A single mom or
dad, a single man or woman without children, of any adult
age, who lives in a middle class house or apartment and able
to purchase the services representing the usual lifestyle of
those living in a safe neighborhood in a safe structure
equal to the quality of life enjoyed by the two wage earner
households in the neighborhood, pays approximately two
hundred dollars ($200) more a month in 'taxes' (not
including the singles income tax penalty) than each of the
two wage earners of a two wage earner household in the same
That is a $200
singles tax penalty on top of the singles income tax penalty
and in addition to the penalty of the expenditures of
singles money collected and spent by the government on other
expenditures of taxes are provided for consideration.
The total cost for the list below is $400 monthly, hence the
tax penalty is $200. Although one or two of the items
are debatable, the principle and the approximate tax penalty
is still valid. The list is from the actual set of monthly
bills of a middle income, middle-America neighborhood.
The national average may be higher and certain areas of the
country may have additional taxes which are much higher.
House Property Tax
Parked Car or Truck
Tax Flat rate
Modernization Tax Flat rate
Miscellaneous Tax Flat Rate
State 911 Tax
County Sales Tax
Service Access Non-Long Distance
Home Telephone Taxes
Subscriber Line Charge
Local Tax (local)
Minimum Usage Fee
House Gas Tax
DISCUSSION OF THE SINGLES MONTHLY
HOUSEHOLD TAX PENALTY
Everyone should easily agree that a single must
be allowed to purchase and enjoy the same quality of life that other
adults enjoy in the same neighborhood without having to pay more
taxes per person to enjoy that quality of life.
Therefore, at the end of the month, when the
monthly tax bills are paid as listed in the monthly service bills,
each adult should pay the same for services received. When the two
wage earner household pays their monthly tax bill, they share the
cost of the tax. The tax per person is half of the household
monthly tax bill. The single pays double of the household taxes
that a member of a two wage earner household pays.
Here is an interesting analogy to current
singles tax penalty built in to the taxes per household approach.
The current per household tax system is like having a movie theatre
play a movie and charge one fee for couples and charge that same fee
for singles. All three people enjoyed the movie but the single
person paid twice as much as each of the other two people. The
single person could avoid paying for the movie, of course, by just
not going to the movies.
So how much is the monthly household tax? The
above listed taxes (excluding the house property tax) is $170. A
yearly house property tax of $2000 is divided by 12 months and added
to the other monthly taxes resulting in close to $400 dollars. That
is approximately $400 dollars a month that two wager earners share
or is paid entirely by the single in a single household. To make it
clear, each wage earner in a two wage earner household has a $200
monthly household tax burden. The single in the same neighborhood
with the same standard of living pays $400 dollars in monthly
household taxes. That is a $200 dollar monthly singles tax
penalty. ($2,400 yearly)
TAX PENALTY IS A LIBERAL CONCEPT
For those politicians who
jump on the bandwagon of the dubious income tax marriage penalty,
they should consider the total taxes paid per person that includes
the monthly household tax inequity against singles.
The Fairtax people need to
consider that not all consumption sales are individual sales. A sale
of a house to a couple versus the sale of that same house to a
single will not result in a fair tax for the single individual.
If the idea of the Fairtax is to provide a sales tax that taxes
individual consumption to make taxes fair across individuals then
the couple is not paying the full taxes for two people consuming the
house. On the flip side, if each person of the couple is indeed
paying the full individual consumption tax for the purchase of the
house, then a single person buying the same house is paying twice
the recognized fair individual consumption tax.
All costs of living
incurred by singles similar to two wage earner households can not be
normalized to per person levels, however, there are some tax burden
measures that can be considered to provide a fair shake to singles.
Piling taxes on to singles is first pushed back on by the Seniors
through compassionate advocates and seniors' organizations, but why
should it have to come to that? Don't Democrat and Republican
politicians and their fiscal policy Think Tanks represent the
singles of all ages?
Before any tax solution
can be called a Fairtax or called a marriage tax penalty correction,
the singles total tax liability must be considered and factored into
the big equations. In addition, spending the singles tax money
on non-singles causes must be examined against ethical standards.
Family values is a crutch that some politicians manipulate to get
votes and is not a desired value if it takes from singles to
subsidize families vacations, jet skis, and college education.
Taking from one group to give to another based on a politician's
district demographics is not a Conservative Value but is a Liberal
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Let's set aside the following arguments to save
the author some email response time:
Claim: Singles use less electricity and water
and other household services so they pay less taxes.
Common Sense Response:
The singles monthly
household tax penalty is based on fixed fees and assessments. Some
of the fixed fees are based on minimal usage charges. If the singles
household uses less services than the minimal threshold, they are
still charged a minimal fee. One example is water usage. A single
with an inground water well for watering the lawn may not use the
minimal amount of water usage for showers, toilet, and cooking but
will be charged as if they used up to the minimum.
People with children need space, i.e. a
Common Sense Response:
Three bedrooms for
families with less than 7 children. Parents' room, boys room, girls
room. Time limits on bathroom usage. One pet. Since there is a
judgment on what singles need in quality of living, then this common
sense judgment is appropriate as well.
Claim: A stay at home mom doesn't bring in
money. So they are paying the full income tax from a single income
just like a 'single' is doing.
Common Sense Response: a) The income that the
stay at home mom earns is half of their working spouse is brining
in. They are both workers, both adults, and accept that the stay at
home person's income is half of the worker's income. b) The stay at
home spouse is enjoying all of the services; TV, home heating,
electricity, water, telephone, car, sewer. The working spouse is
paying the $200 household taxes for the work that the stay at home
spouse is doing in the house.
Claim: Two wage earner households have
additional expenses since they have children.
Common Sense Response:
a) Singles with
children are bearing the cost alone and still have a singles monthly
household tax penalty. b) children tax subsidies are a separate
issue from the singles monthly household tax penalty. Children tax
subsidies for people above the poverty level does not get spent for
necessities for the basics of food, clothes, and minimal shelter.
Claim: The piling on of singles tax penalty in
income tax, singles tax penalty on monthly household taxes, children
income tax subsidy for any income level, and spending public funds
collected from singles to pay for child services (education), is all
ok since children are our future and they are an investment.
Common Sense Response: Children are not an
investment. Children are a joy for their parent's. Children are
companions for their parent's. Children are a choice made by the
parents and that choice is their responsibility. The children will
volunteer when they are older to take care of their parents and that
is the return on the parents' investment. For society, when the
children contribute to society, society will pay them for their
services according to the services value. There will be no return
on investment, but will be a payment for services rendered.
a) The institution of marriage is under
attack and the stability of the country is dependent on non-married
people to be taxed extra as an incentive to find someone to marry.
b) The institution of marriage must be given incentives to provide
good homes for raising children.
Sense Response: a) Singles who shack up, (live together without
getting married), enjoy avoiding the same singles monthly household
tax penalty as those who are married. Encouraging singles to marry
hastily as encouraged by incentives is worse for the institution of
marriage. b) Similar to a), a marriage brought together by
financial incentives is likely not a good home for raising