Should people without kids pay more in Taxes?

[Unkotare]

Here's a thought. Have a couple kids. You could get that big deduction for yourself. Instead of bitching about others getting the deduction.

Fucking whiners.

If you were't in such a hurry to be a hysterical little asshole, you wouldn't have made such a fool of yourself just now.

Is there a point to this thread? What is it? Is it just a bitch fest? Oh the anguish. People with kids get more tax deductions than people without. Oh the pain the pain.

Wtf is wrong with you unkotare? Were you born an asshole or did you work to get this way? And did your parents take the standard deduction for having kids?

That's what I want to know. Did YOUR parents have enough sense to claim you for a deduction?

Get on your lobbying horse instead of your high horse and change the tax laws of the country. Can you do that or do you just want to bitch on a message board?

Did you read the thread before commenting, idiot? No, you didn't. Go ahead, I'll wait.

 

[dblack]

This was the bullshit question on Fox News this morning. The "me me me" crowd was making the point that single people shouldnt have to pay "more" in taxes than people without kids. Because people with kids receive more tax breaks than those without Fox News says that that isnt fair. They say that single people are treated unfairly because they contribute to the success of the next generation. THE HORROR!

I say its bullshit. If we live in a society we all pitch in to things that we dont get to use or benefit from personally and or directly. Stop being a stingy callous fuck

I agree. But are you sure that's where you want to go? Have you really thought it through? Because what it implies is that we should all fund government equally. I'm pretty sure that's not what you want.

 

[thereisnospoon]

This is okay for the people who don't want kids, and choose not to have them. Bu what about the people who did want kids, but couldn't? Why should they pay more in taxes for something that wasn't their choice?

Wait a minute....Are you stating that couples do not have children by their own choosing?
"But what about".....Liberalism lives and dies on that very phrase.
You people live in a world of "but what about"....Then you expect everyone else to deal with your perceptions.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Of course they should pay more. They aren't having any kids to help fund their social security and medicare accounts for when they retire, so they need to pay more. Due to the fact that people are having fewer kids, some countries are actually paying couples to have children just for this reason. I have become convinced that conservatives just lack the brains to think about the big picture. They can only see things in 30 second segments and are easily brainwashed into believing the dumbest of things.

You and closed (minded) don't know what you are arguing for.
You see the word "tax", visions of 8,000 square foot homes and expensive cars roll through your heads, triggering a reaction that has you spitting chewed nails and then go "yep, a tax, I like it".
The thing is like all capitalists, once those taxes effect your bank account, you're writing your elected officials in protest.

Your perspective is absolutely ignorant. I study all parties and no one focuses on taxing the rich more. The Left you are talking about simply knows that the Rich dodge taxation by hiding money in tax havens. Even Corporation 1%ers buy politicians straight up in order to pay zero taxes.

You have a lot to learn about politics. But I'm guessing you are the Fox News standard turd. Pay a moron to convince other morons that they are correct about politics. One moron get's rich, the other morons fight to get poor because they think it will get them to the middle class.

Class envy is the height of ignorance.
I'm not entertaining a debate with a class warfare babbler such as yourself.
Now, I did nothing to insult you. So why did you have to resort to insulting me? Is it that your point is so weak you find it necessary to make this personal?
Or are you of the typical lib who believes their point of view is the ONLY point of view and therefore all others must be silenced?
Look, if you like taxation so much, write a check.

 

[bripat9643]

A hedge fund manager making a few hundred million a year in personal income takes advantage of the lobbying efforts they he helped pay for and pays income tax at 15% (capital gains rate.)
And not one right winger I have ever heard has a problem with that.

But let a middle class family with kids get a deduction that families without kids don't get and all of a sudden that's a problem.

If it wasn't so stupid, it would be funny.

How about this idea, if you make over 10 million a year, you get no deductions for anything and pay income tax at at least a 25% rate. Also, no mortgage interest write off for multi millionaires.

You all do understand that if I borrow 1 million dollars to buy a house, I get a much better interest write off than the person spending 75k for a house. How is that "fair"?

Actually, you don't. There's a limit on how much of your mortgage interest you can write off. $1 million is way over that limit. Percentagewise, the guy paying $75 K gets a much better deal on taxes.

That just goes to show that most liberal ideas are founded on complete ignorance.

