Should people without kids pay more in Taxes?

[Care4all]

to Mani and dblack....

We are given a standard deduction for our supposed yearly cost of living, so that we are only taxed on our ''profits'' from our labor earnings....what is it....$5700 each?

This is where the problem begins because that is too low imo...

According to a Supreme court decision on income taxes way back when, (no, i can't remember what the case was but i do remember what it said)the SC said that income taxing us had to be taxing our ''profit'' from our labor....our taxable income should be ONLY our profit from our labor.....just like businesses and corps only pay taxes on their profit....

BUT, only around 40% of the people in this nation use the ''long form'' and claims all of their ''expenses'' (that can be claimed) to reduce their taxable income.....the other 60% or so just get to take the standard deduction of $5700 per person which imo is an utterly & ridiculously low amount for what it really takes for the average joe/jane to spend to supply their labor....like what we spend on gasoline back and forth to work and our overhead costs.....

So, we are not given the same opportunities as businesses or corporations to write the same expenses off.....but we should be imo.

----------------------------------------------------------------
to the op....CC

since we are only suppose to be income taxed on profits, we are given the standard deduction per person to account for our expenses....

therefore, for those filing the short form.....a family of 2 earning the same income as a family of 4, will pay more income taxes than the family of 4 because they have 2 fewer standard deductions to take to reduce their taxable income.....and 2 fewer heads to feed and clothe,

so the person paying less than the fam of 2, due to the 4 standard deductions they take vs the guy's 2, isn't truly coming out ahead of the guy with just 2 deductions because the fam of 4's expenses are higher.....

we are taxed on our profit which is our ''taxable income''....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it is unfair that a family of 2 making the same income as the 2 of us....... just because they are strapped with mortgage debt and get to write that off, pays less..... while the hubby and I saved every hard earned penny to pay cash for our home so we have no mortgage....we are being dicked with extra taxes for being responsible.....and we pay huge property taxes and we've never been able to have children!

I'm certain EVERYONE has their own ''beef'' with what is unfair to them....regarding taxes....

Life's a bitch and then we die....eh? lol j/k

 

[oreo]

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

Tax deductions for kids have been around forever. And YES if you're married or single with no kids--you automatically pay more in taxes. Is it "Fair"--that's a good question. I would assume that the Federal Government allows kid deductions--because they will be future tax paying citizens. Furthermore--the wealth redistribution comes in and says--well we have single people with more expendable income that people with kids--so let's take some away from them to fund other federal government programs.

While we're relating to taxes--is it also fair--under Obamacare that Americans with kids are getting their premiums subsidized by working middle class Americans that are married with no kids or single--who are having to pay higher premiums--and whom are also required under the Obamacare mandates that they carry and pay for coverage that includes maternity coverage?

NOW I BET THE OPT OF THIS THREAD WON'T ANSWER THAT---

 

[dblack]

to Mani and dblack....

We are given a standard deduction for our supposed yearly cost of living, so that we are only taxed on our ''profits'' from our labor earnings....what is it....$5700 each?

Cost of living has no direct connection with calculating net income.

 

[Care4all]

to Mani and dblack....

We are given a standard deduction for our supposed yearly cost of living, so that we are only taxed on our ''profits'' from our labor earnings....what is it....$5700 each?

Cost of living has no direct connection with calculating net income.

What is the Standard Deduction?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You mean like tax credits for wind energy and solar? Most of the so-called "tax expenditures" you're talking about were put there by liberals, and they will fight tooth and nail to make sure they stay in the tax code. But the liberal numskulls thing that legitimate business expenses, like labor and materials, are "tax scams." It's pathetic that this stuff has to be explained to them over and over and over again.

 

[dblack]

to Mani and dblack....

We are given a standard deduction for our supposed yearly cost of living, so that we are only taxed on our ''profits'' from our labor earnings....what is it....$5700 each?

Cost of living has no direct connection with calculating net income.

What is the Standard Deduction?

What do you mean? I assume it's rationalized as you describe, but that's kind of silly. If it's the same for everyone, they should just exempt a base level of income.

 

[bripat9643]

to Mani and dblack....

We are given a standard deduction for our supposed yearly cost of living, so that we are only taxed on our ''profits'' from our labor earnings....what is it....$5700 each?

This is where the problem begins because that is too low imo...

According to a Supreme court decision on income taxes way back when, (no, i can't remember what the case was but i do remember what it said)the SC said that income taxing us had to be taxing our ''profit'' from our labor....our taxable income should be ONLY our profit from our labor.....just like businesses and corps only pay taxes on their profit....

