Should people without kids pay more in Taxes?

[Unkotare]

BTW, this country didn't have an income tax until 1913, so we had a flat tax. Our economy boomed all the way from the Civil War until the income tax was imposed.

Actually, the Revenue Act of 1861 was the first tax on personal income. It was repealed ten years later. A flat tax was enacted in 1894, but was ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.

I said "since the Civil War," numskull. A tariff is a flat tax. Or are you stupidly arguing that no income tax means we didn't have a "flat tax?"

You said "this country didn't have an income tax until 1913," and I corrected you because you don't seem to know much about my country's history.

 

[Grandma]

This is okay for the people who don't want kids, and choose not to have them. Bu what about the people who did want kids, but couldn't? Why should they pay more in taxes for something that wasn't their choice?

Choice isn't a consideration here, nor should it be. This thread is all about backwards thinking

THERE IS NO PLACE ON TAX FORMS THAT ASK HOW MANY CHILDREN YOU HAVE.

That's right, the tax forms have you list dependents, which can be kids, your great grandpa, your deadbeat cousin, anyone living under your roof for whom you pay more than 50% of support.

And childless couples and singles don't "pay more," they don't get as many dependent deductions.Those of you not paying to support anyone but yourselves have no idea how hard it can be to make ends meet when you have to support others.

In other words, you aren't qualified to complain about not getting undeserved breaks.

Are you kidding? Of course singles pay more because they do not get the deductions people with dependents get. The fact is that most dependent deductions are about having children, not about having an elderly parent as a dependent. People SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED FOR HAVING CHILDREN. The world is over populated as it is. People should be rewarded for not having children or for adopting orphans in need of a home.

That's the bottom line. If you choose to have biological children or to participate in the infant adoption market, you pay for them all the way: don't expect those who have no children to pay for your personal lifestyle choices. Don't punish people for not adding to the world's over population.

Okay, you've got it completely wrong.

Like I said, "DEPENDENTS" DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN CHILDREN.

And singles don't pay MORE, they pay the standard amount. People with DEPENDENTS get DEDUCTIONS. The deductions are NOT A REWARD.

Let's look at it this way: A single person, a childless couple, and a family of four all earn $50,000/year. After rent, utilities, clothes, food, and transportation costs, the single person has about $20,000 left over. The married couple has about $10,000 left over. The family of four has to rent a more expensive apartment with more bedrooms, plus school fees and lunches have to be added into the budget. At the end of the year they're $1500 in debt.

This has been the case all along, look at tax forms from back in the day. There's always been a deduction for dependents.

Now once those dependents get out of school and join the workforce, they're no longer dependents, so the parents no longer get a deduction. Plus those SINGLE kids are now doing what? PAYING TAXES AT THE SINGLE RATE!!

Look at the bright side - at age 65 EVERYONE gets a deduction. Even you guys.

I suppose the younger ones will ***** about old people getting gifties now.

How much of a tax break did Comcast and AT&T get? Just asking.

 

[Esmeralda]

Choice isn't a consideration here, nor should it be. This thread is all about backwards thinking

THERE IS NO PLACE ON TAX FORMS THAT ASK HOW MANY CHILDREN YOU HAVE.

That's right, the tax forms have you list dependents, which can be kids, your great grandpa, your deadbeat cousin, anyone living under your roof for whom you pay more than 50% of support.

And childless couples and singles don't "pay more," they don't get as many dependent deductions.Those of you not paying to support anyone but yourselves have no idea how hard it can be to make ends meet when you have to support others.

In other words, you aren't qualified to complain about not getting undeserved breaks.

Are you kidding? Of course singles pay more because they do not get the deductions people with dependents get. The fact is that most dependent deductions are about having children, not about having an elderly parent as a dependent. People SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED FOR HAVING CHILDREN. The world is over populated as it is. People should be rewarded for not having children or for adopting orphans in need of a home.

