Should people without kids pay more in Taxes?

[depotoo]

Actually it works in Estonia and Slovakia weathered the economic downturn with it.

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.

 

[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?

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.

So you would not support the use of one tax dollar to prevent indigent elders from starving to death, if it came to that for whatever reason?

It is one thing to be vigilant against government waste and overreach, to oppose welfare as a multi-generational 'career,' and to encourage smaller and more responsible government, but anarchists are just irrational and unrealistic.

 

[Unkotare]

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.

But those providing that benefit to society should carry everyone else on their backs by doing the hard and expensive work of raising the next generation of citizens?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

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.

So you would not support the use of one tax dollar to prevent indigent elders from starving to death, if it came to that for whatever reason?.

"for whatever reason?" You mean like because it is state sponsored to make people dependent on the State. Yeah, I get that. the answer is no, i do not think so. Consistency, its a libertarian thing. Furthermore, your argument is just as kooky and dumb as any other Statist argument. You want to provide something to "starving elderly" by stealing it from other people. You probably also believe this makes you look compassionate. But what it really makes you is a hypocrite. Lastly, using anarchy at the end of a questioning regarding helping the poor elders using tax dollars is just plain stupid. Are anarchists in favor of taxation?


jeebus.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

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.

But those providing that benefit to society should carry everyone else on their backs by doing the hard and expensive work of raising the next generation of citizens?

No one forced them to procreate.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

But those providing that benefit to society should carry everyone else on their backs by doing the hard and expensive work of raising the next generation of citizens?

Yeah, right. they're doing it purely for our benefit. They don't get anything out of it themselves.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

So you would not support the use of one tax dollar to prevent indigent elders from starving to death, if it came to that for whatever reason?

It is one thing to be vigilant against government waste and overreach, to oppose welfare as a multi-generational 'career,' and to encourage smaller and more responsible government, but anarchists are just irrational and unrealistic.

Nothing could be more rational than anarchism. Believing government can reform itself or that it can be kept limited in size is irrational an unrealistic. We only have 5000 years of history that proves that.

 

[Unkotare]

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.

So you would not support the use of one tax dollar to prevent indigent elders from starving to death, if it came to that for whatever reason?.

"for whatever reason?" You mean like because it is state sponsored to make people dependent on the State.

Certainly not. I mean like those who live in places or under circumstances where they cannot rely on the natural generosity and charity of their fellow Americans. Surely you realize there will always be some such people. People without children and/or those who have cultivated a "fuck you, leave me alone everyone" attitude are even more likely to fall into this category.

 

[Unkotare]

Nothing could be more rational than anarchism.

You're an idiot, and you'd last a few months at the very most under real anarchy.

 

[Unkotare]

[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.

But those providing that benefit to society should carry everyone else on their backs by doing the hard and expensive work of raising the next generation of citizens?

Yeah, right. they're doing it purely for our benefit. .

I thought we had established that it is a benefit to society. You want perhaps the most essential benefit of all for free, you fucking moocher?

 

[Unkotare]

[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.

But those providing that benefit to society should carry everyone else on their backs by doing the hard and expensive work of raising the next generation of citizens?

No one forced them to procreate.

Who said that they had been forced?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So you would not support the use of one tax dollar to prevent indigent elders from starving to death, if it came to that for whatever reason?.

"for whatever reason?" You mean like because it is state sponsored to make people dependent on the State.

Certainly not. I mean like those who live in places or under circumstances where they cannot rely on the natural generosity and charity of their fellow Americans. Surely you realize there will always be some such people. People without children and/or those who have cultivated a "fuck you, leave me alone everyone" attitude are even more likely to fall into this category.

Always nice to see you deliberately cutting out what you want to respond to and leaving the rest as if it never occurred. It's absolutely amazing that we humans ever survived before the nanny state was introduced, right? i mean, people were dying in the streets by the thousands until welfare government stepped in and "helped". you might want to zip up your LOLberal there. it's hanging out.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

But those providing that benefit to society should carry everyone else on their backs by doing the hard and expensive work of raising the next generation of citizens?

No one forced them to procreate.

Who said that they had been forced?

Why are you advocating that single individuals be forced to help these people's life decisions then, moron? Riddle me that hypocritical, double Standard "conservative".

 

[ClosedCaption]

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.

I bet your illogical bullshit is someone elses fault too. Let me guess. The liberals made you do it

 

[TakeAStepBack]

That's a big word for such a small mind, CC. Careful with it.

 

[Unkotare]

"for whatever reason?" You mean like because it is state sponsored to make people dependent on the State.

Certainly not. I mean like those who live in places or under circumstances where they cannot rely on the natural generosity and charity of their fellow Americans. Surely you realize there will always be some such people. People without children and/or those who have cultivated a "fuck you, leave me alone everyone" attitude are even more likely to fall into this category.

Why would that make you laugh? Do you deny that some portion of the elderly population would likely find themselves in such circumstances?

 

[ClosedCaption]

That's a big word for such a small mind, CC. Careful with it.

Actually its not but to the small minded it is..

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Certainly not. I mean like those who live in places or under circumstances where they cannot rely on the natural generosity and charity of their fellow Americans. Surely you realize there will always be some such people. People without children and/or those who have cultivated a "fuck you, leave me alone everyone" attitude are even more likely to fall into this category.

Why would that make you laugh? Do you deny that some portion of the elderly population would likely find themselves in such circumstances?

Is this your appeal to emotion argument? It's pretty weak.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

That's a big word for such a small mind, CC. Careful with it.

Actually its not but to the small minded it is..

Sure. that's why you needed a fuckin' info-graphic in order to display it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

That's a big word for such a small mind, CC. Careful with it.

Actually its not but to the small minded it is..

Sure. that's why you needed a fuckin' info-graphic in order to display it.

Yeah because a picture means that its hard...sorry you think its a big word and pictures are complicated.

Stick to finger paint