Ann Coulter: ‘We singles live empty lives of quiet desperation & will die alone’

Embed from Getty Images

Marco Rubio and Bob Corker are literally good for nothing. Both men made some noise last week about possibly withdrawing their support for this heinous, immoral and frankly stupid tax bill. Both men are now on board, and the bill will probably get a vote in the next few days (they’re saying Tuesday). Senator Rubio threatened to withdraw his support because he said he wanted the bill to include an expansion of the child tax credit, meaning that more families would get bigger tax cuts for having children (and more kids = bigger tax credits). Those of us who are childfree don’t get any additional tax credits, we’re just expected to subsidize everybody else’s kids. I actually had that thought last week, a thought of “where’s my tax credit for simply contributing to society, working and not having babies?” It seems that Forever Childfree Singleton Ann Coulter had a similar thought. On Friday, she tweeted:

Even though many people believe/know Ann Coulter is a white supremacist See You Next Tuesday who acts as a mouthpiece for the worst kind of hatred, bigotry, ignorance and intolerance, she actually got some sympathy in some quarters. People were like “oh, Ann Coulter is actually kind of a sad old (racist) broad.” I’d just like to point out that on Saturday, Ol’ Sad Ann tweeted this:

So, yeah, she can rot (oh look, it’s already started!). She actually doesn’t give a sh-t about being sad and lonely and subsidizing other people’s happy families. She WANTS to subsidize families… when those family are made up of a heterosexual mother and father who are legally married American citizens and… white. Keep being the worst Racist Skeletor ever, Ann!

(Also, after I spent a minute on Coulter’s Twitter feed, I realized that she enjoys photos of Shiba Inus and now I don’t know how to feel about that.)

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Getty.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

193 Responses to “Ann Coulter: ‘We singles live empty lives of quiet desperation & will die alone’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Lolo86lf says:

    I don’t have any children but I must admit that it makes a bit jealous how people who reproduce get a lot of tax credits. I truly loathe Ann Coulter but she does have a bit of a point about this child tax credit. It bothers me to realize how people who probably cannot afford to have children are being encouraged to have more children at the expense of the taxpayers.

    • Snowflake says:

      I get jealous too. I don’t think I’ve ever gotten over $800. So when I hear about people getting thousands back, I’m so jealous. I heard you got a tax break when you get married so I claimed 1that year. Ended up owing. Now I’m claiming zero and hoping I don’t owe again. No kids.

      • Wiffie says:

        You know kids cost like, hundreds of thousands of dollars right?

        Having a kid who will cost me 10k this year to get a $2k credit is mathematically stupid.

      • Snowflake says:

        I know but when you’re single and broke as I was, you think oh, thousands back! That’s the part you focus on. When you don’t have kids, you really can’t get any help IMO. meanwhile I know people with 3 kids who are getting 760/ month in food stamps. She can’t use it all so she’s selling it off for cash.

      • Enough Already says:

        Except for rare exceptions no one with kids and using food stamps is swimming in dough and living the good life. No family of four in the continental US gets $760 in food stamps and has anything left over. this would only be true in a few distinct scenarios. What does happen is the head of household does not have enough cash to meet needs/wants and compromises by cutting back on their grocery shopping, selling part of their food stamps instead. That is not the same thing as having too much in food stamp allotments. There are few things as expensive as raising children and getting back a few grand at tax time is enough to take away a fraction of the pain but nowhere near enough to stop the bleeding, financially.

      • manda says:

        the marriage tax break has got to be fiction, because we got screwed too

      • swak says:

        When I got married, I still claimed 0 because that was what I was taught and have seen too many times that you end up paying at tax time. You get more per paycheck, but that messes you up when it comes to filing taxes. My one daughter found that out the hard way even though I told her to claim 0.

      • Isa says:

        What is she feeding those kids that she has money left over?
        3 kids in a LCOL and we spend more than that.

      • jwoolman says:

        Snowflake – food stamps don’t cover some basic non-food essentials, which is why people with no other sources of money will try to trade them or some of the food for cash. They are not living high on the hog that way.

        By the way, food stamps actually cost money, you pay according to the rest of your income. People can have full time jobs and still be on partially subsidized food stamps because they don’t make enough money. Meaning your taxes are subsidizing the profit of greedy employers like the owner of a cafeteria where my brother worked. He said that all of the people who had kids had to use food stamps. His employer didn’t provide a group medical insurance plan either.

        The whole idea of food stamps is to keep people eating well even when unemployed or temporarily laid off. This lowers the anxiety level a bit and keeps everybody healthy. This is much better than having people wait until their cash reserves have vanished as they try to stay afloat. Unemployment insurance benefits, when applicable, are minuscule compared to real expenses such as rent or mortgage. A large amount of credit card debt comes from such situations as well as uncovered medical expenses. When people lose a job, they still have to pay insurance premiums also (and twice as much if they had been covered by a group medical plan at work). If the car they need to look for work or do the work breaks down, they still have to pay to get it fixed. If the furnace breaks down in the middle of winter, they have to get it fixed right away. If their roof starts leaking and they run out of buckets, they have to get it fixed sooner rather than later. So you can see that even with food stamps, their cash goes down rapidly unless they have much more in savings than most people can manage today.

        If the food stamp program had existed when I was very young, my mother said she would have signed up. A friend said years later that food stamps really kept them going when her father lost his job and couldn’t find another full-time that paid enough. For quite a while, he was only able to pick up some cash weighing clothes for the Salvation Army. Such programs (including welfare) also made it possible for someone else I knew to get a master’s degree for better employment prospects when her husband walked out and left her with three kids. A free childcare program was also essential for her to do this. I’m sure she paid it back many-fold when she was making enough money and paying taxes again.

      • Enough Already says:

        This made me cry.

      • Jo says:

        I’ll trade you my $640 a month childcare bill and $150 a month health insurance premium for my 3yr old, for your $800 tax refund any day.

    • Esmom says:

      I haven’t done the math but I’d guess that singles without tax credits still end up keeping more income than people with kids. They cost a lot, the expenses never end. And for the life of me I can’t imagine anyone deciding to have kids just for the tax cuts.

      • anon says:

        but having kids is a choice peolle make, knowing the costs. why should singles have to more taxes at every level for that?

      • Esmom says:

        anon, I hear you. But I guess I’ve always just considered it part of being a society. “Investing in” or “subsidizing” other children via our taxes benefits us all.

      • Megan says:

        I don’t have kids but I am happy to pay taxes so someone else’s kid doesn’t go hungry or without healthcare. I’m part of a society and I want to see everyone in that society thrive.

      • Sadezilla says:

        ITA, Megan. I’m also willing to pay more in taxes to ensure higher education and retirement benefits, but not when the ultra wealthy are getting tax cuts.

      • Sabrine says:

        The middle class hit yet again. This just encourages poor people to have more children that we have to pay for….and don’t think the money always goes for the betterment of the child. The rich can hide their money. The poor just keep getting more money for every kid they can produce and we are the suckers who get nothing but have to pay for everyone else. Where are they going to get all this tax money when automation takes 41% of the jobs?

      • Enough Already says:

        Your comment is wrong on so many levels. It’s like Ronald Reagan is back for a one man show. Please stop perpetuating the harmful welfare queen narrative. Statistically and socioeconomically this dumb ass myth has been debunked time and again. It is a trope that dehumanizes and disenfranchises ethnic families because whether you’re aware or not, only these families are inferred. And if you have an example, please keep it. I’m also tired of anecdotal righteousness.

      • Miss Jupitero says:

        We all benefit by investing in the next generation’s well-being and education. Personally, I would rather see this take the form of better schools, free health care, and subsidized higher education, but putting more money in the pockets of parents is something.

        Please remember that these children you are barely willing to throw a bone to are the people whose taxes will be paying for your social security checks and medicare payments in the future– assuming that the Republicans don;t find a way to take even that away.

        And no, this does NOT encourage “poor people” to have more children than they can afford. Please bear in mind that many families that are in crisis are there become of sudden job loss or medical debt incurred when they have a major health crisis. Low income people get very little benefit with this credit, and under Trump will get even less. This is a very paltry break for the middle class.

        We are the richest country in the history of the world, and this is how we treat our citizens. Its shameful.

