Should people without kids pay more in Taxes?

[dblack]

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.

Exactly.

 

[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?

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?

Because someone would immediately try to unionize parenting, negotiate 'contracts' with the government that are untenable in the long run, and in very short order collapse our economy.

If you accept the comparison, there is no way that parents could be paid anything like what the work is worth. So instead, a little tax break? Better than nothing.

 

[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?

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

Answer the question, coward.

 

[dblack]

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?

Ah...Now we're getting somewhere. Is it, in your view, a Constitutional responsibility of government to provide society with absolutely essential benefits?

 

[Unkotare]

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

The ability to keep up with premiums would be implied in the mention of "disaster." Try to keep up.

 

[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?

Ah...Now we're getting somewhere. Is it, in your view, a Constitutional responsibility of government to provide society with absolutely essential benefits?

Who or whatever does it, without the benefit in question there is no more society. Turn off the lights on the way out.

 

[dblack]

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?

Because someone would immediately try to unionize parenting, negotiate 'contracts' with the government that are untenable in the long run, and in very short order collapse our economy.

If you accept the comparison, there is no way that parents could be paid anything like what the work is worth. So instead, a little tax break? Better than nothing.

It's much worse than nothing. Our government isn't in charge of reproduction, or rather shouldn't be. This style of government we're creating is a kind of stealth totalitarianism. It's antithetical to the liberal traditions of equal protection, limited government and individual liberty.

 

[Unkotare]

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?

Because someone would immediately try to unionize parenting, negotiate 'contracts' with the government that are untenable in the long run, and in very short order collapse our economy.

If you accept the comparison, there is no way that parents could be paid anything like what the work is worth. So instead, a little tax break? Better than nothing.

It's much worse than nothing. Our government isn't in charge of reproduction, or rather shouldn't be. !

Is ours a government of the people, by the people, and for the people?

 

[bripat9643]

The advantages of living in society have nothing to do with government.

That is, of course, absurd. You might have actually made a point if you had shown enough self-control to steer clear of categorical nonsense, but...

How is it "absurd? Give one example of a way I benefit from government.

 

[dblack]

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

Ah...Now we're getting somewhere. Is it, in your view, a Constitutional responsibility of government to provide society with absolutely essential benefits?

Who or whatever does it, without the benefit in question there is no more society. Turn off the lights on the way out.

I get it. This notion is 'obvious' to statists; the idea that government is responsible for all the needs of society. That is the mindset of the totalitarian.

 

[dblack]

Because someone would immediately try to unionize parenting, negotiate 'contracts' with the government that are untenable in the long run, and in very short order collapse our economy.

If you accept the comparison, there is no way that parents could be paid anything like what the work is worth. So instead, a little tax break? Better than nothing.

It's much worse than nothing. Our government isn't in charge of reproduction, or rather shouldn't be. !

Is ours a government of the people, by the people, and for the people?

Sure it is. What does that response mean to you? Why do you see it as justification for unlimited government?

 

[Unkotare]

Ah...Now we're getting somewhere. Is it, in your view, a Constitutional responsibility of government to provide society with absolutely essential benefits?

Who or whatever does it, without the benefit in question there is no more society. Turn off the lights on the way out.

I get it. This notion is 'obvious' to statists; the idea that government is responsible for all the needs of society.

Who said that? Is that what you think?

 

[Unkotare]

It's much worse than nothing. Our government isn't in charge of reproduction, or rather shouldn't be. !

Is ours a government of the people, by the people, and for the people?

Sure it is.

Ok, then what happens if there are no more "people"?

 

[dblack]

Who or whatever does it, without the benefit in question there is no more society. Turn off the lights on the way out.

I get it. This notion is 'obvious' to statists; the idea that government is responsible for all the needs of society.

Who said that? Is that what you think?

That seems to be the viewpoint you're arguing from. Do I have it wrong? I don't think the job of government is to provide us with anything. It's job is to protect our freedom to provide for ourselves.

 

[dblack]

Is ours a government of the people, by the people, and for the people?

Sure it is.

Ok, then what happens if there are no more "people"?

I don't know. How is that an argument? What is your point?

 

[Unkotare]

I get it. This notion is 'obvious' to statists; the idea that government is responsible for all the needs of society.

Who said that? Is that what you think?

That seems to be the viewpoint you're arguing from. Do I have it wrong? I don't think the job of government is to provide us with anything. It's job is to protect our freedom to provide for ourselves.

Um, that is an example of providing something. In fact, that example could be used to justify all manner of provision.


And yes, you do have it wrong.

 

[Unkotare]

Sure it is.

Ok, then what happens if there are no more "people"?

I don't know.

You don't? Are you a bot?

 

[dblack]

Who said that? Is that what you think?

That seems to be the viewpoint you're arguing from. Do I have it wrong? I don't think the job of government is to provide us with anything. It's job is to protect our freedom to provide for ourselves.

Um, that is an example of providing something. In fact, that example could be used to justify all manner of provision.


And yes, you do have it wrong.

How do I have it wrong? What is your view? It sounds to me like you think that the job of government is to provide us with whatever we need. Unfortunately, it's not a minority view these days, and that's a very dangerous place for society to be.

 

[Unkotare]

That seems to be the viewpoint you're arguing from. Do I have it wrong? I don't think the job of government is to provide us with anything. It's job is to protect our freedom to provide for ourselves.

Um, that is an example of providing something. In fact, that example could be used to justify all manner of provision.


And yes, you do have it wrong.

How do I have it wrong?

You have it wrong in that I do NOT believe "that government is responsible for all the needs of society," nor have I ever said that I so believe.

 

[dblack]

Um, that is an example of providing something. In fact, that example could be used to justify all manner of provision.


And yes, you do have it wrong.

How do I have it wrong?

You have it wrong in that I do NOT believe "that government is responsible for all the needs of society," nor have I ever said that I so believe.

Hmm.. ok, so what did you mean by citing having children as a 'absolutely essential benefit'? I thought you were using it to justify government paying parents to have kids, no? How would characterize your idea of the purpose of government? In particular, why should government be paying people to raise children?