Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | Share

Fathers for Life Site-Search

Site Map (very large file)
Table of Contents
Children—Our most valued assets?
Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
Child Support
Civil Rights & Social Issues
Family Law
Destruction of Families
Divorce Issues
Domestic Violence
Gay Issues
Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
Help Lines for Men
Law, Justice and The Judiciary
Mail to F4L
Men's Issues
The Politics of "Sex"
Our Most Popular Pages
Email List
References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001



US tax plan penalizes two-parent, one-earner families

An action alert from the Eagle Forum

In Canada, families of four, with two parents and two children, and with a total annual income of $50,000 per year are penalized through punitive taxation if they have only one income earner and a stay-at-home mother, as opposed to families with two income earners and the same level of income.

The "advantage" to families with two income earners is about $4,000 per year in subsidies, tax credits and daycare allowances. 

It appears that governments are trying their best to put mothers to work to have them, just as in the great communist nations, work for the greatness of the socialist state, but more about that later, after you read the following action alert from the Eagle Forum.   The action alert draws draws the attention of people to the fact that the White House intends to emulate the punitive family policies of the People's Republic of Canada.

Marriage: A Taxing Affair

Urge Congress to Provide Tax Relief for ALL Married Couples

March 14, 2001

Republicans and Democrats agree that the tax code unfairly penalizes marriage. Last year, President Clinton vetoed the bill that would have provided marriage tax relief to all married couples. The 107th Congress is drafting marriage tax relief legislation, but the White House tax plan undermines relief for all married couples.

ARE YOU TWO-THIRDS OF A PERSON? The marriage tax is not verbally expressed as policy in any statute but is buried in the numbers. It is a consequence of the fact that our income tax tables treat a married couple as only 1.67 persons instead of two whole persons.

The White House executive summary of President Bush's tax-cut proposal calls for "reducing the marriage penalty by reinstating the 10 percent deduction for two-earner couples." Not only does this proposal give less relief than the bill passed by Congress last year but, even worse, it would impose a new homemaker penalty on one-earner couples. Under this tax plan, homemakers would still be considered two-thirds of a person.

THE PRICE OF THE HOMEMAKER PENALTY Consider what the Bush marriage tax cut would accomplish after becoming fully operative. A married couple is struggling financially and needs more income to support the family. In one family, the wife takes a job and puts her children in daycare. This couple would get a marriage tax deduction, which chops as much as $990 off the family's federal income tax bill (at the new 33 percent top Bush tax rate).

In addition, this couple qualifies for the existing tax credit for child-care expenses, which is worth up to $960.

Consider another family where the husband takes a second job so his wife can care for their children at home. This family would not qualify for either the new Bush marriage tax relief or the child-care credit that exists in current law. The husband and wife surely work just as hard in this second family as in the first. Why should they pay up to $1,950 more in taxes on the same family income?

ACTION ITEMS The marriage penalty in the tax code is an immoral policy whether one or both spouses earn the family income. Giving a tax cut only to two-earner couples would send the radical feminist message that the government sees no value in a homemaker's work at home, and that the role of a "non-working" wife and mother is less worthy than paid employment.

Tell the Members of the Ways and Means committee that:

  1. All married couples with the same family income should be taxed equally, and

  2. Marriage tax relief legislation should be the next stand-alone tax bill voted on by the committee.

Reaching Chairman Thomas at the Ways and Means Committee (202-225-3625) is especially vital.

Target List: Kevin Brady, Camp, Mac Collins, Dunn, English, Foley, Hayworth, Herger, Houghton, Hulshof, Nancy Johnson, Sam Johnson, Ron Lewis, McCrery, McInnis, Nussle, Portman, Ramstad, Paul Ryan, Shaw, Thomas, Watkins, Weller

Contact info for Ways and Means Committee can be found here:


Capitol Switchboard 202-224-3121

Read this Alert on-line:


Eagle Forum

www.eagleforum.org PO Box 618 eagle@eagleforum.org Alton, IL 62002

Phone: 618-462-5415
Fax: 618-462-8909

TO SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE: http://eagleforum.org/misc/subscribe.html

From: Eagle Forum <eagle@eagleforum.org> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001

08:17:43 -0600 To: Eagle-mail@eagleforum.org Subject: Urge Congress to

Provide Tax Relief for ALL Married Couples

My notes:

The proposed tax plan is a manifestation of effective, time-worn and time-proven communist tactics to destroy families. It is bad enough that it is increasingly more difficult for families to adhere to the proven principle that if one parent stays home and only one parent works, the outcomes in children will be much better.

