Should childless Americans pay more taxes?

posted at 5:21 pm on April 1, 2014 by Allahpundit

I’m surprised by some of the upset in Headlines to Reihan Salam’s proposal. Granted, the phrase “more taxes” rarely induces happy thoughts among conservatives, but I thought there’d be more support for beefing up the incentives for having children within a movement that (a) laments the breakdown of the nuclear family, (b) frets about declining birth rates and what they mean for the entitlement state (see, e.g., Mark Steyn and Jonathan Last), and (c) would probably benefit electorally if more Americans had children. I can’t find any data about voters with kids from the 2012 exit poll but Romney won 56 percent of married voters while Obama won 62 percent of singles. If Salam tweaked his idea to limit the tax breaks to parents who are married and reside in the same household, with lesser supplements for single parents, would that change people’s minds? What I’m asking, in other words, is whether the problem here is that we’re using the tax code to do too much social engineering or not quite enough.

And before you say “the answer is to cut spending, not to increase anyone’s tax burden,” Salam agrees with you on that. He just insists on living in reality. We tried to starve the beast and failed; turns out the beast doesn’t starve, it simply borrows and keeps feeding. If we’re doomed to run deficits until a debt crisis brings about a reckoning, who should bear the burden of extra taxes in the meantime in the name of reducing that deficit as much as possible?

Yet it is also true that we’ve stacked the deck against parents in all kinds of ways. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has found that raising a child born in 2012 will cost a middle-income family a cumulative total of $301,970 over 18 years. As high as this number sounds, it is actually a massive understatement, as it fails to take into account the cost of postsecondary education. It also fails to factor in the value of forgone earnings and career opportunities. While nonparents can focus on their jobs in laserlike fashion, parents are rarely in a position to do the same. Every time a sick child keeps a parent home from work, her earnings suffer, either directly, because she’s taking an unpaid leave of absence, or indirectly, because she’s missing out on opportunities to climb the corporate ladder.

Even when we compare a nonparent and a parent who are working exactly the same hours and earning exactly the same income, the nonparent has a clear leg up. Most obviously, the nonparent has far more disposable income to play with, which she can save, to become much richer than her parent counterpart over time, or spend, to travel to exotic locales, to eat out constantly, to wear awesome clothes, or to live as I do in a conveniently located shoebox in a great American metropolis. Raising taxes on nonparents could even the score a bit, tilting the balance ever so slightly in favor of those who toil on behalf of America’s future workforce by wiping their butts and painstakingly removing their head lice.

He wants to adopt Mike Lee’s tax plan, which would increase the child tax credit, while also lowering the income threshold for various marginal tax brackets. Result: You’d pay more taxes unless you have a kid, in which case you’d get a big chunk back to apply to his/her upbringing. But I think that’s actually a secondary goal. Here’s what Salam is really after:

These millions of nonparents are not good political enemies to have. But does this mean those of us who favor a more parent-friendly tax code should give up? Not quite. Tax reform along these lines could awaken a sleeping giant in American politics, namely the 36 percent of American voters who have a child under 18 in their household. Unlike the retirees and near-retirees who fight tooth and nail to protect Medicare and Social Security, we don’t have a well-funded political pressure group that defends the child credit. It can’t help that parents are too busy raising children to plot and scheme their way to more favorable tax treatment. But if parents were to flex their political muscles, we might have a revolution on our hands.

He wants parents to coalesce as a voting bloc the same way seniors have. Lower taxes for families is the potential catalyst to raising their political consciousness. Once you’ve got parents voting as parents rather than as Democrats/Republicans, whites/blacks/Latinos, urbanites/suburbanites, etc, all sorts of policy consequences potentially flow from that, and all of them have to do with making American law more family-friendly. I thought there’d be more support among conservatives for that. His problem, though, is chicken-and-egg: He wants something dramatic, like a bigger child credit, to kickstart this process and get parents voting together but right now there’s little support on either side to make it happen. Democrats will be loath to touch it for fear of angering the many childless single liberals in their base; Republicans are loath to touch it because righties blanch at the thought of having anyone (including/especially childless conservatives) see their tax bill go up and, I think, of further coercing one part of the population into subsidizing the choices of the other. Singles already help pay for other people’s kids in various ways, after all, starting with property taxes to fund public schools. (And yes, I know, in a perfect world all education would be privatized. Again, Salam’s writing from the real world.)

Explain to me: What’s the issue here? Remember, all Salam’s really doing is fine-tuning a proposal from Mike Lee to favor parents a bit more. If this is RINOism, someone had better tell the tea-party senator from Utah.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

People who have children make the choice to have children. They do so knowing what a child is going to cost. If they don’t, they should be having children.

