[FoRK] New Benefits of Marriage Study Actually Hints at the Horrors of Middle Age
lucas.gonze at gmail.com
Thu Jan 22 19:42:54 PST 2015
I don’t get the emphasis on parental leave. A birth only happens once per child. No matter how much leave you get it doesn’t matter. And it’s a huge burden on a company which gets somebody on a long leave.
OTOH it could be possible to deduct child care when it’s a business expense. If hiring a sitter is necessary to go generate cash, why isn’t that deductible against the revenues you generate?
Today I spent $214 on a sitter so I could bring in $800 in consulting revenue. Why do I owe taxes on $800 instead of $586?
On January 22, 2015 at 1:45:07 PM, Gregory Alan Bolcer (greg at bolcer.org) wrote:
What's with all the excessive ink?
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Stephen D. Williams <sdw at lig.net> wrote:
> Ah yes, thanks. I mixed that up with a story about Swedish Kitchens, both
> tiny sizes from a certain era and this:
>> Welcome to the Swedish kitchen. It is not a sanctuary for a chef but
>> rather a family room where people combine cooking with socialising, eating
>> and drinking.
> On 1/22/15 10:43 AM, geege schuman wrote:
>> This? (Denmark not Sweden, but I can see why you went there.)
>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Stephen D. Williams <sdw at lig.net> wrote:
>> On 1/22/15 8:38 AM, Tom Higgins wrote:
>>> So maybe I am not the best person to be commenting on marriage having
>>>> thru one from beginning to end...but...
>>>> Legislating social machinations ...two words... Gaius Octavius ...and
>>>> -tom(Livia Did It)higgins
>>>> Yes, legislating social machinations would be bad. Glad we don't do
>>> that. Oh, wait, in some key ways we do:
>>> our research identified a total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions
>>>> classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a
>>>> factor in
>>>> determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges.
>>>> Not to mention laws regulating sex, only recently overruled by SCOTUS
>>> that many millions of Americans are no longer committing technically
>>> illegal acts. (For instance, oral sex was illegal in many states.) If
>>> believe that state and local laws have any validity once overruled, it
>>> still is. A number of states have refused to change their laws even
>>> they have been ruled unconstitutional.
>>> On 1/22/15 7:00 AM, Gregory Alan Bolcer wrote:
>>> Maya Dusenbery must be an alias.
>>>> Whatever agency that spends money on encouraging or discouraging
>>>> through that federal marriage promotion program should be defunded and
>>>> immediately as completely outside the scope of what government should be
>>>> spending taxpayer dollars on.
>>> take a hard look at a federal program pushed by a host of top GOPers
>>>> during the Bush-era and reauthorized in late 2010, as the Republican
>>>> deficit craze took hold. Originally championed by Republican lawmakers
>>>> including Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick
>>>> and current Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, a federal initiative to promote
>>>> marriage <http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/09/do-taxpayers-
>>>> need-marriage-workshops> as a cure for poverty dumped hundreds of
>>>> millions of dollars into programs that either had no impact or a
>>>> effect on the relationships of the couples who took part, according to
>>>> recent research by the Department of Health and Human Services <
>>>> http://www.hhs.gov/> (HHS).
>>>> Launched during the Bush administration at the behest of evangelical
>>>> Christian activists and with the aid of congressional Republicans, the
>>>> federal Healthy Marriage Initiative <http://www.motherjones.com/
>>>> politics/2005/01/richer-or-poorer> was designed to help low-income
>>>> couples put a little sizzle in their marriages and urge poor unmarried
>>>> parents to tie the knot, in the hopes that marriage would enhance their
>>>> finances and get them off the federal dole. Starting in 2006, millions
>>>> dollars were hastily distributed to grantees to further this poverty
>>>> reduction strategy. The money went to such enterprises as "Laugh Your
>>>> America," <http://www.laughyourway.com/> a program run by a non-Spanish
>>>> speaking Wisconsin minister who used federal dollars to offer "Laugh
>>>> Way to a Better Marriage" seminars to Latinos. It funded Rabbi Stephen
>>>> Baars, a British rabbi who'd been giving his trademarked "Bliss"
>>>> seminars <http://www.getbliss.com/index.php?option=com_content&
>>>> task=view&id=1&Itemid=2> to upper-middle-class Jews in Montgomery
>>>> County, Maryland, for years. With the help of the federal government, he
>>>> brought his program to inner-city DC for the benefit of African American
>>>> single moms.
