Should people without kids pay more in Taxes?

[bripat9643]

The people who voted for the boondoggle can pay the extra taxes to cover it.

Well, I take it you'll be refunding your soc sec and paying for your own HC then

Lol, always love this argument.

I can't vouche for Bripat, but I am willing to bet, based on what I've seen, that he shares my views on this.

Yes, I'm down to let y'all keep the Soc Sec taxes I've been paying for the past 15 or so years and never pay me a cent back, so long as I can stop paying into that bullshit pyramid effective immediately. The medicare taxes, too. I'm down to take full responsibility of my healthcare -and- my retirement, as long as I don't have to take partial responsibility for yours or anyone else's except when I choose to. None of this threat of persecution for tax evasion bullshit. I can put together a much better retirement plan -and- take care of my healthcare more efficiently than some bureaucratic one-size-fits-all bullshit solution.

Kinda my Ben Franklin take on these government programs. I prefer freedom over security. This includes my preference of economic/financial freedom over social security.

If I don't have kids, I -still- don't owe you extra, cuz I never -owed- it to you to buy into your bullshit retirement safety net in the first place. I was forced into it without my consent. Once you reconcile that, it might set you straight on who "owes" what to who.

The liberal theory seems to be that only those who support their socialist boondoggles are entitled to collect the benefits. If you oppose paying for the boondoggle, then you are entitled to nothing.

 

[bripat9643]

Your implied position in that post was that if someone was more willing to let old people starve to death than they are willing to let the government force everyone to pitch in money to feed old people, then that someone isn't a "real American" and should gtfo of "your" country.

Pretty accurate?

NO. That's the kind of assumption you stumble into when you stick your nose in without understanding what the hell is going on.

That is your operating premise, bootlicker. He understands perfectly what servile government toadies believe.

 

[bripat9643]

Your implied position in that post was that if someone was more willing to let old people starve to death than they are willing to let the government force everyone to pitch in money to feed old people, then that someone isn't a "real American" and should gtfo of "your" country.

Pretty accurate?

NO. That's the kind of assumption you stumble into when you stick your nose in without understanding what the hell is going on.

Sorry, but at this point you're just talking out your ass to win an argument. Lemme show you where you said exactly what I'm getting at.

"To start with it's NOT YOU. It's not some developmentally arrested halfwit who thinks crying "leave me alone!" is a political philosophy. You would last not very long at all in the world you THINK you want.

A real American is someone holding legal United States citizenship who accepts and embraces the principles upon which this country was founded and by which we became and remain the greatest country on earth. Too ignorant to know what those principles are? Consult the founding documents and try to understand them the way a rational adult would (impossible for you, I know, but you could try). It is not some twitchy-eyed nut in a bunker, it is not some imbecile trying to pretend he's the only person on earth, it is not the ignorant, selfish and irresponsible like yourself, it is not some empty-headed drone chanting about open borders or global citizens or workers of the world uniting, and it is not any manner of cowardly, racist, near-sighted douchebags dreaming of imagined racial purity or hiding from our responsibilities as the most powerful nation on the planet.

A real American wouldn't need to ask."

The reason my previous explanation included starving old people is because this quote I've just posted came right on the tail end of that discussion, from which point you launch into a rant about selfish people pretending they're the only people on earth.

Are you trying to say that the discussion on taxation to benefit old people who might starve had -nothing- to do with you ranting about the selfish? If that's true, then do feel free to remove that particular bit from my assessment of your words.

At the very least, what you did with that quote is said that, among the other qualifiers, one prerequisite to being a "real America" is that one embrace the principles of the founding fathers, which you then dare to attempt to define by process of elimination. Sorry, but that attempt unavoidably implies that you hold the definition of those principles, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to make the connection that those principles that you speak of are based on -your- interpretation of the founding documents and -your- interpretation of what made/keeps America great.

Hate to break it to you, but you said, EXACTLY, that part of what makes someone a "real American" is adherence to YOUR philosophical principles, or at least YOUR interpretation of the founders' principles.

I would argue that everything about the Bill of Rights speaks of individual freedom. The First Amendment alone is enough to convince me that the founders intended to create a place where everyone could live by their -own- principles.

Then again, I'm not arrogant enough to believe that my standards are the ones by which all people in "my" society should be judged, and maybe, by some odd stretch of the imagination, that objectivity makes my thought on the matter less valid.

You're giving Unkotare too much credit. You're assuming there was actually some kind of theory or principle behind his reply. It was actually just a knee jerk attempt to end debate because he just got his ass handed to him and he doesn't like people proving what a fool he is.

 

[Care4all]

The people who voted for the boondoggle can pay the extra taxes to cover it.

Well, I take it you'll be refunding your soc sec and paying for your own HC then

Lol, always love this argument.

I can't vouche for Bripat, but I am willing to bet, based on what I've seen, that he shares my views on this.

