Should people without kids pay more in Taxes?

[DiamondDave]

Childless people in particular will depend on future taxpayers to support them in their dotage. Why do you want people who shirk the most basic responsibility of our species to get a free ride?

But then the young will say "hey I'm not old so why should I pay for that old ****" then someone will remind them they live in a community...

Except for the over 40% who get more back in taxes then they pay in - they are exempt from "community" - right?

As stated SO many times.. with these community or collectivst morons.. it is about screaming for equality when it suits their cause... and demanding the inequality in treatment of others, when it suits their cause... hypocrisy at its finest... they scream community, but what it comes down to is power over those they wish to vilify, and pure unadulterated greed.. .wanting someone else to pay, or a slice of what someone else has

 

[The Professor]

I believe in shared suffering; therefore, I propose an equitable distribution of children.

Joking !!!.

 

[g5000]

So if I don't have anything to do with your kids, and I certainly didn't tell you to have kids, why is it my responsibility to pay extra

Do you consider it a benefit to society for married couples to have children?

There are a lot of people on this board who would benefit society if they never bred.

 

[g5000]

Parents with kids also give more back to society. Children are our most valuable resource.

Gosh. It is just amazing that people had children for millenia before we gave them gifts for doing so! I wonder why they did that?

Our birth rate has actually declined since we started giving out cash and prizes for having kids.

 

[DiamondDave]

So if I don't have anything to do with your kids, and I certainly didn't tell you to have kids, why is it my responsibility to pay extra

Do you consider it a benefit to society for married couples to have children?

There are a lot of people on this board who would benefit society if they never bred.

The OP is a prime example

 

[g5000]

Baby bust: U.S. births at record low

It marked the fifth year in a row the U.S. birth rate has declined, and the lowest rate on record since the government started tracking the fertility rate in 1909.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Childless people in particular will depend on future taxpayers to support them in their dotage. Why do you want people who shirk the most basic responsibility of our species to get a free ride?

But then the young will say "hey I'm not old so why should I pay for that old ****" then someone will remind them they live in a community...

Except for the over 40% who get more back in taxes then they pay in - they are exempt from "community" - right?

No but this isnt a dick measuring contest. Who are these 40%? Are you speaking just income taxes?

 

[g5000]

I have never heard of anyone having kids to get a tax break.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Maybe, instead of just complaining about parents.. you should maybe complain about those who have no career gumption and pay nothing in income tax on their earnings of a lower level... maybe you should complain about those who deduct medical expenses or COLLEGE expenses

Flat tax.. no deductions.. no exceptions.. no ceiling.. no floor.. no exemption... for every single dollar earned by every citizen
THERE is your solution

You know why that doesnt work? Because it has never worked anywhere ever.

Except that it has and currently does in several countries, dipshit, you're just an ignoramus who's proud of it.

 

[emilynghiem]

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 ****

This is all a distraction from where the waste of our taxes is really going.

If people commit crimes or abuses, whether individual crimes against people property or principles or corporate corruption and illicit contracts or grants at taxpayers' expense,
THOSE people should pay it back and/or credit the taxpayers so we can invest those "credits" to cover all these other costs we are fighting about.

Quit pushing the cost on the people who DIDN'T commit these crimes or abuses,
and QUIT inciting the "rich vs the poor" to squabble over who is more to blame.

In the days of slavery, this same tactic was used to divide field slaves from house slaves,
distract and divided them with hostility and jealousy to keep them fighting over who got more favors from the masters, while they stayed enslaved.

Today we are falling for the same strategy, but not just by race, by class and party.

Now the WHOLE Democrat party is painted as enabling poor blacks to live off welfare while the WHOLE Republican party is painted as enabling greedy rich people as living off corporate welfare.

I don't see EITHER party going after the actual WRONGDOERS who commit crime, fraud and corruption and getting us paid back, or replacing welfare with microloans, where we hold land as collateral until we are paid back.

The slams back and forth between the party of the rich and the party of the poor
keep us divided by class mentality and stuck in shackles.

If we were smart, we'd form teams, and go after all these cases of corporate corruption that Green and Progressive and Conservative watch groups expose. And collect back on all these debts and damages. Not argue which victims are paying more or less for it.

As long as the wrongdoers are not held accountable for paying it back, we ALL pay for it.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

You are the "me me me" crowd, dumb ass.