Why, of all things, would a conservative government implement punitive taxation for two-parent, single-income-earner families that is worse than anything that the Clinton administration managed to throw at families in that respect?

Putting things into perspective

The $200 million in funding allocated under the US Fatherhood Act appear at first glance to be a measure that will strengthen families, until one considers that the funding will primarily address some of the consequences of divorce, separation and single-mother families.

The act is to promote measures that will encourage fathers of children to become better providers for their broken families. It will, of course, have some benefits for married fathers as well, as it may establish measures by which the image of all fathers will be promoted. However, in the balance of things, the Fatherhood Act will do little to strengthen families.

The Clinton administration implemented few measures to strengthen families, but it did much to provide measures for their planned destruction. In addition, the Clinton administration literally inundated the country with measures that address the outcomes of family break-ups, single-motherhood and lack of family formation, thereby providing enormously effective incentives that practically make any imaginable alternative "family-type" preferable to the real thing, the traditional nuclear family.

Patrick Fagan, of the Heritage Foundation identified in a shocking summary the disparity between the two opposing directions of the US government's family policies.

Each year, over 1 million American children suffer the divorce of their parents; moreover, half of the children born this year to parents who are married will see their parents divorce before they turn 18. Mounting evidence in social science journals demonstrates that the devastating physical, emotional, and financial effects that divorce is having on these children will last well into adulthood and affect future generations.

Fiscal conservatives should realize that federal and state governments spend $150 billion per year to subsidize and sustain single-parent families. By contrast, only $150 million is spent to strengthen marriage.

Thus, for every $1,000 spent to deal with the effects of family disintegration, only $1 is spent to prevent that disintegration.

The Effects of Divorce on America

Now add to that the punitive taxation that the Bush administration intends to impose on the traditional nuclear family. It will not break all families, but it will be a considerable burden added to that carried by virtually all. Many families will stagger under that burden. Many stay-at-home mothers will be forced to join the work force. Thereby their families will lose some of the stability they had. It will provide no benefits to society or to taxpayers to have mothers who would better stay at home forced into a surplus labour market in which already too many people compete for too few jobs.

However, doing that will increase the demand for daycare, so that professional household engineers (as the early communists called them) can earn professional incomes while they care for the children of mothers who joined the work force to earn minimum wages.

Families are not being destroyed all at once, they are being destroyed one at a time, or a few at a time on account of measures like the proposed punitive tax legislation. That proposal, if implemented, will add injury in the execution of the death of a thousand cuts inflicted on the institution of the traditional nuclear family. It is the continuing implementation of a death sentence pronounced in 1849 when Marx and Engels called in their Communist Manifesto for the abolition of the family. —The Manifest of the Communist Party —https://fathersforlife.org/communist_manifesto.htm#Destruction

Note: The abolition of the family is one of four major aspects of socialism.  That is because "abolition" implies in the minds of many people a gradual, somewhat benign cessation of family formation or of the existence of families (e.g.: "non-fault" divorce).  In reality, "abolition" is not quite the correct term and the term "destruction of the family" more accurately describes the circumstances.

No-fault divorce is hardly ever seen as being what its name identifies.  Almost invariably (but wrongly in about half of the cases) the man is seen as the guilty party at fault and as deserving to be sentenced to life-long punishment for having dared to be married.  Moreover, it can hardly be seen as a benign process if people are so afraid of the liabilities incurred on account of being punished for wanting to form a family that they forego that pleasure to the extent that their deliberate resolve not to have a family and not even children causes their nations to die out.  That is the case with all developed nations. (See Demographic Winter)

At this website, the term "abolition of the family" is used infrequently and the term "destruction of the family" is used far more frequently.  You can perform a site-specific search at the website of Fathers to find instances of web pages that refer to or discuss the destruction of the family.