>>>> The marriage money was diverted from the Temporary Assistance for Needy
>>>> Families program (formerly known as welfare), and much of it went to
>>>> religious groups that went to work trying to combat the divorce rate in
>>>> their communities by sponsoring date nights and romance workshops. In
>>>> cities, the local grantees used their federal funds to recruit
>>>> athletes to make public service announcements touting the benefits of
>>>> marriage. Women's groups were especially critical of the marriage
>>>> initiative, largely because it was the baby of Wade Horn <
>>>> http://www.publiceye.org/pushedtothealtar/index.html>, a controversial
>>>> figure who Bush installed at HHS as the head of the Administration for
>>>> Children and Families and the administration's official "marriage czar."
>>> Second, she wants the government to tell her boss that she can take more
>>>> sick days to take care of her family? It's called unpaid leave. After
>>>> use up all your sick days, that's what you do. The idea that the
>>>> would tell her boss that they have to pay her to do her parental duty
>>>> is crazy. That just tells me she was unprepared for parenthood. We
>>>> do live in an entitlement society.
>>>> This is not so simple. Children need to be raised and both parents
>>> be able to get educated, have a career, and work productively. To some
>>> extent, having to struggle for a certain segment isn't terrible, but it
>>> probably not optimal either. For other segments, the struggle leads to
>>> various disasters. Anything that consistently leads to poorly raised and
>>> educated children is bad. Anything that significantly produces life-long
>>> limits on half the population is bad. It doesn't take full government
>>> management to fix this. Perhaps it doesn't take any government
>>> participation at all. I would likely only consider some minor tweaks
>>> might have a major impact. Perhaps solving liability and responsibility
>>> issues with cooperative parenting arrangements or something along those
>>> lines. The entitlements we have for people who more or less fail out of
>>> the perfect career & family track do tend to discourage further coupling
>>> up. I see this all the time: A couple has children, then splits up. If
>>> they are less than upper middle class, and especially if the children
>>> any problems, eventually this may lead to some disability, welfare, or
>>> similar. Once this becomes a thing, and goes on for a while, it becomes
>>> less and less likely that that parent will do more than date. The
>>> responsibility gap that someone would have to close is large, leading to
>>> endless instability.
>>> The conservatives were right in seeing this as an insidious dynamic, but
>>> they seem mostly off track in their approach to solving it. By only
>>> concentrating on keeping people from divorcing and those on the edge to
>>> commit, they seem to be assuming that those already divorced and in or
>>> heading to bad situations are a lost cause.
>>> A really great book I'm reading right now (Firestar - Michael Flynn) has
>>> this dynamic in play at a certain point:
>>> Pods of 4 single parents work together so that one parent raises all of
>>> the children while the others train, work, and pay part of their salary
>>> the first.
>>> Simply supporting something like this so it is a respectable thing, can
>>> get off the ground, and be successful for a while would be a huge win.
>>> some point, it would be a cultural motif and probably happen without any
>>> support. Maybe this would just need creative use of power of attorney,
>>> probably a slight legislative tweak to allow parent-like power in such a
>>> situation better than current power of attorney. Perhaps private
>>> organizations would provide backing for a few areas to get it off the
>>> I can't seem to google it, but there was a segment I saw recently about
>>> almost-communal living in Sweden. An apartment complex like group vote
>>> residents in, had group dinners with rotating cooking responsibility,
>>> co-parenting, etc. Hard to get right, and all kinds of ways of failing,
>>> but not bad to try. Some extended families operate this way to various
>>> degrees, sometimes to an extreme. It's not an option for most now, but
>>> intentionally constructing such an arrangement is not necessarily the
>>> as socialism or communism, especially if not imposed by the government.
>>> Different arrangements are optimal for different people at different
>>> On 1/20/2015 8:05 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>>>> Teaming up is important. I always wonder why so many are single.
>>>>> Perhaps we need some social construct between "roommate" and "mate".
>>>>> New Benefits of Marriage Study Actually Hints at the Horrors of Middle
>>>>> By Maya Dusenbery • January 16, 2015 • 12:00 PM
>>>>> Doomed? (Photo: nathancongleton/Flickr
> FoRK mailing list
greg at bolcer.org, http://bolcer.org, c: +1.714.928.5476
FoRK mailing list
More information about the FoRK