People without children already pay the same or MORE than people with children for taxes. They don’t get to take a tax deductible for each child like parents do.

Not saying it’s wrong to have kids, but that’s a choice each of us make. And anyone that says childless people should pay more in taxes, is a freaking moron.

Alas, that’s the country we live in right now.

Meople on April 1, 2014 at 6:14 PM

No. Wife couldn’t have them, but we still contribute to educate other people’s kids.

Cheese Wheel on April 1, 2014 at 6:14 PM

Let’s float the idea of taxing homosexuals exclusively, and see how that goes.

Dongemaharu on April 1, 2014 at 6:12 PM

They do not earn enough money in their lives to pay for all the aids treatments they need.

astonerii on April 1, 2014 at 6:15 PM

Math much? Perhaps a family with six kids buys a bigger place if at all possible?

Some singles do live in family neighborhoods. Most don’t. Young, single urbanites live in apartments. Period. Raising a family in such places is suboptimal.

Prufrock on April 1, 2014 at 6:06 PM

Wow a double down on stupid. The tax would be on the childless, not on young, single, urbanites living in apartments. The sub-set of childless is far larger than your stupid bias.

Happy Nomad on April 1, 2014 at 6:15 PM

I seek no part of your childs interest. Your child in turn should seek nothing from me. You create, you take the responsibility. I want nothing of theirs or yours. I am not your keeper. Nor will you be mine. Should I elect to take interest in that which is yours, I will do so voluntarily and with your approval. Short of that, I want nothing of or from any of you. Personal responsibility is key to not being a burden to others. We have not been following this philosophy for quite sometime. The failure you see around you and yours is not of my doing. It has come out of reliance on all but yourself. Taking does not in the end work. Giving does.

Bmore on April 1, 2014 at 6:15 PM

People who have children make the choice to have children. They do so knowing what a child is going to cost. If they don’t, they should be having children.

People without children already pay the same or MORE than people with children for taxes. They don’t get to take a tax deductible for each child like parents do.

Not saying it’s wrong to have kids, but that’s a choice each of us make. And anyone that says childless people should pay more in taxes, is a freaking moron.

Alas, that’s the country we live in right now.

Meople on April 1, 2014 at 6:14 PM

Sorry, meant to say “If they don’t, they should not be having children.

Meople on April 1, 2014 at 6:15 PM

I agree.

Civilization belongs to those who reproduce. Those who don’t have no stake in the nation’s future.

Darwin at its best, survival of the fittest.

William Eaton on April 1, 2014 at 6:16 PM

Your payments go to pay for current retirees. You have no bank account with your payments waiting for you. The only place that money is coming from is other people’s children’s hard work.

astonerii on April 1, 2014 at 6:12 PM

As I did, and still do. And I certainly didn’t b1tch about it.

katy the mean old lady on April 1, 2014 at 6:16 PM

For the sake of argument, sure, IF the parents are in a state-recognized partnership (marriage or civil union). If it’s just a live-in arrangement, or single parenthood, no (with apologies to those who are in such an arrangement not by choice…perhaps a “death of spouse” exemption).

…Of course, as others have said, a flat tax would be infinitely better. Say, 5% of your gross annual income from all sources. Find a dollar on the street? You owe 5 cents to Uncle Sam. Earn a million? You owe fifty thousand. Spend two million from that one million you earned and rack up debt? Too bad, you still owe fifty thousand.

RblDiver on April 1, 2014 at 6:16 PM

Childless Americans are already paying taxes for our children to attend school.

b1jetmech on April 1, 2014 at 5:24 PM

Again, only if they are property owners, and this has NOTHING to do with married status, with or without children, etc.

Midas on April 1, 2014 at 6:17 PM

Isn’t the going rule that if you tax something you get less of it? Does that mean that one of a childless couple must commit suicide?

vnvet on April 1, 2014 at 6:17 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2014 at 6:14 PM

You contributed to the future!

astonerii on April 1, 2014 at 6:17 PM

Generally speaking the childless are Democrat voters on average. They demand that other people pay for their lifestyle.
Your hyperventilating does nothing to argue against this.

astonerii on April 1, 2014 at 6:10 PM

Are you calling me a democrat? /

Cheese Wheel on April 1, 2014 at 6:17 PM

Are you calling me a democrat? /

Cheese Wheel on April 1, 2014 at 6:17 PM

Are you generally? Moron? Something else? When a road sign says dead end do you suddenly have the feeling that they put it there targeting your life?

astonerii on April 1, 2014 at 6:18 PM

Civilization belongs to those who reproduce. Those who don’t have no stake in the nation’s future.

