(02-03-2020, 11:46 AM)Last42min Wrote: Of course. Let me clarify: I am suggesting people in power wanted more tax revenue, and questioning the idea that people in power wanted more married families.

The original poster makes it seem like there was a set tax rate, and that it was adjusted to socially engineer more nuclear families. This implies that there was a shortage of nuclear families, and the powers that be schemed to create more.

I am suggesting that there were already nuclear families, and that the powers that be wanted more tax revenue. Knowing that it would be an unpopular idea, it excluded nuclear families so the majority wouldn't push back against the idea.

I am also stating that I am doing this with no proof, so I could be dead wrong. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that the latter is a far more likely option. I could probably google it to find out more, but I wanted to take a stab in the dark.

There's a significant amount of research available the proves the existence of The Nudge. Soda taxes are the big one to point at today, the idea that soda consumption (a societal evil as it increases health care costs) can be reduced through taxation, and thus far it has within small geographic limits. Whether health care costs should be a societal concern at all is a different conversation though. Cigarette and alcohol taxes work the same way and we've seen reductions in their use over time. Likewise, we see the tax code encourage or discourage other behaviors as well including marriage, family planning, and home ownership. I am not saying that every instance of taxation was intended as a societal benefit, most really are just cash grabs to feed the mouth of the Federal Machine, but there's significant documentation that shows that tax policy can elicit desired behaviors. The problem for most of us is exactly whose desires are we achieving and how many people didn't get to fulfill their own as a result?

---