Should people without kids pay more in Taxes?

[dblack]

The question isn't whether having children is a good thing or not. The question is whether government should be able to use the tax code to push us to do good things, or punish us for not.

No, that is not the question. The question is, if one group benefits another group to a greater extent, should they receive benefit for that?

I think the answer is obvious. Yes.

This is not a new concept. We are entering a brave new world. We are starting to include a demographic group into the realm of marriage that cannot procreate within their own demographic, and somehow the current tax code is fair to those who can and do procreate.

Honestly, if this becomes a breeders vs non breeders argument I am fine with that. I would enjoy that discussion.

That would be a dumb argument, as it doesn't have much to do with anything. This is about whether the federal government should be allowed to use the tax code for social manipulation. The Court has approved if it, but I believe it's a gross violation of Constitutionally limited government.

 

[Unkotare]

If demographic trends continue in the direction they are going and are projected to go it may be necessary in the not-too-distant future to do more - much more - to encourage having children and raising them well. Not as an exercise in social engineering, but as a matter of national survival.

 

[Pop23]

The question isn't whether having children is a good thing or not. The question is whether government should be able to use the tax code to push us to do good things, or punish us for not.

No, that is not the question. The question is, if one group benefits another group to a greater extent, should they receive benefit for that?

I think the answer is obvious. Yes.

This is not a new concept. We are entering a brave new world. We are starting to include a demographic group into the realm of marriage that cannot procreate within their own demographic, and somehow the current tax code is fair to those who can and do procreate.

Honestly, if this becomes a breeders vs non breeders argument I am fine with that. I would enjoy that discussion.

That would be a dumb argument, as it doesn't have much to do with anything. This is about whether the federal government should be allowed to use the tax code for social manipulation. The Court has approved if it, but I believe it's a gross violation of Constitutionally limited government.

I always get a kick out this argument. It has everything to do with everything. Forever we took those who created the entire citizenry for granted, no with the extreme change in norms being forced on us, everything will change. No one gets a free ride anymore.

 

[dblack]

No, that is not the question. The question is, if one group benefits another group to a greater extent, should they receive benefit for that?

I think the answer is obvious. Yes.

This is not a new concept. We are entering a brave new world. We are starting to include a demographic group into the realm of marriage that cannot procreate within their own demographic, and somehow the current tax code is fair to those who can and do procreate.

Honestly, if this becomes a breeders vs non breeders argument I am fine with that. I would enjoy that discussion.

That would be a dumb argument, as it doesn't have much to do with anything. This is about whether the federal government should be allowed to use the tax code for social manipulation. The Court has approved if it, but I believe it's a gross violation of Constitutionally limited government.

I always get a kick out this argument. It has everything to do with everything. Forever we took those who created the entire citizenry for granted, no with the extreme change in norms being forced on us, everything will change. No one gets a free ride anymore.

What is that supposed to mean? I thought you were saying people with kids should get tax breaks?

 

[hateriarch]

Taxes should be flat and fair across the board.

Where do federal income taxes go? Anyone?

 

[Pop23]

That would be a dumb argument, as it doesn't have much to do with anything. This is about whether the federal government should be allowed to use the tax code for social manipulation. The Court has approved if it, but I believe it's a gross violation of Constitutionally limited government.

I always get a kick out this argument. It has everything to do with everything. Forever we took those who created the entire citizenry for granted, no with the extreme change in norms being forced on us, everything will change. No one gets a free ride anymore.

What is that supposed to mean? I thought you were saying people with kids should get tax breaks?

I did say that.

The soldier, the Police officer that defends you is the product of child bearing couples. We only receive the same benefit from the supply as those that do not supply Police and Soldiers. There is something wrong with this picture.

 

[dblack]

I always get a kick out this argument. It has everything to do with everything. Forever we took those who created the entire citizenry for granted, no with the extreme change in norms being forced on us, everything will change. No one gets a free ride anymore.

What is that supposed to mean? I thought you were saying people with kids should get tax breaks?

I did say that.

The soldier, the Police officer that defends you is the product of child bearing couples. We only receive the same benefit from the supply as those that do not supply Police and Soldiers. There is something wrong with this picture.

Hmm... ok. From your persective, should people get more of a tax break for raising kids who are smart or good soldiers?

 

[Pop23]

What is that supposed to mean? I thought you were saying people with kids should get tax breaks?

I did say that.

The soldier, the Police officer that defends you is the product of child bearing couples. We only receive the same benefit from the supply as those that do not supply Police and Soldiers. There is something wrong with this picture.

Hmm... ok. From your persective, should people get more of a tax break for raising kids who are smart or good soldiers?

Completely different subject. I don't see the argument existing at all. The argument is, why should myself plus my offspring support individuals that do not do the same for me and my offspring?

As a non child bearing couple ages and demand increased health care and files for social security benefits they will depend on my demographic group to supply them care and taxes to pay into social security.

My demographic group cannot rely on the non child producing demographic to supply the same benefit to me.

One demographic, those not supplying offspring, benefits far greater, actually is dependent on my demographic to supply offspring to care for them.

The opposite is simply not true.

This was overlooked until the courts decided that adding a demographic group that cannot supply offspring to the supply should get exactly the same benefit as those that do. This will result in everything requiring reexamination.

 

[dblack]

I did say that.

