Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Jan. 6th, 2017

whocares1970: (Default)
There is an aspect of the President-elect's proposed tax plan that has not been publicized or discussed much by the media and that nevertheless has far-reaching social implications.

There are two parts here and both are profound cultural statements. Let me give you a video about one of the points first:



And these benefits will be quite big. The President-elect talks about deducting the average cost of child care from the family's taxable income if a parent or a grandparent stays at home with a child (or children). The number is $16,430 per child per year in Massachusetts, and a map with those values for each state can be seen here.

This is a big deal. No, this is huge. And not just in the economic sense, even though it will mean a noticeable financial relief for many families. The society will thus promote not only the marriage, as described below, but also the traditional family model, including the extended family, given the credit for grandparents staying at home with the kids. This is important as the very idea of marriage and family as not only fundamental but even as something valuable has been under attack for a while in our society.

It is also important that we are talking about an exclusion, not a refundable tax credit, and so it will benefit only the working families, those who already produce taxable income.

Here are some more details. According to the Trunp's tax plan:

Read more... )

Now for the second part. The current tax system disfavors and penalizes marriage. Here is a simplified description of a hypothetic case of two people, each earning $65K a year, having a baby. We'lll use official IRS data. Suppose these to people are married. Then their standard deduction is $12,600. In addition, they have 3 x $4,050 = $12,150 in personal exemptions. The nontaxable part of their income is thus $24,750. Their taxable income is 2 x $65,000 - $24,750 = $105,250. They will pay $17,855 in federal income taxes.

Let us imagine now that these people do not marry. One of them files as a single person. He/she would have a standard deduction of $6,300 and a personal exemption of $4,050. The taxable income will be $65,000-$10,350 = $54,650, and the tax is $9,433.75. The other will file as a head of household, with a standard deduction of $9,300 and personal exemptions of 2 x $4,050 = $8,100. The taxable income is then $65,000 - $17,400 = $47,600. The tax is $6,477.50. Their combined tax is $9,433.75 + $6,477.50 = $15,911.25. This is $17,855 - $15,911.25 = $1,943.75 of 10.9% less than if they are married. What this means is that the society is willing to pay almost $2,000 extra for the couple to not be married. The society economically encourages single parentship, and, once again, this is just one of the way the society states that the traditional family does not matter (or even is discouraged).

Let us now see what would happen with the same couple under the President-elect Trump's tax plan. Supposed they are married. There are no personal exemptios, but the standard deduction is $30,000. So, the taxable income is 2 x $65,000 - $30,000 = $100,000. The tax brakes are different, so the tax will be $15,250. This is $2,606 less than what they are paying now.

If they are not married, each of them will have a standard deduction of $15,000 and thus a taxable income of $50,000. So, each will pay $7,625, the total for them together is still $15,250. Thus, the "bonus" for not being married is eliminated. Their combined tax is still $911.25 less than what they are paying now.

Naturally, the tax code is only one of the ways that the government and the society pushes this agenda. First, people say that single parents should not be stigmatized. This is a sign of compassion, but very soon the discourse becomes that traditional families should receive no special support from the society at all, and before you know it, it is that being in the traditional family is in no way better than not. Perhaps it is sometimes viewed as being even worse, as enslaving a person and making him or her more dependent on the archaic social order. All this is a part of the "progressive" agenda that proclaims giving people mode independence. In reality, it destroys the family but makes people totally dependent on the government.

The above is an example of the regular "progressive" tactics - first, they declare compassion for thpse outside of the norm in some way. Then they deny the very existence of the norm, or even claim that it is a harmful thing.

Speaking of the decline of the traditional family, we now have more than 40% of all births to be out-of-wedlock:


And the rate is growing. This is a disaster.

I really hope that with the next president in office, the traditional mainstays of the society will make a huge comeback.

Profile

whocares1970: (Default)
whocares1970

September 2017

S M T W T F S
     12
34 5 6 7 8 9
1011 12 13 141516
1718 1920212223
24252627282930

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Page generated Sep. 24th, 2017 10:17 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios