4 ms·

I think the one underlying problem society faces that would absolutely improve our lives in every way is to go back to the 1 income household model, but still m

I think the one underlying problem society faces that would absolutely improve our lives in every way is to go back to the 1 income household model, but still maintain the possibility of dual income households. (don't force the other not to work as in the past, but encourage them not to double dip) As much as feminists hate it, when mothers were at home we were all much healthier. Now we just need to let fathers or mothers stay home and we'll reap such insane benefits. How? Idk. Single income families get a tax relief or something.

reducesuffering 2y ago
> Single income families get a tax relief That's basically already the case because of progressive tax brackets. For example: Two incomes of $200k in CA. You're only getting half the marginal income from one of the people. Take home: 68% / $273k. One income of $200k. Take home: 73% / $146k. That other $200k income would've only netted $127k.
- seoulmetro 2y ago
  >That's basically already the case because of progressive tax brackets. Progressive tax brackets work against single income families? Do you mean combined tax declaring? I know the US is different to most of the world. But in most of the world income is a reflection of an individual not their family. It is impossible to combine incomes in a single tax declaration in lots of parts of the world.
  - ndriscoll 2y ago
    In the US, you have different tax status if you're married. There used to be a marriage "penalty" for dual income households because of progressive buckets (the combined income would push you into higher marginal rates). i.e. it would actually make sense to not officially get married for tax purposes. Trump mostly eliminated that, and now everything but the top marginal rate (above ~600k) has doubled thresholds when married. However merely using progressive rates isn't enough; people see it as a penalty for getting married, not having a dual income. You'd want something like a credit for stay-at-home childcare to directly incentivize it. Right now, we actually subsidize working parents through childcare tax credits/deductions. We could at least make this more neutral by eliminating childcare incentives and increasing the child tax credit.
    - seoulmetro 2y ago
      Ah so essentially the reverse perspective at a relief on single income earners. Yep! There needs to be more done, but the biggest reason dual incomes work are for paying bills and luxuries.
watwut 2y ago
What does the double vs single income have to do with the comment you responded to? Like, really what exactly? It sounds like you have this agenda of women staying at home and attach it to everything else.
- seoulmetro 2y ago
  Single income earning households provided the children with access to their parents, and provided each parent with more free time to pursue their recreational "career". The father spent more time with colleagues or friends after work, the mother spent more time at home rather than working then rushing home to look after children. >It sounds like you have this agenda of women staying at home and attach it to everything else. No, I just attach it to what it makes sense for. And single income households make sense for third places very well. That's why third places flourished in the peak of this tradition.
  - watwut 2y ago
    So, dad spend time with friends rather then with children and mother had ... nothing except childcare.
    - seoulmetro 2y ago
      No, do you seriously not know what traditional mother roles do (and can do now)? Dads don't only work either.
janalsncm 2y ago
> when mothers were at home we were all much healthier 1950s America is never coming back. It was a uniquely dominant time for the US geopolitically so of course a lot of indicators looked good. That doesn’t mean mothers staying home was the cause of it any more than men wearing suits to the office was the cause of it. Single income households have never been the norm. Second, what you’re suggesting doesn’t make practical sense. Men with college degrees tend to marry women with college degrees. So since neither is likely to make substantially more than the other, it makes sense for both to work. And that’s how things have been for centuries. Thousands of years even, across cultures. Women and men both worked. Usually farming, but still working. Single income household was a historical aberration.
- seoulmetro 2y ago
  Mothers were at home way before 1950s. >Single income households have never been the norm. ??? Yes they have. The children worked for the family but if there were any kids or birthing going on, which there usually was, the mother stayed home and worked (managed the estate for the richer folk) at home. Way before the 1950s. I don't think you understand that women and men working was definitely not a normal thing for the last few hundred years. I'm not sure why you think that.

reducesuffering 2y ago

> Single income families get a tax relief That's basically already the case because of progressive tax brackets. For example: Two incomes of $200k in CA. You're only getting half the marginal income from one of the people. Take home: 68% / $273k. One income of $200k. Take home: 73% / $146k. That other $200k income would've only netted $127k.

seoulmetro 2y ago
>That's basically already the case because of progressive tax brackets. Progressive tax brackets work against single income families? Do you mean combined tax declaring? I know the US is different to most of the world. But in most of the world income is a reflection of an individual not their family. It is impossible to combine incomes in a single tax declaration in lots of parts of the world.
- ndriscoll 2y ago
  In the US, you have different tax status if you're married. There used to be a marriage "penalty" for dual income households because of progressive buckets (the combined income would push you into higher marginal rates). i.e. it would actually make sense to not officially get married for tax purposes. Trump mostly eliminated that, and now everything but the top marginal rate (above ~600k) has doubled thresholds when married. However merely using progressive rates isn't enough; people see it as a penalty for getting married, not having a dual income. You'd want something like a credit for stay-at-home childcare to directly incentivize it. Right now, we actually subsidize working parents through childcare tax credits/deductions. We could at least make this more neutral by eliminating childcare incentives and increasing the child tax credit.
  - seoulmetro 2y ago
    Ah so essentially the reverse perspective at a relief on single income earners. Yep! There needs to be more done, but the biggest reason dual incomes work are for paying bills and luxuries.

watwut 2y ago

What does the double vs single income have to do with the comment you responded to? Like, really what exactly? It sounds like you have this agenda of women staying at home and attach it to everything else.

seoulmetro 2y ago
Single income earning households provided the children with access to their parents, and provided each parent with more free time to pursue their recreational "career". The father spent more time with colleagues or friends after work, the mother spent more time at home rather than working then rushing home to look after children. >It sounds like you have this agenda of women staying at home and attach it to everything else. No, I just attach it to what it makes sense for. And single income households make sense for third places very well. That's why third places flourished in the peak of this tradition.
- watwut 2y ago
  So, dad spend time with friends rather then with children and mother had ... nothing except childcare.
  - seoulmetro 2y ago
    No, do you seriously not know what traditional mother roles do (and can do now)? Dads don't only work either.

janalsncm 2y ago

> when mothers were at home we were all much healthier 1950s America is never coming back. It was a uniquely dominant time for the US geopolitically so of course a lot of indicators looked good. That doesn’t mean mothers staying home was the cause of it any more than men wearing suits to the office was the cause of it. Single income households have never been the norm. Second, what you’re suggesting doesn’t make practical sense. Men with college degrees tend to marry women with college degrees. So since neither is likely to make substantially more than the other, it makes sense for both to work. And that’s how things have been for centuries. Thousands of years even, across cultures. Women and men both worked. Usually farming, but still working. Single income household was a historical aberration.

seoulmetro 2y ago
Mothers were at home way before 1950s. >Single income households have never been the norm. ??? Yes they have. The children worked for the family but if there were any kids or birthing going on, which there usually was, the mother stayed home and worked (managed the estate for the richer folk) at home. Way before the 1950s. I don't think you understand that women and men working was definitely not a normal thing for the last few hundred years. I'm not sure why you think that.