Billiejeens
Diamond Member
- Jun 27, 2019
- 37,461
- 24,856
- 1,845
News stories: Many super wealthy have said the tax structure isn't fair and they can afford to pay more in taxes.
But they dont
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
News stories: Many super wealthy have said the tax structure isn't fair and they can afford to pay more in taxes.
But they dont
In some instances, yes.
nobody is talking about child deductions, the topic is that Vance wants to use the tax code to punish those who do not have children
Actually it should be paying for services is patriotic. Whether done through income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, or user fees.Paying taxes is Patriotic, you commie bastard.
Those without children are already punished by having to pay school taxes.It make sense actually.
And you "suggested" we should do that to the successful.JD Vance suggested America should 'punish' people for not having children
Those without children are already punished by having to pay school taxes.
OK, but it is the OP's claim I am using as my guideline.Nobody has said taxes in general are punishing, just that they can be used that way.
It is if someone else is footing that bill for you...things like road taxes are the proper way to pay taxes for our roads, it actually makes my point... they are paid at the pump and you pay the same rate as everyone else, what could be more fair?It is not a punishment to pay taxes to maintain the roads I drive on.
But you can see how much having children are already rewarded. From tax deductions, to free K-12 education for as many children as they can produce.Far less than an ignorant society would cost you.
Those without children are already punished by having to pay school taxes.
But you can see how much having children are already rewarded. From tax deductions, to free K-12 education for as many children as they can produce.
With that education paid for by mega-users, ordinary users and non-users equally.
I think that what is supposed to be the greatest country in the world should look after it's kids.
That's not what JD was going for though.
He just had this insane great need to put women down who decide not to have kids.
Creep.
That's because it has nothing to do with paying ones "fair share"Taxes were never based on how much work or effort went into making the money.
Non sequiturA person working 60-80 hours a week to make $120,000 is taxed at the same rate as someone who does absolutely nothing and gets $120,000 a year from a trust fund.
Everyone suffers from those children who grow up to be burdens on society.Everyone profits from an educated populace.
I see you discovered your contradictionYour dementia needs to be addressed
Then I guess you don't see JD's claim as a punishment even if he does?not every one believes taxes are punishment
Women should be able to choose how many children they wish to have. To have as many as they feel they can successfully raise, or as few as they feel they can successfully raise. And most importantly choosing when they have or don't have those children.I think that what is supposed to be the greatest country in the world should look after it's kids.
That's not what JD was going for though.
He just had this insane great need to put women down who decide not to have kids.
Creep.
"party of small government"I agree, those who can physically produce children, but don’t, should pay higher taxes.
That's true, but they also don't produce the next George Washington or Carl Sagan.People without children use up less resources and do not produce criminals, drug addicts, mass shooters...
That goes to the heart of "fair share" That one should be able to benefit from the fruits of their labor. So to be fair, they should be able to keep, should be proportional to the amount of labor it took to make it. Since their labor benefits society.That's because it has nothing to do with paying ones "fair share"