Should people without kids pay more in Taxes?

[Skull Pilot]

Fuck Off Ukunthair.

If you want kids than you pay for them.

Hey, you will learn to speak more respectfully about people's families, or not at all. Don't forget it.

Again. Fuck Off Ukunthair.

If you want kids then be a man and pay for them yourself.

You would then agree to keep paying into social security! Medicaid and Medicare but just never be able to use them or withdraw the funds, because are reliant on the children becoming tax payers to pay into those funds.

Or are you a freeloader?

The freeloaders are people who use the system the most and rely on others to subsidize them.

I am not planning on any SS money and I have implemented a plan that purposely left SS out of the mix so no I won't need it. If you do then you failed to plan properly.

IMO SS should be privatized completely so people would actually be able to retire with some financial security rather than be forced into dependence on the government and future generations.

 

[RKMBrown]

And if those parents devote the very considerable resources of many sort to raising productive citizens, it's not so outrageous to give them a break on the already burdensome taxes we find imposed upon us, right?

If you can't afford kids without stealing from people who don't have kids then maybe you shouldn't have kids in the first place.

See, here is where that argument fails. Regardless if a couple can afford a child or not, the childless REQUIRE children to care for them in their old age. The childless require the children to become taxpayers to fund the childless's Social Security

The opposite is never true. The child bearing couples will not be able to rely on the childless couple to supply population to care for us, or additional taxes to fund our social security.

Sorry, but facts is facts. Until the ACA was enacted to take care of "freeloaders", none of this would have ever been seriously considered. Now it's cool to out freeloaders.

Why stop there? Why not just take 100% of everyone's salary and distribute their income according to everyone's needs?

 

[Pop23]

If you can't afford kids without stealing from people who don't have kids then maybe you shouldn't have kids in the first place.

See, here is where that argument fails. Regardless if a couple can afford a child or not, the childless REQUIRE children to care for them in their old age. The childless require the children to become taxpayers to fund the childless's Social Security

I do not require children to care for me in my old age. I will have enough money to maintain my own home and can hire people if needs be to tend to me. Or I can simply choose to end my life. No children needed.

The opposite is never true. The child bearing couples will not be able to rely on the childless couple to supply population to care for us, or additional taxes to fund our social security.

Social Security? Really your argument is that we need to have kids to shore up the biggest government scam in history? I will not need SS to secure my retirement and if you di it is because you failed to plan.

Hey Mr. Brilliant, those people you hire to care for you when you age?

They were products of child bearing couples.

I also may have less when I retire because I raised 3 children, put them through college (3 grads including an MBA) and helped them get good starts. It does not take Howard Hughes to put a few bucks away when you have no one but yourself to spend on. Patting yourself on the back for the easy road?


Do you even think before hitting the submit button, or is that button like meth to you?

 

[Ame®icano]

 

[Skull Pilot]

See, here is where that argument fails. Regardless if a couple can afford a child or not, the childless REQUIRE children to care for them in their old age. The childless require the children to become taxpayers to fund the childless's Social Security

I do not require children to care for me in my old age. I will have enough money to maintain my own home and can hire people if needs be to tend to me. Or I can simply choose to end my life. No children needed.

The opposite is never true. The child bearing couples will not be able to rely on the childless couple to supply population to care for us, or additional taxes to fund our social security.

Social Security? Really your argument is that we need to have kids to shore up the biggest government scam in history? I will not need SS to secure my retirement and if you di it is because you failed to plan.

Hey Mr. Brilliant, those people you hire to care for you when you age?

They were products of child bearing couples.

I also may have less when I retire because I raised 3 children, put them through college (3 grads including an MBA) and helped them get good starts. It does not take Howard Hughes to put a few bucks away when you have no one but yourself to spend on. Patting yourself on the back for the easy road?


Do you even think before hitting the submit button, or is that button like meth to you?

If you didn't plan before you had your kids how is that my fault?

Maybe you should have only had one kid then you wouldn't need to be dependent on other people when you retired.

But that would mean being responsible and we can't expect that can we?

 

[RKMBrown]

But that would mean being responsible and we can't expect that can we?

Entitlement society means not having to be responsible for anything but voting against those evil rich scumbags that took everything for themselves.

 

[Skull Pilot]

But that would mean being responsible and we can't expect that can we?

Entitlement society means not having to be responsible for anything but voting against those evil rich scumbags that took everything for themselves.

Exactly right.

The whole we are dependent on everyone else in society spiel is nothing but an excuse to avoid responsibility.

 

[dblack]

For those of you who support tax breaks for having kids, would you likewise support fining people who refused? We could call it a 'generational shared responsibility payment'.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I don't know why anyone should support my children with their hard earned money and I also dont know why I have to support support everyone else's needs.

 

[Unkotare]

Having children is a selfish act. Period

That is, of course, nihilistic nonsense. Even a child would be able to reason more intelligently and maturely than that.

 

[Unkotare]

I don't know why anyone should support my children with their hard earned money and I also dont know why I have to support support everyone else's needs.

Would you look at a tax break for you as having someone else support your children?

 

[Unkotare]

The whole we are dependent on everyone else in society spiel is nothing but an excuse to avoid responsibility.

If you really want to be alone, then go away and be alone for real. Of course you'd never have the sack to put your money where your mouth is. As long as you live in a country and accept the rights that go along with citizenship, all this "juche" bullshit is just childish self-indulgence.

 

[Care4all]

I don't know why anyone should support my children with their hard earned money and I also dont know why I have to support support everyone else's needs.

why should i pay more in taxes because I am not in hock with a mortgage? And the person with the same gross income as us that has the BIGGEST mortgage pays the Least in taxes...

or


A person with no kids but a huge mortgage can end up paying less in income taxes than the family with a kid on the equal incomes if the fam with a kid is just renting.....and the single person with a mortgage can pay less than the single person renting on the same gross income too.


