[FoRK] New Benefits of Marriage Study Actually Hints at the Horrors of Middle Age

Damien Morton dmorton at bitfurnace.com
Thu Jan 22 22:12:10 PST 2015


You should incorporate and have the corporation adopt the child. At that
point, all child rearing expenses become business deductions.

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Lucas Gonze <lucas.gonze at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?
>
> Greg
>
> 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:
> > https://sweden.se/collection/welcome-to-the-swedish-kitchen/
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> > https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svensk_k%C3%B6ksstandard
> >
> > sdw
> >
> >
> > On 1/22/15 10:43 AM, geege schuman wrote:
> >
> >> This? (Denmark not Sweden, but I can see why you went there.)
> >>
> >> http://www.citylab.com/housing/2015/01/can-boomers-
> >> make-cohousing-mainstream/384624/
> >>
> >> 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
> >>>> been
> >>>> thru one from beginning to end...but...
> >>>>
> >>>> Legislating social machinations ...two words... Gaius Octavius ...and
> >>>> begin.....
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -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:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/201006/
> >>> can-you-name-the-1138-federal-hat-tips-marriage-guest-post-onely
> >>> http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-353R
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >>> so
> >>> that many millions of Americans are no longer committing technically
> >>> illegal acts. (For instance, oral sex was illegal in many states.) If
> >>> you
> >>> 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
> >>> though
> >>> 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
> >>>> marriage
> >>>> through that federal marriage promotion program should be defunded and
> >>>> cut
> >>>> immediately as completely outside the scope of what government should
> be
> >>>> spending taxpayer dollars on.
> >>>>
> >>>> Agreed.
> >>> http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/gops-dead-
> >>> end-marriage-program
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >>>> Santorum,
> >>>> 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
> >>>> negative
> >>>> 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
> >>>> of
> >>>> dollars were hastily distributed to grantees to further this poverty
> >>>> reduction strategy. The money went to such enterprises as "Laugh Your
> >>>> Way
> >>>> America," <http://www.laughyourway.com/> a program run by a
> non-Spanish
> >>>> speaking Wisconsin minister who used federal dollars to offer "Laugh
> >>>> Your
> >>>> Way to a Better Marriage" seminars to Latinos. It funded Rabbi Stephen
> >>>> Baars, a British rabbi who'd been giving his trademarked "Bliss"
> >>>> marriage
> >>>> 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
> >>>> some
> >>>> cities, the local grantees used their federal funds to recruit
> >>>> professional
> >>>> 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."
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Greg:
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >>>> you
> >>>> use up all your sick days, that's what you do. The idea that the
> >>>> government
> >>>> would tell her boss that they have to pay her to do her parental duty
> >>>> too
> >>>> is crazy. That just tells me she was unprepared for parenthood. We
> >>>> truly
> >>>> do live in an entitlement society.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is not so simple. Children need to be raised and both parents
> >>> should
> >>> 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
> >>> is
> >>> 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
> >>> that
> >>> 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
> >>> have
> >>> 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
> >>> to
> >>> 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.
> >>> At
> >>> 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,
> >>> or
> >>> 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
> >>> ground.
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >>> same
> >>> as socialism or communism, especially if not imposed by the government.
> >>>
> >>> Different arrangements are optimal for different people at different
> >>> times.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Greg
> >>>>
> >>>> sdw
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 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".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/new-benefits-
> >>>>> marriage-study-actually-hints-horrors-middle-age-98353/
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> New Benefits of Marriage Study Actually Hints at the Horrors of
> Middle
> >>>>> Age
> >>>>>
> >>>>> By Maya Dusenbery • January 16, 2015 • 12:00 PM
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Doomed? (Photo: nathancongleton/Flickr
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> > _______________________________________________
> > FoRK mailing list
> > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
> >
>
>
>
> --
> greg at bolcer.org, http://bolcer.org, c: +1.714.928.5476
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>


More information about the FoRK mailing list