Should people without kids pay more in Taxes?

[Unkotare]

Certainly, as lon as the married couple can afford to house, clothe, feed, and educate those children. Otherwise, their children become a burden on society, expecting everyone else to sacrifice in ways the parents are unwilling to sacrifice.

And if those parents devote the very considerable resources of many sort to raising productive citizens, it's not so outrageous to give them a break on the already burdensome taxes we find imposed upon us, right?

I think it is. We really need to understand that giving people a break on their taxes provided they agree to some behavior that the state deems 'beneficial' is fundamentally no different than fining those who refuse.

So, paying police officers and fire fighters is fundamentally no different than fining those who refuse to become police officers and fire fighters?

 

[Unkotare]

If you can't afford kids without stealing from people who don't have kids then maybe you shouldn't have kids in the first place.

See, here is where that argument fails. Regardless if a couple can afford a child or not, the childless REQUIRE children to care for them in their old age. The childless require the children to become taxpayers to fund the childless's Social Security

I do not require children to care for me in my old age. I will have enough money to maintain my own home and can hire people if needs be to tend to me. Or I can simply choose to end my life. No children needed..

So, if any unforeseen financial disaster befalls you, you'll just jump off a bridge or something? Do you really think that's the best possible approach? Do you really think it would be wise national policy to advocate that as the only option for American citizens? Have you really gotten into the bathtub gin again, or are you really this stupid?

 

[Ame®icano]

For those of you who support tax breaks for having kids, would you likewise support fining people who refused? We could call it a 'generational shared responsibility payment'.

They're already fined by paying higher taxes and thats what we're discussing here.

 

[RKMBrown]

And if those parents devote the very considerable resources of many sort to raising productive citizens, it's not so outrageous to give them a break on the already burdensome taxes we find imposed upon us, right?

I think it is. We really need to understand that giving people a break on their taxes provided they agree to some behavior that the state deems 'beneficial' is fundamentally no different than fining those who refuse.

So, paying police officers and fire fighters is fundamentally no different than fining those who refuse to become police officers and fire fighters?

ROFL retard thinks paying a police office a fair wage for a days work, is the same as paying someone to pick their nose, have sex, and raise kids.

 

[Unkotare]

I am not planning on any SS money and I have implemented a plan that purposely left SS out of the mix so no I won't need it. If you do then you failed to plan properly.

And anyone who did not plan properly should be euthanized? Is that the conclusion to draw from you comments thus far?

 

[emilynghiem]

I am not planning on any SS money and I have implemented a plan that purposely left SS out of the mix so no I won't need it. If you do then you failed to plan properly.

And anyone who did not plan properly should be euthanized? Is that the conclusion to draw from you comments thus far?

Not euthanized but we could require microlending and business planning and training, to pay back loans, for anyone who takes loans from govt above what they pay in (ie not counting getting their own money back), instead of handouts for either social or corporate welfare that aren't paid back. By holding people accountable, this prevents passing costs of losses or debts to others who didn't incur greater costs on the public than they contributed.

If we put basic requirements on privileges of citizenship, such as learning the laws and the costs of breaking these (from legal costs, prosecution, incarceration etc) where citizens agree to be legally and financially responsible for following laws or else pay for the costs of consequences, this could help reduce crime and costs to society, taxpayers and victims.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I don't know why anyone should support my children with their hard earned money and I also dont know why I have to support support everyone else's needs.

Would you look at a tax break for you as having someone else support your children?

I'd say so. Im getting a break but yet I'm subsidizing someone else's welfare.

 

[Unkotare]

Same thing with someone nursing an expensive addiction. They have higher expenses than you do, thus have less profit. So they should pay less in taxes, right?

What absolutely essential benefit do they provide to society by being addicts?

 

[Unkotare]

I don't know why anyone should support my children with their hard earned money and I also dont know why I have to support support everyone else's needs.

Would you look at a tax break for you as having someone else support your children?

Therein lies the bait and switch employed by the socialists/marxists. It's a tax break it's not taking money from peter to pay paul.. oh no it's a tax incentive to help paul raise wonderful little children. Peter? Oh don't worry about him he's just some evil rich guy.

