Marriage and politics have a long history of sleeping together.
Politics is a dirty game, yet those who advocate against the unmarried and childless have played the political game the best over the past few decades. They have done this by letting marriage and politics get in bed together to pass laws and regulations to further their own goals. However, it seems that this political faction is not satisfied with already having more than a thousand laws that benefit married couples in place, they want to now take a stand against those who are single and childless or childfree. There is always a problem when pork barrels are used in politics to win political support, but it is especially politically incestuous when marriage and politics sleep together to push preferred policies and regulations on to those who are single and unmarried to benefit couples.
The Problem When Marriage And Politics Get In Bed Together
Corruption of Marriage and Politics
While both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are corrupt in their own unique ways, the incestuous relationship between marriage and politics crosses both political aisles but it gets the most coverage on the right side of the political aisle. Rather than be open to the reality that singles and the unmarried are on the rise, this political faction is focused on creating more laws and policies to promote the family according to how that faction understands family. It is more concerned about the family collective rather than the individual. Married couples already get tax benefits from extra deduction to child tax credits to home sales along with retirement benefits which include IRA contributions and Social Security. Rather than asking politicians and the government for more while attacking those who are childless and childfree, a solution to level the playing field for both those who are single, unmarried, and married is to abolish all of the benefits the married receive from the government.
A way to make the political system more equitable towards those who are unmarried and married is to end the incestuous relationship between marriage and politics starts by looking outside of the government for solutions. This would mean working to decrease and eventually eliminate government benefits and provisions for married couples. By getting rid of these marriage benefits and provisions which the government has in place for married couples, it would no longer make the state favor couples over singles. The next step would be to allow those who want to get married to marry where they want whether it is by a church, an organization which performs marriages, or by the local government. This would increase the options for people who want to get married rather than the federally mandated promotion of marriage which is the current status quo between marriage and the state. These solutions would make the political system fairer towards both married couples and those who are single and unmarried. It would also end the forty plus year’s incestuous relationship between marriage and politics.
Marriage and politics have a long history of being politically incestuous to further the agendas of both institutions. It is time to work to end the pork barrels and porking between these two which has gone on for too long. By working to get rid of the marriage benefits and provisions which the state provides to those who are married; it would make both singles and those who are married equally before the law, before the state, and to each other. This would also provide a range of options for those singles who want to eventually marry by getting the federal government out of the marriage business and give the power back to the states and local governments, then churches and other organizations can decide what types of marriages they want to perform. Overall, more marriage options would and arrangements would be available for those who may want to marry. Marriage is not about receiving special privileges and a special status from the state, it is about a union between two people. Singles and the unmarried can work together to make the government treat them equally under the law by ending the lewd relationship between marriage and politics.
Views expressed in this article are the author’s opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views of Secure Single. It is intended for informational and educational purposes only. It is not investment or financial advice. James Bollen is the author of Thriving Solo: How to Flourish and Live Your Perfect Life (Without A Soulmate). Now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon. Subscribe to Secure Single’s Substack for free!
Ann Coulter sent out a Tweet the other day that succumbed to society’s stereotypes of singles being sad and lonely and couples being happy. Being single does not mean that you are unhappy and lonely. That is a myth created by society. The single shaming done by society, the media, and politics needs to stop since singles are now the majority of the American population.
Ann Coulter And The Culture Of Single Shaming
As someone with influence in society, especially in certain political circles, Ann Coulter is hurting singles. She should be helping them instead of saying that singles live “lives of quiet desperation and will die alone”. Further, as a professional single woman, Ann Coulter fails to realize the values of the single life and that singles are healthier than couples. Women are more independent than ever today. Women do not need a man to be happy. It is disheartening to see a single political celebrity take part in single shaming because Ann Coulter is not only shaming singles, but is also shaming herself.
Politics Of Being Anti-Single
The politics of both American political parties have always favored those who are married and have a family. This is because because they are an essential political base. Both the Democrat and Republican Parties have historically been anti-single. Politicians need to attract this base to to win an election. Politics has used taxes to assist those who are married and who have families since it is thought that families are a requirement for a healthy society. This belief has resulted in couples with children receiving tax deductions for children. Children become a tax write off for couples while singles pay a tax penalty.
