Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1
I am not sure how much thought you've put into the above paragraph but two things stick out to me immediately:
a) unmarried/single people pay more in taxes
b) less population less expenditure
With the way things are right now in this country you want more unmarried/single people pay more taxes and population growth to dwindle or even go into the negative.
If the government truly wants to have more money in it's coffers it should discourage marriage.
|
Right, but you're missing the point I was making. The point is, unmarried, single people are likely to not have children, which means there is no generation of new tax payers. That is what the government was looking at. Also, less population less expenditure = less population, less taxes, (income, sales, personal property, etc) being paid back into the state. The government wanted to encourage what it felt like were stable unions (married couples who could biological procreate) in order to keep a steady flow of generations of tax payers, and to keep the population up. It's possible that by now, there is not a need to have such a high population, and maybe the government should revisit its tax and benefits breaks for married couples with children, but I believe this is where it all comes from. After all, if it was simply a case of the government wanting to side with one religion or another, then what benefit would it be getting from that? That's what people fail to think about.