      • Carisel says:

        Kids are a choice, not an imperative. If you choose to have them, that’s your prerogative, but I shouldn’t have to pay for it because I didn’t have any. I chose to educate myself to become a more productive member of society, but I have no expectations that anyone else will pay back my loans. You want kids, then you accept the price of doing so.

      • Enough Already says:

        You are not underwriting anyone’s children. You are paying your share of taxes according to a table. Parents simply get a tax break. You aren’t paying more than your share because you are single, you simply don’t get the deductions.

      • Miss Jupitero says:

        Carisel, yes indeed having children is a choice parents make– AND their growth, education, and overall wellbeing benefits all of us in the long run, not just the parents. Children aren’t possessions.

        It costs a lot to turn a child into a productive citizens and parents shoulder most of that cost. Given that their future tax dollars will pay into my social security checks someday, and that my sorry ass life might be saved by some total stranger who is a child now and a long way off from being a doctor, a paltry tax cut is a small contribution.

      • Amy says:

        And everyone on here saying “children are a choice, if you have them it’s bc you chose to and you need to pay for them yourself” are apparently forgetting the cuts and restrictions on sex education, birth control, and abortions that are happening around the country. I think many people end up with children they didn’t wholeheartedly choose to have because of abortion restrictions and costs.

      • Cranberry says:

        Agree with @Miss Jupitero

        I’m all for helping out the poor and low income, but I do have a bit of a problem that parents get tax breaks for choosing to have children if it’s just left at that. I would rather pay more in taxes if it went to a system that everyone was guaranteed a good education, healthcare and social security. If it was still necessary to support low income families then perhaps a tax credit for only one child and based on income. I don’t think it’s fare if people that make more than enough income also get a child tax credit.

    • Artemis says:

      I’m baffled other people would advocate for bringing children in situations that will cause hardship for sure just because they have the right to procreate?I work for a charity and I realised I have some Conservative values when it comes to this. It’s all good and well to promote children even if you can’t afford them (the argument ‘poor people deserve to have children too’). It’s another to see that work out right in front of your eyes in the form of people having so many children their tax credits alone are my wage and they’re still crying because they have to pay their rent themselves now instead of Housing Benefit (this was before the child tax reform in April 2017 in the UK).
      I don’t even hold back anymore and just tell them that they’re speaking to a person that contributes to their benefits and it’s disrespectful to expect not contributing anything when they have more than enough disposable income if they tried spending it wisely.

      That all aside, those advocates also don’t realise the problem is not children or the access to benefits, it’s that so many parents are horrible at budgeting. So when I support somebody with budgets, I often hit a brick wall because they cannot fathom that daily takeaways, packs of cigarettes and worst shopping for expensive brands is not doable to save money or to provide for the family. And that’s when situations like having no money for necessities (food, nappies, milk, you name it I’ve seen it) arise which is the reason some of these children STILL experience hardship (and even emotional abuse from stressed parents) despite all the financial support. Some don’t go to school, don’t get decent food and that’s with parents who get more than enough money from their benefits.

      How many times I had to stop parents talking to each other about their children in a demeaning way when the children were right there, it’s disgusting! Because it’s the bloody kids’ fault they couldn’t keep it in their pants and just had to have another child they can’t afford or love if you look at the way they’re treating them?
      Or when they get rehoused to a council that offers no help with furniture and they move into a property with small children with no flooring etc. and expect support workers to magically get all the stuff from other charities despite not being eligible sometimes (too much disposable income). Being at the frontline of this, is just exhausting and it runs so much deeper than basic hardship. The government needs to address historical abuse and continued abuse patterns in these families instead of giving money without holding them accountable where it actually goes. Money alone will never be the solution.

      • pandora says:

        You need to get a different job.. As a social worker I’ve witnessed instances like those you mention, but they are few and far between. Suggesting that the the impoverished are unable to “keep it in their pants” is precisely the kind of stance that made public would be grounds for termination. Your utterly insensitive and breathtakingly ignorant grasp of what poverty is, what it means and what causes it is shameful.

      • Artemis says:

        I am.

        You’re very lucky, I have too many of these cases and I used to think just like you and I wanted to be a Social Worker too. But I’m not a young naive adult anymore. I wanted it to be different but my experiences were…disappointing. Such is life and I will have to change my career accordingly because it has affected me in more ways than one. When your whole belief system changes for the worse, I know it’s time to look in a different direction and to find the positive again. I’m self-aware enough.

        I work with Social Workers all the time and some can’t be bothered themselves and after years of this, I’m fed up. I still aim to support my current cases and often do the work the Social Worker is too ‘busy’ to do but some of these children’s faces haunt me knowing they’re returning to a horrible home where parents have the means but not the will or love to provide for them. Too many times even an innocent remark I make to the child about a lovely picture they drew or mentioning their special day (school, birthday) leads to an unnecessary bitter and mean remark from the people who are supposed to love them. You cannot expect everybody to have a high tolerance level for that. I certainly don’t and I don’t apologise for it either.

        When adults bully, neglect and abuse their own children in very obvious ways, I don’t have to feel sorry for these people. And I don’t. There’s a line and I mentioned below, I was a ‘damaged’ child myself and should have really worked with youth instead of adults. I know this now. Not all poor people are abusive, but in my specific job, I do tend to come across a lot of abusive parents who are also poor.

      • Enough Already says:

        Poor people can’t keep it in their pants? Do better. As I said above I swear it feels lime the Reagan years are back, ideologically.

      • MrsPanda says:

        Artemis I totally understand what your saying, and don’t find it ignorant at all – you’re clearly speaking from experience and I can understand your frustration and anger at abusive/neglectful parents. I also grew up in a very poor neighbourhood where myself and all my childhood friends were abused. I also saw first-hand the poverty cycle people get stuck in, and my heart always goes out to the children who are COMPLETELY innocent and yet have to suffer immensely for the sheer ignorance and selfishness of their parents! Before anyone calls me ignorant – I grew up in New Zealand and we have the highest rates of child abuse and teen pregnancy in the developed world. We also have the highest rates of domestic violence, untreated mental illness and 1/3 of children live below the poverty line (yes we don’t include those figures in our tourist marketing campaigns). Oh we also have the highest rates of youth suicide – five times higher than in the UK and the USA. There’s clearly a link between poverty and child abuse, parents may be mentally ill, struggling to cope with life, abusing drugs/alcohol, dealing with generations of trauma/abuse, and just simply following the stellar example their parents set 🙁 Those ignorant people would make me furious too, especially when you see the pain their children are in – and if you’ve grown up in that environment and suffered yourself. Perhaps working in child or animal advocacy would be a good fit for you, you can channel your justified anger into something more rewarding for you, good luck!

      • jwoolman says:

        Artemis – I have known plenty of upper class and middle class parents on no subsidized programs at all who can’t keep to a budget and make atrocious decisions nutritionally for their children. The emotional abuse in some of these homes is heartbreaking. They can toss material goods at their kids starving for real attention, and can toss money at them to buy fast food and other things. So you won’t get to see them up close. Abuse and neglect happen at all levels.

      • MrsPanda says:

        Poor children (in the developed world) are disproportionately abused and neglected. The link between poverty and child abuse is well proven and documented. Sure, not all poor families abuse their children. Plenty of wealthy parents also abuse/neglect their children in horrific ways. The mental health of the parents is the most important factor. None of these people should be having children if they’re unable to nurture and love them. However to deny the simple fact that abuse is more prevalent in impoverished families/communities, is to be willfully obtuse.

      • MrsPanda says:

        (and to add, this is coming from someone who supports the tax break and any support these families need. I grew up in that environment). But we do need to get real about poverty being a huge risk factor.

      • Deering24 says:

        Artemis, you are burned out. Quit social work and do something else. Anyone who thinks the poor are the only ones who abuse their kids has lost both the perspective and basic empathy needed to help people.

      • Lucretias says:

        My heart goes out to you! Social work especially advocacy is hard work. Burnout is real. I agree with you other comment regarding focusing on children and go where your heart and oassion lies. Hugs to you! I was in a situation molar situation and made a switching my work focus and was much better for it!

      • MrsPanda says:

        Deering24, nobody is saying the poor are the only people who abuse their children. However, statistically, the link between poverty and child abuse is well established. Living and working in those environments is tough. Artemis is struggling with the pain of dealing with suffering children, and is burned out. That clearly shows he/she has empathy. Dare I say it, more so than those who sit on their high horse, override the lived experience of others, and diminish any views that don’t fit perfectly with their ideology or world view.

      • Amy says:

        Yikes Artemis, it sounds like you’re not in the right job if you can’t keep from lording your budgeting and Tex paying superiority over the people you’re there to help. What a horrible for thing for someone to know that the workers at the charity they’re relying on despise them personally for needing help and aren’t afraid to say to their face “I pay for your life so shut up.”

        I don’t even think we can say that your views are conservative, they’re just mean.

    • Escondista says:

      Please realize that my kids are going to be working to pay for your social security payments in the future. We take extra care of families because we need people to keep having children and we need our children to be functioning, working adults for our future.

      • minx says:

        Yes, thank you. That’s the way it works.
        And Ann Coulter will die a lonely death because she’s a terrible, horrible person.

      • Squidgy says:

        @Escondista hahaha! Sure, they will! Their’s will go towards paying off for the previous generations. Haven’t you heard of Baby Boomers eating up most of Social Security that is supposed to go towards generation after theirs?

      • Sophia's Side eye says:

        Escondista, minx, exactly and agreed. It’s as though people want all the benefit and none of the responsibilities of living in a society.

      • Ange says:

        Oh lord not this again. Guess who pays for me when I’m old: me! Without kids I can afford to be a self funded retiree. I’m 100% all for supporting education and all that but you parents need to keep your damn smugness in check. We all kick in for each other except people without kids don’t get the tax breaks you guys do. I’m ok with that but at least acknowledge it.

      • escondista says:

        If you are not planning on drawing from social security when you retire, then i stand corrected. Also lucky you! Because you have no children, you are self-funded. who’s f*%&ing smug now?
        But you know what? If you will need to draw from SSA for any reason – disability or retirement, then i think you absolutely misunderstand how it works.

        I most likely pay more into the economy on every level than you too. I probably buy more food, have different energy and transporation expenses. I buy more items that you’ve never had to consider.

      • Ange says:

        There’s nothing smug about noting that I can save money and pay for my own retirement. I can also afford income protection and all that stuff should I become disabled. In the end I will cost far less, that’s not smug that’s reality. What I don’t run around doing is being hugely self righteous and point out just how expendable people without kids are while grandly proclaiming I am paying for their future. You’re not, you just needed that pointed out to you.

    • Squidgy says:

      The point, @ Wiffie is that if you want to have that $10K child it is your financial responsibility, not someone elses (non) voluntary donation.

      • Enough Already says:

        Do you have any idea how much families pump into the economy and contribute to the tax base?

      • argonaut says:

        @EnoughAlready yes! families are pretty vital to our future as a society. look at what is happening in japan right now with an increasing population of seniors and a low birth rate. they’re in trouble.

      • KBB says:

        Thank you, Enough already. I’ve been reading the comments to see if anyone pointed this out.

        I don’t have kids, but if someone is spending quadruple what I spend on food, recreation, retail, healthcare, etc., it makes sense to me that they’d get a larger return.

    • Heather says:

      Ann Coulter has successfully made you think about making policy in reaction to your jealousy. Every woman my age at my job with a kid wishes they were me sometimes, I guarantee.

    • Megan says:

      For god’s sake, no has a child for the $1,900 tax credit.

      • Chaine says:

        IKR?! No one says, Hahaha, now that I have this baby I am going to have a $1900 profit each year. You will spend more than that in diapers alone from the get go…

    • Natalie S says:

      Everyone posting here has shopped at a grocery store or Target or Walmart. You interact with the working poor everyday. Next time look them in the face and tell them what you really think.

      Punch up, don’t punch down. Pay attention to who your neighbors are voting into power because they’re so focused on table scraps from the wealthy.

      You choose to have kids or you make a personal choice to not have kids. You choose to live in a society where there will be succeeding generations. If you don’t want to be part of the social contract, then head off into the woods and live off the grid.

      • Enough Already says:

        Natalue S
        Hugs!! Thank youuuu!

      • Natalie S says:

        @Enough Already. My mind is blown by some of these posts. Like you said, Regan-era dogwhistles for sure.

      • minx says:

        Thank you. We are all just a twist of fate away from becoming the working poor.
        Or, just poor. I despise smugness.
        You’re absolutely right…punch up, not down.

      • Maria F. says:

        very well said.

      • oandlomom says:

        Well said! Someone has to have kids so the human race can continue. We subsidize your choice to be child free! Look around you. What would happen if most people made this choice. Try visiting a nursing home. What would happen to an elderly generation that had too few younger people to care for them? And that’s just one of a million examples.

      • Enough Already says:

        This reminds me of Trump demonizing immigrants while knowingly using undocumented workers on his construction sites. Let’s all pretend like we don’t benefit, as a whole, because of the contributions of the many. Besides, the taxes I pay to help care for a struggling family today means their kids won’t grow up to hold me at gunpoint for my wallet tomorrow.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Natalie S.

        Exactly. Why does everyone forget about the social contract? No woman would go through a year of pregnancy for 1400 dollars, that is what you most likely can claim and get back IF you make a certain amount of money. People who rely on social services (THEY ARE NOT ENTITLEMENTS!) usually don’t pay taxes. They are treated like crap and demoralized by the system and the cycle they can’t break out of and are subject to the attitudes I see on this thread.
        Have some compassion for people who are suffering and confused and beaten down and have their souls and spirits crushed from their first breath on this earth.

        WOW, 1400 dollars. That will pay for private schools and college and luxury skiing holidays in Gstaad. Now those mothers can pay for those pedicures at long last.

        Ann Coulter will benefit from this corrupt, greedy cash grab tax plan that not one person, I know, who gets this enormous windfall even wants or lobbied to get. If anyone had the time to read through this thing the rage would have people rioting in the streets. It is unconscionable. It is ugly and cruel. They have to jam this through before the word gets out or those tiki torches will turn into real torches as the masses storm the White House French Revolution style.
        She knows people like her easily spend 2000 dollars on one dinner at Alan Ducasse eating off his infamous decadent table settings. This bitch eats at all the most expensive restaurants in NYC along with Sean thumb neck Hannity.
        SHUT UP Eva Braun coke freak. Don’t fall for her whining. She’s just mad her dealer won’t profit.

      • Enough Already says:

        In my head we’re best friends. That is all.

      • Enough Already says:

        I never thought I would have to remind anyone of this on this site but please try to divorce yourself of what you think welfare is and who you think benefits from it. I’ve heard rants from people about how sick and tired they are of supporting “lazy, baby making welfare queens” while failing to realize that cuts in state and federal entitlement programs means their grandparents won’t be able to heat their homes adequately in the winter or that their uncle, who did a tour in Vietnam and retired a few years ago, won’t be able to afford treatment for his diabetic foot infection. When you hate others the enemy” is in the mirror.

      • Ange says:

        Oandlo mom how exactly do you subsidise the choice to be childfree? Most childfree people pay their own way. If it comes down to not having enough people to work in retirement homes there are literally millions overseas champing at the bit to take on the job, it’s not like it’s work that requires a specialised skill set.

      • magnoliarose says:

        @Enough Already

        Yes, we are, and I say lunch on Tuesday at 12. 🙂 Weekly bestie meetups. lol

        I have saddened that anyone thinks people struggling are doing it out of spite. It just isn’t right. We should be agents of change and lift others as best we can. This administration is cruel, and people will need more help than ever. Now I finally understand why the GOP has been able to demonize poor people and do nothing about poverty.

    • Felicia says:

      I think that the political thought behind that is that the country needs future taxpayers to pay for the generation that is giving birth to those future taxpayers. It’s that or immigration. The more kids you have, the more future taxpayers will be there to help sustain the system. And mathematically, the idea is sound.

      But when you don’t spend the money needed to educate those children well and make it prohibitively expensive for them to access secondaty education, you’re not creating a population of future taxpayers that will fulfill that role.

    • Cat'sMeow says:

      Women are not having kids to get a tax break. That’s not how it works.

    • Erbs says:

      I don’t at all approve of Rubio’s amendment. However, that being said, children are so freaking expensive, it’s unreal. I used to think the stuff like what you’re saying before I got married and had two kids.

    • Pandora says:

      As a mom of a special needs, I would have rather been out of a couple of hundred a year than have to deal with everything that entails raising one.
      I love my kid and will do everything to give him a chance in life but to tell you the truth I never imagined parenthood would be this.
      Enjoy your free self and thank you for the $.

    • jwoolman says:

      Well, somebody has to have children and they are quite expensive. I don’t mind helping to subsidize the survival of the species.

      We have to get away from this idea that only people who can “afford” children should have them. If my parents had waited until they could “afford” us, I wouldn’t exist. People want kids and just work as hard as they can to support them on the fly. You don’t owe your kids a college education, there are other ways for them to get it. You need to provide the basics in material support, but circumstances can change. Or some children just need a lot of extra support for medical reasons. Or we need to keep things like public schools going for the kids whether or not we send kids there ourselves. The community has to pitch in, and that’s why it makes much more sense to use taxes for safety net programs rather than wasting an obscene amount of money on more weapons of mass destruction.

      We need a little perspective on relative costs. I remember one fellow giving me and a cat a ride to the vet when she was preparing for serious surgery. He said something about the expense, implying she wasn’t worth it. I told him that my cat was more useful to the world than a Pentagon general, but his taxes paid big bucks to support the general and her vet bills were tiny in comparison. That shut him up on that topic.

    • graymatters says:

      I understand what you’re saying, but I raised four children, all of whom now pay taxes. I think the tax credit is meant as an investment, and to encourage families to have more children so the country doesn’t need to rely as heavily on immigrants.

      Child tax credits are just a sop to the middle classes in the hope that they won’t care about the massive tax cuts to the rich.

  2. Square Bologna says:

    Pretty hypocritical for a strident, judgy Christian to be showing cleavage under her Jesus cross. Cover up modestly and go to church, Ann. You don’t speak for THIS single.

    • IlsaLund says:

      The true meaning and understanding of Christianity is lost on people like Ann Coulter and her ilk. To quote my now departed holy roller grandma, “people like her are going to bust Hell wide open.”

    • isabelle says:

      Christians have boobs and shaming Christian women for showing them, is body shaming period.

      • jwoolman says:

        I’ve lived long enough to know that showing cleavage, like guys having long hair, goes in and out of fashion. It really isn’t a moral issue.

  3. Hidden Identity says:

    I don’t mind subsidizing families with children, even though I’ll never have children. I don’t mind “subsidizing” social programs. I do mind that we pay A LOT in taxes and none of it goes to where I want it to go: universal health care, infrastructure, programs for those in need, etc. I do mind that we spend far too much on the military and subsidizing the 1%ers.

    My mother-in-law was laid off her job and it angered me that her first thought was, “we can’t afford healthcare”. That should be a basic in this country. I’ve tried educating them on universal healthcare, and the reasons why it would help them. I think – hope – they’re finally seeing why the republican party is not their party. My husband says to not hope too much. We’re staying here for Christmas and not going back to visit them and I think it’s probably because I can’t keep my liberal mouth shut and they have on fox news 24/7

    • HelloSunshine says:

      Agreed. Even if I didn’t have a kid, I wouldn’t mind that there is one (and haven’t before I had my kid) but it really makes me upset that we still don’t have universal healthcare. A great way to boost the economy would be to get people out of their medical debt. It’s astonishing how much medical debt there is. If people were able to have access to healthcare and knew they wouldn’t be putting their family’s ability to get food/have a home/basic necessities at risk, they’d freely spend more.

    • Wren says:

      Same here. I don’t mind subsidizing social programs or helping families with children. No it isn’t “fair” but children are expensive and I’m not willing to do the work and sacrifice of raising any so I don’t mind helping that those who do. I’m happy paying for low income people and families to have access to healthy food and medical care. That’s part of being in a society. We’re all in this together and society prospers when all its members are cared for in the most basic of ways.

  4. littlemissnaughty says:

    Yeah, we singles are so sad. Speak for yourself, Ann. I’m not American so I don’t have a dog in this tax fight but I’d like to point out that MANY married people and parents lead lives of desperation. They’re just not quiet lives because there’s an annoying spouse or screaming kid around.

    Taxes are never “fair” in general.

    • Heather says:

      Ann needs to learn to take personal responsibility for her own choices. I am single with no children and I lead a fulfilling life of quiet satisfaction.

    • starkiller says:

      In Ann’s case, I doubt very much that being single has anything to do with her life of quiet desperation. It’s probably much more to do with the fact that no one can stand to be around her obnoxious ass for longer than five minutes.

    • isabelle says:

      She is trolling. She is one big troll and in DC circles its well known she is a troll. She is saying it to once again cause controversy, trust nothing she says is actually what she believes.

  5. grabbyhands says:

    You live a life of quiet desperation and you are going to die alone because you’re a miserable, evil hateful bitch, not because you’re single.

    I’m always at a bit of a crossroads with the tax credit thing, I admit. I have always voted for education levies for schools and things that help and support families because I think it is important for those things to be strong – regardless of if you have children, they’re the future and it is better to have produced educated, well rounded human beings to lead.

    Having said THAT, I do sometimes think, come tax time – where the hell are my tax credits for not having kids? That’s a contribution too – i’m not adding unnecessary burden to an already overburdened system that is unable to provide for its citizens or adding more people to a planet that has an overpopulation problem as it is.

    But that feeling is short lived because honestly, I don’t really notice it that much. I’ve got bigger worries in my life. Like how nauseatingly hypocritical it is to talk about family values and wave your bible around while at the same time doing everything you can to torpedo the health and safety of the children you supposedly care so much about.

    • Alix says:

      @grabbyhands: Everything you said!!!

    • Wren says:


      I’m miffed for about 5 minutes that I get no credits being childfree come tax season, but it vanishes quickly because while that’s a once a year “aw, no fair” moment, the reality of having children is that they cost a lot of money. Money I don’t have to spend every day because I don’t have them. It works out in my favor by miles so I have my moment of pettiness and then it’s over. I’m actually happy supporting social programs and vote for school levies and other such things because for our society to be strong, we need to support the next generation regardless of if we helped produce it.

    • Liberty says:

      Grabbyhands, yes, x1000.

    • Sarah Mckay says:


    • lightpurple says:

      Meanwhile, CHIP has gone unfunded for weeks. This tax credit, cooked up by Rubio and his new best buddy Princess Nagini, is going to give those who need it most only about $25 a month while Nagini skates off with millions.

  6. Danielle says:

    That headline made me laugh. You’re likely sad and alone because you are a hate filled person ann.

  7. Millennial says:

    Subsidize everyone else’s kids? Geez. Kids are a sign of a healthy economy. Not enough of them and you have Japan’s problem and no one to pay into Social Security and Medicare as we age.

    • Artemis says:

      It’s only healthy when they actually contribute to it though. So many families are on the poverty line but there’s generational abuse and subsequent mental health illness that is rarely addressed or discussed. Children alone are not the key to a successful economy, healthy well-adjusted confident children are.

      So many young people end up in care or in and out of the family home to end up on the street anyway. Or they get kicked out by the parents who never really wanted them in the first place or who simply couldn’t handle being a parent. I’m thinking to switching over from adult support work to youth support work because lord they need it the most. I can’t with messy adults on benefits ruining the next generation and services are already creaking under the pressure with funding being cut here, there and everywhere (based in the UK).

      I work in a big city and it’s a big issue with youth homelessness and mental health which is intertwined. There is a lot of potential but so many are ‘damaged’ from their family background and need guidance. They have behavourial and trust issues which makes it hard to connect with them and support them so imagine those kids trying to adjust to a job routine after barely making it through school if at all which is stressful in itself never mind dealing with criticism?

      There are a million issues with poor families often times but people trying to be politically correct about it is helping nobody. I could name so many scenarios with poor parents I dealt with and I can just see their children copying their behaviour and belief systems because it’s perpetuated every single day and it’s easier to go along with it rather than fight back because they’re often invisible. Very negative beliefs that only result in positive outcomes in rare cases. Children who parent themselves is the saddest thing one can witness.

      And as a ‘damaged’ child myself, I came from a small country that cut my higher education fee by 90%… a country that got me private mental health care through very reduced costs as I managed to get a wage after following a government-support work course when I failed uni. A country that has robust support networks for dysfunctional families, which work. I was very lucky but I had those resources available. Just the state of mental health services alone in my city is diabolical.

    • Heather says:

      I grew up in Las Vegas where there is not a lot of support for families, kids, education, at least not in the 90s, maybe more now. I moved to Boston about 20 years ago. Everytime I go to a coffee shop or get a grocery delivery or volunteer to help kids write their college essays, I am always struck by how great the kids in Boston are, across the board, middle income, low income, there are so many great, hardworking kids here. Whenever I go home to Vegas, I’m struck by the opposite.

      So I don’t have kids of my own. I live in a city that puts tons of emphasis on youth activities and support and I join in now and then and volunteer time, donate money, pay extra taxes and I live in a really great town. If I’m ever jealous of anything, it’s that I didn’t grow up here and instead I wasted my youth walking back and forth to a grocery store or 7-11 to buy a soda and chips, because that was the only activity offered by my neighborhood and all my parents could manage to arrange.

  8. Incredulous says:

    Have you tried not peddling hate, lies and bigotry, Ann?

    • Lolo86lf says:

      Ha! Spewing hatred and bigotry is her modus vivendi. Ann Coulter is called a provocateur, I call her a professional troll. Trolling is her bread and butter. So no, she will not stop serving up hate lies and bigotry to her disgusting followers any time soon.

    • Heather says:

      lol, she’s still to young to retire.

  9. Aerohead21 says:

    I sincerely dislike this woman and everything she stands for. She has made a living off of dealing with devils.

    And sorry, Ann…maybe you’ll die alone in quiet desperation, but I know several single people who wouldn’t have it any other way.

    You want to not die alone? Try kindness. It goes a long way. Certainly a lot further than judgement.

  10. Patricia says:

    Listen, people, we live in a society. What’s good for children is good for the society. If you don’t have a child then you are saving thousands of dollars a year by that choice.
    My husband and I are very comfortable. In fact, coming from a poor background, I feel like a freakin princess most days. But having two kids is very hard and expensive and the tax break helps. We are raising good people to be a new generation. It’s not like having kids is just to hold a cute baby for a year. There’s a long term payoff of, you know, the next generation of humans .

    I don’t know when people and especially republicans will understand that social programs and family friendly taxes helps create a healthy society. And you LIVE in society. Do people want to have no roads to drive on, no fire fighters when a fire starts, no trash collection etc? Do they want the weakest and poorest by among us to literally die in the streets like it’s Medieval up in here? An enlightened population should realize that we need to have a healthy society for everyone in order for happiness, progress, and peace to prevail.

  11. Salmonpuff says:

    It costs way more to raise a child than the child tax credit, so I don’t think it does a whole lot to encourage people to have babies, unless they’re bad at math. Subsidizing families (or healthcare or bridges that don’t collapse or education) is a fine use of my tax money…sending Trump on golf trips and ego rallies isn’t.

    • broodytrudy says:

      There’s definitely some salty phrasing there. trust me, y’all, I am not having kids for the tax cuts and implying so is irresponsible and stupid.

    • Heather says:

      What is the new credit? 2,000/year? That’s less than 170 a month. That is 1/2 the price of a 6 pack of Similac baby formula at Walmart.

  12. S says:

    Guess why we “subsidize” people with children? Because we need those kids to grow up and work and pay taxes so that they can contribute to OUR retirement, fix our roads, keep America functioning, etc.. So, you, for sure, benefit whether you’re a parent or not.

    That’s how a society works. That’s how government is supposed to work. The able-bodied adults work and that helps take care of the young and the old –those we’re related to, and those we’re not — because they were taken care of when they were young and will be taken care of BY the young when they’re old.

    The very idea that you have to have children to benefit from services for children is ludicrous. All adults were children at one point. All (rational) adults should want ANY child — yours, mine, a total stranger’s — to grow up healthy, well-educated and safe if not because it’s the compassionate HUMAN thing to do, at least because it absolutely does benefit you personally. Lower crime, better economy, higher tax base, more goods and services. Win. Win. Win. Win.

    Ann Coulter should already know all this because she hasn’t been left on ice floe to die when she was unable to contribute constructively to society which, as far as I can tell, has been always.

    • Esmom says:

      “The very idea that you have to have children to benefit from services for children is ludicrous.”

      It is and yet here in my town we have a loud faction of Tea Party types who scream about their taxes going to the public schools they loathe and the library they say they don’t need because they have iPads (lol). That they can’t see how short sighted they are to not want to contribute to a well educated populace is just kills me.

    • Cintra.C says:

      I agree with you. I don’t have children but I don’t mind paying taxes for schools, etc. because education should be a universal right. I also don’t mind that parents get exemptions (although it would be nice if childless people got some kind of tax break). These children will grow up to pay their own taxes and contribute to social security and medicare. People need to realize that we all should contribute to the well-being of our society.

  13. aang says:

    I come from very poor stock. Native on one side, born on a reservation, and Appalachian on the other, so I’ve lived poverty. I’m also the owner of a portfolio of rental properties that I manage first hand and deal with low income people every day. The problem I have with this is that the money doesn’t always go to raising the kids. I’m not being paternalistic to the poor and claiming they can’t make good choices, because many are responsible. I’m speaking from experience and first hand knowledge from seeing the bad choices. I’d rather see the money go into social programs that will directly benefit children instead of hoping the parents aren’t buying more cigarets/alcohol/oxy/tattoos/four wheelers/flat screens with the tax return. Maybe the tax credit money could go into a trust for the children and the money can only be used for certain things, receipts required, like the way a health savings account is structured.

    • Squidgy says:

      Absolutely! If the money at least went to support those kids, give them education, food, clothes. Their parents vacuum it up for themselves.

    • magnoliarose says:

      That is paternalistic. You don’t have the right to tell anyone how to spend their money.
      Not one person would dare come up to me and lecture me on how I should spend my money because in our society money=respect. That is just luck. It doesn’t make my dignity worth more or mean I deserve more respect than anyone else. It is unearned respect by chance of birth.
      Disadvantaged people aren’t children, and they should be treated with dignity and the same respect as anyone else. Go to a park and look at the little kids of all races, economic levels and social backgrounds and the joy and hope they have. Not one of them thinks You know I want to grow up with an undiagnosed mental health issue and live in a cycle of poverty with no access or a way out.
      Some people are stronger and more resilient and have natural gifts and talents that help them rise above their start, and that is pure luck too.

      Their spending habits are meant to make anyone else feel better and honestly; it is no one else’s business. If I give a homeless man a 5 dollar bill and he wants to drink his unmedicated depression and sorrows away, then it is his/her choice. I gave it, and it is no longer mine.

      • Rhys says:

        I would rather be paternalistic than stupid or even criminal by giving money for drugs or booze to an addict.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Don’t be silly I was using metaphors to enhance my point about giving without attachment.
        I actually pity you. Your bitterness and attempt to make a stranger feel bad must mean you think very little of yourself. After I post this I will forget you even exist but you have to live with you for the rest of your life.

      • MrsPanda says:

        It’s also paternalistic to override the lived experience of somebody else and to piously ”scold” and ”school” them with your ideologies. The sanctimosity on this page is astounding. I’ve noticed it’s the people with lived experience on welfare and in impoverished communities (like aang), who are simply sharing their (thoughtful) experience, and are then being lectured. This is coming from a liberal who supports welfare and tax credits. Any dissenting views are ”hateful” and ”bitter”. I simply see them as speaking their truth and trying to give practical solutions that work in the real world.

      • jayem says:

        @magnoliarose, since there is no like button, I’m just gonna tell you I like the cut of your jib. All this logic and common sense is giving me a little hope for humanity.

  14. Nancy says:

    I think everyone who read that post was mistaking sarcasm for human emotion. She is a heartless, soulless, vindictive, hateful, spiteful, horrible person. Her first and last name should be the eighth and ninth words that the CDC can’t use. That’s right folks, can’t use the word “fetus.” trump and company want to force them to say baby, as in baby killers. They’re all going to hell.

    • Esmom says:

      All of this, thank you.

      As to your baby comment — I heard an interview on NPR on Tuesday with a guy from Alabama who was going to vote for Roy Moore. He said he’d rather vote for someone who *may* be a child molester than someone he *knows* wants to kill “millions of babies.” Sigh.

      • thrid ginger says:

        Right you are, my dears. Also, I mentioned once before that Coulter has to be ever more outrageous because the actual administration is one crazy headline after another. She needs the attention.

    • magnoliarose says:

      They are planning to reverse Roe v. Wade. They need a labor force, and poor people can be paid nothing, so they break the unions and tear away labor protections.
      Their think tanks sit around all day crafting these plans to force babies on people and if some die oh well she can breed again.
      Keep a close eye on them; they have an end game.

  15. Bliss 51 says:

    I don’t believe her, she’s trolling.

  16. toni says:

    Have Coulter and Kellyanne ever be in the same place and were there witnesses?

    • Jennie Hix says:

      I think they are the same person but with different wigs.

      ETA: I forgot to write “LOL” cuz your joke was too hilarious.

    • magnoliarose says:

      Are you saying they are the Jaqen H’ghar of the Nazi resurgence? Hmmm yeah, I could see that.

  17. Bridget says:

    Is complaining about tax credits for children the same as men complaining about mandatory maternity care in their insurance?

  18. geneva says:

    there is a kernal of truth in what she said about being a bit lonely and knowing we will die alone. I am single and I think the same way sometimes. Alas, my father just passed away and he waited until we all left the room to quietly pass on. He literally died alone. I realized at that moment that we all die alone. I am no longer feeling so lonely or alone about being childless, single, middle aged female. Thank you dear Dad for teaching me that.

  19. Reef says:

    Lololololol, is she ok? Jesus H. Christ. I’m so curious about Ann Coulter. Who are her girlfriends? Who are her ex-es? Who does she call for emotional support that’s not family?

    • Escaped Convent says:

      If Coulter lives in quiet desperation and will die alone, it’s because she’s a mean-spirited, heartless witch. She shows no compassion in her soul (if she has one). I always wonder how someone like her grew up. Was she a nasty child? Did she suffer playground isolation? I wonder if she has any friends.!

      I’m genuinely curious. Nastiness like hers doesn’t just appear out of thIn air. I feel a dissertation i coming on.

      I have a theory that her special powers come from her black minidresses and hair-flipping. I think they are her only friends. 😡

    • magnoliarose says:

      She’s being sarcastic but in reality, it is her truth. She is a nightmare and people run from her once they try to know her on a personal level.

  20. JenB says:

    I support working families getting more support. I felt this way before I had children. Also I believe Rubio was specifically concerned with low income families and I don’t see anything to criticize. That will actually help the family of 4 making 40K. The top 1% getting the lion’s share of this tax cut is my issue.
    Ann Coulter is a nightmare of a person. Glad she didn’t spawn.

    • Heather says:

      I have no children and don’t intend to (already 44) and I absolutely believe families deserve some support. How can you justify preserving the mortgage interest deduction and the tax free exemption for selling your primary residence (which I have enjoyed multiple times over the past 10 years) and not recognize that raising a kid is a necessary part of the economy and society, if you believe tax benefits are important to encourage people to buy an old house, redoing the kitchen, and putting it out on the market improved for the next person?

      I think all of these people were horribly abused and neglected by their parents and instinctively seek to institutionalize that same neglect and abuse.

    • magnoliarose says:

      He wasn’t concerned. He is trying to look like a hero without being one. Posturing and getting some headlines. Politicians are famewhores just like celebrities.

  21. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    She’s sewege. She’s single and will die alone because karma. Taxes… pfft lmao. Nuthin’ but polluted pr.

  22. Jennie Hix says:

    It’s refreshing to me knowing that she’s mentally tormented on the inside.

  23. lascivious chicken says:

    I would pay even more to not have to take care of a child!

  24. Jumpingthesnark says:

    Oh Ann. Externalizing again? Your inner 3 year old needs a snack and a nap.

  25. QueenB says:

    Oh Ann you brought this all onto yourself. No sane man would ever be seen with you. And the guys who share your opinions dont like a woman having opinions.

  26. Heather says:

    Ugh, if only she were quiet sometimes.

  27. Boodiba says:

    Given that human overpopulation is a cause of all the planet’s problems, I feel non breeders deserve some kind of REWARD, never mind tax credit. But never mind me. I’m just a woman who supported myself for 2+ decades in NYC with a BFA from freaking art school, without subsidising by family or any partner. Then I moved to Portland, OR (like an asshole) and have been unable to find work since, just b/c I’m 50.

    Excuse the rant. I’m bitter and I want my non breeder kickback. (Though I AM fond of kittens, and was gifted w/ a female Scottish Fold who did very well at her first cat show, so ya… I will (help) make cats, not humans.)

    • Square Bologna says:

      Kisses to your Scottish Fold! <3

    • Enough Already says:

      Omg please stop with overpopulation myth. Every legitimate scientific study has agreed time and time again that the population is fine at any level but the real problem is control over, access to and the allocation of resources. Punch up not down.

      • jwoolman says:

        Enough Already – I’m a scientist and a common concern is that we may already have passed the point of no return with regard to population growth. I have never heard anybody say that we never have to worry about population at any level at all.

        The problem is that a relatively small percent of the world population have access to most of the resources, and that is not a stable situation. Other people want to become the haves instead of the have-nots. One famous political adviser after WWII said bluntly that the US would have to support dictators to maintain a status quo that kept their people from demanding what we ourselves had.

        Those resources are simply not infinite, just as fossil fuels are not magically renewed on a human time scale and are becoming increasingly difficult to recover from underground. We will see similar problems with other chemical compounds and elements that current high tech depends on. This is why recycling is becoming an acute issue, but many of us have no way to do it in our communities. It’s not just about newspapers and plastic bottles.

        Humans have far greater impact on the environment and resources than other species. Plus when other species’ populations outstrip their resources, they start to die in large numbers due to famine and disease. We have the ability to delay such consequences for ourselves, but not indefinitely.

      • Enough Already says:

        I stand corrected for my clumsy wording. Please replace “at any rate” with “at a constant rate”. This, of course, doesn’t begin to touch the broader, more troubling issues you outlined but I think it’s important to reiterate that population growth was not in and of itself is not a harbinger of human disaster the way some assert. It is a dangerous argument for eugenics which absolutely always pertains to ethnic minorities and peopke of color.

      • jwoolman says:

        Enough (may I call you by your first name?) — you’re quite right that in the US at least, the fear among the pale is that the brown people will outbreed them. So when they talk about population control, they don’t really mean for their pale selves. Hence the Quiverfull movement such as exemplified by the pale Duggars, with the assumption that they have to have as many children as possible to raise up an army for God. (No Longer Quivering shows the downsides of such an approach.)

        But the drastic approach in China, which was primarily maintained by financial penalties for child #2 in the city and child #3 in rural areas, was stimulated by the very real problem of periodic famines. They felt they needed to strictly limit population growth to avoid famine and to spread out other resources better. I don’t think they anticipated that some parents were so intent on having a son that they would discard the girls either before or after birth, resulting in a gender imbalance that has led to “importing” brides from other countries, much as was done in our Old West. My theory is that true equality of opportunity for male and female children will make such a consequence much less likely, but I still hear Americans hoping that their first child is a boy and having more than two children because they have to try for a boy. Sometimes they’re trying for a girl, though, so mixed motivations abound.

        But we also clearly see that if we can rely on government programs to support us in our old age, that also makes it easier to be voluntarily or involuntarily childless. And the more people who don’t reproduce, the more leeway we have for people who do want more children. Better access to contraception, of course, also helps because a lot of us are rather accidental.

      • Enough Already says:

        Excellent points – thank you for this!

    • jwoolman says:

      Boodiba – Some of us are simply destined to be servants of cats. Our role is to make up for all the others who have repeatedly and viciously broken the feline-human contract.

    • isabelle says:

      As an Oregonian its flooded here in the last two years especially. A lot of people are moving in, not moving out and are looking for rent & work. Young and older. I’m trying to find a new job and its been hard. Honestly Portland is such a hot spot its not smart too move here currently no matter the age.

  28. Escaped Convent says:

    If Coulter lives in quiet desperation and will die alone, it’s because she’s a mean-spirited, heartless witch. She shows no compassion in her soul (if she has one). I always wonder how someone like her grew up. Was she a nasty child? Did she suffer playground isolation? I wonder if she has any friends.

    I’m genuinely curious. Nastiness like hers doesn’t just appear out of thIn air. I feel a dissertation coming on.

    I have a theory that her special powers come from her black minidresses and hair-flipping. I think they are her only friends. 😡

  29. Bliss 51 says:

    She had a thing w/ Bill Maher and Bob Guccione Jr. (son of Penthouse founder Bob Guccione). So she has a type.