These can include tax cuts and deductions for being married and having children. There are already more than 1,000 laws, just on the federal level, that help provide benefits to those who are married. Those laws were written and enacted by both American political parties. Washington and Politicians like to ignore singles because it is good for them to be seen as pro-marriage and pro-family. Why do you think politicians are always kissing babies on the campaign trail? To win votes and to look relatable to their voters. This has to change.
Direction Politics Should Take Towards Singles
Political institutions from the local level to the federal level in Washington need to realize that singles are now the majority of the American population. Those who are married are becoming a smaller number of the American population. Future policies that should work to dismantle tax deductions that those who are married receive for having children. Singles should not be taxed more people who are married. The more than 1,000 laws that favor those who are married should be rewritten or amended to make a truly equal playing field for everyone when it comes to taxes. It will not matter if they are single, cohabiting, or married. Everyone will be taxed the same instead of some receiving tax benefits from the government for having children.
Views expressed in this article are the author’s opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views of Secure Single. It is intended for informational and educational purposes only. It is not investment or financial advice. James Bollen is the author of Thriving Solo: How to Flourish and Live Your Perfect Life (Without A Soulmate). Now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon. Subscribe to Secure Single’s Substack for free!
The GOP has rearranged the tax brackets from seven into four. This is good for some, and not for others. Simple is better in some cases, especially with tax. Here is the scoop on how the new tax codes will affect you.
Winners and Losers
Losers: Low income filers with children and households that are inadvertently bumped into a higher bracket.
Winners: Low-to-middle income households and the 5.2 million middle-to-high income taxpayers who are subject to this levy.
According to the new plan, the standard deduction will change from $24,400 for married couples who file jointly and $12,200 for single filers, which is nearly double up from the current rate.
Current and New Tax Brackets
There are currently seven tax brackets which break into the following categories:
10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35% and 39.6%.
The four new and simplified tax brackets are as follows:
12%, 25%, 35%, and 39.6%.
The new tax plan could hurt singles with children. According to Slate, the new tax plan would do away with personal exemptions, which currently allow parents to deduct $4,050 from their taxes for themselves and each of their dependents. This would lead to parents owing more taxes on their earnings. The new tax plan would also increase the lowest tax rate from 10 percent to 12 percent.
Slate simplifies this here:
“Consider a married couple with two children earning $50,000. Today, they’d be allowed to take the standard deduction, worth $12,700, plus four personal exemptions, worth $16,200—bringing their tax-exempt income all the way up to $28,900. Under the Trump plan, they’d only have a single $24,000 deduction. As a result, they’d end up paying $888 more in taxes.
All working-class couples with children whose adjusted gross incomes fall between $24,000 and $60,000 will pay more in taxes under the Trump plan than under the current tax system, according to Daniel Hemel and Kyle Rozema from Slate.
Additional Money for Singles Standard Deductions
Under the current system, a single filer can take a standard deduction of $6,350 and a personal exemption of $4,050. That equates to $10,400 in tax savings compared with the proposed $12,000 standard deduction for singles.
GOP Tax Plan Pros and Cons
Depending on where you fall in the income earning bracket, you will either win or lose. If you find yourself at the top of a tax bracket cutoff, find a new way to make more money and bump up into the next category where you can have a better break. There are only four, so make sure you know where you stand. Also, converse with a licensed CPA before making any decisions on your money. Knowledge is power.
Cheers,
Danielle
Views expressed in this article are the author’s opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views of Secure Single. It is intended for informational and educational purposes only. It is not investment or financial advice. James Bollen is the author of Thriving Solo: How to Flourish and Live Your Perfect Life (Without A Soulmate). Now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon. Subscribe to Secure Single’s Substack for free!
Single and ready to mingle is the phrase that society associates the most with singles. While some singles may be looking to mingle to make new friends or to find a date, there are other singles who are single and unavailable. These singles are not interested in romantic relationships and instead enjoy all that the single life offers. These singles who are unavailable and off the market are single by choice.
