Hey Tildes, cqns here. I'm trying to wrap my head around this particular "recent-ish" proposition from the Heritage Foundation, which claims that they are considering sending single people to...
Hey Tildes, cqns here.
I'm trying to wrap my head around this particular "recent-ish" proposition from the Heritage Foundation, which claims that they are considering sending single people to marriage bootcamp. Misinformation is, unfortunately, a powerful tool in today's breakneck society, and I can't make heads or tails out of the legalese. For some reason, this proposition (like many others from the group) in particular rubs me the wrong way. First of all, I believe it would be an enormous waste of resources, much less trying to integrate this into an already existing legal consortium. Second of all, if one partner is sterilized and does not plan on having children in any shape or form (adoption, surrogate, both off the table) - what then?
I interpret this whole thing, should it happen to go through, as a tax credit similar to EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit), where one can opt to gain a sum of money back from the IRS if they present the proper forms. For example, the...I guess, "Marriage Bootcamp Credit" (MBCC), would be attainable via the taxpayer's choice to go to some place where they offer such "service". Upon completion of whatever they end up teaching in there - don't want to get bogged down with the details - the taxpaper is provided with a form that they could use to claim credit, both people with matching forms, on the applicable year of tax submission.
Whether I'm right or wrong about my general musings, I would like a second pair of eyes to figure out what on Earth these people are going on about. I refuse to entertain the subject on the little bit that I've doomscrolled. The Orange Alien Site is no help; all they're good for is recycled commentary and timed jokes for karma.
It's honestly too vague for me to say, beyond a broad distrust of the Heritage Foundation, so your instincts lead you in a good direction. Pre-marital counseling in some form has been offered...
It's honestly too vague for me to say, beyond a broad distrust of the Heritage Foundation, so your instincts lead you in a good direction.
Pre-marital counseling in some form has been offered through many churches and secular therapists. My parents were peer counselors in the RCC's Pre-Cana program for example. Supporting pre-marital/commitment counseling financially from the government would theoretically be neutral, less so if it's only for straight people, less so if it's done in a "don't go to school, have babies" context. But without knowing what strings would necessarily be attached it seems more like offering grant money than it does the government setting up a program right now.
The proposed tax credit is similarly probably inequitable but like, not the end of the world. I believe it'll be designed to target the racial and economic group they care about encouraging babies from, but idk if the indirectness of that would help.
These two pieces - boot camp and tax credit - are separate proposals with the same goal, not the credit contingent on attending the boot camp. Unless I'm missing something in this fact check.
These are proposed laws from a propaganda lens not being helped by social media users who "report" on things they hear about from other people rather than understanding it in full.
The heritage foundation sucks, and I don't trust shit they do. So yeah. Fuck this but it's too vague to say for sure how bad it would be once enacted.
Hey Tildes, cqns here.
I'm trying to wrap my head around this particular "recent-ish" proposition from the Heritage Foundation, which claims that they are considering sending single people to marriage bootcamp. Misinformation is, unfortunately, a powerful tool in today's breakneck society, and I can't make heads or tails out of the legalese. For some reason, this proposition (like many others from the group) in particular rubs me the wrong way. First of all, I believe it would be an enormous waste of resources, much less trying to integrate this into an already existing legal consortium. Second of all, if one partner is sterilized and does not plan on having children in any shape or form (adoption, surrogate, both off the table) - what then?
I interpret this whole thing, should it happen to go through, as a tax credit similar to EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit), where one can opt to gain a sum of money back from the IRS if they present the proper forms. For example, the...I guess, "Marriage Bootcamp Credit" (MBCC), would be attainable via the taxpayer's choice to go to some place where they offer such "service". Upon completion of whatever they end up teaching in there - don't want to get bogged down with the details - the taxpaper is provided with a form that they could use to claim credit, both people with matching forms, on the applicable year of tax submission.
Whether I'm right or wrong about my general musings, I would like a second pair of eyes to figure out what on Earth these people are going on about. I refuse to entertain the subject on the little bit that I've doomscrolled. The Orange Alien Site is no help; all they're good for is recycled commentary and timed jokes for karma.
It's honestly too vague for me to say, beyond a broad distrust of the Heritage Foundation, so your instincts lead you in a good direction.
Pre-marital counseling in some form has been offered through many churches and secular therapists. My parents were peer counselors in the RCC's Pre-Cana program for example. Supporting pre-marital/commitment counseling financially from the government would theoretically be neutral, less so if it's only for straight people, less so if it's done in a "don't go to school, have babies" context. But without knowing what strings would necessarily be attached it seems more like offering grant money than it does the government setting up a program right now.
The proposed tax credit is similarly probably inequitable but like, not the end of the world. I believe it'll be designed to target the racial and economic group they care about encouraging babies from, but idk if the indirectness of that would help.
These two pieces - boot camp and tax credit - are separate proposals with the same goal, not the credit contingent on attending the boot camp. Unless I'm missing something in this fact check.
These are proposed laws from a propaganda lens not being helped by social media users who "report" on things they hear about from other people rather than understanding it in full.
The heritage foundation sucks, and I don't trust shit they do. So yeah. Fuck this but it's too vague to say for sure how bad it would be once enacted.