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.
I must be overlooking something obvious, but why should childless people be charged more when they use less taxpayer money in almost every way? Not to mention that being not being responsible for bringing more people into this world means that they are less responsible for environmental harm.
Each one of us will hopefully burden the society when we get older. Who is paying that burden then? The younger generation, that's who.
I see it as each person has an obligation before the society to raise at least one child (or 2 for a couple), so that those children will support them when the couple gets older. Those who don't want to raise children keep all their money to themselves, yet would expect not lesser level of services when they hit retirement.
Each one of us will hopefully burden the society when we get older. Who is paying that burden then? The younger generation, that's who.
Hopefully? You're hoping people will burden the system? That's an interesting hope. My hope is that nobody burdens the system. As for generations, no generation should be "paying for" any other generation. The only reason you are thinking that way is that your government has pitted you against other generations via collectivist mechanisms. If those mechanisms were not there, you wouldn't be thinking about one generation paying for another, because that concept would not exist.
Our government loves to pit segments of society against one another: generations, races, genders, etc. The more strife they can cause with such social classes, the more dependent everyone becomes on the government to "save them."
Each one of us will hopefully burden the society when we get older. Who is paying that burden then? The younger generation, that's who.
I see it as each person has an obligation before the society to raise at least one child (or 2 for a couple), so that those children will support them when the couple gets older. Those who don't want to raise children keep all their money to themselves, yet would expect not lesser level of services when they hit retirement.
Okay, now I get it . . . but it is probably not what you think I get.
Not many people actually support their aged parents. Most people have enough difficulty supporting themselves.
And, btw, most people who don't have children have more money for their retirement funds than those who have raised children.
The only way for a tax to actually be fair, is if each taxpayer has to pay an amount that is close to the value of whatever benefit(s) he receives from the government.
Childless people in many cases will receive less services from government than equivalent people with children, correct?
Or are you trying to adopt the old scheme, "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs"?
Okay, now I get it . . . but it is probably not what you think I get.
Not many people actually support their aged parents. Most people have enough difficulty supporting themselves.
And, btw, most people who don't have children have more money for their retirement funds than those who have raised children.
Whether children give money to their parents or not, is not so relevant really. But once a person hits 65, he's entitled to free medicare. Who is paying for it? Those who still work. So, younger generations are paying for older generations. Same goes for pensions. Yes, I hope my 401k and Roth IRA grows to a $1M, however unlikely... But I know that I wouldn't be without money, if I run out of them, and will survive on the government paycheck. Who is going to fund it? The younger generations.
And if god forbid, there's a war? Who will fight for the country? The younger generation too. Etc.
Older people who brought up their "replacement" in the society, did their duty (so to say). Those who lived their lives for their own enjoyment? They will be expecting the same treatment... Or no?
The only way for a tax to actually be fair, is if each taxpayer has to pay an amount that is close to the value of whatever benefit(s) he receives from the government.
Childless people in many cases will receive less services from government than equivalent people with children, correct?
Or are you trying to adopt the old scheme, "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs"?
Hasn't that already been tried?
One pays taxes when young and healthy. There's no way to predict how much benefit that person collects in the future. But on average, for country population not to shrink each couple have to have 2 (better 3) children.
Given that Western society is aging, don't you think it would be a great idea to collect higher tax rates on each childless person? And, say, have the "normal" rate once a person parents 2 children (so, no advantage for having too many children either).
There could be also an "adoption" route for those who is not capable to give birth.
What taxes are we talking about. Federal income tax or property tax?
Each one of us will hopefully burden the society when we get older. Who is paying that burden then? The younger generation, that's who.
If the childless person supposedly was able to save all this money for themselves throughout their life because they had no kids, wouldn't they be in a better position to provide for their needs in old age, than those who have less because they spent it raising kids?
Whether children give money to their parents or not, is not so relevant really. But once a person hits 65, he's entitled to free medicare. Who is paying for it? Those who still work. So, younger generations are paying for older generations. Same goes for pensions. Yes, I hope my 401k and Roth IRA grows to a $1M, however unlikely... But I know that I wouldn't be without money, if I run out of them, and will survive on the government paycheck. Who is going to fund it? The younger generations.
And if god forbid, there's a war? Who will fight for the country? The younger generation too. Etc.
Older people who brought up their "replacement" in the society, did their duty (so to say). Those who lived their lives for their own enjoyment? They will be expecting the same treatment... Or no?
What so many people overlook is the fact that not everyone lives to 65. All those taxes paid toward Medicare -- for nothing that benefits that person personally. And although Social Security benefits pass on to direct dependents in the event of death, if there are no dependents -- again, the taxes someone paid does nothing to benefit that person personally.
And regarding war, unless there is a draft, no one is forcing anyone to fight for it, but "only" to pay for it. Of course, there might be a draft again in the future, but people can refuse to be drafted IF they are willing to go to jail or move out of the country. (Just like refusing any vaccine mandates, although that is another subject.)
Finally, although you might disagree, I do not view having children as a "duty" anyone owes to anyone.
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.
