Should people without kids pay more in Taxes?

[Politico]

Should people without kids pay more in Taxes?

No. They should pay less for being responsible and not having kids they can't afford.

 

[zeke]

So you all are still all jealous because I got more tax deductions because I have three kids than you all got for having none.

Of course you all are not smart enough to figure out that if you and I made exactly the same amount of money each year, that you would still have more net, disposable income than the person with kids.

The person with 3 kids needs more food, more house and more clothing than the single or married with no kids.

But really what you all are mad about is that MY lobbyist is better than YOUR lobbyist. Well hell then, get a NEW lobbyist and petition Congress to give you a nice tax break for being w/o kids.

That is the American way. Lobby.

But I think it will be a mute point. If my kids and my kids friends are any indication, the people that we want to have children (if we want the country to continue you need to replace those who die) are looking at the situation we are in and deciding that kids are not in their future. OK.

The people who are popping out kids right and left are the poor and the uneducated.

And you don't have to worry about them taking the deductions for children. You can't claim that deduction when you have no income. Well except welfare or something.

Problem solved.

Except for the very rich. The plutocrats will always have at least one kid to carry on the name. And you all wouldn't ever want to take a deduction away from the ultra wealthy.

Hell the ultra wealthy are the big beneficiaries of the mortgage interest write off. You want to get rid of that also?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

So you all are still all jealous because I got more tax deductions because I have three kids than you all got for having none.

Of course you all are not smart enough to figure out that if you and I made exactly the same amount of money each year, that you would still have more net, disposable income than the person with kids.

The person with 3 kids needs more food, more house and more clothing than the single or married with no kids.

But really what you all are mad about is that MY lobbyist is better than YOUR lobbyist. Well hell then, get a NEW lobbyist and petition Congress to give you a nice tax break for being w/o kids.

That is the American way. Lobby.

But I think it will be a mute point. If my kids and my kids friends are any indication, the people that we want to have children (if we want the country to continue you need to replace those who die) are looking at the situation we are in and deciding that kids are not in their future. OK.

The people who are popping out kids right and left are the poor and the uneducated.

And you don't have to worry about them taking the deductions for children. You can't claim that deduction when you have no income. Well except welfare or something.

Problem solved.

Except for the very rich. The plutocrats will always have at least one kid to carry on the name. And you all wouldn't ever want to take a deduction away from the ultra wealthy.

Hell the ultra wealthy are the big beneficiaries of the mortgage interest write off. You want to get rid of that also?

Holy shit, I'm watching you on this other thread lamenting about how much money CEO's have as though the wages of the middle class and the salaries of CEO's are inversely proportional, and then you have the nerve to say that the people forced to pay you tax credits because you have children are JEALOUS of you because you're the recipient of the money the government takes from them?

That's jealousy, and they're the jealous ones?

LMFAO!

 

[DiamondDave]

Some examples already given, Sherlock

No it wasnt despite you and someone else keep saying "there are places" but those places dont seem to have a name. Instead of typing "its been done already" can you use the same number of keystrokes to name the places that have this awesome flat tax?

I guess Diamond got too busy all of a sudden and he became so busy that his examples disappeared with him.

Actually, nitwit, all you had to do was go back earlier in this very thread...

Not to mention you can google the list of countries that have various types of flat income tax systems...

Idiot

 

[Kosh]

Another failed FOX bashing thread from the far left Obama drones.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Why should it be a single persons responsibility to accommodate the life choices of others? It shouldn't be.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Why should it be a single persons responsibility to accommodate the life choices of others? It shouldn't be.

As soon as you figure out a system where you only pay for the things you use or want then you're stuck with reality that is the present.

The system you want doesnt exist for a reason

 

[ClosedCaption]

Maybe, instead of just complaining about parents.. you should maybe complain about those who have no career gumption and pay nothing in income tax on their earnings of a lower level... maybe you should complain about those who deduct medical expenses or COLLEGE expenses

Flat tax.. no deductions.. no exceptions.. no ceiling.. no floor.. no exemption... for every single dollar earned by every citizen
THERE is your solution

You know why that doesnt work? Because it has never worked anywhere ever.

Where has this been attempted? Facts only...
Have at it.....

Diamond Dave said its happening all over then couldnt find the time to type the name of said place. Thats weird that neither me nor you have heard of such a place but hopefully [MENTION=11393]DiamondDave[/MENTION] will respond.