Stop being a stingy callous ****

And you can start with yourself.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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 problem is not everyone is pitching in. Over 40 percent takes but doesn't give back.

Is that 40% thriving?

Probably not but that's not relevant. "If we live in a society we all pitch in to things that we don't get to use or benefit from personally and or directly"

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

No but this isnt a dick measuring contest.

Obviously, we'd need a microscope and a pair of tweezers to see yours.

 

[g5000]

If we banned ALL tax expenditures, ALL of them, we could lower everyone's tax rates.

Everyone's.

So look at such a ban as a permanent tax break for everyone instead of this willy nilly special interest group tax break crap we have now.

You can also look at it as everyone having to pay higher taxes because some people want special gifts from the government. No fricking different than a fricking ObamaPhone or food stamps in that respect.

Not. One. Difference.

 

[Againsheila]

You're right as people that have kids use more of societies resources....They should pay more.

Fox is full of shit.

Yeah, but it's their kids that will prop up the social security that those single people will be collecting in their old age.

 

[DiamondDave]

I have never heard of anyone having kids to get a tax break.

But you do hear of them having kids for welfare, food stamps, etc.... for getting something from government or 'community' without paying for it.... so it is the same as a tax break (which they get as well, if they actually earn income while getting their freebies)

 

[GHook93]

You're right as people that have kids use more of societies resources....They should pay more.

Fox is full of shit.

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 ****

You liberals are amazing! I thought it was about paying your fair share! Single people with no kids have 1000 fold less costs, hence they become "richer" off the same or even less income than people with kids. Yet you think it a crime to confiscate their money or treat them different, because they have more money.

Liberal hypocrisy at work!

 

[g5000]

Let's say a stretch of road in front of two houses represents the entire tax burden for those two houses. And let's say that tax burden is $5000. Furthermore, House A has a total income of $50,000 and House B has a total income of $50,000.

Common sense dictates each house would pay $2500 in taxes. That works out to a 5 percent tax rate.

But noooooo...not in 'Merka!

House A is mortgaged, while House B is rented. House A therefore gets a $500 discount from their taxes.

House A also has a couple of kids. Therefore, House A gets another $500 discount from their taxes.

Total tax burden for House A is therefore $1500 instead of their fair share of $2500.

House B will now have to cough up $3500 if the budget is to be balanced. That means their tax has to be raised to 7 percent from the original 5 percent.

This is how your deductions are equal to an ObamaPhone or food stamps. They have to be paid for by other taxpayers. In fact, your deductions, exemptions, and credits are far, far greater than the cost of food stamps or ObamaPhones.

House A and House B earn identical incomes, but one is paying $1500 in taxes while the other is paying $3500. This is beyond outrageous.

What's more, House B refuses to pay 7 percent in taxes. All the House B's of America revolt. As a result, the government only charges them 6 percent (still higher than the original 5 percent) and then borrows the rest from the Fed and China and a bunch of other countries.

And that is how we got $17 trillion in debt. Your deductions, credits, and exemptions which add up to $1.2 trillion a year. Seriously. That is not an exaggeration. Tax expenditures add up to $1.2 trillion a year.

Now go and look at what the federal deficit has been each year.

 

[g5000]

Continuing my allegory, if the government banned all tax expenditures, House A would see its taxes rise from $1500 to $2500. But House B would see their taxes drop from $3500 to $2500.

Identical incomes would be paying identical taxes, but House A would be screaming like a welfare queen, wouldn't they?

That is what you hear whenever tax expenditures come up for discussion. The screaming of welfare queens who are not aware they are welfare queens. They have no clue what a gigantic burden they are to everyone else. They actually convince themselves they are a benefit to society! A blessing!

 

[ClosedCaption]

Maybe, instead of just complaining about parents.. you should maybe complain about those who have no career gumption and pay nothing in income tax on their earnings of a lower level... maybe you should complain about those who deduct medical expenses or COLLEGE expenses

Flat tax.. no deductions.. no exceptions.. no ceiling.. no floor.. no exemption... for every single dollar earned by every citizen
THERE is your solution

You know why that doesnt work? Because it has never worked anywhere ever.

Except that it has and currently does in several countries, dipshit, you're just an ignoramus who's proud of it.

Where? Dumbledoor?