Darwin at its best, survival of the fittest.

William Eaton on April 1, 2014 at 6:16 PM

I only live on the third floor, so throwing myself off the balcony won’t work. Any suggestions?

katy the mean old lady on April 1, 2014 at 6:18 PM

I never thought my infertility would be taxed.

Hat Trick on April 1, 2014 at 6:12 PM

Let’s float the idea of taxing homosexuals exclusively, and see how that goes.

Dongemaharu on April 1, 2014 at 6:12 PM

See, these are good arguments. Filtering the infertile from the drones would open a whole world of waste and scams. This is the right counter.

But here’s the reverse argument — I’m already doing this work pro bono. Why am I penalized in proportion to my responsibility?

The endgame here (since we’re already trending European) is that we get to where Europe is. Children are systematically penalized in day-to-day life via practical channels — facilities are made for singles or one-child families! Schools are set up for those families with one or two kids at the most. Society is built for adult drones.

Then they pay out the “family allocation” in France, for example. For my 4 kids, I’d get a MONTHLY payout of €500. That’s $670. A month. And they still can’t get families to have kids. They are dying out. It’s a real thing. Math.

Want that here? Keep on the way we’re going.

Prufrock on April 1, 2014 at 6:19 PM

I seek no part of your childs interest. Your child in turn should seek nothing from me. You create, you take the responsibility. I want nothing of theirs or yours. I am not your keeper. Nor will you be mine. Should I elect to take interest in that which is yours, I will do so voluntarily and with your approval. Short of that, I want nothing of or from any of you. Personal responsibility is key to not being a burden to others. We have not been following this philosophy for quite sometime. The failure you see around you and yours is not of my doing. It has come out of reliance on all but yourself. Taking does not in the end work. Giving does.

Bmore on April 1, 2014 at 6:15 PM

*sniff*

That’s beautiful, man.

No really, I love it.

Midas on April 1, 2014 at 6:19 PM

Okay-what if your kids are now grown up? We had kids-but now were(more or less) empty nesters. would we be considered singles-even though we did have kids?
No-don’t raise taxes on singles.
Implement the flat tax and get rid of the deductions for ALL citizens.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2014 at 6:14 PM

Hey ALT-

Your kids are grown, you’ve sucked up all that tax relief while they were at home. Time to pay up just like the rest of the childless! After all, you have all that extra income now. ;0

Happy Nomad on April 1, 2014 at 6:19 PM

In Texas, if you have no kids, it’s always fun to see an itemization of where property taxes go. At least 40% of those taxes go to public schools.

It’s even more fun to read stories that 90% of the kids in a lot of public schools around the DFW metroplex are the children of illegal immigrants.

Ruckus_Tom on April 1, 2014 at 6:20 PM

Then they pay out the “family allocation” in France, for example. For my 4 kids, I’d get a MONTHLY payout of €500. That’s $670. A month. And they still can’t get families to have kids. They are dying out. It’s a real thing. Math.

Want that here? Keep on the way we’re going.

Prufrock on April 1, 2014 at 6:19 PM

DO IT FOR DENMARK!

It’s a broad problem, indeed.

Midas on April 1, 2014 at 6:21 PM

As I did, and still do. And I certainly didn’t b1tch about it.

katy the mean old lady on April 1, 2014 at 6:16 PM

So, where do you think the money comes from when you retire? Other people. Why are they forced to pay for your retirement? Just because you paid for someone else?

astonerii on April 1, 2014 at 6:21 PM

What the hell is wrong with you people. You wail about the abuse of the progressive tax scheme, but are more than happy to use it to favor a group that you approve of.

DFCtomm on April 1, 2014 at 6:21 PM

Chil

dless Americans are already paying taxes for our children to attend school.

b1jetmech on April 1, 2014 at 5:24 PM

Again, only if they are property owners, and this has NOTHING to do with married status, with or without children, etc.

Midas on April 1, 2014 at 6:17 PM

So the childless don’t deserve to own a home. Got it you schmuck!

Happy Nomad on April 1, 2014 at 6:21 PM

Implement the flat tax and get rid of the deductions for ALL citizens.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2014 at 6:14 PM

I agree. Anything else is simply pitting one interest group against another.

hawkeye54 on April 1, 2014 at 6:22 PM

Anyhow. No minds will be changed tonight, and the mathematically inept (Hi, Happy!) have a long way to go.