The soldier, the Police officer that defends you is the product of child bearing couples. We only receive the same benefit from the supply as those that do not supply Police and Soldiers. There is something wrong with this picture.

Hmm... ok. From your persective, should people get more of a tax break for raising kids who are smart or good soldiers?

Completely different subject. I don't see the argument existing at all. The argument is, why should myself plus my offspring support individuals that do not do the same for me and my offspring?

As a non child bearing couple ages and demand increased health care and files for social security benefits they will depend on my demographic group to supply them care and taxes to pay into social security.

My demographic group cannot rely on the non child producing demographic to supply the same benefit to me.

One demographic, those not supplying offspring, benefits far greater, actually is dependent on my demographic to supply offspring to care for them.

The opposite is simply not true.

This was overlooked until the courts decided that adding a demographic group that cannot supply offspring to the supply should get exactly the same benefit as those that do. This will result in everything requiring reexamination.

So, if parents should be rewarded for supplying future taxpayers, why shouldn't those who supply more productive future taxpayers receive more of a benefit? Likewise, shouldn't those who pop out sloth get less of a benefit? Seems like the same math to me. How is it different?

 

[manifold]

[MENTION=30065]dblack[/MENTION]

Are you suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed any deductions and taxable income should equal gross income?

 

[dblack]

[MENTION=30065]dblack[/MENTION]

Are you suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed any deductions and taxable income should equal gross income?

Well, not gross. If we're going to have income tax is should be based on net income, with no deductions other than legitimate costs of doing business.

 

[Unkotare]

Bear in mind that is it all but certain in the relatively near future a smaller and smaller pool of productive citizens will be supporting a larger and larger pool of elderly who hang in there for many years more than in the past.

The idiot who kept saying the world is overpopulated couldn't be more wrong. We are going to have to find creative ways of dealing with precisely the opposite circumstances.

 

[manifold]

[MENTION=30065]dblack[/MENTION]

Are you suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed any deductions and taxable income should equal gross income?

Uh... no, I don't think they should take all our income. But if we're going to have income tax is should be based on net income, with no deductions other than legitimate costs of doing business.

Can you give an example of "legitimate" costs incurred by a laborer who earns $20/hr?

 

[Unkotare]

So, if parents should be rewarded for supplying future taxpayers, why shouldn't those who supply more productive future taxpayers receive more of a benefit? Likewise, shouldn't those who pop out sloth get less of a benefit? Seems like the same math to me. How is it different?

How would you measure that while the next generation is in the process of growing and developing? Tax rates set according to the results of periodic tests of likely future productivity?

 

[dblack]

So, if parents should be rewarded for supplying future taxpayers, why shouldn't those who supply more productive future taxpayers receive more of a benefit? Likewise, shouldn't those who pop out sloth get less of a benefit? Seems like the same math to me. How is it different?

How would you measure that while the next generation is in the process of growing and developing? Tax rates set according to the results of periodic tests of likely future productivity?

That might work. Sort of 'citizenship tests'? And then base their parents taxes on that... We could also do genetic testing, and penalize them if the kids are likely to be a burden on the health care system.

 

[dblack]

[MENTION=30065]dblack[/MENTION]

Are you suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed any deductions and taxable income should equal gross income?

Uh... no, I don't think they should take all our income. But if we're going to have income tax is should be based on net income, with no deductions other than legitimate costs of doing business.

Can you give an example of "legitimate" costs incurred by a laborer who earns $20/hr?

Tools and such. The same sorts of things they can claim now. I'm talking about eliminating deductions for things unrelated to income - all the 'incentives' (mandates) implemented via the tax code.

 

[manifold]

Uh... no, I don't think they should take all our income. But if we're going to have income tax is should be based on net income, with no deductions other than legitimate costs of doing business.

Can you give an example of "legitimate" costs incurred by a laborer who earns $20/hr?

Tools and such. The same sorts of things they can claim now. I'm talking about eliminating deductions for things unrelated to income - all the 'incentives' (mandates) implemented via the tax code.

But if corporations are people, then why can't people also be corporations and deduct essentially anything they spend from revenues to calculate net income?

 

[dblack]

Can you give an example of "legitimate" costs incurred by a laborer who earns $20/hr?

Tools and such. The same sorts of things they can claim now. I'm talking about eliminating deductions for things unrelated to income - all the 'incentives' (mandates) implemented via the tax code.

But if corporations are people, then why can't people also be corporations and deduct essentially anything they spend from revenues to calculate net income?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Legal 'personhood' of corporations has nothing at all to do with this argument.

 

[manifold]

Tools and such. The same sorts of things they can claim now. I'm talking about eliminating deductions for things unrelated to income - all the 'incentives' (mandates) implemented via the tax code.

But if corporations are people, then why can't people also be corporations and deduct essentially anything they spend from revenues to calculate net income?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Legal 'personhood' of corporations has nothing at all to do with this argument.

I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing inequities in the tax code.

 

[dblack]

But if corporations are people, then why can't people also be corporations and deduct essentially anything they spend from revenues to calculate net income?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Legal 'personhood' of corporations has nothing at all to do with this argument.

I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing inequities in the tax code.

We're discussing the merits of discriminatory tax deductions. I have lots of complaints about the condition of the corporate charter and corporate law in general, but it doesn't really seem to have much to do with this discussion. Am I missing something?