Brad Wilcox writes in the Wall Street Journal about the new tax on stay-at-home mothers that Obama proposed in his State of the Union speech.
Guess which kind of family was left out in the cold by President Obama as he unveiled his plan to help middle-class families in his State of the Union address? The traditional two-parent family with a single breadwinner.
The president pitched his plan as part of an agenda in which “everyone gets their fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules” in part by “lowering the taxes of working families and putting thousands of dollars back into their pockets each year.” But by design or omission, his plan does virtually nothing for married families with a parent at home, usually the mother.
The president’s plan would triple the existing child-care tax credit to $3,000 for two-earner families with children under 5 and a combined income of less than $120,000, and it would establish a new $500 credit for families in which both spouses work. The plan would provide tax relief—which would no doubt help with the cost of child care, commuting, etc.—to middle-class families with both parents in the workforce. But families who choose to have a parent at home would see none of this tax relief.
Terry Jeffries explains in CNS News why Obama would want to penalize stay-at-home moms.
The perversely logical corollary to Obama’s desire to structure the tax code to the disadvantage of stay-at-home mothers is his desire to use tax dollars to replace working fathers with the government itself.
As this column has noted before, in each of the last six years on record — 2008 through 2013 — at least 40 percent of the babies born in the United States were born to unmarried mothers. By contrast, in 1940, only 3.8 percent of the babies were born to unmarried mothers.
According to the Department of Health and Human Services’ annual report on “Welfare Indicators and Risk Factors” it is a fact that “historically a high proportion of welfare recipients first became parents outside of marriage.”
In 2013, according to the Census Bureau, there were 105,862,000 full-time year-round workers in the United States — including 16,685,000 full-time government workers. These full-time workers were outnumbered by the 109,631,000 whom the Census Bureau says were getting benefits from means-tested federal programs — n.b. welfare — as of the fourth quarter of 2012.
Every American family that pays its own way — and takes care of its own children whether with one or two incomes — must subsidize the 109,631,000 on welfare.
Perhaps if we started rolling back the welfare state — and reduced the burden of government on all families that rely on themselves and not the government — more mothers would choose to stay home even if that meant Obama and his ideological heirs would discriminate against them in the tax code.
So if you make it impossible for a woman to stay home, then she goes to work. If she goes to work, she pays taxes to the government. The government turns around and distributes that money to people who will vote for them in exchange for the money – like single mothers on welfare. The more money they make, the more money they have to buy votes with. And they get the votes of all the child care workers, too – because if mothers stayed home, they wouldn’t have jobs. Only the parents and the children suffer, as the children get torn away from their parents to be raised by strangers. Often, child care workers are unionized, and work based on government specifications. Parents lose the ability to care for their own children and watch over them, teaching them their beliefs and values. Instead, the values of these strangers are given to them. Instead of a mother’s love, they get fed and handled by strangers.
I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that the party that aborts unborn children treats born children like this. It amazes me that people who claim to be pro-marriage and pro-family keep voting for politicians who want to raise taxes, forces women to leave their children in the hands of strangers in order to make ends meet.
5 thoughts on “Obama proposes new tax on stay-at-home moms in SOTU speech”
There aren’t enough jobs as it is, given productivity of modern technology as well as competition from 3rd world slave labor.
Parents are working ever more hours for ever less wages…. exacerbating the problems.
Young children need full time parental care and “early education” is a poor substitute, damaging them psychologically.
An person who works full time ought to be paid enough to support his or her family.
“…see none of this tax relief.”
I’m not sure that constitutes either a “new tax” or “tax penalty”. I, for instance, have received no help whatsoever from my government. As a working guy making mortgage payments, avoiding excess debt, paying bills–all that–I get no help at all from the White House. No tax relief. No debt aid. No tax credits. Nothing. I don’t classify it as either “new tax” or “tax penalty”. Further, if the “penalty” is that they won’t get the credit they never got, is that really a penalty? They don’t have the credits now, so how will this require stay-at-home moms to go to work?
On the other hand, I was offended that the president assumed that the “two-earner family” was necessary in this day and age. I served in the military making what the government called “sub-poverty wages” and never had my wife go to work even with low pay and two kids. Nor did I anticipate that I could support a family on minimum wage (something else the president decided to complain about), but, hey, that’s just me, right?
Add to this the tax burden of government provided abortions given mostly to single moms who don’t love their unborn kids enough & don’t understand their risks of future grief.
I think there’s a bit of the Cultural Revolutiin about this. Try to put child rearing into the hands of state registered employees to stop parents putting naughty religious ideas in their heads.
Reblogged this on Will S.' Anarcho-Tyranny Blog.