BUT, only around 40% of the people in this nation use the ''long form'' and claims all of their ''expenses'' (that can be claimed) to reduce their taxable income.....the other 60% or so just get to take the standard deduction of $5700 per person which imo is an utterly & ridiculously low amount for what it really takes for the average joe/jane to spend to supply their labor....like what we spend on gasoline back and forth to work and our overhead costs.....

So, we are not given the same opportunities as businesses or corporations to write the same expenses off.....but we should be imo.

----------------------------------------------------------------
to the op....CC

since we are only suppose to be income taxed on profits, we are given the standard deduction per person to account for our expenses....

therefore, for those filing the short form.....a family of 2 earning the same income as a family of 4, will pay more income taxes than the family of 4 because they have 2 fewer standard deductions to take to reduce their taxable income.....and 2 fewer heads to feed and clothe,

so the person paying less than the fam of 2, due to the 4 standard deductions they take vs the guy's 2, isn't truly coming out ahead of the guy with just 2 deductions because the fam of 4's expenses are higher.....

we are taxed on our profit which is our ''taxable income''....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it is unfair that a family of 2 making the same income as the 2 of us....... just because they are strapped with mortgage debt and get to write that off, pays less..... while the hubby and I saved every hard earned penny to pay cash for our home so we have no mortgage....we are being dicked with extra taxes for being responsible.....and we pay huge property taxes and we've never been able to have children!

I'm certain EVERYONE has their own ''beef'' with what is unfair to them....regarding taxes....

Life's a bitch and then we die....eh? lol j/k

If you itemize your deductions have to exceed $5700 for a single person before you even break even by filing the long form. Unless you own a house and can deduct your mortgage interest, most people have nowhere near this amount in deductions. Even if you do own a house, the mortgage deduction may not be enough to make it worth while to itemize. That's why they don't itemize.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

That's the way the IRS code defines it. If you don't like it, then get the law changed. Good luck getting that through Congress. That would reduce income taxes to a small fraction of what the government currently collects.

However, you can't tax a business on gross revenue. The 16th Amendment allows the government to tax your income, not your gross revenues. Income is gross revenues minus expenses.

 

[oreo]

to Mani and dblack....

We are given a standard deduction for our supposed yearly cost of living, so that we are only taxed on our ''profits'' from our labor earnings....what is it....$5700 each?

Cost of living has no direct connection with calculating net income.

What is the Standard Deduction?

For each kid it's $3900.00 for a married couple with one kid--it's $12200.00.

There is more information in plain English here--of the tax benefits of being married with kids.
HowStuffWorks "5 Tax Benefits That Come With Marriage"

 

[Politico]

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...

Yeah you do. No one with a brain cell is going to the way you asked it. The point was whether people should be paid to have kids. You spin it with soldiers so you can bash anyone who says no as hating the military.

Yeah you do. No one with a brain cell is going to the way you asked it.

You choose to run away, as I suspected you would.

Wait for it folks.

People choose to serve in the military. We pay them for that. People choose to be fire fighters or police officers and we choose to pay them for that. Why?

They provide a service to the community - and they save lives. Having a child doesn't save a life.

Try again. Take your time and think carefully.

And boom troll fail. Case and point.

[MENTION=30065]dblack[/MENTION]

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

No one said any such thing. Trying to go unkotare on us?

 

[dblack]

[MENTION=30065]dblack[/MENTION]

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

No one said any such thing. Trying to go unkotare on us?

Uh.. mani was asking me, and yeah, that is, more or less, what I'm suggesting.

 

[Unkotare]

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...

Yeah you do. No one with a brain cell is going to the way you asked it. The point was whether people should be paid to have kids. You spin it with soldiers so you can bash anyone who says no as hating the military.

Wait for it folks.

They provide a service to the community - and they save lives. Having a child doesn't save a life.

Try again. Take your time and think carefully.

And boom troll fail. Case and point.[/QUOTE]



If you mean that you failed to save any face in that pathetic demonstration of ducking, you're right.

 

[Care4all]

Cost of living has no direct connection with calculating net income.

What is the Standard Deduction?

What do you mean? I assume it's rationalized as you describe, but that's kind of silly. If it's the same for everyone, they should just exempt a base level of income.

I can't disagree with ya....it's silly to think that everyone has the same expenses.....but they do give each person the opportunity to claim more expenses than the standard deduction through the long form's itemized deductions if they come to more than the standard deduction....

so the standard deduction is given to us, because we too, just like corps and businesses, are only supposed to be taxed on our profit, which is our gross minus expenses.

We are just not given they same opportunities to deduct everything that a corporation or business can deduct to come to our net and taxable income....

NOT that I want to make it any more complicated than the tax system is now!

 

[emilynghiem]

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

We should reform welfare and taxes to move toward microlending to and from govt.