That's the bottom line. If you choose to have biological children or to participate in the infant adoption market, you pay for them all the way: don't expect those who have no children to pay for your personal lifestyle choices. Don't punish people for not adding to the world's over population.

Okay, you've got it completely wrong.

Like I said, "DEPENDENTS" DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN CHILDREN.

And singles don't pay MORE, they pay the standard amount. People with DEPENDENTS get DEDUCTIONS. The deductions are NOT A REWARD.

Let's look at it this way: A single person, a childless couple, and a family of four all earn $50,000/year. After rent, utilities, clothes, food, and transportation costs, the single person has about $20,000 left over. The married couple has about $10,000 left over. The family of four has to rent a more expensive apartment with more bedrooms, plus school fees and lunches have to be added into the budget. At the end of the year they're $1500 in debt.

This has been the case all along, look at tax forms from back in the day. There's always been a deduction for dependents.

Now once those dependents get out of school and join the workforce, they're no longer dependents, so the parents no longer get a deduction.

Look at the bright side - at age 65 EVERYONE gets a deduction. Even you guys.

I suppose the younger ones will ***** about old people getting gifties now.

How much of a tax break did Comcast and AT&T get? Just asking.

Singles do pay more because they don't get the deduction: it is simple math. You fill out your tax form and it says how much you pay. Then you put in your deductions, and your payment is less. It is very simple math. It's too bad a married couple has more expenses because they have children. That's their problem; it has nothing to do with this discussion. They have made the choice to have children; it is a lifestyle choice. No one should have to pay for what is an extravagant lifestyle choice. The people who get a deduction for supporting an elderly relative are one in a million. (99% of dependent deductions are for children)

 

[Grandma]

Please, don't imagine that you're making sense.

Maybe this will help those of you that don't have the slightest idea of how things work in the real world:

The government needs money to operate. They get the money in taxes. They worked out a formula to make the paying of those taxes reasonably fair and WITHIN THE FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS' BUDGETS.

Singles can afford to pay their fair share. Until all the dependents, regardless of what their relationship is to the head of the household are either employed or move away, the head of the household CAN'T afford to pay as much.

See? The government understands the graduated tax formula.

 

[Esmeralda]

Please, don't imagine that you're making sense.

Maybe this will help those of you that don't have the slightest idea of how things work in the real world:

The government needs money to operate. They get the money in taxes. They worked out a formula to make the paying of those taxes reasonably fair and WITHIN THE FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS' BUDGETS.

Singles can afford to pay their fair share. Until all the dependents, regardless of what their relationship is to the head of the household are either employed or move away, the head of the household CAN'T afford to pay as much.

See? The government understands the graduated tax formula.

LMAO You are the one not making sense. You presume it is fairer to tax people who don't have children. Period. To you it makes no sense to make people who have children pay their share because having children is so holy and natural. Singles can afford to pay their fair share? What is their fair share? Paying for other people to raise children? This discussion is about tax exemptions for having children. Saying dependents are elderly adults is a red herring. In fact, singles will have dependent parents as often as married people, so you are just throwing a red herring into the discussion. This discussion is about children as tax exemptions: and they shouldn't be. It isn't fair. Too bad the head of household can't afford to pay in taxes what he/she owes because they had children. That's not anyone's problem except their own. We should not be rewarding people who have children for having children. Don't do it or adopt an orphan who needs you. There is no excuse to bring children into an already over populated world; it isn't a holy enterprise: it is selfish and narcissistic.

 

[Unkotare]

Singles do pay more because they don't get the deduction:

This sounds like the lefties who cry about the "rich being given our money!" because some people can afford accountants, and the graduated income tax doesn't punish the 'rich' as much as they'd like.

 

[Unkotare]

There is no excuse to bring children into an already over populated world; it isn't a holy enterprise: it is selfish and narcissistic.

Perpetuating the species and developing the next generation of productive citizens that will support your unworthy ass in your dotage is not "selfish and narcissistic."

And, THE WORLD IS NOT OVERPOPULATED. Stop lying about that for dramatic effect.

