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.
Single persons are already victims of tax and other policies that strongly favour those whom are married and or have children. See no need to increase this burden.
You are also starting to hear rumbles in offices and businesses from singles as they are becoming fed up to the back teeth for having to "cover" for parents who seem to get some sort of pass merely because they have produced.
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.
I totaly agree with this poster. "Sorry for delaying motherhood and being financially responsible"?
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.
Please feel free to include extra payments when you file by 15 April. Write a note on the check "please direct the surplus towards children and or their parents". For our part we are already taxed to the back teeth.
Please feel free to include extra payments when you file by 15 April, and write a note on the check "please direct the surplus towards children and or their parents". For our part we are already taxed to the back teeth.
When you reach retirement age, feel free to rip up your SS check and refuse Medicare (you know subsidized by those evil little socialist spawn who are now contributing taxpayers).
Taxed to the back teeth? Give me a break....I make 70k a year and pay an effective 25% rate total Federal/State/Payroll. That's hardly being punished if you ask me.....go live in Europe/Canada/Australia; then you'll have a good reason to froth at the mouth every time the word "tax" is mentioned.
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.
Fine. You can pay my part as well
Along with paying more taxes, most of us childfrees have sacrificed to enable parents to enjoy their roles. Being in my 50s, Spouse in his 60s, we can't even remember the last time we had Thanksgiving or Christmas off. We aren't and don't have a "family" (never mind that the two of us feel like one or that we might have wanted to spend those days with aging parents), ergo we have worked all the holidays. Coverage for the parent who had to stay home with a sick kid, leave early to take them to a soccer game, or have a dentist appointment? We did. Taking vacations outside the prime seasons? Yeah, that was us. (though, that choice wasn't so onerous. we took off at times that we knew kids had to be in school. made for a better vacation).
It's only been in the last decade that we were offered insurance coverage under a +1 category. Before that, we were lumped in with Family plans, even though we rarely used what we paid for. I sure didn't need maternity coverage, even though I paid for it. All our premiums went into the pool and were paid out to parents and their kids.
For all the tangible and intangible benefits we CFs provided, did we ever get a thank you? F* no. When Spouse had a stroke, did any of my childed co-workers offer any commiseration beyond a "wow. bummer. Is he paralyzed?" Again, f* no. In fact, when I told my boss that I would be out another day, Spouse was to have the dye/camera scan to detect the extent of damage to his brain, I was told "are you going to be gone all day? the test is in the morning, can you make it back after lunch?" Boy, did I GO OFF. Made the boss take a couple of steps back
I am willing to fund education, certainly. An educated populace is critical to the stability of a nation. However, the cost of raising children has many variables. A lot of what I see lavished on brats is wasted, especially as poorly behaved as they have become. Knowing from experience that one can become an honest, educated, decent working citizen after having been raised in circumstances of poverty (as well as my three siblings) I question how much a parent really needs to raise their kid(s). I am not willing to pay beyond what enables them to become well-educated and have basic needs covered. Previous generations got by, so can the current one.
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.
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.
Then you are most welcome to subsidize them through higher taxes and you're welcome to pay my share too.
As a single 30-something who doesn't plan to have kids and was just hit with an unexpected unearned income tax on my hard-earned down payment savings, I don't particularly care to pay additional taxes. I pay my fair share through my state, federal, and city income tax. I also pay into social security and property taxes (through my rent) that keep magically increasing. Then there's my state and city sales tax. I work more than 40 hours a week every week and am struggling to find a home in the city where I live, simply because the property taxes keep increasing enough to drive my monthly mortgage into the unaffordable range.
I pay my student loan (no one subsidized my education) and all my own bills. I have retirement savings and continue to save a large portion of my paycheck to ensure that the government never has to support me. Not to mention, that I do a considerable amount of volunteer work and donate a lot of money to organizations I see making a difference through empowerment - not giving handouts. So, please explain to me how it's my job to support people more than I already do.
Basically its a problem when we pay people not to work or face struggles of choices they make as we can now see. There are plentiful programs for that but going forward its not going to be affordable with the demographics like when Boomers where paying the bills.
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.
Speak for yourself! Not everyone who is childless chose to be. And people may currently be childless, but in 5 years have 3 or 4 kids. You going to give them a refund?
While you don't have a problem paying more, that doesn't mean others don't. If you don't mind paying more, please send in the difference income now since you won't miss it.
You don't suppose that Sen. Mike Lee, author of this lame-brained tax plan, has another agenda just because he's a member of the LDS?
Now that explains an awful lot!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonMike7
What about the divorced dad, paying child support and expenses for his children and not getting a tax deduction?
The custodial parent would get to claim the child, and daycare tax break. The non-custodial gets none of that and files as a single.
So under this proposal, his taxes would go up too.
Fairly certain people in that boat would fight something like this tooth and nail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by go-getta-J
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.
What exactly is a civilized society? One full of leaches? One where underpants are publicly displayed? One where drugs are sold on every corner? Yes, keep paying those taxes. Why not send the government all of your income? Might make a difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by go-getta-J
When you reach retirement age, feel free to rip up your SS check and refuse Medicare (you know subsidized by those evil little socialist spawn who are now contributing taxpayers). .
People who have worked contributed to social security and medicare. It's not like it's a free handout like welfare.
If you want 9 children, then YOU pay for them. If you can afford to shop at the Gap for them, good for you. If you can't and Walmart is all you can afford, that's your problem. If you want children, YOU pay for them! They are YOUR responsibility! I don't go around asking anyone to pay for my dog or cat food, litter, vet bills, leashes, etc. Why? They are MY responsibility!
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.
