shits fucked up, meanwhile if you are a single mother of several criminals in training you pay less in taxes than you receive in a refund, even illegals.
Hungary is filled with gypsies and gypsies breed like Africans do once they have their welfare state benefits. Hungary is going to gypsie majority pretty soon, large parts of the country already are.
I think the US should subsidize one baby for each US Citizen, regardless of income. After that, you're to fund your own family, including the welfare class. That way, everybody is given the opportunity to enjoy a family if they desire, but you don't have women popping out kids every 3 years to keep the funds coming from the government.
It's just fucked because me and my girlfriend both make a decent amount of money. We would pay less in taxes if we don't marry. I'm trying to figure out a way to avoid this annoying tax burden. Maybe I can defer certain employment payments until she and I take maternity or paternity leaves.
Lmk if any of you all have good strategies. Fwiw, I am working for a small business in a niche field of work.
Well my two cents would be to 1) clamp down hard on all expenses, and 2) plan a sweet simple wedding. 3) Amass a nice amount in the bank, as you are DINKed, meaning double income, no kids.
When both the wedding and the bank account are in place, and that should be next Valentine's Day, marry, and have her quit her job.
You will know by then how to live simply.
And your taxable income will be reduced soon by the presence of a baby, who brings a tax deduction with him.
She could keep up with her colleagues socially, and follow the journals and developments in her field from home.
She may not feel so good when she becomes pregnant, but she will feel better if not stressed by working.
However, the tax structure actually favors having the couple's income come from the work of only one member of it. Not having both work.
Still. If a guy makes a modest wage and his girlfriend does too, they can't even progress to the having-kids phase, because they never marry at all. There is still a sense here, thank God, that you really ought to have kids while married and not out of wedlock.
So socking this modest-income, two-income, couple with a tax hike when they marry keeps them from having children.
Trump, bless him, has already increased the child deduction.
That surely helps the birthrate.
I am not sure a couple with a handful of children should pay taxes at all. In many countries there are gimmicks like this and they work.
It is stunning how brief the child-bearing window is. I don't mean maternal age. I mean family formation age, and age of tolerance for childbearing. It's a CULTURE and it needs to be put center stage as important.
Why do people think they have to be government-married in order to have children? If your religion requires you to be married before having children, then your religious group should marry you and leave the stupid government out of it. If your religion requires you to be government-married before having children, you really should think about finding a new religion, in which God outranks government.
Actually most churches require couples to have a license from the government first, and the the church officiant signs the license and returns it to the government to make it "valid" (in the government's eyes).
Stop and think about why you think this is okay, or why any self-respecting religious denomination would think it's okay. If marriage is something that God recognizes and requires, why should a church need permission from the government to marry it adherents?
Would you be okay with a church requiring a government license before performing a baptism, if the government started issuing such documents? What if the government stopped issuing marriage licenses to people who belonged to religions it didn't approve of? Or refusing to recognize marriages if the license was signed by an officiant affiliated with a non-approved religion? This has happened in our country's history, with the Mormons, before there was any talk of polygamy being introduced to their beliefs and practices. Certain states declared that since Mormons weren't a legitimate religion, in the state officials' opinion, then marriages performed by Mormon clergy were not valid.
There's also a history in this country of state governments refusing to issue marriage licenses for or recognize the validity of marriages between a man and woman of different races. So did that make it okay for churches whose beliefs didn't require same-race marriages to refuse to marry intteracial couples on the grounds that they didn't have a marriage license?
And part of China's population control program included setting a rather high minimum age for marriage (22 for men and 20 for women), and prohibiting any marriages where both parties didn't meet the age requirement. This is still in effect, so a pair of 21 year olds can't legally marry. And of course it's illegal to have babies out of wedlock. But now that the government wants to increase the birth rate, it has proposed lowering the marriage age to 18.
The reason our situation with marriage and low birth rate is so fucked is because of Chinese programs after their one child policy failed so abysmally in terms of the strength of their country. Steven Mosher has a lot of good info on that
Why on earth would the Chinese government want to increase their population? Isn't their second largest issue economically, outside of communism of course, the fact that their population is too large to know what to do with?
Nope. China has plenty of unsettled land, and population naturally stabilizes after a certain point, without government intervention. What the Chinese government did was Malthusian nonsense, and cultural suicide. They no longer have a working population large enough to care for their elder population. That's part of the reason they released COVID-19, as a cover to burn their elderly alive in bodybags. But they have a bigger problem coming up. Their male/female ratio is WAY off balance, as every family wanted their one child to be a boy. It's something like 5:1. China is on the verge of a complete collapse, and when it happens, it won't be pretty. Think WWIII.