 

[Politico]

Singles do pay more. Epic fail though troll.

 

[Unkotare]

We should not be rewarding people who have children for having children.

We most certainly should. Do you think we shouldn't pay the men and women who serve in our military? Should all police and fire fighters be unpaid? You are feeble-minded.

 

[Geaux4it]

This sums up the way the losers who voted for Obama feel

-Geaux

 

[Politico]

We should not be rewarding people who have children for having children.

We most certainly should. Do you think we shouldn't pay the men and women who serve in our military? Should all police and fire fighters be unpaid? You are feeble-minded.

No we most certainly shouldn't troll.

 

[Unkotare]

We should not be rewarding people who have children for having children.

We most certainly should. Do you think we shouldn't pay the men and women who serve in our military? Should all police and fire fighters be unpaid? You are feeble-minded.

No we mos certainly shouldn't...

So you think we shouldn't pay the men and women who serve in our military? All police and fire fighters be unpaid? Really?

 

[zeke]

A hedge fund manager making a few hundred million a year in personal income takes advantage of the lobbying efforts they he helped pay for and pays income tax at 15% (capital gains rate.)
And not one right winger I have ever heard has a problem with that.

But let a middle class family with kids get a deduction that families without kids don't get and all of a sudden that's a problem.

If it wasn't so stupid, it would be funny.

How about this idea, if you make over 10 million a year, you get no deductions for anything and pay income tax at at least a 25% rate. Also, no mortgage interest write off for multi millionaires.

You all do understand that if I borrow 1 million dollars to buy a house, I get a much better interest write off than the person spending 75k for a house. How is that "fair"?

 

[Geaux4it]

Another fine example of everyone worrying about the Jones's.

-Geaux

 

[Unkotare]

A hedge fund manager making a few hundred million a year in personal income takes advantage of the lobbying efforts they he helped pay for and pays income tax at 15% (capital gains rate.)

You don't even realize what you just said there. Oh, but the emotion.....

 

[Unkotare]

You all do understand that if I borrow 1 million dollars to buy a house, I get a much better interest write off than the person spending 75k for a house. How is that "fair"?

Do YOU understand which of those two people has stimulated the economy more?

 

[zeke]

A hedge fund manager making a few hundred million a year in personal income takes advantage of the lobbying efforts they he helped pay for and pays income tax at 15% (capital gains rate.)

You don't even realize what you just said there. Oh, but the emotion.....

I think you have that backwards. I know what I said. You haven't a ******* clue. But that's cool. You seem to think you got it all figured out.

Here's a thought. Have a couple kids. You could get that big deduction for yourself. Instead of bitching about others getting the deduction.

******* whiners.

 

[Unkotare]

A hedge fund manager making a few hundred million a year in personal income takes advantage of the lobbying efforts they he helped pay for and pays income tax at 15% (capital gains rate.)

You don't even realize what you just said there. Oh, but the emotion.....

I think you have that backwards. I know what I said.

No, you don't, moron. Anyone who understands economics and reads your post can confirm it for you.

 

[Unkotare]

Here's a thought. Have a couple kids. You could get that big deduction for yourself. Instead of bitching about others getting the deduction.

******* whiners.

If you were't in such a hurry to be a hysterical little asshole, you wouldn't have made such a fool of yourself just now.

 

[zeke]

Here's a thought. Have a couple kids. You could get that big deduction for yourself. Instead of bitching about others getting the deduction.

******* whiners.

If you were't in such a hurry to be a hysterical little asshole, you wouldn't have made such a fool of yourself just now.

Is there a point to this thread? What is it? Is it just a ***** fest? Oh the anguish. People with kids get more tax deductions than people without. Oh the pain the pain.

Wtf is wrong with you unkotare? Were you born an asshole or did you work to get this way? And did your parents take the standard deduction for having kids?

That's what I want to know. Did YOUR parents have enough sense to claim you for a deduction?

Get on your lobbying horse instead of your high horse and change the tax laws of the country. Can you do that or do you just want to ***** on a message board?