 

[bripat9643]

This was the bullshit question on Fox News this morning. The "me me me" crowd was making the point that single people shouldnt have to pay "more" in taxes than people without kids. Because people with kids receive more tax breaks than those without Fox News says that that isnt fair. They say that single people are treated unfairly because they contribute to the success of the next generation. THE HORROR!

I say its bullshit. If we live in a society we all pitch in to things that we dont get to use or benefit from personally and or directly. Stop being a stingy callous fuck

What about the welfare ticks? What do they "pitch in?"

 

[bripat9643]

Maybe, instead of just complaining about parents.. you should maybe complain about those who have no career gumption and pay nothing in income tax on their earnings of a lower level... maybe you should complain about those who deduct medical expenses or COLLEGE expenses

Flat tax.. no deductions.. no exceptions.. no ceiling.. no floor.. no exemption... for every single dollar earned by every citizen
THERE is your solution

You know why that doesnt work? Because it has never worked anywhere ever.

I've already proven that it has been tried, so why do you keep posting this lie?

 

[bripat9643]

This was the bullshit question on Fox News this morning. The "me me me" crowd was making the point that single people shouldnt have to pay "more" in taxes than people without kids. Because people with kids receive more tax breaks than those without Fox News says that that isnt fair. They say that single people are treated unfairly because they contribute to the success of the next generation. THE HORROR!

I say its bullshit. If we live in a society we all pitch in to things that we dont get to use or benefit from personally and or directly. Stop being a stingy callous fuck

Some of us consider that aspect of our society to be an errant one.

Why -should- anybody be forced to pitch in on something to which they have no access?

Thats how a society / community works. I might not ever use your playground but to whine about it when we all benefit in some way is some only child shit.

No, that's simply how the liberal agenda works. They have managed to impose it on use, but there's nothing inevitable or necessary about it. We don't all benefit from playgrounds or schools or libraries. I haven't been to a library in 15 years.

Most highway funds come from taxes at the gas pump. Most of us agree that this is as it should be: people who aren't driving on the roads and creating a need for maintenance shouldn't have to pay for those roads to be maintained, right?

So if I don't have anything to do with your kids, and I certainly didn't tell you to have kids, why is it my responsibility to pay extra so that you can have the cost of raising children -you- chose to have subsidized?

Why is it anybody's responsibility to pay for someone else's shit?

You can call me stingy and callous all-the-fuck you want. I have the right to be both, and I display the fact that I'm callous proudly.

In stead of me stopping these things, why don't you stop being a power-hungry douchebag and quit trying to force your morals on everybody else's pocketbooks?

Shit, you can call me stingy all you want, I'd rather be cheap than the kinda spineless stick-up kid who has to have Uncle Sam hold the gun for him.

Ever question the answer is society. You are free to leave it or continue to complain about the reality but that doesnt get you anywhere.

Why should I have to leave to avoid paying for your shit? That's how an extortion racket works. Furthermore, you keep using the word "society" when you really mean "government." Your assumption that society or government has to work the way it does now is based on absolutely nothing but pure raw prejudice.

 

[Pop23]

This is okay for the people who don't want kids, and choose not to have them. Bu what about the people who did want kids, but couldn't? Why should they pay more in taxes for something that wasn't their choice?

A couple who can't have children is reproductively disabled. We often make exceptions for the disabled, I see no reason this would not also be the case. Childbirth in itself represents a life threatening event, it comes with a risk, that claim for a exemption. The fertile heterosexual couple, not wanting to risk the life of one of the two must take expensive steps not to procreate. Each of those steps come with health risks, so these should be deducted from any additional tax.

Same sex couples can't make any of the above arguments.

In effect, those that have the ability but choose not two would be treated no differently than those effected by Obamacare. So I don't see how this is controversial.

To those that say they could participate by purchasing long term care insurance, not only should they be required to (again see obamacare), but that insurance only. Pays for care, that care is PROVIDED by the offspring of others. The opposite is not true. I will not receive care by the offspring of non child bearing couples.

Maybe the answer is to have the non child bearing couple participate in the cost of social security, but not allowed to withdraw from it unless they are reproductively disabled, or have deductions required to insure they do not risk their lives from childbirth.

