Should people without kids pay more in Taxes?

[Unkotare]

Somehow, those of us who have been more responsible ....

"more responsible"? I suppose you have some really, really stupid explanation for what you mean by that?

It means they didn't have babies they couldn't afford.

I haven't seen any one posting on this thread mention "babies they couldn't afford."

 

[Unkotare]

Oohh attacking sexual performance.

Who said anything about sexual performance? I mean, other than you?

We all know you're asn insecure little wannabe samurai with an itty bitty sword who needs to feel tough on the internet...

You really need to find another website to work out whatever 'unusual' fetish you might be referring to. This is not the place, and no one wants to hear it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Who said anything about sexual performance? I mean, other than you?

We all know you're asn insecure little wannabe samurai with an itty bitty sword who needs to feel tough on the internet...

You really need to find another website to work out whatever 'unusual' fetish you might be referring to. This is not the place, and no one wants to hear it.

Take your own advice for once and beat it.

 

[Unkotare]

We all know you're asn insecure little wannabe samurai with an itty bitty sword who needs to feel tough on the internet...

You really need to find another website to work out whatever 'unusual' fetish you might be referring to. This is not the place, and no one wants to hear it.

Take your own advice for once and beat it.

You're the one with the strange fetish, bunker boy. Go work it out somewhere else and stop trolling this thread.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

If I can take a deduction for buying and using my computer for work and you can't, have I then made you "pay more"?

This isn't at all the same. -

Yes or no, please.

No, you are not forcing me to pay more, because you are simply deducting something upon which you should never have been taxed as it was required for you to achieve the income that -is- being taxed.

No, is the answer.

When you get extra breaks for having a children, then you -are- forcing me to pay more. Why? The child is not a function of your income, it is something on which you -choose- to spend your income.

So, in summation, no on the computer, yes on the kid. Get it?

I'm curious to see how you'll selectively quote me to reshape my argument into something you can shit on.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Are you one of those lefties who considers an across-the-board tax cut to be "giving money to the rich" or "stealing" from those who pay nothing in income tax anyway? You one of those nuts?

Not at all. Taking less of someone's shit doesn't necessarily constitute giving them anything..

Then what's all the "don't take my money to raise your kids!" bullshit on this thread?

It is my response to the ******* thread title. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

On top of that, there's a shitload of people out there with multiple children who make little enough to qualify for EIC and get back more than they paid out in the first place. These people are straight being -paid- to have children.

So yes, to a large extent, my shit is being taken to help facilitate other peoples' cubs. I don't appreciate it. In fact, to anybody who only wants to have kids to help society, and thus feels that their having children indebts me to them: Don't do it! I don't consider the bill worth your effort. Not at all. I'm willing to rest on the assumption that the people willing to **** for free will shit out enough youngins to keep the human race chugging along just fine

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

But it's not about them paying more, it's about people who incur a very large expense that serves an invaluable function in society having a little LESS taken from them.

Which is tantamount to social engineering, and the government incentivizing people to have kids. I am against that no matter who, or how, they help.

Eliminate all deductions, every last one of them. We can keep a progressive tax structure, just without the deductions.

So in other words, you would begrudge those who bear the very high cost of doing something without with society itself could not continue to exist, the great 'gift' of stealing a little less money from them? You one of those 'big government' liberals?

Your obvious flaw here is that you can only envision this within the framework of the current statist system.

I agree with you that a lot of government spending is targeted to benefit certain people and not others, and I agree that it's bullshit. Lots of government spending is bullshit, and on a moral level, I view some of it as outright theft. This spending should stop.

That concept, however, is separate from the one we're discussing. Whether the spending is right wrong or indifferent, we're all required to pitch our taxes in on it. Just because someone else had kids, no, I don't think they should get an extra benefit -ABOVE AND BEYOND- someone who didn't.

It's not that I don't think parents should have less of their shit stolen by the government. I believe -everyone- should have less of their shit stolen by the government.

What I don't believe is that parents, in particular, should get a special consideration where this is concerned.

I also don't believe that you'll respond in a manner that says that you understand what I'm saying.

 

[Unkotare]

This isn't at all the same. -

Yes or no, please.

No, you are not forcing me to pay more

No one's talking about forcing you to pay more.

 

[Unkotare]

When you get extra breaks for having a children, then you -are- forcing me to pay more. .

No I'm not. The government can make do with less than they are wasting now. Of course you liberals would never think of that.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You really need to find another website to work out whatever 'unusual' fetish you might be referring to. This is not the place, and no one wants to hear it.

Take your own advice for once and beat it.

You're the one with the strange fetish, bunker boy. Go work it out somewhere else and stop trolling this thread.

I am not responsible for your inferences.

If your mind is your sword yours is indeed a small one.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Yes or no, please.

No, you are not forcing me to pay more

No one's talking about forcing you to pay more.

What the **** are you talking about? Your EXACT question, to which that was the yes or no response, was, "If I can take a deduction for buying and using my computer for work and you can't, have I then made you "pay more"?"

Sorry, you didn't actually say, "have I then -forced- you to "pay more"?". You only said "made you", not "forced you". That said, you do realize that both of those wordings mean essentially the exact same ******* thing, yes?

Not only are you misrepresenting what I say, you're flat out bullshitting about what -you- just said! How the **** does one debate with someone who pretends the entire conversation is other than what it is?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

When you get extra breaks for having a children, then you -are- forcing me to pay more. .