This is civilization, folks. If you aren’t part of the solution, you are part of the problem. I’m (trying) to raise intelligent, responsible problem-solvers, to make up for some of the slack left by the anti-breeder drones.

So I’ll go home and talk and play with the next generation of America. Enjoy your X-box.

Prufrock on April 1, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Taxing childless couples more than everyone else, is right out of the Marxist/Communist playbook.

I hope all you (R)’s and Conservatives here thinking it’s a good idea know that.

Meople on April 1, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Happy Nomad on April 1, 2014 at 6:19 PM

Actually-Alex lived with his dad(we had joint custody) so his dad got the credit-not me.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Argh, am I being anal-retentive here?

Please stop confusing “people with-out children” as “singles”.

There are ‘single’ people with kids, and ‘single’ people without.

People that have kids can be ‘single’ or ‘married’; similarly people that DON’T have kids can be ‘single’ or ‘married’.

No one is talking about taxing ‘singles’ more here, unless I’ve missed something in the reading.

Midas on April 1, 2014 at 6:24 PM

We do need to nail down an important point here. When does a couple/individual become childless after raising children? At age or majority, at 26 when they finally get their own health insurance, or when they finally get a job?

Happy Nomad on April 1, 2014 at 6:24 PM

Prufrock on April 1, 2014 at 6:19 PM

You want people to have kids? Don’t try to bribe them with a petty amount of money. Take their entitlements and they’ll have kids so someone will care for them in their old age.

DFCtomm on April 1, 2014 at 6:24 PM

Those who neglect this fundamental part of being human out of self-centered shortsightedness… well, there’s not much good to be said of them.

Hear, hear.

Oh, wait. You’re talking about having kids already subsidized by other people. And here it sounded like you were talking about nine-to-fiving check collectors whose work would be better done by an automaton!

Tax the folks without post-secondary education.

Hell, tax the folks who selfishly stopped learning after their bachelor degree because they refused to invest in the collective future with 5-6 years of low-paid, thankless graduate school.

Not talk about the intellectually handicapped. Just talking about the “six more years of school would cramp my style”, or “being paid peanuts annoys me”, or “I really wouldn’t fit as an intellectual”.

Contribute to the future. Expand human scholarship. D

jaxisaneurophysicist on April 1, 2014 at 6:25 PM

So, where do you think the money comes from when you retire? Other people. Why are they forced to pay for your retirement? Just because you paid for someone else?

astonerii on April 1, 2014 at 6:21 PM

And where, exactly, will yours come from. Are you special?

katy the mean old lady on April 1, 2014 at 6:25 PM

Prufrock on April 1, 2014 at 6:23 PM

My contribution to the ‘next generation’ is celebrating his 20th birthday today. He’s single-obviously-and shouldn’t be taxed more than he already is.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2014 at 6:25 PM

So the childless don’t deserve to own a home. Got it you schmuck!

Happy Nomad on April 1, 2014 at 6:21 PM

I do hope that wasn’t a serious response to my comment. :)

Midas on April 1, 2014 at 6:26 PM

In Texas, if you have no kids, it’s always fun to see an itemization of where property taxes go. At least 40% of those taxes go to public schools.

It’s even more fun to read stories that 90% of the kids in a lot of public schools around the DFW metroplex are the children of illegal immigrants.

Ruckus_Tom on April 1, 2014 at 6:20 PM

However if that money went to school choice vouchers, thus removing the need to have public schools with their indoctrination programs, we conservatives would improve our chances in elections. Also it would mean less of that tax money into the teacher’s unions which is then funneled back to the Democrat Party.

The problem is some conservatives have is they only understand the direct approach for getting Americans to understand personal responsibility.

William Eaton on April 1, 2014 at 6:26 PM

What the hell is wrong with you people. You wail about the abuse of the progressive tax scheme, but are more than happy to use it to favor a group that you approve of.

DFCtomm on April 1, 2014 at 6:21 PM

Like I say. Tax should be government spending / adults in the nation. Everyone pays the exact same amount with the exception of some user fees for special things like park permits, import taxes and so forth. Married, you pay twice! Have adult children in the home, pay lots and lots!
I bet government spending goes way the hell down in two full election cycles.

astonerii on April 1, 2014 at 6:27 PM

Happy Nomad on April 1, 2014 at 6:24 PM

Al’s dad is throwing him off his health insurance when Al hits 22.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2014 at 6:27 PM

You want people to have kids? Don’t try to bribe them with a petty amount of money. Take their entitlements and they’ll have kids so someone will care for them in their old age.

