Should people without kids pay more in Taxes?

[Unkotare]

What are you 12?

Depends on how cold it is in the room.

 

[Unkotare]

How do you interpret it?

Again, kind of a long story.

"a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma"

I like pithy answers, but anyone who tells you there is one for that is either lying, hasn't thought about it much, or doesn't care to take the question seriously.

 

[dblack]

In my view, if a given government service can't be thought of as benefitting everyone more or less equally, it probably shouldn't be a government service.

See, here "benefitting [sic] everyone...equally" and even "more or less" are problematic and open to interpretation.

Just because we can't achieve perfection doesn't mean shouldn't aim for ideals. Is that what you're suggesting? That we shouldn't even bother aiming for government that benefits society as a whole; just give in to the idea that it's all about handing out favors?

 

[dblack]

Again, kind of a long story.

"a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma"

I like pithy answers, but anyone who tells you there is one for that is either lying, hasn't thought about it much, or doesn't care to take the question seriously.

And anyone so evasive about their goals and intentions is pretty hard to trust or take seriously.

 

[Ame®icano]

I haven't seen any logical argument for a notion that non-breeders somehow get less benefit from what govt provides than do breeders.

Education? non-breeders got education, and they benefit from the productivity of younger workers.

Roads? Defense? Retirement?

They do benefit. They just pay more for those benefits.

Or much less, depending on how you look at it.

I don't think they pay less. People with no kids don't get child tax credit. They pay school taxes without having kids in schools.

So please explain how do they pay less into system.

 

[bendog]

They do benefit. They just pay more for those benefits.

Or much less, depending on how you look at it.

I don't think they pay less. People with no kids don't get child tax credit. They pay school taxes without having kids in schools.

So please explain how do they pay less into system.

Well the biggest is that because they produced no new workers, they're "taking" soc sec and medicare based only on their own personal contribution which has already been consumed by prior retirees of the bushii taxcuts.

Further, as for education, non-breeders are equally in need of an educated workforce as breeders. Look who is paying taxes for their retirements.

 

[Care4all]

Supreme Court...

In Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 400; 34 S.Ct. 136 (1913) the Supreme Court stated:

"Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined."

GAIN is profit, this includes only the GAIN from your labor, which DOES NOT and CAN NOT include your full income from labor, or it is unconstitutional because that would be considered a "direct tax" and if a direct tax, then it needs to be apportioned per the constitution....is what I am gathering from reading up on this from various sources, but here is one provoking argument on it all....from one of those groups that are always fighting taxes of any kind, but a very good presented piece in my humble opinion....

What Is Constitutional Taxable Income

Basically, the government can not tax us on all that we earn as wages....only the gain on what we earn for our labor which is finite....it ends some day, you only have so many working years and only so much time in a day and if 8 hours of your day is spent laboring for someone else, you are using your own energy up for those 8 hours....doing things for someone else, instead of yourself or instead of using it for another cause....that would have cost you money to pay someone else to do it because you didn't have the time/energy to do it....


energy/labor equals "expenditures" in a tax way..businesses can write off/deduct their expenditures from their revenues taken in, before coming to their taxable income.....the SAME is suppose to be done with our wages, where we could deduct the amount of labor/expenditures it took from the wages....

like I said, a very hard task to do....

so I believe that this is where the Personal Exemption and Standard deduction come from.....so to comply with us only being taxed on our GAIN.

Read this.....

Taxation and the Family: What is the personal exemption?

Personal exemptions provide that only a person’s income above some defined basic level is subject to tax. They thus help ensure that the poorest of the poor pay little if any income tax. The personal exemption has been a basic feature of the modern individual income tax since it was enacted. In 1913 it was set at $3,000 (equivalent to $66,937 in 2011 dollars), so that very few persons were expected to pay tax. The 2011 personal exemption, at $3,700, is substantially lower in real terms, but the tax code has added other features since 1913, such as the standard deduction and various tax credits, that have partly offset the exemption’s decline in value.

• The value of the personal exemption depends on an individual’s marginal tax rate. For instance, a single taxpayer who would otherwise owe 15 percent on his or her first $3,700 of income saves $555, whereas a single taxpayer in a 35 percent bracket saves $1,295. Thus, under a progressive income tax, exemptions are worth more to upper-income filers than to low-income filers. The rate structure itself can, however, be adjusted to compensate for that effect and achieve any desired degree of progressivity.
• Since 1990, the personal exemption has been phased out at higher income levels. Current tax law reduces the phase-out for the 2006-09 tax years and removes it entirely in 2010, 2011, and 2012 before returning it to full force in 2013.
• The alternative minimum tax (AMT) denies taxpayers the use of personal exemptions. As a result, larger families are more likely to owe AMT than smaller families.
• In 2008 tax filers reported $8 trillion in adjusted gross income (AGI) and claimed $981 billion in personal exemptions (although not all exemptions could be fully used to reduce tax). Returns that owed tax reported $7.6 trillion of that AGI and claimed personal exemptions totaling $592 billion.

What is the personal exemption?

I think I am fine with those people having children being able to take a personal exemption and standard deduction for everyone in their household that is supported by that income, whether it be an elderly grandparent of children or a stay at home wife or husband.

What I have learned through all of this reading up on the federal government's definition of INCOME and taxable income has been enlightening and makes me think that we don't have ENOUGH deductions to compensate for our expenditures/labor costs or our personal exemption and standard deduction should go higher.....

this was another good over view

Legal history of income tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RKMBrown]

What are you 12?

Depends on how cold it is in the room.

Impotency is a common symptom of people like you that rely on real men to handle their business for them. Just keep making up excuses.. it's cold... the evil rich guy wont pay you 50bucks an hour to stock the beer cooler.....