Society and the dating industrial complex believe that the goal of all singles is to date and to get hitched. While that may be the case for some singles, it is not true for those who are single by choice. These singles have decided that they do not want to get date or to get married. Society may think that these singles are outcasts, but these singles enjoy the autonomy and independence that the single life offers them. The consequence that society has charged those who are single by choice is that they will be treated by laws and finding jobs compared to those who are married.
The government has determined that singles do not positively contribute towards the common good of society compared to their married counterparts so they should be treated differently because they are single. There are more than 1,000 laws that provide tax deductions, benefits, and discounts on health insurance for married couples. The government makes singles pay more in taxes compared to those who are married because they are able to file jointly. For those who are single by choice, these thousands of laws and tax policies hurt them financially and is an injustice for a life decision. Singles should not have to pay more in taxes because they are unmarried and should not be treated differently by the law because of their single status.
Those who are single and unavailable should not be fined or treated differently because they are single by choice. Singles who are single by choice are about 15% of the American population. Their choice to not want to date and to get married should be respected by their friends and family. Society and the government, likewise, should acknowledge their decision and not treat them differently or attach stereotypes because they are single.
These singles are single, unavailable, and off the market by choice. They realize that the single life is a great life that allows them to pursue their career or dreams and live a healthy life. It is time that society recognizes that just because someone is single doesn’t mean that they are looking to mingle and on the market; in fact, some singles will always remain unavailable and remain of the dating market.
Views expressed in this article are the author’s opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views of Secure Single. It is intended for informational and educational purposes only. It is not investment or financial advice. James Bollen is the author of Thriving Solo: How to Flourish and Live Your Perfect Life (Without A Soulmate). Now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon. Subscribe to Secure Single’s Substack for free!
The Trump administration has proposed to get rid of one of the tax filing statuses that gives single parents a deduction in the tax code. There are currently two types of filing in the tax code: married and single. Single parents are currently able to file under the married section that saves them money when filing taxes. The new proposal would create a third category for single parents that would result in them paying more for on their yearly taxes. This is a further step in the wrong direction. Singles and single parents should not be taxed more than their married counterparts.
2016 Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016 at a campaign rally said that under Donald Trump’s tax plan “51 percent of singles would see their taxes go up.” Now that Donald Trump is President he is able to affect policy and make the Republican Party fall in line with what he wants it to become, which it is doing with ease. One of his policies, while cutting taxes for the majority of the middle class, would raise taxes in three different ways on singles. The first way is that Trump’s tax plan rates affects singles who are in the 33% tax bracket, or who make up to $127,500. The second way is that Trump would eliminate personal exemptions while raising standard deductions on singles. By raising the standard deduction, singles can expect a minimum increase of $8,750 from what they pay in taxes now which is more than those who are married. A third element of Trump’s tax plan is that it would eliminate single parents’ head of household status. Single parents’ will suffer by no longer being considered a head of household under Trump’s tax plan. In short, singles and single parents will pay more and see increased taxes under now President Trump’s tax plan.
Single parents are becoming more normal as society has seen a spike in divorces. Singles can now become a single parent by choice through adoption or in vitro fertilization. Singles also outnumber the married population in America. This tax policy defies the new normal of people remaining single longer, delaying marriage, or deciding to never get married. It is time for Washington to recognize the plight of singles and single parents and phase out head of household status. This would be a step to make singles, single parents, and those who are married more equal with tax policy. The next, and larger, step would be to eradicate the more than 1,000 laws that favor and benefit those who are married. None of these steps will come soon to Washington since both parties are entrenched in political interests. Those who are unmarried, single, and single parents should push their representatives to expunge the laws that benefit those who are married. This would be the fairest tax policy option to make singles and married equal during tax season.
Singles already pay more taxes with the current tax code compared to those who are married. In addition, those who are married receive over a 1,000 tax benefits and deductions merely because they are married. The tax code must be simplified and the deductions and benefits for those who are married abolished. It is time for the government, on all levels, to acknowledge the rise of singles and lower their tax rates.