People who accept student or short term loans agree to a work, educational or business training plan to pay it back.

Organizations that provide charity (not necessarily paid back) would receive matching grants from govt, and match dollar for dollar with their own donations or loans to clients.

People who lend to govt more than they use would receive interest like the private
investors in the federal reserve who lend money.

Fix the tax at a certain flat rate, and any taxes paid above that is a loan TO govt;
and any amount of benefits used more than paid in is a loan FROM govt.

We could organize this per individual or per party; so if one party wants to pay for health and social programs on a microlending basis, they are responsible for collecting on and sustaining the program. If the other party "lends more money in taxes" than their members use, then they receive interest on the loans; and vice verse for war spending or assistance to veterans.

If we start tracking how much money is going in versus how much is spent,
then we can hold people accountable for using more costs than they are paying,
whether individually or by party.

I suspect the plusses and minusses on the side of war spending and corporate grants
would be much larger (in the "billions and trillions," compared with the "millions and billions" spent on social welfare and prison costs among the lower economic classes).

We need to start organizing teams to track the tax revenue going in and out,
so we can go after the criminal abusers on BOTH levels, and not punish all the other taxpayers who do have ability and intent to pay their share or pay back their costs.

I think this can be done effectively by party, since they are well experienced in research to expose the corruption of tax abusers. We just need to follow up with an agreed system of collecting back on these debts and/or a system of federal credits back to taxpayers. If we agree on a a system of correcting and paying back restitution to taxpayers, that should deter most abuses and promote responsible business loans and planning to begin with.

 

[Pop23]

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?

A sloth will pay more in lifetime taxes then a nonexistent citizen.

Some is much larger then none.

And let's talk about the sloth that dies on the battlefield so you can look down your nose at him and his parent. Dumb people die in battle, non existent people do not.

What am I missing?

 

[Care4all]

Cost of living has no direct connection with calculating net income.

What is the Standard Deduction?

What do you mean? I assume it's rationalized as you describe, but that's kind of silly. If it's the same for everyone, they should just exempt a base level of income.

It's the same for every adult and the same for every child....the deduction is given to us for the 'cost of living expenses', (for the lack of a better term) that we have...so that we are paying taxes ONLY on our profit.....it has to be a deduction "per person" because each person costs more....and each family is only suppose to pay taxes on their "profit"....

so a family of 5 has more basic expenses than a family of 2 in most all cases....that's why he has a lower net income/taxable income/profit, than the fam of 2.....

He's not ''getting something'' for having kids...he just has less profit to report and pay taxes on....because he did make less profit.

Can we tell 2 business that have the same yearly revenue intake that they BOTH have to pay the SAME taxes just because they both grossed a million dollars in sales?

The answer is NO.

Each of them have their own expenses to deduct and one can end up paying zero and the other one can end up paying $200,000. fed income taxes all based on what their profit turned out to be.....

It's the same with individuals that gross the same amount...profit will change per filing family....thus taxable income can be different for each of them even if they grossed the same....

 

[dblack]

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?

A sloth will pay more in lifetime taxes then a nonexistent citizen.

Some is much larger then none.

And let's talk about the sloth that dies on the battlefield so you can look down your nose at him and his parent. Dumb people die in battle, non existent people do not.

What am I missing?

You're missing my revulsion at our government's habit of using the tax code to micromanage our lives.

 

[joejonbob]

I have kids and here is my take on it.

Flat tax is obviously the answer, but I digress.

I am fine with childless people being taxed less, on a couple conditions.

1. I would prefer that all taxes related to schools be abolished, and have education privatized, meaning the money I would pay in taxes, I pay in tuition to an institute of my choosing...

2. I would also like people without kids to not be able to use the full benefits of social security, or medicaid when they retire, considering it will be my children footing your bill. We all know that the "trust" no longer exists, and these programs are simply pyramid scams that rely on either, more workers, or more tax dollars from less workers to support an aging, selfish population.

Since you didn't make the investment of having children, why should my children pay to subsidize a portion of your retirement. In a normal society, children are viewed as a human investment in the future, and an important one at that.

 

[Rockland]

I read the thread title as "Should people without kids pay more in Texas?"

I need sleep.

 

[Pop23]

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?

A sloth will pay more in lifetime taxes then a nonexistent citizen.

Some is much larger then none.

And let's talk about the sloth that dies on the battlefield so you can look down your nose at him and his parent. Dumb people die in battle, non existent people do not.

What am I missing?

You're missing my revulsion at our government's habit of using the tax code to micromanage our lives.

Prolly so. I am equally revulsed at our government allowing a demographic that cannot provide soldiers, teachers and taxpayers a status as if they can.