I would assume that US govt has already worked through these scenarios and has our response ready w regard to their nukes, etc. I can see a conventional skirmish for certain things but not WWIII. Source: None. Just a wag.
They were a bit too successful with their one-child policy and it's creating a demographic problem, with not enough young people to keep the economy going and support the elderly and the huge military force. The one-child policy was replaced with a two-child policy in December 2015. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-27/chinas-one-child-policy-officially-scrapped/7055834
Vows made to the opposite sex with mutual intent at becoming one in order to have children and raise a family is a marriage.
In modern days a priest officiates a marriage only to act as a witness because too many people were telling each other they committed to marriage, had sex, then the next day lied to their partner and said they never married them. Witnesses became a requirement to root out this lustful fraud.
Governmental certificates are merely for tax and financial records, as well as proof for legal reasons.
The metaphysical aspect of marriage is sealed without government.
Some Protestant churches may indeed confuse this matter and believe marriage is merely a legal agreement with the state. This is an unfortunate misunderstanding that as you indicate places far too much authority in government hands.
Playing by the rules used to make sense, but is now a sucker's bet. The middle class are tax cattle. If I were young and poor now, I'd get church-married (but not legally married) young, have tons of kids, limit taxable assets, keep a tight community, and milk the system for every dime.
The marriage penalty is not so significant that it should prevent you from getting married or having babies. It works out to be $900 a year for most couples IF each person makes more than $80k per year (so $160k total) and if both of them are working.
This is regressive, and prevents MEN of modest means having families. The better heeled can brush it off.
I think you need to re read my comment. If you are the sole breadwinner there is no marriage penalty.
If you both make money then combined income would need to be more than $160,000 per year to be hit with the penalty. I think that is way more than "modest means"
If you are a family of modest means you are not getting hit with a marriage penalty. What do you consider modest means?
Welllllll ... If they both make $85k or something they will be hit. This is exactly the experienced machinist, and the slightly senior nurse, who we NEED TO HAVE CHILDREN, AND WHO AREN'T. OR NOT ENOUGH.
So yes. This slightly middle or experienced, not lowest, vaguely middle class but not wealthy, people, whose house is in the mid 100s if they have one at all, that is who we do NOT need to hit with any taxes that discourage marriage and childbearing.
To me, it you have kids, and you are not on government assistance, well, you are the nation's Star. You deserve a pat, a pet, applause, and being financially spared.
Why? Because you are producing a Good for the national future. To me, you have ALREADY PAID your taxes in diapers, baby clothes, and above all that, famous money-equivalent, TIME.
When a guy with a salary marries a woman with a salary, their joint income together is taxed at a higher rate than when they were not married, and paying taxes as two separate individuals.
This discourages legal marrying. That's bad. It COSTS them money to marry. Bad.
This also discourages wives from working. The same money if made by only one spouse, not two, is taxed less than if it were made by both spouses. That part is good for childbearing. But. However.
It impacts less affluent couples harder, because it is harder for less affluent men to do without their wives' salary. In that way, the marriage penalty is a kind of gift from the lower class to the upper one. Regressive.
my buddy just said his vows in private with his wife. refused to change his tax status. he may be onto something. i hate to recommend not getting married in the church though. its still important.
shits fucked up, meanwhile if you are a single mother of several criminals in training you pay less in taxes than you receive in a refund, even illegals.
Oh yes. Don't forget free Medicaid.
Oh yes.
But we can't wait one minute for the laws to change. President Trump may fix all that in his second term. But we have no time. We must get clever now.
Hungary is filled with gypsies and gypsies breed like Africans do once they have their welfare state benefits. Hungary is going to gypsie majority pretty soon, large parts of the country already are.
Strong claim haha
Krautchan
I think the US should subsidize one baby for each US Citizen, regardless of income. After that, you're to fund your own family, including the welfare class. That way, everybody is given the opportunity to enjoy a family if they desire, but you don't have women popping out kids every 3 years to keep the funds coming from the government.
It's just fucked because me and my girlfriend both make a decent amount of money. We would pay less in taxes if we don't marry. I'm trying to figure out a way to avoid this annoying tax burden. Maybe I can defer certain employment payments until she and I take maternity or paternity leaves.
