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.
That article unwittingly demonstrates everything wrong in this country right now. Essentially, the author is saying "Somebody besides me should pay higher taxes," and she actually has convinced some poor dupes to agree with her.
So, in other words, you want to fine people for not having children. Because that's what it amounts to. As if somehow not having children and refusing to contribute to over-population is a bad thing that should be punished with more taxes.
You know, taxes I would have to pay to put YOUR children through the public school system, to attend a state college, to play on a publicly-owned playground, and who knows, perhaps even to be on the WIC program and other government services for impoverished moms.
Thing is, there are A LOT of single people out there who are struggling just to get by and they don't have the security of a second income.
I'm not against paying for social programs - not at all. But childless adults shouldn't have to pay the lion's share for programs to help parents. If the system needs more money, take it out of the defense budget. We already out-spend the next 20 nations combined - including ALL of our potential enemies such as China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
I'm fine with my taxes being raised for various services and purposes, including education and healthcare. I'm fine with certain tax breaks for parents. But for me to be directly penalized because I chose not to have children? I think not.
I am a childless single and I couldn't disagree with you more....
Governments want stable/increasing populations. Children are future citizens, taxpayers, and economic producers/consumers. Children require a significant amount of resources to properly rear. Therefore, tax policy should favor families and those planning to start families.
You and I are a societal dead-end as long as we choose not to have children. Childless singles have little political clout whereas families overwhelmingly do. Therefore, governments can and will point a gun to your head and demand you subsidize the continuation of our civilization until you choose to bear them yourself.
I have no problem with this....I am happy to subsidize families with a greater portion of my income being taxed to help alleviate their burden of raising our future citizens.
Yes, children require a significant amount of resources but THAT is not up to me. If you can't afford them, don't have them.
I am not a societal dead end. I'm sorry you feel that way about yourself.
You go right ahead and give more to subsidize our future citizens. I'm already taxed over $3000 a year for schools in my property taxes. If it was up to me, I would make all the parents pay for education themselves. If parents had to take on the sole responsibility of paying school property taxes and were taxed per child then maybe they would stop popping out so many dependents. Sorry if that sounds harsh but it's how I feel.
Yes, children require a significant amount of resources but THAT is not up to me. If you can't afford them, don't have them.
I am not a societal dead end. I'm sorry you feel that way about yourself.
You go right ahead and give more to subsidize our future citizens. I'm already taxed over $3000 a year for schools in my property taxes. If it was up to me, I would make all the parents pay for education themselves. If parents had to take on the sole responsibility of paying school property taxes and were taxed per child then maybe they would stop popping out so many dependents. Sorry if that sounds harsh but it's how I feel.
Taxes are the price you pay for living in a civilized society. I will happily pay my taxes and hope that the IRS does their job effectively to ensure you and the other whiners on here pay every dime owed as well. If you have a problem with this, then go live on a remote island or move to some libertarian paradise like Somalia.
Taxes are the price you pay for living in a civilized society. I will happily pay my taxes and hope that the IRS does their job effectively to ensure you and the other whiners on here pay every dime owed as well. If you have a problem with this, then go live on a remote island or move to some libertarian paradise like Somalia.
Thank you citizen!
I don't have a problem with paying taxes, it's how they are distributed that bothers me. I'd rather that $3000 dollars go to fixing the roads, the firefighters, the police, and the library. That's right, the library. Only $83 dollars of my property taxes goes to the public library. How sad is that? I don't expect you to understand but that's fine. It's my right as a citizen to express my beliefs. I don't care whether you agree or disagree.
Taxes are the price you pay for living in a civilized society. I will happily pay my taxes and hope that the IRS does their job effectively to ensure you and the other whiners on here pay every dime owed as well. If you have a problem with this, then go live on a remote island or move to some libertarian paradise like Somalia.
Thank you citizen!
You know, I hate it when people blindly use that hoary old aphorism.
When Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote it back in 1927, the average tax burden of an American was roughly 10% of his overall income, whereas the tax burden today is closer to 50% once you take into account Federal, FICA, State, Local, sales taxes, gas taxes, etc. In short you work two hours for one hour of take-home pay. I'm still trying to figure out by what convoluted logic that is fair.
I'm pretty sure that Holmes would be horrified to be quoted in support of a confiscatory tax policy that supports a bloated, inefficient, and essentially parasitic government that takes half of what every worker earns. And he would certainly be equally stunned to be quoted in support of what is nothing more than an obvious attempt by one group (Parents) to bleed another group (Non-parents) of additional tax revenue.
And that's kind of the problem with your highly simplistic and reductionist argument. Essentially you are arguing that a citizen who questions if government should absorb so much of the GDP is a libertarian who wants to eliminate all governmental services. That is an argument that represents a false choice, and says a great deal more about the person making the argument than it does about the person it is trying to refute.
Last edited by cpg35223; 04-01-2014 at 12:44 PM..
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.
