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.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,981,862 times
Reputation: 40635
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitermaster
Wouldn't make sense to make parents pay higher taxes since by having children using the public facilities like school and such they are placing a higher demand for tax funded infrastructure than non parents? Thats the common sense thing. Of course in america, those whose rely on the government the least pay the most.
So, now we're being punished for not having children? Great.
It really gives you a glimpse into the mentality of these people, which falls into two broad camps:
1) "Let's tax people who aren't like me." Never mind that a parent already has a host of tax breaks from dedication to childcare credits, etc. Nope, let's soak the childless for more.
2) "Gosh. You have more money even after paying your fair share? We need it." In other words, it's not enough to tax people on their incomes. It's not enough to deprive them of the tax breaks that those with children enjoy. Nope, it's really an implicit belief that people do not get to retain any money that comes from their own life decisions. So if a couple decides not to have children, resulting in more money in their retirement accounts, the government is suddenly entitled to it.
Hey, I have three tax deductions myself. But I cannot imagine how unfair it is to tax someone just because he or she didn't elect to become parents in the first place.
This is a dumb idea. Some couples choose not to have kids while others flat out can't. Why should they be penalised? Besides doesn't everyone who owns a house pay taxes to their town and part of those taxes goes towards paying for schools whether you have kids or not?
Kids are expensive and there are lots of tax incentives to help out.
What a crock. All one has to do is look at the EITC tables (yet another reason why the gub-ment loves that most people don't do their own taxes--they never get to see THOSE handouts) to see the many ways families with kids pay lower taxes in the form of tax deductions and tax credits (many of the tax credits, BTW, being refundable). We did.
The real kicker here, though, is the opinion reflecting the unmitigated chutzpah that, if people don't have kids, they should spend their money supporting yours.
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.
Sure, let's revive the Ceaucescu regime and import it over here, because it's had fabulous repercussions for its people.
Reihan Salam said When my mother was my age, she was working full time while raising three small children, and she spent every spare moment studying to finish a graduate degree. My father was working extremely hard as well. Between the two of them, they were able to provide their kids with a solidly middle-class life. But it wasn’t easy, and it wasn’t always fun.
So now, as a childless professional in my mid-30s, I often reflect on the sacrifices working parents make to better the lives of their children.
Though the writer says he is a non-parent some of his assertions such as; traveling & more disposable income he claims the childless have come across more like class envy than a practical issue.
The argument that non parents also benefit from other's offspring is as lame as it gets. And if someone really want to go that route I still pay my part for the public school system.
Going the other way; people who have more than two kids should lose any tax benefits or other kid perks from the third kid forward.
No way! Why should I have to pay more so these "parents" can have a break? I didn't hold a gun to their head and demand they have children. That's their choice, they can pay for it.
This. I also think a great majority of Americans (this isn't the attitude in other FIRST world countries) think everyone who doesn't have children is barren or unable to find a mate. I'm an attractive young woman and as far as I know no fertility issues, but I CHOOSE not to have children, because I'm not ready. Gotta love how America rewards poor choices.
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.