Lmk if any of you all have good strategies. Fwiw, I am working for a small business in a niche field of work.
Here's the strategy: get married and have babies. Its that simple. Nothing else matters.
Well my two cents would be to 1) clamp down hard on all expenses, and 2) plan a sweet simple wedding. 3) Amass a nice amount in the bank, as you are DINKed, meaning double income, no kids.
When both the wedding and the bank account are in place, and that should be next Valentine's Day, marry, and have her quit her job.
You will know by then how to live simply.
And your taxable income will be reduced soon by the presence of a baby, who brings a tax deduction with him.
She could keep up with her colleagues socially, and follow the journals and developments in her field from home.
She may not feel so good when she becomes pregnant, but she will feel better if not stressed by working.
I always thought you got tax breaks for being married. Huh...damn.
You do if only one person works.
Huh? Who exactly is staying unmarried and sterile?
Somebody must be. Birthrate is at 40 year low.
https://www.cpajournal.com/2019/02/04/the-status-of-the-marriage-penalty-an-update-from-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/
However, the tax structure actually favors having the couple's income come from the work of only one member of it. Not having both work.
Still. If a guy makes a modest wage and his girlfriend does too, they can't even progress to the having-kids phase, because they never marry at all. There is still a sense here, thank God, that you really ought to have kids while married and not out of wedlock.
So socking this modest-income, two-income, couple with a tax hike when they marry keeps them from having children.
Trump, bless him, has already increased the child deduction.
That surely helps the birthrate.
I am not sure a couple with a handful of children should pay taxes at all. In many countries there are gimmicks like this and they work.
It is stunning how brief the child-bearing window is. I don't mean maternal age. I mean family formation age, and age of tolerance for childbearing. It's a CULTURE and it needs to be put center stage as important.
Why do people think they have to be government-married in order to have children? If your religion requires you to be married before having children, then your religious group should marry you and leave the stupid government out of it. If your religion requires you to be government-married before having children, you really should think about finding a new religion, in which God outranks government.
The church marries you, always.
You file your marriage with the government after that.
How did you think it worked?
Actually most churches require couples to have a license from the government first, and the the church officiant signs the license and returns it to the government to make it "valid" (in the government's eyes).
Stop and think about why you think this is okay, or why any self-respecting religious denomination would think it's okay. If marriage is something that God recognizes and requires, why should a church need permission from the government to marry it adherents?
Would you be okay with a church requiring a government license before performing a baptism, if the government started issuing such documents? What if the government stopped issuing marriage licenses to people who belonged to religions it didn't approve of? Or refusing to recognize marriages if the license was signed by an officiant affiliated with a non-approved religion? This has happened in our country's history, with the Mormons, before there was any talk of polygamy being introduced to their beliefs and practices. Certain states declared that since Mormons weren't a legitimate religion, in the state officials' opinion, then marriages performed by Mormon clergy were not valid.
There's also a history in this country of state governments refusing to issue marriage licenses for or recognize the validity of marriages between a man and woman of different races. So did that make it okay for churches whose beliefs didn't require same-race marriages to refuse to marry intteracial couples on the grounds that they didn't have a marriage license?
And part of China's population control program included setting a rather high minimum age for marriage (22 for men and 20 for women), and prohibiting any marriages where both parties didn't meet the age requirement. This is still in effect, so a pair of 21 year olds can't legally marry. And of course it's illegal to have babies out of wedlock. But now that the government wants to increase the birth rate, it has proposed lowering the marriage age to 18.
Government regulation of marriage is a bad thing.
The reason our situation with marriage and low birth rate is so fucked is because of Chinese programs after their one child policy failed so abysmally in terms of the strength of their country. Steven Mosher has a lot of good info on that
Why on earth would the Chinese government want to increase their population? Isn't their second largest issue economically, outside of communism of course, the fact that their population is too large to know what to do with?
Nope. China has plenty of unsettled land, and population naturally stabilizes after a certain point, without government intervention. What the Chinese government did was Malthusian nonsense, and cultural suicide. They no longer have a working population large enough to care for their elder population. That's part of the reason they released COVID-19, as a cover to burn their elderly alive in bodybags. But they have a bigger problem coming up. Their male/female ratio is WAY off balance, as every family wanted their one child to be a boy. It's something like 5:1. China is on the verge of a complete collapse, and when it happens, it won't be pretty. Think WWIII.