  30. Superstef says:

    Let’s face it, Coulter will always be a dumb CUMT, she’s just trying a little harder these days. Good for her.

    (Stef gives unenthusiastic golf clap while rolling her eyes)


  31. Shannon says:

    Wow, a lot of negative comments about people for just having kids. Who in the hell has a kid just for a tax credit? I’ve gotten child tax credits before and it certainly helps, but it’s nowhere near enough to cover the cost of raising the child let alone make some kind of profit off of. You don’t even file taxes if you’re not employed, so it’s not like we’re talking about people who don’t work. It’s in everyone’s best interest that the next generation is cared for, educated, etc. Those are the people who will be pushing us in our wheelchair when we’re elderly – metaphorically and possibly literally. A big problem in this society is selfishness and greed, and it’s a real shame. I wish there was a vaccine for that so it could be erradicated.

  32. Hazel says:

    I’m single & childless; I do not see my life as empty or sad at all. Now, AnnCoulter, yeah, I can easily believe her life is full of desperation, given that her heart is two sizes too small.

  33. Electric Tuba says:

    Nothing she says ever merits a discussion as she holds no power. It’s like discussing someone farting into a bull horn.
    I believe her first tweet was facetious and her second tweet reveals she wants a tax credit for being a “good little GOP girl”.
    She’s trash and her comments do not reflect how actual single human people feel.

  34. Holly Wouldn't says:

    I agree that forced charity defeats the whole purpose and causes people to resent being forced. People should be allowed to donate if they want, but to decide where their money goes.
    (True story: I once had a boyfriend say to me, “let’s have a welfare family!” I told him that was a disgusting thing to say.)

    • jwoolman says:

      Holly Wouldn’t – using taxes to help people in difficult situations isn’t forced charity. It’s recognition that we are all in this together and we need to share resources. In modern society, those resources are artificially allocated unequally. In simpler societies, people shared food and shelter because that was a natural thing for groups of people to do. Things are more complicated now. We don’t expect police departments and fire departments to rely on private donations or to demand a credit card before they will help anybody. If you have a good income, it’s because someone else has provided a job for you or you have customers willing to buy your goods or services at a price that gives you a profit. We all depend on each other.

      We have seen again and again that private charity just can’t keep up when vital government social support programs are trashed. During Reagan’s cutbacks on social programs while giving tax cuts to the rich, poor children were diagnosed with kwashiorkor right in the middle of Chicago. Yes, protein deprivation in an American city. Private charity tried to make up the difference but the problem was too big and too complex for them.

      The idea that we legitimately have more than our neighbors (and so can freely decide individually whether or not to share it) is more of an illusion than you might think. I saw the full deed record for my house – it kept changing hands via money transactions until it finally reached whoever squatted on the land and just took it…. Really, property is just a social construct without independent meaning, as you find out pretty quickly when the government exercises its right of eminent domain and takes your house, often for much less than its replacement value.

      The very value of money is tenuous. It can change quickly, no matter how hard you worked for it. We really aren’t the independent islands that we like to assume.

      • Holly Wouldn't says:

        Yes, in theory, we’re all “in this together”. However, I agree with the posters who’d observed that some (not all) people do act like they’re entitled to have everyone else pay for their stuff. They give other people a bad name.
        I didn’t mention anything about fire/police departments, which are necessary services for everyone.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Thank you for your post jwoolman. The ravages of poverty in this country is underreported.

  35. Deleted User says:

    Pft. Leave families alone If you want lower the tax burden on singles millitary spending and corporate tax dodging are the first ateas I’d look at

  36. isabelle says:

    Everyone has consequences for their choices and being a lifelong single maybe one of those consequences is you die alone. Singles have already thought about this and this isn’t new information Ann suddenly slapped down on us. I’m a chosen lifelong single and its one of the things I weighed about being alone. You get sick, you really don’t have a stable base. When it comes to death you have a big chance of dying alone….but I still chose to be single. Those consequences don’t outweigh the benefits in my mind. Married people also have consequences for their choices and go through a process of thinking about their consequences. Not only about marrying but the consequences of choosing their partner. Also having kids doesn’t guarantee they will care for you later. People with kids/spouse also shouldn’t falsely believe those family members are obligated to be their future meal providers and bedpan keepers. Nursings homes are filled with people who have kids that rarely if ever visit. Plenty of people with kids die alone. …..and Ann is still a trolling jackas*.

    • Deleted User says:

      Agree. I’ve been married in the past but I’m open to not getting into a realationship again. Being single has its hardships but I prefer them over being with the wrong person just for the sake of being in a realationship.

  37. Patty says:

    Some people on this board are extraordinarily sanctimonious. I don’t think anyone should get a tax credit for having kids. Doesn’t make me a bad person. Jeez. Those particular credits are relatively recent anyway.

    And you can’t have it both ways and say people don’t have kids for a tax credit and then turn around and say the tax credit is necessary to ensure that people have kids so we don’t end up like Japan.

    The child tax credit was inacted in 1997 and newsflash, people were still having kids before that.

    I also don’t think people should be able to get credits for buying a house, when renters don’t get the same breaks.

    This tax plan is a gift for the very wealthy and corporations. It’s just that simple.

    The government shouldn’t be in the business of subsidizing lifestyle choices, period. Doesn’t matter if it’s buying a house, having kids, are going to school (student loan interest deductions – of which I benefit from).

    That’s the biggest problem with the tax code, it’s overly complicated. People need to be taxed based on their income, period. All these deductions and credits just make it easier for the very wealthy to cheat and get out paying what hey should be paying based on income.

    • magnoliarose says:

      I disagree strongly about the tax break for having children. You benefit from the taxes I pay on daily goods for my children, they are the future workforce, and no country can sustain itself without children. We can go around and around about what I pay for that I don’t use, and what you pay for that you don’t use. That is the same argument people use about health insurance premiums; they don’t want to pay for people’s obesity-related health problems, smokers, drug rehab, etc.

      I can reverse that argument and say the tax cut is there, but you made a choice not to have a child.

      You say people should be taxed on their income, but that would mean I would be paying for a whole bunch of things I never use. My kids don’t go to public school; I don’t use government healthcare, I don’t use any of the federal programs. That is the attitude of the GOP. The loopholes available for wealthier people mean they often pay so little it is a joke but feel like it isn’t their job to pay for other people. So they hide their money without guilt or remorse.

      • Deleted User says:

        Great post.

      • Patty says:

        We’re people not having kids prior to 1997? Because that’s when it was inacted. And as other posters have mentioned it’s ludicrous to suggest that anyone would have a child just for the credit. So using the argument that it’s necessary to ensure that people keep having kids doesn’t hold a lot of water.

        Same with mortgage interest deduction that is something else that mostly benefits the upper class and very wealthy individuals. We’ve all been sold a bill of lies on a lot of this stuff.

      • Veronica says:

        If people think a tax break is worth having kids over, they don’t realize how ridiculously expensive a child actually is. I assure you that the tax breaks my single mother got for her three children was well utilized in the economy on clothing, medical bills, food, and other general living expenses. Families consume enormous amounts of resources. That’s why they decided to offset their economic consumption with a (relatively small) tax break. It’s the poor and working class that might get hit harder without a tax deduction, but that’s a bandaid on a larger issue of decreasing wages versus increased costs of living.

        Millenials aren’t having kids because children are expensive and we have enormous debt-to-income ratios compared to our parents. Birth rates also naturally decline in industrialized nations because women are more likely to work and have access to proper medical/reproductive care, which limits their childbearing capability. Try increasing wages, PROVIDING PARENTAL LEAVE, and increasing immigration rates if you want to stop that natural rate decrease.

    • jwoolman says:

      Patty – the tax credit is just one way to help parents. It is more direct than waiting for them to need other types of assistance and also stimulates the economy, which is why they were instituted.

      Tax credits for various purposes tend to be an effective way to do that, except when aimed at the very rich. Rich people don’t need that help and taxes on them help reimburse the rest of us for all the benefits they receive from our roads and other infrastructure, educational institutions, medical facilities, emergency response systems, etc. plus of course our labor. They don’t stimulate the economy with more spending and they are unlikely to create new jobs with reduced taxes. When communities give companies tax breaks to stay or relocate to their community, often it’s a bad deal. The company actually can take more than it gives back. Nowadays they are very likely to use any savings to speed up automation and outsourcing other jobs overseas to people who can accept lower wages.

