All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/

Fewer people are paying taxes because fewer people are married

Here is an interesting essay from The Family in America.

Here’s the problem:

Just two days before Tax Day this year, the Heritage Foundation was quick on the draw with a Backgrounder by Curtis S. Dubay citing IRS data showing that the bottom 50 percent of tax filers pay less than 3 percent of all income taxes. According to Dubay, “the rapid increase in the number of nonpaying tax filers caused by tax credits is leading the country to a dangerous tipping point.” Like other conservatives and libertarians, he fears that once the bottom half of tax filers pay no taxes whatsoever, they “could vote themselves an increasing share of government benefits at no cost to themselves.”

And here’s what’s causing the problem:

More important, this relatively new concern about the growth in the number of Americans paying no income taxes overlooks the social roots of the problem, particularly the decline of the most economically productive segment of the population: the married-two parent family.5 Consequently, few economic conservatives seem willing to connect the dots between the changing demographics of the American taxpayer, which Hodge at least acknowledges,6 and the growth of Americans paying no taxes. They seem more eager to blame the latter on the addition and expansion of refundable credits, especially the child tax credit, not changing demographics. Yet Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, estimates that married couples are far less likely to be non-taxpayers in 2009 than single filers or head-of-household filers. In this last category, his model shows 72 percent paying no income taxes, the highest percentage of all tax filing categories. Only 38 percent of married-joint filers, and 26 percent of married-separate filers, pay no taxes.7

Indeed, the Tax Foundation’s own analysis of IRS data documents the decline in the proportion of married filers from 65 percent of returns in 1960 to 41 percent in the years 2000–02, and the dramatic growth of head-of-household filers, representing largely unwed mothers, from 2 percent to 15 percent during the same period. Moreover, looking at data from 2002 returns, the foundation finds that married couples, while they file less than half of all tax returns, pay nearly three-quarters of all income taxes paid by the American people.8 Even though the analysis does not include changes that might arise from the doubling of the child tax credit to $1,000 in 2003, the numbers nonetheless suggest that the growth in the number of Americans who pay no income taxes is driven more by the retreat from marriage than by the proliferation of credits in the tax code, as problematic as that might be. The numbers further suggest that if conservatives are serious about tax reform, they can no longer ignore the elephant in the room—the retreat from marriage and family life—that undermines the very economic growth they seek. Nor can they presume that a flatter tax system with lower rates and a wider base, favored by the  libertarian wing of the GOP, will lead to smaller government, as analysis by economist Gary Becker shows that countries with flatter tax systems tend to have larger governments.9 They must therefore be open to tax reform proposals that recognize the natural family as the social and economic ideal as well as reinforce the recovery of marriage and the child-rich family—not economic growth for its own sake—as centerpieces of American life.

This is yet another reason for fiscal conservatives to take notice that you cannot have economic growth if the traditional family is replaced with single-mother families. Single motherhood is not a situation where men are responsible and work hard as providers. It infantilizes men and rewards them for acting like nomads and barbarians. And the children who are raised without fathers are not going to be as mentally healthy or productive as the ones raised with fathers. The traditional family, with children raised by biological parents who are attached to them, is an important part of future economic growth. It’s all linked together – social conservatism and fiscal conservatism.

Afghan Red Cross worker set to be hanged after converting to Christianity

Map of the Middle East
Map of the Middle East

Mary sent me this news article from the UK Daily Mail.

Full text:

An Afghan physiotherapist will be executed within three days for converting to Christianity.

Said Musa, 45, has been held for eight months in a Kabul prison were he claims he has been tortured and sexually abused by inmates and guards.

Mr Musa, who lost his left leg in a landmine explosion in the 1990s, has worked for the Red Cross for 15 years and helps to treat fellow amputees.

He was arrested in May last year as he attempted to seek asylum at the German embassy following a crackdown on Christians within Afghanistan.

He claims he was visited by a judge who told him he would be hanged within days unless he converted back to Islam.

But he remains defiant and said he would be willing to die for his faith.

He told the Sunday Times: ‘My body is theirs to do what they want with.

‘Only God can decide if my spirit goes to hell.’

Defence lawyers have refused to represent him, while others have dropped the case after receiving death threats.

Mr Musa was arrested after a TV station showed western men baptising Afghans during secret ceremonies.

And it’s not just Afghanistan and Iraq – now it’s Egypt. Jennifer Caballero linked to this Cubachi post that explains how Egyptian Christians are in fear of persecution.

Here is an article from the left-wing Huffington Post that talks about Obama’s response to all of this persecution of Christians.

Excerpt:

The Obama administration has not shown us it cares about the persecution of Christians. This is obvious. At a time of rising persecution of Christians throughout Muslim lands, the president has nominated Dr. Suzan Johnson Cook — a “motivational speaker” with questionable qualifications — to hold the critical position of U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom.

Respected diplomat Thomas Farr, who headed the State Department’s International Religious Freedom desk, has written in The Washington Post: “The Obama administration seems to have decided that other policy initiatives — outreach to Muslim governments, obtaining China’s cooperation, advancing gay rights — would be compromised by vigorous advocacy for religious freedom.”

The situation for Christians around the world is increasingly dire. In Afghanistan, a government we support and largely fund is hounding Christians, pursuing them, and threatening them with death.

Christians in Iraq are suffering more now than at any time since the dawn of the Christian era. Fully half of Iraq’s Christians have fled the country since the 2003 U.S. invasion. They can no longer survive where their ancestors lived for thousands of years.

Christians in Egypt were murdered at Christmas by Muslim militants. Christians in Lebanon are newly threatened by the rise of Hezbollah — backed by Iran.

In Iran itself, 100 Christians were arrested in 24 cities on Boxing Day, the day after Christmas. The Iranian regime — to which this president extended an “open hand” and to whose people he sent Persian New Year’s greetings — is committed to a totalitarian variant of Islam. No wonder they want nuclear weapons.

It’s become very popular on the left to say that Islam is a religion of peace, and to include Islam as a mainstream religion alongside Judaism and Christianity. Somehow, I don’t think that the multicultural relativists have looked very deeply at Islam.

And I don’t think that Islam could have much going for it rationally or evidentially if it has to resort to violence in order to avoid people converting away from it. If membership in Islam isn’t voluntary, then how many Muslims really believe in it because they think it is true? Clearly, they don’t really care about presenting as rationally testable. It’s basically presented as “convert or die”.

New study finds that fathers should play with children and mothers should care for them

Found here in the Courier and Mail.

Excerpt:

A study suggests that couples have a stronger relationship when the father spends more time playing with their child.

But when he participates in care-giving such as giving baths, parents undermine each other.

The study in the Journal of Developmental Psychology involved 112 couples with four-year-olds.

They were asked how often they played with their children and were involved in care-giving.

The US researchers looked for signs of supportive co-parenting, and for evidence of couples criticising or trying to “outdo” each other.

A year later the couples took part in a similar activity and results showed when fathers played more with their child at the beginning of the study, the couple showed more supportive co-parenting in the second session.

But when fathers took part more in care-giving, the couples showed lower levels of supportive co-parenting a year later.

It’s a small study, so I would like to see another one that is bigger.