I am in a way happy I didn't post a reply to my opponent's Round 1 as it may have seemed presumptive. In the comments section someone even pointed out to me how reasonable it is to mistakenly mention housewives and stay-at-home moms since that's the majority. In Round 2, on top of in the debate's description, my opponent explicitly makes it clear how sexist this policy is and it no longer can be misconstrued to be an unfair attack by me.
This policy would not assist stay-at-home fathers whatsoever, not even if it were a single father who had found himself unemployed. That's a glaring issue with the policy and extremely strong moral grounds to oppose its grandstanding as some saviour of all housewife and househusband households (it doesn't respect the latter).
Also, what of genderqueer households with a parent that doesn't identify as male or female?
Impractical enforcement and basis
The basis of this policy is ironically very much the opposite of Pro's username and stated agenda. Pro claims to be a far-right advocate and insofar as the sexism is concerned, he fits the bill (his profile says he is male so I'm not assuming the 'he'). Pro's stated agenda is problematic for the three primary reasons that follow:
- It seems to completely treat rich/high-income households with one parent who isn't employed as identical to low-income households that can barely cope.
- It creates every incentive for females to remain unemployed if they feel like doing so.
- Rather than come from income tax or corporate tax, it is solely to be funded by products Pro deems immoral and unnecessary (porn, alcohol, tobacco etc) as per the description. The proportion of cost will make these products so extremely expensive they end up bankrupting any business that tries to deal in them.
There is something very odd about Pro's case, it doesn't outline who is to be affected or why, in terms of how desperately they need government assistance.
Do you understand how expensive it will be for any American producer of pornography, alcohol products and tobacco products? Who will even buy their products? The rich would buy from abroad as they easily have the reach to do so, noone would purchase them, the poor would merely not have access to them and suffer withdrawal symptoms if they're addicted or simply have less to enjoy in life than before (I presume this isn't just those products, it probably is also sex toys, erotic fiction and basically anything Pro deems goes against strict religious teachings since that appears to be the theme).
The sexist element of this is clearly to encourage males of low-income households to need to find employment because all females can supposedly sit back and relax since their (I presume annual) taxes are paid off at least $20,000 and the rest is confusing because this wouldn't really help anyway as they have no actual money whatsoever, they just owe less in tax...
Now, I will list further issues with it:
- It's a tax credit yet you are somehow 'paying it' to the unemployed who have no income tax
Ironically, this issue really highlights how self-defeating the means and feasibility of this 'project' and/or policy are. An unemployed single mother will struggle severely regardless, I guess Pro knows this as he states the agenda is to make them have a little more time to find a suitable husband to fill the 'father' role for their household. An unemployed male in any situation can't benefit whatsoever from this, even if he wants to be a stay-at-home father with a working wife.
This entire policy doesn't even make sense at all since the tax credit is given to the parent in the household who isn't earning income and paying income tax.
There are so many loopholes and issues with it, I am perplexed how Pro can even conceive any positive elements of this at all. Neither wing of politics would back this, it is a pseudo-left-wing actually-sexist agenda.
If anyone would benefit, it's high-income households where the stay-at-home parent isn't even doing much since they've hired a maid, cleaner, gardener and secretary to organise (the chores a stay-at-home parent of lower income households would do). Such a household pays a lot of income-tax and 20k reduction would help... Except again, the issue that it's the other parent who pays income tax and earns the income comes into play.