Views expressed in this article are the author’s opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views of Secure Single. It is intended for informational and educational purposes only. It is not investment or financial advice. James Bollen is the author of Thriving Solo: How to Flourish and Live Your Perfect Life (Without A Soulmate). Now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon. Subscribe to Secure Single’s Substack for free!
The 85th Texas Legislator recently passed Texas House Bill 3859 that protects adoption agencies right of conscience to deny prospective parents from adopting who they deem unfit. This is in fact a reasonable law as the country seems to continue to want to slowly erase First Amendment protections to religious freedom, contrary to the media hysteria that has resounded with a discrimination alarm. The problem is more about the relationship that adoption agencies have with the state. Single parents should have adoption access by finding an agency that works with singles who want to be parents.
The core concern that “only Christian groups are contracted with the state, [advocates have] raised concerns that taxpayer-funded agencies will be protected if they reject parents of other faiths.” However, the bill explicitly reads “It is the intent of the legislature to maintain a diverse network of service providers that offer a range of foster capacity options and that can accommodate children from various cultural backgrounds.” Why do adoption organizations have a relationship with the state? Why does the state, or a state approved agency, need to be involved in foster care and adoption? Those are the two essential questions related to Texas. The fact that only Christian adoption agencies have a relationship with the state and act as the state’s adoption middle man is secondary. That problem reflects the second question. If the state controls the foster care system, it has control over what type of agencies it wants to be involved with state adoption. In states that are not as conservative or religious as Texas, such as Washington and New York, the types of agencies that the state works with are probably different from those of Texas. That is how federalism works. States are independent to make their own laws and operate differently from other states. Anyone who wants to become a parent should be able to, but the adoption organization that parents go to should have the right to disapprove a candidate if they do not fit an adoption agency’s requirements and any state laws.
By taking power away from the state to penalize agencies and giving more to adoption agencies, it gives more freedom and choice to the consumers who want to become parents. This will also help to decentralize the adoption agency market that state often controls by using only one or a couple of approved providers in its foster care network. Such is the case with the controversy currently surrounding Texas. Since adoption organizations’ have different criteria for what a prospective parent must meet before they are able to adopt, there will be some agencies that will not accept certain people. This is actually fine, although it is contrary to current popular thought. For example, there is a single woman who has been divorced twice. This woman goes to three different agencies with three different requirements. The first agency is an orthodox Catholic adoption agency that requires that prospective parents have been married for a certain number of years, are in a good marriage, and do not think that they will divorce in the future. The second agency requires information from the potential parent regarding their yearly salary, criminal record, and any health concerns that may come up when the agency runs a background check. Finally, the third is a progressive adoption agency that only requires that the parent will be able to care for the child and does not have any history of child abuse and a criminal record. Which of these three agencies will the twice divorced single parent most likely meet the agencies requirements for? Options two and three. Each agency had its own prerequisites, but the first option most likely would require that the parent be Christian or Catholic, ask if she has annulled her past marriages, and if she regularly goes to church. The other two won’t be concerned with these type of questions. For this reason, she will still be able to adopt but it will be through organizations that she meets the requirements of. This scenario can be changed with a gay couple, atheists or Hindus, and for single parents. They will still be able to find access to an agency to become parents that is fine with certain lifestyles because they are not in a relationship with the state that will have its own criteria.
People are single for a number of reasons, the unmarried are a growing demographic in countries, and solutions need to be found to let them become parents. The two main ways are adoption or through in vitro fertilization for singles who want to become parents. Both of those options would have improved access for single parents if the state or federal government did create arbitrary definitions or worked with agencies that will naturally approve certain candidates and not others for adoption. The United States is a Constitutional Republic that is based upon federalism. All states have the ability to make their own laws and to test ideas as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously stated in his dissent, “The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” Some single parents may not be able to become parents in Texas because of the state’s laws and how it operates with foster care agencies. Those singles who really want to be parents should seek out an agency that will approve someone who is unmarried to become a parent through adoption rather than complain about the Texas’ new bill.