DFCtomm on April 1, 2014 at 6:24 PM

Good luck with that.

katy the mean old lady on April 1, 2014 at 6:28 PM

The answer simply is NO! In fact families with too many children should pay MORE taxes not less. When it comes to exemptions–one exemption each for every dependent. However, the maximum number of children qualifying for exemption is two. After two, one exemption is DEDUCTED per child.

Example in 2014 personal exemption is $3950.

A family of 2 adults and two children gets 4 exemptions and deducts 4 x 3950 = 15800.

A familly with 3 childten deducts only 3 x 3950= 11850
A family w3ith 4 children deducts 2 x 3950 = 7900
A family with 6 children gets -0 exemptions and deducts -0-.
A family with 7 children gets 3950 ADDED to their taxes and so on.

Of course it’s a dream. Families of 4 or more children are almost always Democratic voters. Since we’re being steadily out-populated, we’re being steadily diminished. Comprende?

MaiDee on April 1, 2014 at 6:28 PM

My contribution to the ‘next generation’ is celebrating his 20th birthday today. He’s single-

*you see Midas banging his head on the desk*

obviously-and shouldn’t be taxed more than he already is.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2014 at 6:25 PM

*… and agreeing with you that he shouldn’t be taxed more *regardless* of whether he has kids or not*

Midas on April 1, 2014 at 6:28 PM

And where, exactly, will yours come from. Are you special?

katy the mean old lady on April 1, 2014 at 6:25 PM

Straight out of my own kids pockets. And then it will be handed to them at the end of the year in an envelope. Just like my grandmother did with her 9 children and her social security checks.

astonerii on April 1, 2014 at 6:28 PM

Actually-Alex lived with his dad(we had joint custody) so his dad got the credit-not me.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2014 at 6:23 PM

I hope you recognized the sarc in my comments. This is all about findind a new way to divide Americans. If race, gender, sexual orientation, and immigration status were not enough. Now we are being divided by childless or not and picking the winners and losers.

Happy Nomad on April 1, 2014 at 6:29 PM

I only live on the third floor, so throwing myself off the balcony won’t work. Any suggestions?

katy the mean old lady on April 1, 2014 at 6:18 PM

This should help…

Link

William Eaton on April 1, 2014 at 6:29 PM

Straight out of my own kids pockets. And then it will be handed to them at the end of the year in an envelope. Just like my grandmother did with her 9 children and her social security checks.

astonerii on April 1, 2014 at 6:28 PM

Your children may think otherwise.

katy the mean old lady on April 1, 2014 at 6:30 PM

So basically the supporters want the earned income tax credit for everyone. Hmmmm isn’t that a Democratic plank?

DFCtomm on April 1, 2014 at 6:31 PM

Your children may think otherwise.

katy the mean old lady on April 1, 2014 at 6:30 PM

I hope they do and they effectively end social security, then the government will not be taking money off the top and they will keep all of their money.

astonerii on April 1, 2014 at 6:32 PM

Hotair sucks on the phone.

…Expand human scholarship. Dedicate your life to a LASTING impact. Don’t just be some 9-to-5 baby-making factory drone or phone-answering cubicle tool.

It’s all a bunch of self-centric, palms-out, take-care-of-my-children nonsense. Think if what’s being wasted without the scholarship and teaching these parents without graduate degrees are failing to pass on to the next generation just so they can feel superior having children.

What a selfish way to hold humanity back.

…now you see how easy it is to judge others for not “contributing” to the future in the ways we ourselves contribute?

Get over yourself. Anyone can make babies.

Except my boy friend.

We think he’s infertile.

jaxisaneurophysicist on April 1, 2014 at 6:32 PM

Civilization belongs to those who reproduce.

It’s not my responsibility to ensure the survival of any civilization. It is only my responsibility to take care of myself, and not be a burden on others.

I have no vested in interest in any civilization past or future.

HugoDrax on April 1, 2014 at 6:32 PM

No no no NO NO!!!!

You do NOT get taxed for NOT doing something.

Is that such a hard concept?!

Shall we start taxing people who don’t go to church regularly as an incentive to increase civility? Think of the economic benefits!!!!

Skywise on April 1, 2014 at 6:33 PM

Like I say. Tax should be government spending / adults in the nation. Everyone pays the exact same amount with the exception of some user fees for special things like park permits, import taxes and so forth. Married, you pay twice! Have adult children in the home, pay lots and lots!
I bet government spending goes way the hell down in two full election cycles.

astonerii on April 1, 2014 at 6:27 PM

That seems like a long way to get to a flat tax, but as long as you get there.

