).
you should visit your local social services office guy where you'll see a bunch of kids who don't really have parents anymore. They've been abused and/or abandoned and social services is who takes care of them. They try to find them foster homes (which we pay for) and get them into the schools, get medical care.. etc..
you're living in a dream world guy. You're not cognizant of realities, not sure if it is willing or not but you clearly are not seeing the harsh realities that do exist.. Not every parent is a good parent and what do we do then? 95% of abused kids are abused in their family environments not by strangers...
For some people, it's significant. For others, it is not. But the idea is not unreasonable unless we get an ideal (and probably unobtainable) tax system which is used only to raise revenues and not for social engineering.
But look at our society. Churches, the traditional American mainstay (and exceptionally American in context) are losing their moral power - they have been under unrelenting and often vicious attack from those who no longer respect the American traditions - the leftist "intelligentia" who think they know how to run a country and your life. Hence behavior which objectively damages society (divorce in most cases, and out-of-wedlock child bearing) is no longer shamed or discouraged. In fact, the militant secularists who control the media (news, entertainment) and many institutions do their best to remove the concept of shame from these acts, and the churches are not strong enough to fight this across the whole society - plus they are muted by the popular media, and their moral authority challenged through unjustified attacks (such as the idea that the Catholic Church lost it's authority to talk about morality because a small number of priests and some influential higher-ups either behaved very badly towards the young in their care, or covered up that behavior). That attack, illogical as it is, was effective.
I cannot speak to yours but I can speak to the reality right now. You did get "entitlements" even though they were "earned".
you did pay property taxes for others but so did a bunch of single people and married with no kids and the reality is that most folks who pay property taxes do not pay near the actual cost of education for one kid - much less multiple ones.
re: helping parents in retirement. Most folks do not know it but Medicare does not cover long term care nor nursing homes unless the person is deemed destitute which some parents and kids try to do by transferring the parents assets so they then are on paper - 'destitute'.
The MedicAid you hear so much about - a good portion of it pays for nursing homes for the elderly "destitute". These are frail elderly people that may have owned a house but can no longer care for themselves. Some of them trade their family home for the nursing home and the kids get nothing. Some try to transfer their assets and live on the taxpayer dole so their kids
can have their assets.
The folks who don't have kids - usually have the assets to pay for their care when they get elderly - in part because they could save their money instead of spending it on kids and then later have the govt pay for their care.
these are the realities. It's nice to believe "family" but there are costs and someone has to pay them. The real question is - do we believe in wealth transfer policies to pay for kids AND their parents when they get elderly?
it's a pretty big slippery slope in some respects.
people who go to church or support churches don't really care about the politics when they run food pantries and other community outreach... I totally support them - in form and substance. I believe in communities looking out for their own.. as much as possible. I believe that older retired can give a lot at the local community level that not only saves tax money but helps improve the lives of others. Churches are tax-free... and get to use their resources as charity and that's a good thing IMHO.
"So- people who are infertile or too old to conceive should be prohibited from marrying then?"
You have made the obtuse error in logic that is often made by progressives. The fact is the government does not want to get into the business of evaluating each proposed marriage for fitness or ability to raise kids. So, the opt for the general case that a male/female couple is assumed able to raise children while a same sex couple is not so assumed. Hence, marriage is defined as between a male and a female. BTW, any gay man i eligible to marry a female if he an find one.
Unfortunately I couldn't produce that extra 0.1 kid :-(
I am aware of all those facts.
They do not change the reality that society has a supremely important interest in the next generation. That is true of anybody but people who are single, fortunate enough to have means, and will die soon enough that there will be some doctors around to take care of them before they expire. In the limit, the latter will not be true.
I also take issue with the idea that society is subsidizing children. Society is helping with the burden, but certainly not lifting it, as any responsible parent can affirm. And, I think it appropriate that society do so, but it would be better outside of government, where the needy would get the help. Unfortunately, actions by our government, and the rise of families where both work and (sadly) single parent families, means that the burdens are far higher than they should be - both on the parents (who feel the brunt of it) and the taxpayers who subsidize inefficient schools all the way through the education cycle.
As far as helping parents in retirement, I was referring to the past. Today that has been farmed out to government to a major extent, allowing single people to take advantage of the huge investment (including beyond monetary) that other people made in the succeeding generation In that senses, single people are free loaders on the parents - unless they pay their share in helping raise the next generation. This "farming out" is partly a natural economic specialization, partly due to the fact that elderly are more likely to be a major burden to take care of (more people live into dementia or other extreme infirmity), partly because of mobility so that people and their parents don't live in the same place, and of course it's form is largely due to government action (Social Security and Medicare handling financial needs and, as you said, Medicaid handling assisted living situations where the elderly person doesn't have the means to pay (I don't know what the rules are for the children of that person).
The question is: do you believe we should just let our civilization not-breed itself out of existence? By putting all the burden on parents, that is what will happen. Studies show that one of the most important factors in the drop in fertility rate in developed countries is the economic cost of having children - people want the goodies from two jobs and not having to pay for kids and spend time with kids. That distortion in the natural order is most harmful.