Yes, I'm down to let y'all keep the Soc Sec taxes I've been paying for the past 15 or so years and never pay me a cent back, so long as I can stop paying into that bullshit pyramid effective immediately. The medicare taxes, too. I'm down to take full responsibility of my healthcare -and- my retirement, as long as I don't have to take partial responsibility for yours or anyone else's except when I choose to. None of this threat of persecution for tax evasion bullshit. I can put together a much better retirement plan -and- take care of my healthcare more efficiently than some bureaucratic one-size-fits-all bullshit solution.

Kinda my Ben Franklin take on these government programs. I prefer freedom over security. This includes my preference of economic/financial freedom over social security.

If I don't have kids, I -still- don't owe you extra, cuz I never -owed- it to you to buy into your bullshit retirement safety net in the first place. I was forced into it without my consent. Once you reconcile that, it might set you straight on who "owes" what to who.

Not2besubj
Most of these people looking to retire and collect SS, paid SS for 45 YEARS.... paying for their parents and their grandparents or the seniors in the Nation if they had no parents or grand parents alive, and in the 1980's under Reagan, they were told that their Social Security tax would DOUBLE so that not only were they paying for their parents and their grandparents, they were going to have to pay for themselves, so since the 80's when our SS taxes doubled, these people that are getting ready to retire have given Social Security SURPLUS monies for a portion of their own retirement for well over 2 decades of their lives, so not to rely on just their children and grand children to pay for them, due to children becoming fewer.....it's not their fault that the government has used their SURPLUS via a loan to spend on things income taxes should have been paying for, nor their fault that the government doesn't want to pay back what they paid in to SS to take care of their own retirements....


These people getting ready to retire are not leaches, as it seems you are implying....

Care

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Well, I take it you'll be refunding your soc sec and paying for your own HC then

Lol, always love this argument.

I can't vouche for Bripat, but I am willing to bet, based on what I've seen, that he shares my views on this.

Yes, I'm down to let y'all keep the Soc Sec taxes I've been paying for the past 15 or so years and never pay me a cent back, so long as I can stop paying into that bullshit pyramid effective immediately. The medicare taxes, too. I'm down to take full responsibility of my healthcare -and- my retirement, as long as I don't have to take partial responsibility for yours or anyone else's except when I choose to. None of this threat of persecution for tax evasion bullshit. I can put together a much better retirement plan -and- take care of my healthcare more efficiently than some bureaucratic one-size-fits-all bullshit solution.

Kinda my Ben Franklin take on these government programs. I prefer freedom over security. This includes my preference of economic/financial freedom over social security.

If I don't have kids, I -still- don't owe you extra, cuz I never -owed- it to you to buy into your bullshit retirement safety net in the first place. I was forced into it without my consent. Once you reconcile that, it might set you straight on who "owes" what to who.

Not2besubj
Most of these people looking to retire and collect SS, paid SS for 45 YEARS.... paying for their parents and their grandparents or the seniors in the Nation if they had no parents or grand parents alive, and in the 1980's under Reagan, they were told that their Social Security tax would DOUBLE so that not only were they paying for their parents and their grandparents, they were going to have to pay for themselves, so since the 80's when our SS taxes doubled, these people that are getting ready to retire have given Social Security SURPLUS monies for a portion of their own retirement for well over 2 decades of their lives, so not to rely on just their children and grand children to pay for them, due to children becoming fewer.....it's not their fault that the government has used their SURPLUS via a loan to spend on things income taxes should have been paying for, nor their fault that the government doesn't want to pay back what they paid in to SS to take care of their own retirements....


These people getting ready to retire are not leaches, as it seems you are implying....

Care

I'm implying no such thing. Whether these people are leeches or not is not the issue.

Regardless of the fact that these people paid into SS for 45 years, I am not the politicians that promised them they'd get paid out at the end of their career. I never voted on SS, nor would I have voted for it. Ultimately, I had nothing to do with it.

Why do -I- owe -anyone-, leeches or otherwise, a refund on their SS taxes?

I gotta admit, I'm mildly irritated by the fact that you assumed that to be what I was implying. Nowhere in the post that you quoted did I say -one word- about recipients of Social Security benefits. Not -ONE- word.

Apparently the fact that I disagree with the system implies that I feel contempt for those who participate. If that's your assumption, I'd have to assume you get pretty overly-emotional about these discussions.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

Wrong as usual.

Why should a person with no kids have to pay more in taxes than a person who chooses to have kids?

People with no kids use less government services and therefore as members of society cost less than those who have kids.

Our income tax code is out of whack.

We charge high rates and then give all kinds of deductions and credits that are so complicated it takes thousands of pages to try to codify them.

We should charge one rate on income earned period. There should be no deductions no exemptions and no special treatment for anyone.

 

[Unkotare]

Your implied position in that post was that if someone was more willing to let old people starve to death than they are willing to let the government force everyone to pitch in money to feed old people, then that someone isn't a "real American" and should gtfo of "your" country.

Pretty accurate?

NO. That's the kind of assumption you stumble into when you stick your nose in without understanding what the hell is going on.

Sorry, but at this point you're just talking out your ass to win an argument.

Sorry, but you made an ass out of yourself by jumping into an argument you didn't understand; one that began before this thread. Next time mind your own business and you won't embarrass yourself this way.