DFCtomm on April 1, 2014 at 6:33 PM

Al’s dad is throwing him off his health insurance when Al hits 22.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2014 at 6:27 PM

Good for Al’s dad!

I know things are different today what with the Obama economy and inability for young people to find employment BUT there was never any question that I was on my own financially the minute I graduated from college.

Happy Nomad on April 1, 2014 at 6:33 PM

Are you calling me a democrat? /

Cheese Wheel on April 1, 2014 at 6:17 PM

Are you generally? Moron? Something else? When a road sign says dead end do you suddenly have the feeling that they put it there targeting your life?

astonerii on April 1, 2014 at 6:18 PM

No, I just don’t have little mouths to feed unless you count the dogs. Generally.

Cheese Wheel on April 1, 2014 at 6:33 PM

People who have children are raising, at their current expense, the next generation of serfs who will have to pay Social Security for their parents AND retirees who never had children.

Charlemagne on April 1, 2014 at 6:35 PM

No no no NO NO!!!!

You do NOT get taxed for NOT doing something.

Is that such a hard concept?!

Shall we start taxing people who don’t go to church regularly as an incentive to increase civility? Think of the economic benefits!!!!

Skywise on April 1, 2014 at 6:33 PM

Maybe we should tax people for not doing something, and then become a burden on society. Let’s say, healthcare for instance. We should pass a law that forces everybody to pay for healthcare and if they don’t they get taxed/fined. Come on conservatives with kids…jump on that train.

deuce on April 1, 2014 at 6:36 PM

No, I just don’t have little mouths to feed unless you count the dogs. Generally.

Cheese Wheel on April 1, 2014 at 6:33 PM

That was why I did not say ALL. Instead generally :)
I tried having a dog. Just did not fit my personality.

astonerii on April 1, 2014 at 6:37 PM

Happy Nomad on April 1, 2014 at 6:33 PM

Me and my ex have the same view. He already pays rent to me and his step-dad, pays for his own college, pays his own car insurance etc.
The summer of 2016-he’s expected to be on his own-even if he’s going to end up a ’5 year senior’..
RESPONSIBILITY.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2014 at 6:38 PM

I tried having a dog. Just did not fit my personality.

astonerii on April 1, 2014 at 6:37 PM

You’d like my Rottweiler puppy (almost 1 year old, 110 lbs, lol). He’s a sweetheart that likes everybody.

Including the food-bearing pizza guy that *doesn’t* like Rottweilers.

Midas on April 1, 2014 at 6:39 PM

No, I just don’t have little mouths to feed unless you count the dogs. Generally.

Cheese Wheel on April 1, 2014 at 6:33 PM

That was why I did not say ALL. Instead generally :)
I tried having a dog. Just did not fit my personality.

astonerii on April 1, 2014 at 6:37 PM

I did put a sarc tag when I asked you. I generally don’t trust anyone who doesn’t like dogs.

Cheese Wheel on April 1, 2014 at 6:39 PM

My proposal would be that the amount of social security you get and the amount of taxes you pay should be based on how many children you produce that pay taxes themselves.

That would encourage more children, but well parented ones that have grown up to have jobs. In other words, if you produce no children during your life, or do not adopt any children, that have gone on to pay income or property taxes for at least five years, then you should get no social security in your old age and pay higher taxes during your life.

So the faster you produce kids, that then get a job, or create their own business, or acquire property thus paying taxes, the faster you will get your social security and pay lower or no taxes at all.

Being a citizen of a country requires sacrifice for the survival of the country, that includes producing children that are productive.

:)

William Eaton on April 1, 2014 at 6:39 PM

Midas on April 1, 2014 at 6:39 PM

Rotties are great!

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2014 at 6:40 PM

I hope they do and they effectively end social security, then the government will not be taking money off the top and they will keep all of their money.

astonerii on April 1, 2014 at 6:32 PM

So, who, exactly, will be supporting you?

katy the mean old lady on April 1, 2014 at 6:40 PM

Seriously? Do you not pay into SS? Do you think the rest of us don’t. You sound like you expect your children to support you.
Why don’t YOU GFY.

katy the mean old lady on April 1, 2014 at 6:10 PM

Getting caught up now.

Yeah. SS is solvent. Have a lollipop.

WryTrvllr on April 1, 2014 at 6:40 PM

Flat tax, Mandated school that must be approved by the government (you can choose from an accepted private school or pick one from a State Sponsered School Bank), or be fined taxed if you don’t.