I won't comment on specific incentives... but if we continue to disincentivize normal marriage with children, we are doomed. Is that the course you agree with?
In the old days, this worked a lot better. Government wasn't in the way that much, and more people went to church and participated in the charitable giving and the work of the charities. The problem is that we don't have communities the way we used to have. People are mobile, and live in big, anonymous cities. This is a pretty new phenomenon, and the effects are damaging to family and charity (or other caring for folks that in earlier times wouldn't have been "charity" - it would have been just something that good people did. Economically, the mobility is a good thing - if you ignore the externalities caused by the resultant separation of families and damage to the feeling of community. But those externalities are real, and the overall impact of them, and of other factors (sexual revolution, primarily) may be fatal to our society.
Yeah, that's tough to do. Better to just add a whole kid.
I think single people and married without kids also care about future generations. Both give money to various causes as well as contribute to public education and many are supporters of public education.
the reason some folks have means is that they willingly chose to not take on more expenses than they could afford - and that includes kids. It's a responsible act.
you can decide what you consider a subsidy or not - I just point out that a lot of people attribute subsidies to similar things that you say are not.
The actions of our govt are much more preferential to married with kids than any other segment of society..that's a simple fact whether you want to call them subsidies or not.
the cruel truth here is that many parents - if they really are going to pay for their last years will not have much left to give the kids. In most cases, their assets including their home will be what is needed to keep them alive a few more years in a nursing home or last year health care costs. We do make these choices... we often want all options no matter how expensive but we want the govt to pay not our own assets. that's the truth.
it terms of "carrying on human kind".. we don't have a problem there.. we have the opposite problem.. we have far more kids that we can afford to keep alive.. worldwide.
when we get to the point where we do not have "enough" kids, I might reappraise my position but right now - we have kids in this country when kids in other countries are starving to death so it's not about helping kids - it's about OUR OWN kids... which is a totally different thing that you are talking about.. OUR KIDS is a somewhat selfish and self-aggrandizing endeavor in a world where kids starve to death in other places. If we REALLY cared about ALL KIDS - we'd try to focus on fewer so more could live and become productive rather than starve or grow up to live on subsistence.
we still have communities... and the folks that participate in them know they exist and are part of them. I won't blame the lack of participation on others - but the communities do exist - all around us.
the truth is - a lot - choose to NOT participate at the community level. it's their choice as the communities are there..
people who really believe in the things you say are important (and I agree)...do seek out communities to participate in. I know quite a few myself. Some lady wrote a book called "It takes a village" and I think she was right.
The kids in our country are NOT causing kids in other countries to starve to death, so that's a non-starter. I am indeed talking about US kids, because I am discussing the survival of OUR CULTURE. To say that caring about them or wanting more is selfish is the kind of BS I expect to hear from the left. And BS it is indeed. You comment badly cheapens this discussion.
You have no knowledge of my views on kids in other countries and what should be done about poverty overseas. You presumption is presumptuous.
Your assertion that people choosing not to have kids is a responsible act is also without foundation. Certainly it is true of some people. But it is not the case with many others - they'd just rather have more goodies for themselves. There's been plenty of research showing this.
As for things I say are not subsidies... I have said the subsidies do not make up for the cost of responsible parents raising kids. I don't deny that they are subsidies.
The lady meant it takes a government to raise kids. If you think she was right, then you must think our subsidies are too low - as she did.
they're not but if we say we CARE about kids and the future generations why are only our kids involved?
the survival of "our" culture? really? and my comment "cheapens".. seriously? are we talking about humanity or something else?
are you saying we cannot or should not help all kids everywhere as part of our concern about kids in general and succeeding generations - that will affect ALL kids in the future - no matter where they live?
I think it is parochial to talk only about "our kids". I care about the others. I donate for the others. I hope the others can some day, not starve and get an education and be cured of common diseases like "our kids" are.
we should care about all kids everywhere in my view. I think that's would God would want us to do especially those of us who are so lucky to live here with such wealth.
another organization that I give regularly to is Mercy Ships. http://www.mercyships.org/
Spengler has written an in depth essay on this issue.
Excerpt:
"“Since a strong marriage culture is good for children, spouses, indeed
our whole economy, and especially the poor, it also serves the cause of
limited government. Most obviously, where marriages never form or easily
break down, the state expands to fill the domestic vacuum by lawsuits
to determine paternity, visitation rights, child support, and alimony.
That is the fallacy of the libertarian argument in favor of absenting
the state from all questions involving personal intimacy. Society can
get along with a small government if it has strong private institutions:
families, churches, charities, schools and volunteer associations.
Among these the family has more weight than all the rest put together.
