Should people without kids pay more in Taxes?

[Unkotare]

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?

Blame yourself. I tried to have a discussion with you.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Absolutely correct. Parents buy stuff for the children which in turn creates jobs. Without jobs created by procreation, our economy would be in the dumpster.

 

[dblack]

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

For example?

Scroll up. You cited the fact that procreation is an essential activity for the survival of society - presumably (though at this point I have no idea if it was your intent or not) as the reason why government should supplement child-rearing with tax deductions. And I wanted to know why you thought that justified government policy, why it's the job of government to ensure the survival of the species. When you refused to answer, I asked about your conception of the purpose of government, hoping that would shed some light on it. But you've stubbornly resisted explaining your views, which seems a little silly. Isn't that sort of the purpose of posting here? Why are you posting?

 

[Care4all]

I think every dependent in the household should receive a standard deduction and personal exemption....if the dependent is a child, then fine, if it is an elderly parent that you are taking care of than fine, if it is your stay at home wife, then fine....

WHY would someone want to change that?

I don't view this as some perk to procreate created by our gvt....

it's just common sense....

 

[Unkotare]

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

For example?

Scroll up. You cited the fact that procreation is an essential activity for the survival of society - ...

Do you dispute this?

 

[dblack]

For example?

Scroll up. You cited the fact that procreation is an essential activity for the survival of society - ...

Do you dispute this?

Jesus Christ no! What I dispute is that it justifies government intervention. I don't think it's the kind of problem government is responsible for solving, which is why I've been trying to find out what sort of problems YOU think government should solve. But that's a deep, hidden secret apparently. At this point I'm convinced you're just being evasive for the trollish joy of it.

 

[Unkotare]

Scroll up. You cited the fact that procreation is an essential activity for the survival of society - ...

Do you dispute this?

Jesus Christ no! What I dispute is that it justifies government intervention. .

Do you consider taking away less of people's money - not giving more of someone else's, mind you - constitutes an "intervention"?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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.

You can't separate those two concepts. The government needs the amount of money that it needs. The fact that some people pay less necessitates that someone else pay more. Period.

On top of that, when you look at how much money EIC people pay out in taxes versus how much they take in from the EIC and/or child credits based on their children, sorry, but they're not "paying a little less". They're being given more money than they pay out, straight up. Not only are many of them not paying at all, they're BEING PAID to have kids. That money doesn't come out of thin air, bud.

 

[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.

You can't separate those two concepts. The government needs the amount of money that it needs. .

Says who?

 

[dblack]

Do you dispute this?

Jesus Christ no! What I dispute is that it justifies government intervention. .

Do you consider taking away less of people's money - not giving more of someone else's, mind you - constitutes an "intervention"?

Yep. It's relatively no different. Anyway, I answered your question. If you're not going to answer mine -- stated above, and repeatedly throughout the thread -- well, I'm not interested in chasing you around the mulberry bush.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

Answer this. Since when is anyone but me responsible to raise my own kids? I don't have kids for a reason to benefit society, I have them because I want to have them and raising them is my problem. If I can't afford to have them, I wouldn't.

 

[Unkotare]

The fact that some people pay less necessitates that someone else pay more. Period.

Are you one of those lefties who considers an across-the-board tax cut to be "giving money to the rich" or "stealing" from those who pay nothing in income tax anyway? You one of those nuts?

 

[Unkotare]

Jesus Christ no! What I dispute is that it justifies government intervention. .

Do you consider taking away less of people's money - not giving more of someone else's, mind you - constitutes an "intervention"?

Yep. It relatively no different.

You have a very unusually passive definition of "intervention."

 

[Unkotare]

Answer this. Since when is anyone but me responsible to raise [sic] my own kids?.

Since when has it been posited that anyone else is?

 

[Unkotare]

I don't have kids for a reason to benefit society

And yet your doing so does benefit society; benefits it indispensably.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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.

You can't separate those two concepts. The government needs the amount of money that it needs. .

Says who?

Says the government. What they can't get out of us, they borrow. Eventually, someone will owe this money.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

The fact that some people pay less necessitates that someone else pay more. Period.

Are you one of those lefties who considers an across-the-board tax cut to be "giving money to the rich" or "stealing" from those who pay nothing in income tax anyway? You one of those nuts?

Not at all. Taking less of someone's shit doesn't necessarily constitute giving them anything.

That's immaterial. This question doesn't ask at all about whether or not I feel the general layout of our tax system is just, which I don't believe. The question here is whether or not people with kids should get extra breaks at the expense of people without kids. Should people without kids PAY MORE. Remember the thread title?

In my view, no, they should not. Neither should the top few percent be responsible for paying 90 percent of our country's bills. This thread, however, wasn't asking about that.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I would repeal the tax deduction for anything beyond two children. My position is: I don't care how many children you have - but I will only agree to subsidize two.

 

[Unkotare]

You can't separate those two concepts. The government needs the amount of money that it needs. .

Says who?

Says the government.

And you're ok with that?

 

[Unkotare]

The fact that some people pay less necessitates that someone else pay more. Period.

Are you one of those lefties who considers an across-the-board tax cut to be "giving money to the rich" or "stealing" from those who pay nothing in income tax anyway? You one of those nuts?

Not at all. Taking less of someone's shit doesn't necessarily constitute giving them anything..

Then what's all the "don't take my money to raise your kids!" bullshit on this thread?