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.
this seems to be a big issue. who is responsible for paying for a child's health care? I have a solution that will ensure all children health care, and will not raise taxes on anyone. this plan will also ensure that only those with children are paying for children's health care. the SCHIP programs was to be financed on increased taxes on tobacco, which is an indirect tax on the poor. it's simple, we get rid of the child tax credit. instead of the government writing large checks for parents each spring, they can use that money to finance guaranteed health care for all kids. an easy solution with no tax increase. I can't believe this has never been proposed.
hmmm, someone said it was a horrible idea. which idea do you like better, increased taxes on the poor, or children going without health care? cause you obviously like one of them. the cowards are out. voting that it's a bad idea, but not stating why.
Last edited by jmarquise; 10-02-2008 at 03:10 PM..
Tobacco is definitely not a necessity to live in this country, and it's not a necessity for a high quality of life. If someone has to pay $5 for a pack of cigarettes, smoke less often or reduce the need for future healthcare by quitting. Smoking contributes to many health issues, which require healthcare funds to treat. I have no problem at all with implementing tobacco taxes to fund healthcare programs.
I would have a problem with raising taxes on anything that is necessary for living - inexpensive clothes, food, and shelter, since that would directly affect every poor family in the country. However, tobacco and alcohol are used by every social group in the country, while not being a necessity for a good quality of life, so I have no problem with healthcare taxes being implemented to them.
So you want to take away tax relief for those that have children to go towards a social program that will guarantee healthcare for everyones kids rich and poor alike. For those without healthcare for their kids currently, all they would need to do is use that tax break themselves for purchasing the care needed for their kids instead of using it for other things. That's just as simple and no need to do anything nor do you force a socialist program on the nation, it should be the parents responsibility to care and provide for their child and not the government.
I know it isn't a necessity, but it is an indirect tax on the poor. they can tax smokes to kingdom come for all I care, but they should use that money for adult health care. my way has the parents paying for their children's health care without a raise in taxes on anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ucfjtm
Tobacco is definitely not a necessity to live in this country, and it's not a necessity for a high quality of life. If someone has to pay $5 for a pack of cigarettes, smoke less often or reduce the need for future healthcare by quitting. Smoking contributes to many health issues, which require healthcare funds to treat. I have no problem at all with implementing tobacco taxes to fund healthcare programs.
I would have a problem with raising taxes on anything that is necessary for living - inexpensive clothes, food, and shelter, since that would directly affect every poor family in the country. However, tobacco and alcohol are used by every social group in the country, while not being a necessity for a good quality of life, so I have no problem with healthcare taxes being implemented to them.
oh I agree with you, but I have learned to compromise. I am a libertarian who borders on anarchy! however, apparently we can't expect parents to take care of kids. I have been told by several people, we can't punish the kids for having irresponsible parents. this way, they get health care, and no one get punished. it's not taking away tax relief, it's discontinuing unearned income parents have come to expect, and invests the money in something parents need for their kids. if it were up to me, we would get rid of 95% of government and cut taxes by 80%, but sometimes compromise is the only answer. I am an every man for themselves type of guy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reverse
So you want to take away tax relief for those that have children to go towards a social program that will guarantee healthcare for everyones kids rich and poor alike. For those without healthcare for their kids currently, all they would need to do is use that tax break themselves for purchasing the care needed for their kids instead of using it for other things. That's just as simple and no need to do anything nor do you force a socialist program on the nation, it should be the parents responsibility to care and provide for their child and not the government.
no, the question is whether or not this is a good idea. I have heard the arguments from those who say that I will be dependent on these children when I am old and sickly. I make the argument that they will be dependent on me for a job. this is a win win. parents are paying for what they should be paying for, and kids are covered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
Another way of asking the question: Who will benefit from a nation of healthy children grown up?
why should parents get a tax credit for them? Isn't that giving special treatment to those who have kids?
If I'm making half as much as you, but you have a kid, you get their exemption AND a special credit. In fact, you even have the possiblility of getting the "Additional Child Tax Credit" which is a refundable credit. This means, even if you owe NO tax, you get a tax credit up to $1000 just for having a kid.
Let's not forget that many earners also get that earned income credit, which is higher for those who have kids. I see these credits as discriminatory against those who have chosen NOT to have kids.
I have started threads about that. I think this is a good idea, and I bet you that the majority of parents wouldn't mind giving up a grand or two to have health care for their kids. I hear ya though. I took a lot of crap for complaining about the tax cuts parents get. I think this is a good and fair compromise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar
why should parents get a tax credit for them? Isn't that giving special treatment to those who have kids?
If I'm making half as much as you, but you have a kid, you get their exemption AND a special credit. In fact, you even have the possiblility of getting the "Additional Child Tax Credit" which is a refundable credit. This means, even if you owe NO tax, you get a tax credit up to $1000 just for having a kid.
Let's not forget that many earners also get that earned income credit, which is higher for those who have kids. I see these credits as discriminatory against those who have chosen NOT to have kids.
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.
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.
