Married couples with children should not have to pay income tax

Sorry about missing the last round to all of the readers. I was preoccupied with a home improvement project. Building a closet. Now on to the debate: "If he is to win this debate he will need to come up with an argument of his own." I will make no rebuttals to anything my opponent said in the last round except to two points. Point 1 Con has got me on this point: I did contradict myself by saying the gov't would lose revenue and then state that it would gain revenue. The gov't being forced to cut spending on welfare is a pipe dream of mine. Point two: People getting married for the tax benefit will lead to loveless marriages. This link http://www.flowinglove.com... says the top 2 reasons people get married today is "sexual gratification and money". The vast majority of marriages among young people are based on initial infatuation mistaken for love. I am a prime example of that, having been divorced once. I could have sworn I was in love but once the honeymoon was over, reality set in and the day to day life with this person and all of the things we disagreed on that one can only find out after being married. Loveless marriages take place all the time right now. Women marry rich men for their money and vis versa. Love is not an absolute prerequisite for marriage as Con suggests. And I will reiterate that marriage is a two way street. Both parties must agree to get married. They both must be willing to live together and have children together. I don't know about you but there is no tax break in the world that would be big enough to make me want to have a child with another person just for the tax break. Cons position on this point is purely personal speculation based on what he perceives human beings would do based on his own personal logic with regard to marriage and relationships and not backed by any source. The tax code as it stands now discourages single poor heads of households from remarrying. When a single parent gets married they in most cases increases their combined income to not make them eligible for benefits anymore and then moves them into a taxable tax bracket and in many cases give them less than what they had before. If the combined income was not taxable it would encourage marriage and give the new couple more money to spend and a better chance of success and the added virtue of not being a ward of the state and building self reliance and self esteem. Single heads of households and single people make up the majority of poor people in this country and the largest receivers of welfare benefits. married couples and married couples with children make up the least amount. Simple logic dictates that one should promote and reward the later to reduce the poverty level. Lets put poverty in the US in perspective shall we. The census bureau says there are 37 million people living in poverty in the US. This link absolutely blew my mind. http://www.heritage.org... 43% of poor people own their own home. The average home for a poor person in this country is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning. Only 6 percent of poor households are overï¿½crowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person. The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.) Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars. Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions. Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception. Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher. This does not sound anything like poverty to me. More than half of these "poor"people should be paying taxes. They have everything I have and some have more. Now lets look at taxes paid by demographic: The top ten percent of all wage earners pay 70% of all income tax. That is people earning $108,000 or more per year. http://www.ntu.org... Referring back to this link http://www.taxfoundation.org... shows that single people and married people are virtually the same with respect to tax burden in the 20 to 40 thousand dollar range, which by the way is about or just below the average income for the nation. If married couples were not burdened by income tax in the bottom 90% of tax payers it would have little or no effect on revenue intake for the govt. I fit into that 90% bracket and paid nearly 10,000 in taxes. That 10,000 plus all the other people that pay that amount would spend that money and reinvest it into the economy creating high paying tax paying jobs for single people and heads of households to pay taxes on, thus generating more revenue over all. Taxing people does not promote growth it never has and never will. Not taxing married couples in the bottom 90% of wage earners would be a positive for this country would create jobs stimulate the economy and promote marriage and the family unit. I must concede that we can't do this for the nations top ten percent of tax payers because they pay 70% of all income tax but they only represent less than 5% of the population. Other positives with not taxing married couples is that they will be able to save more for retirement and build more wealth during the time they have children so when the kids do move out they will have higher taxable incomes thus increasing revenue to the govt even more than they would otherwise. If you combine pre marriage single people with post child married people, not taxing married people with children is completely and totally feasible and would be better for the country as a whole. And one should also take into account just how "poor" the poor in this country really are and this seems like a no brainer to me. There will be plenty of revenue for the govt to squander, burn and waste.