I would assume that US govt has already worked through these scenarios and has our response ready w regard to their nukes, etc. I can see a conventional skirmish for certain things but not WWIII. Source: None. Just a wag.
They were a bit too successful with their one-child policy and it's creating a demographic problem, with not enough young people to keep the economy going and support the elderly and the huge military force. The one-child policy was replaced with a two-child policy in December 2015. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-27/chinas-one-child-policy-officially-scrapped/7055834
He's saying leave out step 2.
It looks to me like having 2 incomes is better to an extent for taxes, more money to hit the same bracket a single person does.
I see
It sounded to me like he was specifically stating something very different if you read his post
Leftists, and those trapped in the areas they blight.
End feminist divorce laws. No more 50/50 bullshit.
I wish it were easier/quicker to marry my fiancé in Canada. It’s BS at this point
I didn't find out about it until after I got married tbh.
Seriously know many couples that won’t get married because it’s more financially beneficial to stay unmarried.
This is not good.
Sounds like they are living in sin.
Vows made to the opposite sex with mutual intent at becoming one in order to have children and raise a family is a marriage.
In modern days a priest officiates a marriage only to act as a witness because too many people were telling each other they committed to marriage, had sex, then the next day lied to their partner and said they never married them. Witnesses became a requirement to root out this lustful fraud.
Governmental certificates are merely for tax and financial records, as well as proof for legal reasons.
The metaphysical aspect of marriage is sealed without government.
Some Protestant churches may indeed confuse this matter and believe marriage is merely a legal agreement with the state. This is an unfortunate misunderstanding that as you indicate places far too much authority in government hands.
MAKE BABIES FOR AMERICA
No the courts and women who lack humility are keeping people unmarried.
Playing by the rules used to make sense, but is now a sucker's bet. The middle class are tax cattle. If I were young and poor now, I'd get church-married (but not legally married) young, have tons of kids, limit taxable assets, keep a tight community, and milk the system for every dime.
You gotta earn more than 400k combined for this to really matter... https://www.cpajournal.com/2019/02/04/the-status-of-the-marriage-penalty-an-update-from-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/
The marriage penalty is not so significant that it should prevent you from getting married or having babies. It works out to be $900 a year for most couples IF each person makes more than $80k per year (so $160k total) and if both of them are working.
For single income couples there is no penalty.
$900 a year is a LOT of money.
This is regressive, and prevents MEN of modest means having families. The better heeled can brush it off.
But wealthy men don't make up for the infertility of the lower down. A guy who makes three times more, does NOT have three times as many children.
Everybody has to have children.
Nine hundred dollars is quite a large sum for many.
I think you need to re read my comment. If you are the sole breadwinner there is no marriage penalty.
If you both make money then combined income would need to be more than $160,000 per year to be hit with the penalty. I think that is way more than "modest means"
If you are a family of modest means you are not getting hit with a marriage penalty. What do you consider modest means?
Welllllll ... If they both make $85k or something they will be hit. This is exactly the experienced machinist, and the slightly senior nurse, who we NEED TO HAVE CHILDREN, AND WHO AREN'T. OR NOT ENOUGH.
So yes. This slightly middle or experienced, not lowest, vaguely middle class but not wealthy, people, whose house is in the mid 100s if they have one at all, that is who we do NOT need to hit with any taxes that discourage marriage and childbearing.
To me, it you have kids, and you are not on government assistance, well, you are the nation's Star. You deserve a pat, a pet, applause, and being financially spared.
Why? Because you are producing a Good for the national future. To me, you have ALREADY PAID your taxes in diapers, baby clothes, and above all that, famous money-equivalent, TIME.
What marriage penalty?
When a guy with a salary marries a woman with a salary, their joint income together is taxed at a higher rate than when they were not married, and paying taxes as two separate individuals.
This discourages legal marrying. That's bad. It COSTS them money to marry. Bad.
This also discourages wives from working. The same money if made by only one spouse, not two, is taxed less than if it were made by both spouses. That part is good for childbearing. But. However.
It impacts less affluent couples harder, because it is harder for less affluent men to do without their wives' salary. In that way, the marriage penalty is a kind of gift from the lower class to the upper one. Regressive.
Here is a discussion of this:
https://www.cpajournal.com/2019/02/04/the-status-of-the-marriage-penalty-an-update-from-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/
Why can't you married file separately?
My wife doesn't work so I don't have this problem.
my buddy just said his vows in private with his wife. refused to change his tax status. he may be onto something. i hate to recommend not getting married in the church though. its still important.