So, you're against lowering anyone's taxes? Are you some hard-core socialist?

 

[Unkotare]

For those of you who support tax breaks for having kids, would you likewise support fining people who refused? We could call it a 'generational shared responsibility payment'.

They're already fined by paying higher taxes and thats what we're discussing here.

So, you're one of those liberals who cries that "they're giving our money to the rich!" whenever lower taxes are proposed?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

This was the bullshit question on Fox News this morning. The "me me me" crowd was making the point that single people shouldnt have to pay "more" in taxes than people without kids. Because people with kids receive more tax breaks than those without Fox News says that that isnt fair. They say that single people are treated unfairly because they contribute to the success of the next generation. THE HORROR!

I say its bullshit. If we live in a society we all pitch in to things that we dont get to use or benefit from personally and or directly. Stop being a stingy callous ****

The real problem is the Sixteenth Amendment itself . . . but then that's lefty's stuff, isn't it?

No one should be paying income taxes to the Federal at all, and it's really too bad that the Framers didn't prohibit the Constitution from being amended to allow the federal government to do it. BTW, such a proviso was proposed and discussed at the constitutional convention.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Because we are paying taxes on our NET, not our GROSS and people with more children have less of a profit left over to tax than people with no children.....

they aren't paying less than you on their and your NET income...they are paying the exact same as you on their NET income as you would pay if you had the same NET income.....

This is why it is downright silly for anyone to compare what the poorest or lower 50% pay in federal income taxes compared to those in the top 10% of the earners because NO ONE, not even the top 10% is being taxed on their GROSS.....we are taxed on our NET income which is considered our PROFIT...just like a business's profit, just like YOUR business's profit, is what is taxed, NOT your total revenues or GROSS.

so what all these charts are showing us is that those in the upper 10% are much more PROFITABLE with their gross incomes than those at the bottom, with their measly incomes...

YOU, the individual, PAY INCOME TAXES on your supposed PROFIT,

NOT on your GROSS, Just like businesses pay taxes on their PROFIT, on their NET income.

the top 10% paying more and more of the percentage of the federal income taxes just shows that they are doing really well and accumulating more and more wealth, (yes, profit is wealth), while the bottom 50% are not.

We do not pay taxes on out net.

If we did then we should be able to deduct utility bills etc.

And profit is not wealth. Net worth is wealth.

Using your example if I make a million a year and spend a million a year then my net is 0.

And we should be able to deduct utility bills directly, the congress just hasn't been as generous with us as they have been with business deductions...

The gvt can NOT tax us on our gross incomes, and YOU have not been taxed on your Gross income....ever! we need a lot more deductions to achieve us being taxed only on our gross profit such as businesses, but we are not taxed on our gross income and haven't been.... taxes are on what is called adjusted gross income....

The gvt gives all of us individuals, 'X' minimal amount as a deduction for our basic, minimal, ''expenses'', INCLUDING our yearly utility costs, through the standard deduction of $5800 each.... this modest standard deduction for our minimal basic expenses is not enough to cover minimal expenses...those using the short form are probably being taxed on more than their gross profit too....

What we need is a lower tax rate with no deductions where every dollar earned is treated exactly as every other dollar earned regardless of who earns it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And if those parents devote the very considerable resources of many sort to raising productive citizens, it's not so outrageous to give them a break on the already burdensome taxes we find imposed upon us, right?

If you can't afford kids without stealing from people who don't have kids then maybe you shouldn't have kids in the first place.

If you can't contribute, in one way or another, to maintaining and perpetuating society maybe you should live alone on a deserted island.

I do contribute and I contribute more than a leech like you does because even though I use less government services I pay more in taxes to subsidize your life style choice of having kids you can't afford.

 

[Skull Pilot]

See, here is where that argument fails. Regardless if a couple can afford a child or not, the childless REQUIRE children to care for them in their old age. The childless require the children to become taxpayers to fund the childless's Social Security

I do not require children to care for me in my old age. I will have enough money to maintain my own home and can hire people if needs be to tend to me. Or I can simply choose to end my life. No children needed..

So, if any unforeseen financial disaster befalls you, you'll just jump off a bridge or something?