Why just single out people with children? There's a gazillion things that would seem to be unfair....?

Would it be okay to tax businesses and corporations on their GROSS revenues/gross income? So if 2 businesses each gross a million, you would tax them equally even if 1 of those businesses made a profit and the other one took a loss it wouldn't matter, they would both be taxed the same amount?

I don't think that would be fair for a company or for us individuals either....

That's why, it's okay with me that others with children earning the same gross income as we do only we are without children, pay less in income taxes than us.....because they are taxed on their profit, their net income, just as I am, and they clearly can not make the same 'profit' as we can, as a childless couple....they have more expenses than we do thus they have less profit than we do, for the gvt to tax.....

Same thing with the exampled businesses grossing a million each....their expenses that can be deducted from their gross, determines what each of them owe in taxes.

 

[dblack]

That's why, it's okay with me that others with children earning the same gross income as we do only we are without children, pay less in income taxes than us.....because they are taxed on their profit, their net income, just as I am, and they clearly can not make the same 'profit' as we can, as a childless couple....they have more expenses than we do thus they have less profit than we do, for the gvt to tax.....

Same thing with the exampled businesses grossing a million each....their expenses that can be deducted from their gross, determines what each of them owe in taxes.

Same thing with someone nursing an expensive addiction. They have higher expenses than you do, thus have less profit. So they should pay less in taxes, right?

 

[RKMBrown]

I don't know why anyone should support my children with their hard earned money and I also dont know why I have to support support everyone else's needs.

Would you look at a tax break for you as having someone else support your children?

Therein lies the bait and switch employed by the socialists/marxists. It's a tax break it's not taking money from peter to pay paul.. oh no it's a tax incentive to help paul raise wonderful little children. Peter? Oh don't worry about him he's just some evil rich guy.

 

[Care4all]

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.

Because we are paying taxes on our NET, not our GROSS and people with more children have less of a profit left over to tax than people with no children.....

they aren't paying less than you on their and your NET income...they are paying the exact same as you on their NET income as you would pay if you had the same NET income.....

This is why it is downright silly for anyone to compare what the poorest or lower 50% pay in federal income taxes compared to those in the top 10% of the earners because NO ONE, not even the top 10% is being taxed on their GROSS.....we are taxed on our NET income which is considered our PROFIT...just like a business's profit, just like YOUR business's profit, is what is taxed, NOT your total revenues or GROSS.

so what all these charts are showing us is that those in the upper 10% are much more PROFITABLE with their gross incomes than those at the bottom, with their measly incomes...

YOU, the individual, PAY INCOME TAXES on your supposed PROFIT,

NOT on your GROSS, Just like businesses pay taxes on their PROFIT, on their NET income.

the top 10% paying more and more of the percentage of the federal income taxes just shows that they are doing really well and accumulating more and more wealth, (yes, profit is wealth), while the bottom 50% are not.

We do not pay taxes on out net.

If we did then we should be able to deduct utility bills etc.

And profit is not wealth. Net worth is wealth.

Using your example if I make a million a year and spend a million a year then my net is 0.

And we should be able to deduct utility bills directly, the congress just hasn't been as generous with us as they have been with business deductions...

The gvt can NOT tax us on our gross incomes, and YOU have not been taxed on your Gross income....ever! we need a lot more deductions to achieve us being taxed only on our gross profit such as businesses, but we are not taxed on our gross income and haven't been.... taxes are on taxable income only, right?

The gvt gives all of us individuals, 'X' minimal amount as a deduction for our basic, minimal, ''expenses'', INCLUDING our yearly utility costs, through the standard deduction of $5800 each.... this modest standard deduction for our minimal basic expenses is not enough to cover minimal expenses...those using the short form are probably being taxed on more than their gross profit too....

 

[Unkotare]

Everyone should pay a flat tax.

What about people who don't live in a flat?

 

[Unkotare]

Certainly, as lon as the married couple can afford to house, clothe, feed, and educate those children. Otherwise, their children become a burden on society, expecting everyone else to sacrifice in ways the parents are unwilling to sacrifice.

And if those parents devote the very considerable resources of many sort to raising productive citizens, it's not so outrageous to give them a break on the already burdensome taxes we find imposed upon us, right?

If you can't afford kids without stealing from people who don't have kids then maybe you shouldn't have kids in the first place.

If you can't contribute, in one way or another, to maintaining and perpetuating society maybe you should live alone on a deserted island.

 

[Unkotare]

You're right as people that have kids use more of societies resources....They should pay more.

Fox is full of shit.

Yeah, but it's their kids that will prop up the social security that those single people will be collecting in their old age.

No, all the single people are paying into the Social Security ponzi scheme. SS is not an entitlement in the same sense as food stamps, rental assistance, and many other "social welfare" programs. SS was sold to the public as a retirement investment account. Many prospective recipients have been forced to contribute a portion of their earnings into the account with the promise that the funds would then be available to them when they retire. SS is not a "freebie", it's been paid for by single people as well as married people, people with and without children.
It is not the fault of those who have been lied to by government and had their retirement savings stolen by the pols that other people's children have to "prop up" SS.

And so? When those nearing retirement get there they are just told "sorry"?

 

[Unkotare]

Fuck Off Ukunthair..

Fuck Off Ukunthair.

If you want kids than you pay for them.

Hey, you will learn to speak more respectfully about people's families, or not at all. Don't forget it.

Again. Fuck Off Ukunthair.

If you don't want to be a part of the country then get the fuck out of it. You won't be missed, I assure you.