You've hit the nail on the head of a universal problem that no one cares to notice.

A single working adult with no dependents gets the shortest end of the stick every time. We are the forgotten population.

It's better to be unemployed or have 20 kids, or both.

Next in line on the short stick are middle class families.

Well I'm in the divorced with kids group and I feel like I get pummeled, when I was married it wasn't nearly this bad.

When I was a working adult with no dependents, I had a lot more disposable income than now.

Of course...it costs money to raise kids. The difference is exemptions and EIC. My positive tax liability goes right into other family's pockets. Funny though, I don't remember having anything to do with the pregnancy.

Working adults with no dependents rarely have a negative total tax liability.

I see over 700 tax forms a year. I know of what I speak.

That's the wrong angle to look at it from. You pay for public schools too, even though you had nothing to do with those pregnancies either. It's not about their tax liability versus yours. It's, as you mention, the negative tax liability that is unfair. There should never be a financial gain from having children (for example, the EIC.) That introduces the wrong motivations.

You're right. I always tend to be sensitive on the subject. I'm really talking about the $5000 PROFITs I see...I don't get that.

But deep down I do feel it takes a village...

Then again, at staff today they were talking about even more programs for single mothers and I mumbled to my friend (a nice lady and a mom) "for pete's sake, they have nothing but special programs. I got a program, show 'em how to use a condom." She snorted.

I have nothing against the single mother... far from it. (You all know I love kids, right?) I just see SO much benefit for them in so many ways when Jill Schmo is working at Wendy's, has no kids, and can't get any help at all. She's penalized for not getting pregnant, in a way.

Me too!