Marx and Engels promoted "free love," now called "sexual freedom." The consequences of that made themselves known in the USSR right from the start. (See The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage, The Atlantic Monthly, July 1926)
(See also a more exhaustive history of the evolution and destructive social impact of Soviet divorce laws)

Where the planned destruction of our families will take us

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation in the UK, a "pro-family" research foundation, that like so many other similar institutions over the years became gradually infiltrated by family-hostile and single-mother-friendly feminist ideologues, announced the results of a survey of the outcomes in children whose mothers joined the work force (references appended).

From aol news:


By Dominic Hayes, Education Correspondent, PA News

Mothers who return to work full-time before their children reach school age could be harming their offspring's future prospects, according to research published today

When it came to fathers, the report said the fact that most of them were in full-time work during most of their children's upbringing made it more difficult to find a significant impact.

But if fathers spent longer at work when their children were very young, it was likely to lead to a 6% reduction in the chance they had of getting A-levels.

 The JRF press release identifies the need for more paid maternity leave for mothers (fathers aren't important, because they mostly work full-time anyway and therefore no meaningful results can be determined).

It is said that the results of the study should not be used to penalize mothers.

In essence, what is being promoted is that it is good for mothers to stay home with their children, but that mothers should have the right to go to work if needed, even if only on a part-time basis.

It is further said that for mothers to go to work is an absolute necessity for many families. The conclusion that one is left with is that if fathers don't earn enough money to provide for mothers to stay home in comfort, then the government might as well pay — as long as we can keep a happy balance between mothers being with their children and being at work while somebody else can do daycare for which mothers will pay with the minimum wages they earn at work, with the rest being covered by all taxpayers.

Is that really so bad? What does it matter to have a few children (actually most of our children now) who'll be under-achievers, right? Besides, as Hillary Clinton once said, people who are not too well educated are easier to govern. Well, maybe we should take a look at a nation that has been following those kinds of family policies for more than 80 years and produced nothing but dismal results.  But, before we do that, let's look at something that the JRF report didn't say much about:

chap6cht11.gif (12530 bytes)
Source: Heritage Foundation

The USSR had very similar policies for women in the 1970s and managed to put 85 percent of its women into the work force, to put their untapped potential to use in the construction of the great socialist state, as Chairman Mao said of similar efforts in the People's Republic of China.

Today the Russian Federation has an 84 percent annual inflation rate, still a high participation rate of women in the work force, an enormous number of single mothers, a total fertility rate of one child per woman (the TFR required to maintain population levels is about 2.2 children per woman), children who are being cannibalized in the black market for body parts for the organ trade catering to the organ transplant industry, and mothers who receive a full two years of paid maternity leave.

Russia expects to lose 50 million of its population over the next three decades, while elderly women scrounge for bottles to sell in efforts to buy a loaf of bread and a liter of milk. Russian men don't generally live to be elderly.

The average life expectancies for Russian women and men are 72 and 58 years, respectively, with the suicide rate for men being seven times that of men in the UK. In short, the whole of Russia is in chaos, bankrupt, and we are getting there fast, too. We merely had a late start in the race to oblivion.

Doesn't that prove that the government does not make a better provider and protector than husbands and fathers do?

Isn't it great that we can thank feminism for its efforts to make that increasingly clear to us over the past 30 years? With experiences like that opening our eyes, who can honestly say that feminism didn't do a good service to all of mankind?

What needs to be done to get out of the rut on the road to social(list) destruction? The Joseph Rowntree Foundation isn't helping much. The proposal by the White House for punitive taxation of families is far worse yet.