 

[Unkotare]

In my view, if a given government service can't be thought of as benefitting everyone more or less equally, it probably shouldn't be a government service.

See, here "benefitting [sic] everyone...equally" and even "more or less" are problematic and open to interpretation.

Just because we can't achieve perfection doesn't mean shouldn't aim for ideals. Is that what you're suggesting? That we shouldn't even bother aiming for government that benefits society as a whole; just give in to the idea that it's all about handing out favors?

You're doing it again. I didn't say that, did I?

 

[dblack]

See, here "benefitting [sic] everyone...equally" and even "more or less" are problematic and open to interpretation.

Just because we can't achieve perfection doesn't mean shouldn't aim for ideals. Is that what you're suggesting? That we shouldn't even bother aiming for government that benefits society as a whole; just give in to the idea that it's all about handing out favors?

You're doing it again. I didn't say that, did I?

Hmm.. okay. I'll just mark you down for never 'really' saying anything then, and take your little comments as relatively empty remarks with no real convictions behind them.

 

[Unkotare]

"a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma"

I like pithy answers, but anyone who tells you there is one for that is either lying, hasn't thought about it much, or doesn't care to take the question seriously.

And anyone so evasive about their goals and intentions is pretty hard to trust or take seriously.

If you only take bumper-stickers seriously, that's up to you. This is why the level of discourse around here is juvenile, ignorant, and superficial. I guess I had it right from the beginning; have fun with it but don't expect any real informed political discussion.


This is an example of why I post so infrequently on the Philosophy Forum (though I've tried to start serious threads there to no avail) and why any thread I start on linguistics withers on the vine.

But it is what it is. Accept it for what it is and have fun with it, I guess.


Here we go: You suck! You're the other side! Pwnd lol dupe booger commie pub dummy!



Ah, that's better.

 

[Unkotare]

What are you 12?

Depends on how cold it is in the room.

Impotency is a common symptom .....

You seem to have devoted quite a lot of time and energy to studying other men's units. If that's your thing then - whatever - but try to keep it to yourself.

 

[Unkotare]

Just because we can't achieve perfection doesn't mean shouldn't aim for ideals. Is that what you're suggesting? That we shouldn't even bother aiming for government that benefits society as a whole; just give in to the idea that it's all about handing out favors?

You're doing it again. I didn't say that, did I?

Hmm.. okay. I'll just mark you down for never 'really' saying anything then...

You seem to prefer to make up your own responses and then attribute them to others regardless of what has actually been said. I guess that's easier for the likes of you.

 

[dblack]

I like pithy answers, but anyone who tells you there is one for that is either lying, hasn't thought about it much, or doesn't care to take the question seriously.

And anyone so evasive about their goals and intentions is pretty hard to trust or take seriously.

If you only take bumper-stickers seriously, that's up to you. This is why the level of discourse around here is juvenile, ignorant, and superficial. I guess I had it right from the beginning; have fun with it but don't expect any real informed political discussion.


This is an example of why I post so infrequently on the Philosophy Forum (though I've tried to start serious threads there to no avail) and why any thread I start on linguistics withers on the vine.

But it is what it is. Accept it for what it is and have fun with it, I guess.


Here we go: You suck! You're the other side! Pwnd lol dupe booger commie pub dummy!



Ah, that's better.

Hmmm.... If that's all it comes down to, why not start there and save us all a lot of trouble?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

We can't just stop at procreation. Eating is also necessary to the survival of the species. I'm doing my part by cramming McDoubles down my top hatch. I should get some sort of tax incentive for feeding my face.

As far as I can tell, you personally eating is not necessary to the survival of the species. Feel free to stop whenever you like. Feeding those too young to feed themselves, so that they can grow up to become the next generation is necessary. Stealing a little bit less money from those who carry the very considerable expense of doing so - to the benefit of all - shouldn't be enough to send even the pathologically selfish like you into hysterics like this.

You're correct. Me personally eating isn't necessary to further society.

You personally fucking also isn't necessary to populate society. Plenty of people are willing to pick up the slack if you decide to shrinkwrap your turkey baster.

Also, you're making the assumption that all these parents are feeding their kids and raising good citizens. Pretty bold assumption, I'd say.

Last but not least. . . stealing? If I don't give you extra money for having kids I'm stealing from you? Where the fuck are you getting your definition of stealing?

 

[dblack]

You're doing it again. I didn't say that, did I?

Hmm.. okay. I'll just mark you down for never 'really' saying anything then...

You seem to prefer to make up your own responses and then attribute them to others regardless of what has actually been said. I guess that's easier for the likes of you.

The problem is that you just post empty facts without any argument attached, leaving fellow posters to guess what you meant. And then you get evasive when we ask for clarification. You really should just start out with the insults, if you don't have any point you're trying to make.

 

[Unkotare]

They do benefit. They just pay more for those benefits.

Or much less, depending on how you look at it.

I don't think they pay less. People with no kids don't get child tax credit. They pay school taxes without having kids in schools.

So please explain how do they pay less into system.

The tax credit is nowhere near as much as the cost of responsibly raising a child which, as we have established, benefits all of society in an absolutely indispensable way.

 

[Unkotare]

The problem is that you just post empty facts without any argument attached...

For example?

 

[Unkotare]

If I don't give you extra money for having kids I'm stealing from you?

That is not what we have been talking about. We have been talking about the government taking a little bit less from those doing the essential work of raising the next generation.

 

[Unkotare]

Me personally eating isn't necessary to further society.

But if so many people were starving to death that we were facing the prospect of a shrinking population you would consider it a matter of national import.