Whiterock on April 1, 2014 at 6:41 PM

I prefer a flat tax, about 10% on every person, no deductions except for work related.

But if you are going to use the tax code for social reasons, then an extra tax on childless couples or a big tax break for couples with children is fair.

cimbri on April 1, 2014 at 6:42 PM

/sarc

Whiterock on April 1, 2014 at 6:42 PM

Midas on April 1, 2014 at 6:39 PM

Rotties are great!

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2014 at 6:40 PM

This is our first, and he’s *awesome*. Well socialized, great with kids (we have 3), strangers, other dogs (we have 4 total), cats (2), everything. Nice deep barrel-chested bark that’ll curdle the blood of someone that’s not supposed to be near our house, too. lol

Midas on April 1, 2014 at 6:43 PM

So I should pay more taxes for some welfare queen who can’t keep her legs together? HELL, NO.

WannabeAnglican on April 1, 2014 at 6:43 PM

I never thought my infertility would be taxed.

Hat Trick on April 1, 2014 at 6:12 PM

If it was just infertility it wouldn’t be. But it’s much more than that now. It’s a “lifestyle” choice, with 5 cats.

WryTrvllr on April 1, 2014 at 6:44 PM

Didn’t I read about this somewhere else once?

Oh, yea, Atlas Shrugged :

Aren’t you supposed to be ashamed to object when anybody asks you to give up anything, if it’s something that gave you pleasure? Even our ‘tobacco allowance’ was cut to where we got two packs of cigarettes a month – and this, they told us, was because the money had to go into the babies’ milk fund. Babies was the only item of production that didn’t fall, but rose and kept on rising – because people had nothing else to do, I guess, and because they didn’t have to care, the baby wasn’t their burden, it was ‘the family’s.’ In fact, the best chance you had of getting a raise and breathing easier for a while was a ‘baby allowance.’ Either that or a major disease.

MichaelGabriel on April 1, 2014 at 6:44 PM

Flat tax, Mandated school that must be approved by the government (you can choose from an accepted private school or pick one from a State Sponsered School Bank) that you must pay for, or be fined taxed if you don’t./sarc

Tough day, going home. Click

Whiterock on April 1, 2014 at 6:41 PM

Whiterock on April 1, 2014 at 6:46 PM

People who have children make the choice to have children. They do so knowing what a child is going to cost. If they don’t, they should be having children.

People without children already pay the same or MORE than people with children for taxes. They don’t get to take a tax deductible for each child like parents do.

Not saying it’s wrong to have kids, but that’s a choice each of us make. And anyone that says childless people should pay more in taxes, is a freaking moron.

Alas, that’s the country we live in right now.

Meople on April 1, 2014 at 6:14 PM

So…we should all choose not to have children. Everyone wins!!!!!

WryTrvllr on April 1, 2014 at 6:48 PM

Wow a double down on stupid. The tax would be on the childless, not on young, single, urbanites living in apartments. The sub-set of childless is far larger than your stupid bias.

Happy Nomad on April 1, 2014 at 6:15 PM

Anti-gravity bias

WryTrvllr on April 1, 2014 at 6:49 PM

But if you are going to use the tax code for social reasons, then an extra tax on childless couples or a big tax break for couples with children is fair.

cimbri on April 1, 2014 at 6:42 PM

Maybe it’s just semantics, but the notion of imposing extra tax on someone for not having kids seems *way* wrong, as opposed to allowing deductions for kids.

One seems like an incentive that recognizes a) the necessity to society of having future citizens/taxpayers, and b) a very small offset of the associated costs – while the other seems like nothing but a penalty for something that may be wholly out of the control of the taxpayer, or even a punitive measure against people we don’t *want* having kids yet (eg: singles).

Midas on April 1, 2014 at 6:49 PM

This was written by a conservative Christian – see point 8, under “Familism” on this page:

If the Family Is Central, Christ Isn’t

Allah Pundit said,

I’m surprised by some of the upset in Headlines to Reihan Salam’s proposal.
Granted, the phrase “more taxes” rarely induces happy thoughts among conservatives, but I thought there’d be more support for beefing up the incentives for having children within a movement that (a) laments the breakdown of the nuclear family, (b) frets about declining birth rates and what they mean for the entitlement state

There are childless and childfree conservative, right wing, Christian, Republicans. This is often a fact that is overlooked by many right wingers.

Jesus Christ taught the his followers were to increase his kingdom by sharing the Gospel with other people. Jesus made no mention of believers marrying and having children to increase the kingdom.

