Rantings and tirades of a frustrated economist.
White knights to the left of them, white knights to the right of them, white knights behind them.
1) Since I don't have kids, not married and never will, this unfortunate oversight doesn't affect me. It only means I will have less of an incentive to want to get married and have children.2) To be fair, why should any political party want to take the side of men since we are in the voting minority?
This could be a benefit. More pain means more motivation to remove a corrupt and broken law. Or more men that leave the country and just stop paying.Another way of looking at this is that it disproportionately taxes Baby Boomers and particularly cucked Gen X members. Fuck 'em. Some good honest men will get dragged in, but since when has the government cared about justice?
Eh, spoke too soon. Older divorces are not affected :/On a different plus side, this is more incentive to not get legally married and to fight her in court for every last dime if a divorce does happen.As always but more important than ever, don't stick your dick in crazy.
I don't know exactly how it will work in the US, but they did this a long time ago in Canada. Alimony payments were considered income to the woman, so they came out of a man's pre tax income, then the woman paid income on the income that she received. Now, it comes out of the man's after tax income, and the woman doesn't have to pay income tax on it. Just another part of the huge transfer of income from men to women.
I would say this is bad if marriage still was worth saving.But now, just rip the band-aid off quick. This helps.
Post a Comment