 

[Unkotare]

Hate to break it to you, but you said, EXACTLY, that part of what makes someone a "real American" is adherence to YOUR philosophical principles, or at least YOUR interpretation of the founders' principles..

Wrong again. This is what happens when you try to jump into the middle of a discussion of things you don't understand and that wasn't your business to begin with.

 

[Unkotare]

Why should a person with no kids have to pay more in taxes than a person who chooses to have kids?

Why should a person with no kids but who enjoys the absolutely essential benefit of producing more productive citizens pay less than a person who chooses to have kids and who takes on that vital responsibility from which all of society benefits?

 

[bripat9643]

Why should a person with no kids have to pay more in taxes than a person who chooses to have kids?

Why should a person with no kids but who enjoys the absolutely essential benefit of producing more productive citizens pay less than a person who chooses to have kids and who takes on that vital responsibility from which all of society benefits?

In a sane world, you don't benefit in the slightest from other people's kids. However, in this welfare state slaveocracy, the government needs a fresh supply of new slaves to pay for the benefits of all the greedy geezers sucking down government benefits. So the answer to your question is that the welfare state requires new slaves. It has nothing to do with any "benefit" intrinsic to young people.

 

[Unkotare]

Why should a person with no kids have to pay more in taxes than a person who chooses to have kids?

Why should a person with no kids but who enjoys the absolutely essential benefit of producing more productive citizens pay less than a person who chooses to have kids and who takes on that vital responsibility from which all of society benefits?

In a sane world, you don't benefit in the slightest from other people's kids.

Of course you do. I know you are trying real hard to think anarchy is 'cool' and all, but it's not. It's almost as infantile and impractical a notion as communism. Like it or not you don't live alone, champ. You don't, and if you did you'd be worm food in a matter of months at the outside. Gotta grow up sometime, champ.

 

[Kosh]

Should people without kids pay more in Taxes?

Using far left logic they should. This thread is empirical evidence of this. They want to punish those that are single with no kids. They at least want the women bare foot and pregnant with kids and no father.

 

[bripat9643]

Why should a person with no kids but who enjoys the absolutely essential benefit of producing more productive citizens pay less than a person who chooses to have kids and who takes on that vital responsibility from which all of society benefits?

In a sane world, you don't benefit in the slightest from other people's kids.

Of course you do. I know you are trying real hard to think anarchy is 'cool' and all, but it's not. It's almost as infantile and impractical a notion as communism. Like it or not you don't live alone, champ. You don't, and if you did you'd be worm food in a matter of months at the outside. Gotta grow up sometime, champ.

You offered no evidence to support your contention. Living next to someone doesn't entitle them to a share of my paycheck. Government and society are two separate things. The advantages of living in society have nothing to do with government. In fact, the very opposite is the case.

Big FAIL, as usual, carpetbagger.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why should a person with no kids have to pay more in taxes than a person who chooses to have kids?

Why should a person with no kids but who enjoys the absolutely essential benefit of producing more productive citizens pay less than a person who chooses to have kids and who takes on that vital responsibility from which all of society benefits?

I do not benefit from your brats.

It is I who subsidize your life style choices with my higher tax rates.

 

[Unkotare]

The advantages of living in society have nothing to do with government.

That is, of course, absurd. You might have actually made a point if you had shown enough self-control to steer clear of categorical nonsense, but...

 

[Unkotare]

Why should a person with no kids have to pay more in taxes than a person who chooses to have kids?

Why should a person with no kids but who enjoys the absolutely essential benefit of producing more productive citizens pay less than a person who chooses to have kids and who takes on that vital responsibility from which all of society benefits?

I do not benefit from ....

You will learn to speak more respectfully about people's families, or not at all. Got it?

Now, go back and read through the entire thread so you don't need it posted all over again just for you.

 

[RKMBrown]

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 had no idea just how anti-single you libtards are. WOW Why just force the single women into slavery for your welfare checks? Why don't you tie all the single women down, rape them, and force them to marry and pay your bills for ya? Why hide behind government to do all your dirty work?

 

[gallantwarrior]

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

The problem is not everyone is pitching in. Over 40 percent takes but doesn't give back.

And unfortunately, most of that 40% have children that the rest of us get to pay to support.

 

[Unkotare]

Living next to someone doesn't entitle them to a share of my paycheck.

And I suppose out there in your bunker you have no use for a fire department, police department, paved roads, hospitals, etc.

You only bolster your counterparts on the very far left when you indulge in extremist nonsense like that. But you don't care. You aren't an American and have no concern for the disposition of the country. If you aid the far left extremists in fucking up the place even more it means nothing to you because you have made it clear that it is not your country.

Thanks for nothing.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why should a person with no kids but who enjoys the absolutely essential benefit of producing more productive citizens pay less than a person who chooses to have kids and who takes on that vital responsibility from which all of society benefits?

I do not benefit from ....

You will learn to speak more respectfully about people's families, or not at all. Got it?

Now, go back and read through the entire thread so you don't need it posted all over again just for you.

Fuck Off Ukunthair.

You wanted kids so you fucking pay for them. You wanted kids so you fucking pay for them.