No I'm not. The government can make do with less than they are wasting now. Of course you liberals would never think of that.

I love that you don't even read my posts. I agree that the government is wasteful.

I don't agree that parents should get breaks above and beyond what non parents get, but I do believe that -everyone- should have less shit stolen by the government.

If I say it that early in the post, will you read it before you just assume that I believe otherwise?

 

[Care4all]

Which is tantamount to social engineering, and the government incentivizing people to have kids. I am against that no matter who, or how, they help.

Eliminate all deductions, every last one of them. We can keep a progressive tax structure, just without the deductions.

So in other words, you would begrudge those who bear the very high cost of doing something without with society itself could not continue to exist, the great 'gift' of stealing a little less money from them? You one of those 'big government' liberals?

Your obvious flaw here is that you can only envision this within the framework of the current statist system.

I agree with you that a lot of government spending is targeted to benefit certain people and not others, and I agree that it's bullshit. Lots of government spending is bullshit, and on a moral level, I view some of it as outright theft. This spending should stop.

That concept, however, is separate from the one we're discussing. Whether the spending is right wrong or indifferent, we're all required to pitch our taxes in on it. Just because someone else had kids, no, I don't think they should get an extra benefit -ABOVE AND BEYOND- someone who didn't.

It's not that I don't think parents should have less of their shit stolen by the government. I believe -everyone- should have less of their shit stolen by the government.

What I don't believe is that parents, in particular, should get a special consideration where this is concerned.

I also don't believe that you'll respond in a manner that says that you understand what I'm saying.

I understand what you are saying, but I'd like to know the "why", or your "reasoning" on this stance of yours:

What I don't believe is that parents, in particular, should get a special consideration where this is concerned.

First let me say that my husband and I were never blessed with children and never will be able to have any...but I am in favor of letting families use the measly amount of Standard deduction and personal exemptions for every person that lives in the household, whether it be a mom and dad and child or a mom and 2 children and grandmom, for the government to not tax us on our necessities....the same thing is done in states, not just with standard deductions from our incomes, but even with sales taxes....many states if not all states will not tax food from the grocery store, or female menstrual sanitary products, or other necessities.....

To me, this is only HUMANE and logical that our government should NOT be allowed to tax us on the money needed to pay for a basic amount of these basic things that human beings need to just survive....

If you chose to house and feed another human being, whether it be a wife, a husband, a child or a foster child or a grandmom or grand dad or a nephew you took in etc....our government should NOT EVER tax us on the minimal amount it takes to keep these human beings alive.....

It's a 'no brainer', to me and to most human beings.

There are so many deductions that seem unfair with our tax code and are downright wrong, but THIS? THIS is NOT one of them....

Just think about it Not2Be.....

And we may need a big overhaul of our total tax structure, State, Local, Corporate, Excise, and Federal...but knit picking and taking away the ability to NOT BE TAXED ON things that are necessary to keep us humans alive, is simply wrong.

Care

 

[RKMBrown]

Good, then keep your deviant fantasies to yourself, freak.

Look the flaccid lying piece of shit coward is misquoting me again. Stop changing my posts ass hole.

No means no. Move on already. This begging is just making you look desperate. Not gonna happen, freak-o. Look elsewhere.

Unkotare - "Japanese. Roughly translated as dripping poop. This word is used to describe a pornographic genre commonly known as Scat."

 

[Unkotare]

No, you are not forcing me to pay more

No one's talking about forcing you to pay more.

What the **** are you talking about? Your EXACT question, to which that was the yes or no response, was, "If I can take a deduction for buying and using my computer for work and you can't, have I then made you "pay more"?"

To illustrate a point, since the answer is obviously "no." Just how stupid are you?

 

[Unkotare]

Look the flaccid lying piece of shit coward is misquoting me again. Stop changing my posts ass hole.

No means no. Move on already. This begging is just making you look desperate. Not gonna happen, freak-o. Look elsewhere.

Unkotare - "Japanese. Roughly translated as dripping poop. This word is used to describe a pornographic genre commonly known as Scat."

Ah, another Google scholar Sorry, champ, but the term as used is a colloquialism that you won't find in your googly ignorance. You boys are really getting desperate now.

 

[Unkotare]

I agree that the government is wasteful.

Great, then the government can steal a little less from parents and not make up the difference on the backs of those who are not contributing to the next generation of citizens. Everyone's happy.

 

[Pop23]

I agree that the government is wasteful.

Great, then the government can steal a little less from parents and not make up the difference on the backs of those who are not contributing to the next generation of citizens. Everyone's happy.

Under our current political system the point is valid. Until thing change it is not easy to see the argument against it.

 

[gallantwarrior]

People are already having fewer kids. The fertility rate in this country has been falling for some time. We passed the replacement rate a while ago. Only immigration keeps us at about even for now.

Big difference between fertility rate and the number of children being engendered. You can be fertile and still CHOOSE not to spawn the next generational burden on society...

"Burden"? You've gone completely irrational.

Yes, "burden". If you force others in the community to subsidize your offspring, that makes your reproductive efforts a burden to society.

 

[gallantwarrior]

We all know you're asn insecure little wannabe samurai with an itty bitty sword who needs to feel tough on the internet...

You really need to find another website to work out whatever 'unusual' fetish you might be referring to. This is not the place, and no one wants to hear it.

Take your own advice for once and beat it.

If he'd "beat it" more often, maybe he wouldn't be here bitching about people who object to paying for his ankle-biters.