    • oandlomom says:

      Credits are given to home buyers because owning a home is having a stake in the success of a community. It is desirable for many members of society to own their own homes for many reasons. It’s elemental to the middle class, and a large, stable middle class benefits all of society. I am speaking as a 12 year homeowner who recently returned to renting due to divorce.

    • MrsPanda says:

      Yes Patti, the sanctimosity is off the charts on this one! I do support the tax credits and welfare in general, but I welcome your opinion and you will not get a pious lecture from me! There is a group-think on this page and a prompt shutting down of any alternative views.

    • DUH says:

      There are easily view-able birth rate statistics online, it would make sense for them to enact the tax credit in 1997 when the birth rate started sustaining around 14 percent and then dropped further. The US government isn’t giving out tax breaks from the goodness of their hearts. That would be absolutely laughable. They did it to encourage future work forces. Its hard enough to get them to fund necessary things, I find it highly improbable they’re giving these out for nothing. After all, who’s going to wipe all your single, geriatric asses when you’re in a home? Today’s children!

  38. Ruyana says:

    Don’t we all die alone? Death is about the most individual act there is. Even if you have people at your bedside you are still the only one dying – therefore dying alone.

    • Shannon says:

      Right? Being married or single doesn’t really affect the fact that unless you’re in a situation involving multiple fatalities, you are going to die alone. And even then, you’re still really dying alone – that’s a dumb phrase. I’ve enjoyed relationships (until I didn’t) and I enjoy being single. Maybe she’s pathetic and miserable (obviously), but personally, I enjoy being able to watch what I want, spend what I want (and not spend what I don’t want), eat what I want etc. Find the good things and highlight them. I’m open to the possibility of being in a relationship again, but those are a few things I know I’d miss.

      • Deleted User says:

        Yes. I enjoy being able to come and go as I please. Sometimes I feel like having a partner would be too disruptive to my routine. But at other times I miss the positive aspects that a realationship can bring.

    • Rocket says:

      When you think about it mortality is a really bewildering thing. I remember reading about Chris Hemsworth, randomly, that he used to think he’d live forever (when he was in his 20s). Now I’m out of my 20s I’m starting to confront mortality, partly by reading more books about it, etc.

    • jwoolman says:

      Someone on one of those quizzes “are you an introvert?” said that while many people worry about dying alone, introverts dread having to die surrounded by other people…

      • Shannon says:

        LOL I’m a total introvert and, at 41, I’ve come to terms with my mortality. If I knew I was going to die (terminal illness or something) I’d definitely want to spend time with my handful of dear loved ones – especially my children (I’m one of Ann’s most hated people – a single mom). But the whole ‘dying alone’ thing is just not a fear I have. I love my alone time. My ideal death would be alone, in my favorite chair, just after finishing a wonderful book. I mean, 41 isn’t really old, but I’ve just had plenty of time to realize I’m not immortal, death is gonna happen. If I’m alone, that’s coo.

      • Miss Jupitero says:

        According to my neighbor who works in hospice, most people when they are close to death crave solitude and peace and do not want relatives constantly at their side. Death is easier if you don’t have to worry about comforting those you will leave behind. Seriously people wrong their hands about the prospect of dying alone, but when the time comes, it may be exactly what you want.

      • isabelle says:

        I was a nurse in the past and worked in Hospice. Saw several times patients tell their families to go away to rest, sleep, eat whatever and then to die as soon as they left. A lot of people don’t want their families members see them actually pass away and will purposely send them away. Honestly if I had kids can’t imagine wanting them to be there the moment I would pass. Think its a picture I would never want them to keep in their mind.

  39. jwoolman says:

    Geez, Ann. Get a cat.

  40. Rocket says:

    I’ve never taken a good look at her pics when she’s sans makeup. Yikes, she looks really ill and depressed (not to make light of people with this mental condition). She looks really awful.

  41. Mina says:

    Honestly I know next to nothing about Ann Coulter, but it was clear her first tweet was sarcastic and I found it funny so many people were genuinely consoling her and telling her it’s not too late.

  42. HeyThere! says:

    I am soooo late on this. Ugh. I will say that I didn’t know anything about anything tax related, or government program related, until college. High school didn’t teach me anything about social issues. Cycle of poverty, socioeconomic status, lack of availability to quality education, myths about ‘welfare queens’, etc., were all words I had never heard of in my LIFE. I have a degree in sociology and took many poverty classes. It truly opened my eyes and I am grateful for my experiences. Do not get me started on the stigma of the homeless population. I can tell you nobody chooses to be poor. Nobody wants that life. Nobody wants to be on government assistance for fun. Nobody has a baby for the 2k tax break(seriously that is laughable as I have two babies and that is pennies to what we spend).It just isn’t realistic. There is someone on here I will say, ENOUGH ALREADY, thank you for every word you typed. Every time I read what you wrote I said ‘YES’!

  43. HK9 says:

    Ann Coulter putting her PhD in Bitter Bitch to work once again….

  44. InsertNameHere says:

    Those of us in Canada who are under a certain income level get the Canada Child Benefit. Do some use this as a baby-profit scheme? Yes. There are those of us who find it hideously expensive to live in Canada, and appreciate the money.
    But, we also have free healthcare and no one really understands the republican ideal of “fuck you, pay for yourself, or die needlessly.”

    • HK9 says:

      One thing I think should be clarified is that our ‘free’ healthcare (which I love) is paid for through everyone’s payroll taxes. So, we do pay for it, we just don’t mind doing it. As a singleton, everyone thinks I’m rolling in dough, but living in Toronto isn’t cheap and I don’t get the family “discounts” that my friends who are married with children get. However, I’m fine with that because it’s those kids taxes that will partially contribute to my old age home so I figure we’re even.

  45. Veronica says:

    She’ll die lonely and alone because she’s an awful person, not because she’s single. I’m single. I don’t consider my life lonely and meaningless.

    I’m going to be really blunt here – I don’t mind paying taxes to subsidize families. That is literally the purpose of a society. That is why human beings formed civilization. We needed a way to take care of our vulnerable young, which in turn allowed for cooperative development as a community. If my tax dollars were actually being used for the care and maintenance of PEOPLE, I wouldn’t mind so much, and in the grand scheme of things, the actual money those families receive is a modicum of what the U.S. government spends elsewhere. It’s what it’s actually used for that infuriates me (military financing, corporate subsidies, etc).

    A minor tax break will not fix the income disparity in the United States. That’s an issue of debt-to-income ratio and wage stagnation. The new tax bill gives minuscule boosts to middle class individuals like me while simultaneously undermining that income gain by removing the tax deduction for loan interest. (They removed the taxation of tuition forgiveness that would have gutted academia, but millenials will feel the brunt of the increased tax burden on their loan interest.) This bill does nothing to address any of those issues. They aren’t addressing the cost of living, realty, and college expenses that are killing the middle class, much less the working and poverty class. They don’t address the fact that business gains from the corporate cuts will not be funneled into wages but rather into business expenditures and investors. Their choice to remove offshore tax rates will increase the rate at which jobs will leave the country and be relocated elsewhere, effectively losing both potential workforce positions AND the money that these large companies would otherwise invest in American infrastructure. It’s a garbage bill that essentially fills the coffers of corporations and the wealthy while simultaneously f*cking the millenial generation over further and increasing our debt burden.

  46. DUH says:

    You people do realize there are declining birth rates in the United States right? What better incentive to help and encourage procreation than a tax credit. Who else is going to wipe all your asses when you are old and can’t do it on your own. The US government isn’t giving out tax credits willy nilly from the goodness of their hearts, there’s practical reasons behind their moves.

  47. Sylvia says:

    We could stop supporting families and children and watch our already shaky economy start to collapse, and end up something lIke Venezuela where hunger is rampant and kids are dying of malnutrition.

    I shouldn’t be, but I am always shocked at just how many selfish, greedy, stupid, self-righteous morons there are who think they understand but clearly have no idea the cost and what it takes to have a healthy functioning society. NO ONE makes it through life entirely on their own dime and time. Not a single person, whether they have kids or not.

  48. AV says:

    People need to learn more about doing taxes.

  49. raincoaster says:

    It’s not wrong to wish Ann Coulter a sad and empty life of quiet desperation and a death abandoned by all who ever mattered to her.