Walter H Schneider

Fathers for Life



Current total fertility rates (TFRs) for countries in the world - Rank Order.  The web page accessible through the preceding link lists the rank order from highest to lowest, with a TFR of about 2.2 indicating a stable population. The TFR required to maintain a given country's population varies a little from country to country, depending on the life expectancy for the average resident in that country. (Source: CIA World Factbook)

As of June 2008, the CIA World Factbook showed 104 countries (generally the richest and most developed) to have TFRs of less than 2.2.  In other words, in those countries the population is in the process of shrinking. (Related Articles at Fathers for Life)

Additional reading:

Feminism is nothing but communism spelled differently


References pertaining to the JRF report:

The article from aol news doesn't mention where additional information about the study can be obtained. The announcement by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation does:

More information is available from the authors, John
Ermisch (e-mail: ermij@essex.ac.uk) and Marco
Francesconi (e-mail: mfranc@essex.ac.uk), Institute for
Social and Economic Research, University of Essex,
Colchester CO4 3SQ. Full information on the results
for the effects of parents’ employment and other
variables on each of the child outcomes can be
obtained at www.iser.essex.ac.uk/jrf/ermij/annex.

The full report, The effect of parents’
employment on children’s lives
by John Ermisch and
Marco Francesconi, is published for the Foundation by
the Family Policy Studies Centre (ISBN 1 901455 60 2,
price 10.95).

The URL identified in the document provides no returns. However, there is a URL that does:

March 2001 - Ref 321
The effect of parents' employment on outcomes for children

The PDF document accessible there is nothing other than a copy of the summary that went out with the JRF's e-mail announcement. It appears to have been the source of the article written by Dominic Hayes, Education Correspondent, PA News.

The full report by John Ermisch or Marco Francesconi may be available on-line somewhere. Maybe the report is available in the libraries. It might be worth it to look it over first to see whether it is worth buying.

See also:

  • From Marxism to Feminism: The planned destruction of the American family
    Statement of Bill Wood
    FC-8 Hearing on Waste, Fraud, and Abuse July 17, 2003

    The planned destruction of the family was part of the communist agenda from its inception by Karl Marx and Frederic Engels.   It became government policy in the USSR in about 1917. It was so successful in the USSR that it threatened to destroy society in the USSR.  Curiously, while in the 1940s the USSR took steps to repair the damages its family-hostile policies had caused, American communists imported the Soviet agenda for the planned destruction of the family into the USA.  It has been and continues to be promoted by left-leaning liberals in the West ever since.

    When it was determined that this type of class warfare directed at the family was a complete failure, the Soviets worked quickly to restore the traditional nuclear family in the 1940’s.  Shortly after this, the NAWL (National Association of Women Lawyers) began their push for adopting these failed Soviet policies in America. America’s version of “family law” has adopted much of the early Soviet failed version of class warfare, while adopting new and more insidious Gramscian versions with gender, cultural, and social warfare components. 

    From Bill Wood's testimony to the
    Ways and Means Committee

  • Feminism For Male College Students — A Short Guide to the Truth, by Angry Harry (Off-Site)

If you have concerns about these and other issues related to the condition of seniors, visit, contact and perhaps even join:

SUN — Seniors United Now

The up- and coming, rapidly-growing advocacy organization for seniors (55 years and over) in Alberta

There are in the order of about half a million or more people of age 55 and over in Alberta. If all of them were to join SUN, they would become the most powerful advocacy organization in Alberta; and seniors would no longer be robbed of their comforts and otherwise ignored.
   At the price of one package of cigarettes seniors will be able to gain a voice that will be heard by a government that otherwise can and will take from seniors what they worked for all their life to enjoy in their old age.

If you are concerned about how seniors are affected by the planned, systematic destruction of our families and society, a search at google.com (for elderly OR seniors OR grandparent OR grandfather OR grandmother site:https://fathersforlife.org) will provide you with the links to about 84 web pages at Fathers for Life that will be of interest to you.

Posted 2001 03 15
2001 07 26 (added reference to Free Love)
2002 09 29 (corrected some links)
2003 08 01 (added reference to From Marxism to Feminism: The planned destruction of the American family)
2004 06 24 (added entry for SUN — Seniors United Now)
2006 03 04 (added link to Feminism for Male College Students)