There's this new fangled thing called insurance that you should look into

Do you really think that's the best possible approach? Do you really think it would be wise national policy to advocate that as the only option for American citizens? Have you really gotten into the bathtub gin again, or are you really this stupid?

Of course this has nothing to do with other people subsidizing your kids now does it?

 

[Unkotare]

I think it is. We really need to understand that giving people a break on their taxes provided they agree to some behavior that the state deems 'beneficial' is fundamentally no different than fining those who refuse.

So, paying police officers and fire fighters is fundamentally no different than fining those who refuse to become police officers and fire fighters?

ROFL retard thinks paying a police office a fair wage for a days work, is the same as paying someone to pick their nose, have sex, and raise kids.

Police officers don't have to pay for their own guns, vehicles, and training do they? Parents pay for all the 'equipment' and education that goes along with a 24/7 job without which society absolutely could not continue. No hourly wage for being a responsible parent either, despite the fact that the work is utterly indispensable. But that's cool; normal parents love their children and despite the exhaustion love the job. God, in his wisdom has given us an impulse and desire to make and care for the young, just as he has instill in the best of us an impulse to protect and serve those weaker and/or in danger. From such quality human material do we find the best police officers and fire fighters.




...and then we pay them for their indispensable work...

 

[Skull Pilot]

I am not planning on any SS money and I have implemented a plan that purposely left SS out of the mix so no I won't need it. If you do then you failed to plan properly.

And anyone who did not plan properly should be euthanized? Is that the conclusion to draw from you comments thus far?

Stop editing quotes and it's not as easy to take things out of context.

 

[Unkotare]

I am not planning on any SS money and I have implemented a plan that purposely left SS out of the mix so no I won't need it. If you do then you failed to plan properly.

And anyone who did not plan properly should be euthanized? Is that the conclusion to draw from you comments thus far?

Not euthanized but we could require microlending and business planning and training, to pay back loans, for anyone who takes loans from govt above what they pay in (ie not counting getting their own money back), instead of handouts for either social or corporate welfare that aren't paid back. By holding people accountable, this prevents passing costs of losses or debts to others who didn't incur greater costs on the public than they contributed.

If we put basic requirements on privileges of citizenship, such as learning the laws and the costs of breaking these (from legal costs, prosecution, incarceration etc) where citizens agree to be legally and financially responsible for following laws or else pay for the costs of consequences, this could help reduce crime and costs to society, taxpayers and victims.

People are already responsible for knowing and adhering to the law.

 

[dblack]

And if those parents devote the very considerable resources of many sort to raising productive citizens, it's not so outrageous to give them a break on the already burdensome taxes we find imposed upon us, right?

I think it is. We really need to understand that giving people a break on their taxes provided they agree to some behavior that the state deems 'beneficial' is fundamentally no different than fining those who refuse.

So, paying police officers and fire fighters is fundamentally no different than fining those who refuse to become police officers and fire fighters?

If we paid police officers and fire fighters with tax deductions, rather than wages salaries, it would be the same, yes. But why would we pay them in such an obscure fashion? Indeed, why do we choose to pay parents via the tax code, rather than just cutting them a check?

I suspect that the obscurity is the point. If we did pay parents directly for raising children, it would raise all kinds of uncomfortable questions about the proper role of government. That's really what this is all about anyway, despite all the bickering about who's paying for who.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

If you can't afford kids without stealing from people who don't have kids then maybe you shouldn't have kids in the first place.

If you can't contribute, in one way or another, to maintaining and perpetuating society maybe you should live alone on a deserted island.

I do contribute and I contribute more than a leech like you does because even though I use less government services I pay more in taxes to subsidize your life style choice of having kids you can't afford.

What we need is a Twenty-Eighth Amendment that abolishes the Sixteenth Amendment.

 

[Unkotare]

If you can't afford kids without stealing from people who don't have kids then maybe you shouldn't have kids in the first place.

If you can't contribute, in one way or another, to maintaining and perpetuating society maybe you should live alone on a deserted island.

I do contribute

You pay taxes like everyone else? Great. And how are you contributing to the perpetuation of society/the country/the Unum?