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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
I live in a safe neighborhood so I feel I don't need pay for police protection either
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.