Views expressed in this article are the author’s opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views of Secure Single. It is intended for informational and educational purposes only. It is not investment or financial advice. James Bollen is the author of Thriving Solo: How to Flourish and Live Your Perfect Life (Without A Soulmate). Now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon. Subscribe to Secure Single’s Substack for free!
It is not acknowledged by policy writers and society that there is a single person’s tax for not being married. Married couples receive a number of benefits for being legally married in the eyes of the government, in fact these married couples receive more than one thousand benefits from laws across the levels of government. One of the most important benefits that married couples receive is the joint income tax return that allows the couple to mutually split their income. The single person’s penalty is an unjust tax on all singles.
The tax on single people ranges between 20% to 40% according to Professor Kahng who wrote One Is the Loneliest Number: The Single Taxpayer in a Joint Return World. Despite the fact that single people now outnumber married couples in the United States, the has only been a single study done on the single person’s tax penalty. An indirect consequence of the joint income tax return was that singles ended up having to pay more while couples received deductions from the government. Kahng, in his study, found that singles pay on average between “$0 to about $7800” in additional taxes compared to couples just because they are not married. Policy analysts for the government have yet to return to addressing the single penalty while the debate about different types of deductions for couples continues in Washington. This is penalty on all singles is at best a current unfair tax policy that needs to be resolved and at worst is tax discrimination on single people in favor of those who have chosen to get married.
The United States remains one of the few modern industrialized countries that continues to practice the joint income tax. It is a policy that irreverently favors married couples while hurting the majority single population. People are remaining single longer, if they decide to get married at all today. Singles should contact their representatives and policy writers to work together to fix this unfair tax for all single people to and all future single people to come.
Views expressed in this article are the author’s opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views of Secure Single. It is intended for informational and educational purposes only. It is not investment or financial advice. James Bollen is the author of Thriving Solo: How to Flourish and Live Your Perfect Life (Without A Soulmate). Now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon. Subscribe to Secure Single’s Substack for free!
America claims to be a nation of and for equality and opportunity for all people. There is a discrepancy regarding equality and opportunity when those who are married receive federal benefits, tax deductions, and other privileges receive that the single and unmarried do not get from the government. Unmarried and single Americans now make up 45% of the population and are a growing force in society, yet their various levels of government fail to recognize them as people.
The other 55% of the population are married or coupled in some form and the government recognizes them. It is time for Americans to step back and reevaluate gulf between living married and living single in the United States. Those who are married receive 1,136 federal government benefits that includes health care, financial, emotional, psychological, and children that singles will never see because of societal, legal, and political discrimination. Have you heard of family values? That is the basis of why couples and those who are married receive benefits from the government. These differences need to be discussed in the various societal spheres. Bella DePaulo and Rebecca Traister advocate for more government benefits to be provided to the single and unmarried – that will result in higher taxes – that is only one political position. Another political position, a Libertarian position, is to privatize marriage and to completely get the government out of the marriage business. This would get rid of the numerous local, state, and federal benefits that those who are coupled and married receive that those who are unmarried and single never will get back from the government. However, America is in the center, a middle ground should be found between the progressive, conservative, and Libertarian positions to find a solution and provide equal opportunity to the singles and unmarried of America. It is time that the Republican and Democrat Parties begin to have a serious discussion about rights. Where do rights come from? What is America’s foundation of rights (negative rights or positive rights)? Are rights given to citizens before government (negative) or by government (positive)? Where do single rights fit into the American system? It is time for society to recognize that “a person is a person,” no matter if they are unmarried, single, cohabiting, or married and that everyone is equal and should be treated equally under the law.
Singles and the unmarried make up 45% of the American population and need to be treated just like those who are married by the law. It is time for the unmarried and single population of the United States to take the power back which the government has bestowed upon the married with numerous privileges and tax benefits.
Views expressed in this article are the author’s opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views of Secure Single. It is intended for informational and educational purposes only. It is not investment or financial advice. James Bollen is the author of Thriving Solo: How to Flourish and Live Your Perfect Life (Without A Soulmate). Now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon. Subscribe to Secure Single’s Substack for free!