Do you ever wonder why it hasnt been tried? Heres a hint: Its not because of how awesome it is.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Why should it be a single persons responsibility to accommodate the life choices of others? It shouldn't be.

As soon as you figure out a system where you only pay for the things you use or want then you're stuck with reality that is the present.

The system you want doesnt exist for a reason

And that reason is people like you who believe it is the responsibility of others to accommodate your life choices. it's called coercion.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Why should it be a single persons responsibility to accommodate the life choices of others? It shouldn't be.

As soon as you figure out a system where you only pay for the things you use or want then you're stuck with reality that is the present.

The system you want doesnt exist for a reason

And that reason is people like you who believe it is the responsibility of others to accommodate your life choices. it's called coercion.

Sure if you want to believe thats why no one has taken on your hair brained idea throughout thousands of years of human history that spans the entire globe. Ok...Its my fault

 

[bripat9643]

Why should it be a single persons responsibility to accommodate the life choices of others? It shouldn't be.

As soon as you figure out a system where you only pay for the things you use or want then you're stuck with reality that is the present.

The system you want doesnt exist for a reason

The reason is that the world is overpopulated with moochers like you.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

As soon as you figure out a system where you only pay for the things you use or want then you're stuck with reality that is the present.

The system you want doesnt exist for a reason

And that reason is people like you who believe it is the responsibility of others to accommodate your life choices. it's called coercion.

Sure if you want to believe thats why no one has taken on your hair brained idea throughout thousands of years of human history that spans the entire globe. Ok...Its my fault

That is the reason. There isn't any other reason.

 

[Unkotare]

Why should it be a single persons responsibility to accommodate the life choices of others? It shouldn't be.

Will that single person feel the same way when he or she is elderly and possibly "leeching" off the state for various services and support?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I already pay more in taxes because I dont have children.
School taxes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right true conservative or the libertarian belief should be that everyone takes care of themselves and tax breaks for children should never exist.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Why should it be a single persons responsibility to accommodate the life choices of others? It shouldn't be.

As soon as you figure out a system where you only pay for the things you use or want then you're stuck with reality that is the present.

The system you want doesnt exist for a reason

The reason is that the world is overpopulated with moochers like you.

Riiiight the entire world is like me. Yes! What a reasonable answer that is.

 

[ClosedCaption]

And that reason is people like you who believe it is the responsibility of others to accommodate your life choices. it's called coercion.

Sure if you want to believe thats why no one has taken on your hair brained idea throughout thousands of years of human history that spans the entire globe. Ok...Its my fault

That is the reason. There isn't any other reason.

Yes, it is my fault your dumb ass plan has never been used in thousands of years.

If it makes the lie easier to swallow buddy

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Why should it be a single persons responsibility to accommodate the life choices of others? It shouldn't be.

Will that single person feel the same way when he or she is elderly and possibly "leeching" off the state for various services and support?

I do not hold inconsistent moral/ethical positions. i leave that fully for the left and right. Who show it off every chance they get. Again, old, young, pink, purple green. it doesn't matter. It's not the responsibility of a single person or individual to accommodate the life choices of others. If an old person doesn't prepare, or have someone to help, it's not the responsibility of anyone else to help them. That means the State isn't involved. Period.

If we're compassionate humans, we'll help them voluntarily. No moral/ethical credit gets assigned from forcing others to do what you think is right.

 

[g5000]

So if I don't have anything to do with your kids, and I certainly didn't tell you to have kids, why is it my responsibility to pay extra

Do you consider it a benefit to society for married couples to have children?

[MENTION=31918]Unkotare[/MENTION]

It is a benefit. But that does not mean those couples should be carried on the backs of everyone else with higher tax rates.

There are many ways people benefit society. Anyone who is productive is a benefit to society.

Married couples with children should not get special treatment that comes at the expense of others who also are benefits to society! It's as simple as that.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Sure if you want to believe thats why no one has taken on your hair brained idea throughout thousands of years of human history that spans the entire globe. Ok...Its my fault

That is the reason. There isn't any other reason.

Yes, it is my fault your dumb ass plan has never been used in thousands of years.

If it makes the lie easier to swallow buddy

Clearly you lack the comprehension skills to understand what I said. This is not shocking. not at all, in fact.