 

[Politico]

We most certainly should. Do you think we shouldn't pay the men and women who serve in our military? Should all police and fire fighters be unpaid? You are feeble-minded.

No we mos certainly shouldn't...

So you think we shouldn't pay the men and women who serve in our military? All police and fire fighters be unpaid? Really?

Wow you didn't even try to avoid fail on that setup.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Dont people with kids get taxbreaks, so i essence tney do pay less already.

But no, do a flax tax or flat tax rate. Why should someone pay more because they get a raise at work, is that a bad thing?

 

[Politico]

A couple who can't have kids because there is no money for it are not disabled. It was the lack of money that caused it to begin with.

 

[Unkotare]

No we mos certainly shouldn't...

So you think we shouldn't pay the men and women who serve in our military? All police and fire fighters be unpaid? Really?

Wow you didn't even try to avoid fail on that setup.

Are you going to answer the question or run from it? I think I know which it will be...

 

[Pop23]

A couple who can't have kids because there is no money for it are not disabled. It was the lack of money that caused it to begin with.

Freeloaders are freeloaders. Gotta love the road obamacare leads us down.

 

[dblack]

We really need to end discriminatory taxation everywhere it rears its ugly head.

 

[Noomi]

This is okay for the people who don't want kids, and choose not to have them. Bu what about the people who did want kids, but couldn't? Why should they pay more in taxes for something that wasn't their choice?

A couple who can't have children is reproductively disabled. We often make exceptions for the disabled, I see no reason this would not also be the case. Childbirth in itself represents a life threatening event, it comes with a risk, that claim for a exemption. The fertile heterosexual couple, not wanting to risk the life of one of the two must take expensive steps not to procreate. Each of those steps come with health risks, so these should be deducted from any additional tax.

Same sex couples can't make any of the above arguments.

In effect, those that have the ability but choose not two would be treated no differently than those effected by Obamacare. So I don't see how this is controversial.

To those that say they could participate by purchasing long term care insurance, not only should they be required to (again see obamacare), but that insurance only. Pays for care, that care is PROVIDED by the offspring of others. The opposite is not true. I will not receive care by the offspring of non child bearing couples.

Maybe the answer is to have the non child bearing couple participate in the cost of social security, but not allowed to withdraw from it unless they are reproductively disabled, or have deductions required to insure they do not risk their lives from childbirth.

Should same sex couples be forced to pay more in taxes because they cannot procreate with each other?
That would be discrimination on the basis of sexual identity...

 

[Pop23]

This is okay for the people who don't want kids, and choose not to have them. Bu what about the people who did want kids, but couldn't? Why should they pay more in taxes for something that wasn't their choice?

A couple who can't have children is reproductively disabled. We often make exceptions for the disabled, I see no reason this would not also be the case. Childbirth in itself represents a life threatening event, it comes with a risk, that claim for a exemption. The fertile heterosexual couple, not wanting to risk the life of one of the two must take expensive steps not to procreate. Each of those steps come with health risks, so these should be deducted from any additional tax.

Same sex couples can't make any of the above arguments.

In effect, those that have the ability but choose not two would be treated no differently than those effected by Obamacare. So I don't see how this is controversial.

To those that say they could participate by purchasing long term care insurance, not only should they be required to (again see obamacare), but that insurance only. Pays for care, that care is PROVIDED by the offspring of others. The opposite is not true. I will not receive care by the offspring of non child bearing couples.

Maybe the answer is to have the non child bearing couple participate in the cost of social security, but not allowed to withdraw from it unless they are reproductively disabled, or have deductions required to insure they do not risk their lives from childbirth.

Should same sex couples be forced to pay more in taxes because they cannot procreate with each other?
That would be discrimination on the basis of sexual identity...

Seems to me forcing my offspring to care for and support others, when they don't supply the same is the worst kind of discrimination.

 

[Noomi]

There is nothing wrong with paying taxes, it is just wrong to make childless couples pay more.

 

[Pop23]

Only the fair tax will cure this

Until then it's dogpile on the small groups

You will enjoy it just as much as the smokers have for decades

 

[dblack]

Only the fair tax will cure this

Until then it's dogpile on the small groups

You will enjoy it just as much as the smokers have for decades

The fair tax isn't the only alternative. But we definitely need to neuter the feds power to use taxation as a means of social control.