Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-28-2016, 09:09 AM
 
2,528 posts, read 1,658,528 times
Reputation: 2612

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJJersey View Post
Enough of this fake "I'm paying for your kids" BS. The taxes raised on selling diapers alone is probably enough to pay for all of those "lucrative" few thousand dollar tax deductions given to parents each year which, by the way, simply results in the parents paying less of their own money in taxes. Plus those benefits are phased out based on income and per child. In fact, while we are on the subject, let's talk about that last point for a moment. You get a tax deduction (standard deduction) for yourself. The tax deduction for children starts phasing out once you have more than two, but you still get your full individual deduction. So, parents are the ones subsidizing your full deduction, not the other way around. Again, parents are also paying tens if not hundreds of thousands of taxable dollars into the economy each year for child-related expenses and that money helps pay for your tax deduction. So, let's all come back to earth on the economics issue here.
Good post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-28-2016, 09:16 AM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,579,129 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJJersey View Post
Enough of this fake "I'm paying for your kids" BS. The taxes raised on selling diapers alone is probably enough to pay for all of those "lucrative" few thousand dollar tax deductions given to parents each year which, by the way, simply results in the parents paying less of their own money in taxes. Plus those benefits are phased out based on income and per child. In fact, while we are on the subject, let's talk about that last point for a moment. You get a tax deduction (standard deduction) for yourself. The tax deduction for children starts phasing out once you have more than two, but you still get your full individual deduction. So, parents are the ones subsidizing your full deduction, not the other way around. Again, parents are also paying tens if not hundreds of thousands of taxable dollars into the economy each year for child-related expenses and that money helps pay for your tax deduction. So, let's all come back to earth on the economics issue here.
It's not just income tax. There are also public schools, property taxes, child care deduction... It's a laundry list. Regardless how you justify it, the fact remains taxpayers are paying some of your child care expenses.

I am an advocate of doing away with all income tax or using a flat income tax with no deduction whatsoever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2016, 09:19 AM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,579,129 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
Passing on one's genes is not the purpose of it, that is the key. It is merely how it works scientifically, but I never bought into that idea that humans or animals have kids to pass on their genes. They keep saying that about animals all the time, but animals don't even know about genes.
Maybe not your purpose but the end result or the driving force behind it is to pass your gene.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
Parents are the ones in charge of educating their kids, not you. Teachers are also in charge of teaching kids, but with your attitude I doubt you are a teacher
Correct. Parents are in charge of educating their kids so taxpayers really shouldn't be paying for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2016, 09:26 AM
 
Location: Nashville, TN
1,951 posts, read 1,637,366 times
Reputation: 1577
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
Parents are in charge of educating their kids so taxpayers really shouldn't be paying for it.
Taxes aren't a la carte.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2016, 09:30 AM
 
Location: Inland FL
2,532 posts, read 1,867,649 times
Reputation: 4234
People who voluntarily refuse to have children are selfish and disrespecting God's words. No sane person also regrets having their kids either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2016, 09:32 AM
 
2,685 posts, read 2,523,818 times
Reputation: 1856
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridarebel View Post
People who voluntarily refuse to have children are selfish and disrespecting God's words. No sane person also regrets having their kids either.
Wrong.

No children = Freedom.

No sane person expects everyone to have the exactly same values and beliefs they do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2016, 10:24 AM
 
18,983 posts, read 9,084,938 times
Reputation: 14688
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridarebel View Post
People who voluntarily refuse to have children are selfish and disrespecting God's words. No sane person also regrets having their kids either.
This is the same guy who believes abortions should be outlawed and that women should have no access to free contraceptives, or any kind of help once those children it wasn't possible to prevent in his Conservative utopia are born.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/43512389-post5.html

So you basically see woman as incubators for Jesus, huh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2016, 10:50 AM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,579,129 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridarebel View Post
People who voluntarily refuse to have children are selfish and disrespecting God's words. No sane person also regrets having their kids either.
Which God? Jewish, Muslim, Hindu? Who gives a crap about God? Nobody really does nowadays.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2016, 10:51 AM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,579,129 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by numberfive View Post
Taxes aren't a la carte.
LOL. Just admit that you want others to subsidize you raising your children.

How hard is that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2016, 11:01 AM
 
9,694 posts, read 7,399,515 times
Reputation: 9931
Quote:
Originally Posted by numberfive View Post
Taxes aren't a la carte.
I live in a safe neighborhood so I feel I don't need pay for police protection either
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:17 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top