Thursday, February 16, 2012

Huh. Taxes have a disincentive effect?

Who'd have thought?
Adding up the additional taxes (90k) and childcare costs (80k) you get $170k of income that goes away.

My wife would make more than that next year, but she has to work a lot to make that money. At a certain point, her hourly wage becomes ridiculous. Therefore, it looks like the answer to the question of whether or not she should work is ‘no’.
What to do, what to do?  I mean, you can't have individuals making their own decisions, especially when that costs the .GOV almost a hundred large.  How about some taxes on stay-at-home people?  I mean, look at all the value to the kids!  The kids need to pay their fair share on that value.

You raised your kids right?  Good for you!  But I want to be clear: you took them to the library.  The streets were safe for you because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.  You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and kidnap your kids, because of the work the rest of us did.

Look, you're raising your kids and turning them into terrific people.  God bless.  Keep a big chunk of that. But part of the underlying social contract is that to take part of that and pay it forward for the next kid who comes along.

I mean, if you belong to the State, so do your kids, right?  Now shut up and buy your health insurance, because we said so.

1 comment:

Ken said...

Not only that: Two-parent families who have only one parent in the workforce aren't Doing Their Parts to bolster the consumption economy. They're less likely to have $1,000 a month in blingmobile payments in the driveway... fact, why stop there? Tax anyone who drives a paid-up used car! What do you have against American auto workers?