The state, and above all a state that seeks self-limitation, needs the
family to flourish.”
http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2013/03/04/looking-for-marriage-in-all-the-wrong-places-a-must-read-book-on-marriage/
People who choose not to have kids should be taxed more, because they are not creating the future workforce necessary to keep them supplied with SSA and Medicare funds. Basically they will be leaching of other people's children in their old age. And we know half of SSA's problem is that we are not replacing children fast enough in two regards.
1: the number of kids per person has gone down.
2.1: The worse part we are having kids at a later age. If we all had 2 kids by an average of 23 then at retirement an average of 4 people would be working to produce goods for us. If we delay and make average 33 then even though we had the 2.1 kids - only 2.15 kids will be producing goods for me during retirement.
So the upshot is, we not only need to encourage more kids, we need to encourage more kids at an earlier age. (and don't get silly, I am not talking about underage teens, - taking encouraging adults to have kids earlier)
including single people and those who already had kids and are now empty-nesters?
Are you aware that they ALREADY get taxed MORE?
Are you aware that most people who have kids and a modest income not only don't pay Federal taxes but they get thousands of dollars in refundable credits (provided by those who are single or married without kids in house)?
so exactly how do you "encourage" people to NOT have kids if they cannot afford to pay for them? You'd just encourage more kids anyhow?
by the way.. have you heard of immigration as also a way to increase the workforce?
worked pretty nice ever since the country got started...
the idea of having "your own" kids no matter whether you can afford them or not is the problem. Many of those kids needs extra services in school because their parents are unable or unwilling to help them with reading.. and if those kids don't get the necessary help (which costs more), they grow up getting entitlements from YOUR kids.
you should re-think this a bit..guy.. it's not so simple as you think.
we subsidize everyone who has kids - and it does not necessarily lead to a better future the way it is right now.
Marriage has always (well, since the origins of government and religion) carried benefits and responsibilities. This notion that it was some recent intervention by the State is a-historical.
Marriage was the primary vector for inheritance laws--"legitimate" children, absent a will (in whatever form) were the primary recipients of accumulated wealth and property, wives had certain rights and responsibilities (which varied by culture and religion). Marriage conferred certain property rights etc.
Yes, various states instantiate those laws differently, and have slightly different notions (community property states as an example, versus states where each individual maintains legal ownership separately) but these notions existed in some fashion for years.
Marriage was *never* just a religious ceremony, it as always a religious sacrament, a social institution AND a set of legal shortcuts. Almost everything done by the Marriage Certificate can be done with a lawyer, it's just that wills and other legal documents are easier to challenge in court.
It's also clear that it's not the *legal* benefit that homosexual
activists are after. In 2004 Gavin Newsom kicked off the debate ordering
his marriage department (sorry, the name eludes me) to start issuing
marriage licenses to same sex couples (in violation of state law)
california already had the notion of "civil partnerships" that gave
almost identical "rights" to domestic partners
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California#Assembly_Bill_26_of_1999.
Read the whole thing, it started off fairly restricted by by 2003 was
basically the same as marriage).
If the *only* goal was equality
under law, a "Domestic Partnership" law that "created the presumption
that domestic partners were to have all of the
rights and responsibilities afforded spouses under state law" then why
is *marriage* the big issue?
So you're down with my plan?
Eliminate no-fault divorce and make married couples wishing to divorce demonstrate (or prove if you will) that there is abuse (often illegal), adultery (and it must be shown the adultery was not part of the expected lifestyle), addiction (often illegal) or abandonment?
One would think that those on the right would be all behind this notion. After all, they want to support and strengthen marriage right?
I'll worry about Gay Marriage when Christians who get married (and divorced) three and four times start taking THEIR vows seriously.
Originally, government was simply acknowledging a given, universally understood fact: these two people are married. Now, the 'right' to gay marriage is the basis for using bare-knuckle government force to compel everyone to acknowledge this as marriage, no matter how fictitious or repugnant. This raw coercion is called "freedom" and libertarians are wild about it.
The problem is, this isn´t true. Private tuition is based on the use of the models mandated by state departments of education. "Private Education" is simply going through a different provider to complete an unnecessary requirement set in place by state governments. If education were actually allowed to take its form according to supply and demand without regulatory barriers, it would most likely cost almost nothing. In a competitive market, traditional classroom education in a K-12 set up would very quickly disappear, as ambitious parents would earlier and earlier demand to see the development of special skills and career opportunities. On the other end of the spectrum, education for poorer children would eventually be fitted more closely to their needs, and would work to steer them in the right direction in life by means other than soul less fulfillment of bureaucratic requirements. This stands in contrast to the current model which throws everyone into the same awful and expensive cookie cutter...
not getting your point. do you not have the right - right now to send a kid to a Catholic School with it's own standards? Does the state encumber Catholic and other private schools?
As far as I know they do not.
The acceptance and promotion of Kardashian marriages by our government and courts (easy divorce, serial monogamy) was the beginning of the collapse of the institution of marriage and led us to where we are today, where marriage is mocked, even in the Supreme Court where it is argued it can mean anything we say it means, and anyone can make and dissolve it at will. It's all part of the same problem.