As I sat down to work out my 1997 Federal income taxes, while I had the 1040 booklet in front of me, I thought it might be worthwhile to examine exactly how much the breeder subsidy actually costs.  There's a lot of talk about an alleged "marriage penalty," a higher tax rate that some married people have to pay.  This is a crock, at least when you put it into perspective.

Far greater than the "marriage penalty" is the single penalty --- the higher tax rate that you pay for choosing to remain single. According to the 1995 tax table, this starts to kick in once your taxable income goes beyond $24,640.  When your taxable income reaches $30,000, single people pay almost a thousand dollars more in tax than "married filing jointly."  At taxable incomes of $50,000, the surtax for being single is almost two thousand dollars.

Responsible people also don't qualify for the misleadingly named "earned income credit."  The words suggest that it is some kind of credit for earning income, and of course it's not.  It's a credit for consuming public resources.

Single, childless people qualify only to a maximum of $306, and even then to qualify they must have incomes of less than $9,700. Breeders qualify with incomes up to $29,290.  Those who beget one child and endure its presence in their homes can receive more than two thousand dollars; those who beget more than one get more than twenty-five hundred dollars.  And, "earned income credit," according to the IRS brochure, "may give you a refund even if you don't owe any tax."  In other words, it isn't even a tax calculation for these workers: it's a welfare cheque.

Of course, most people who have begotten children can claim them as dependants also.  Every wretch so claimed slices $2650 from your taxable income and tax bracket.  And in addition to this advantage, breeders also can qualify for a "child care credit" which subsidises baby-sitters and nannies.  This is not an income deduction: it is a credit that comes out of the tax these taxpayers would  otherwise have owed.  In other words, you, the taxpayers, are paying this one as if it were another Federal spending programme.
 
Responsible single people who have bred no bastards qualify for none of these tax benefits.  Obviously, the Federal Government has chosen to subsidise Ward and June Cleaver, and sock it to single people who make far fewer demands on the public till, filling up first the schools and then the prisons.  Somebody up there must think that the atmosphere just does not have enough methane from large mammals in it already.  The "marriage penalty" is not the problem.  The responsible single penalty is far larger and far more unjust.
 
BACK to main page