Unfortunately, some Christians actually are teaching the “have more children to conquer America for God” view, which has very little biblical support, and none at all in the New Testament (the closest one will find is the Old Testament comment about a man having many children being like a man who has a full quiver of arrows).

I frequently find a habit among other right wingers to assume that anyone who does not have children, either by choice or circumstance (e.g., infertility) must necessarily be atheist, hate Christians, be left wing, or be a secular feminist.

This is not true. There are pro-life, right wing, Republican Christians who are also childless or childfree, and some who never marry.

There has been a trend in the last 10 – 15 years of evangelical Christian adult women who want to marry, who were hoping to marry a Christian man, but there are not enough such men in Christianity.

So, you have a lot of Christian women who had wanted to marry (and some to have children, but only within marriage) who are still single (and also childless).

While the Bible indicates that God supports families and marriage, and people having children, the Bible indicates that God also supports, as of the New Testament, people being single over their entire life, as well as remaining celibate, and hence, childless.

Many conservative Christians forget all this, though, and have made marriage and the “nuclear family” into idols.

Right wing Christians tend to forget to minister to the divorced, the never married adults, the infertile married couples, and the widows and widowers among them.

Christians are supposed to put other believers in Christ first (that is, their spiritual family) but they often put their own flesh and blood family first, which is contrary to the teachings of Christ.

For example:
Matthew 12:46-50

Jesus’ Mother and Brothers

46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

Quoting Jesus Christ, from Matthew 19:

For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others–and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

The Apostle Paul wrote (1 Corinthians 7):

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.

25 Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. …

27 Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. 28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned.
But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

The Bible, in the New Testament, indicates God is fine with Christians staying single or with marrying, with having children or not; the choice is up to each individual.

But far too many socially conservative Christians completely omit from their thinking all the mentioned in the New Testament that uphold celibacy, and staying single and hence childless, as being acceptable before God. They push marriage and having children far out of proportion to what the Bible teaches.

I am not against marriage, or people having children, I do not want to be misunderstood.

What I am saying is that just as some on the left have gone way overboard with anti-marriage, anti-children views, some on the right end have gone in the opposite but equally un-biblical extreme with their pro-family / pro marriage rhetoric.

There are many single (and childless), conservative Christian adults, and they go ignored by their own churches, who remain obsessed with marriage and “the (nuclear) family.”

TigerPaw on April 1, 2014 at 6:50 PM

I seek no part of your childs interest. Your child in turn should seek nothing from me. You create, you take the responsibility. I want nothing of theirs or yours. I am not your keeper. Nor will you be mine. Should I elect to take interest in that which is yours, I will do so voluntarily and with your approval. Short of that, I want nothing of or from any of you. Personal responsibility is key to not being a burden to others. We have not been following this philosophy for quite sometime. The failure you see around you and yours is not of my doing. It has come out of reliance on all but yourself. Taking does not in the end work. Giving does.

Bmore on April 1, 2014 at 6:15 PM

Keep that in mind when my kid can hit at 600 yards. They’re getting close.

WryTrvllr on April 1, 2014 at 6:50 PM

So, who, exactly, will be supporting you?

katy the mean old lady on April 1, 2014 at 6:40 PM

I will be supporting me silly. If I save enough to retire, I might do so. If not, I will keep working. Just like grandmother and grandfather did.

astonerii on April 1, 2014 at 6:52 PM

This idiotic idea breeds something: more single mothers.

Philly on April 1, 2014 at 6:54 PM

This has been a fascinating and terribly entertaining thread. Thank you all! So many things come to mind…so many things.

* Those of you who seem to suggest that you’ll live on your ‘island’ and ‘those with kids; aka everyone else’ should live on their own and be ‘independent’ are living in a fantasy world. You’re NOT self-supporting. You are part of a society which has made your life inestimably greater than it would have been alone. Unless you live in a cave, dug by your own hands and fed by food you grow yourself, you draw more than you contribute. You use roads, electrical grids, technology, transportation and the like which you could NEVER create alone or pay for alone. EVER. The collective (yes, COLLECTIVE) efforts of society are greater than the individual parts.

* Those of you complaining about taxes going toward local schools need to meet and greet reality. You should fight for the obtainable (parent choice, vouchers, right to work for school employees as opposed to unionization) not the unobtainable elimination of schools or property taxes; the latter will never happen. Additionally, MILLIONS of children are currently educated outside of the public system, like my six kids, by parents who take seriously the responsibility to train up their own children. We pay into the public system AND pay to buy our own educational materials AND have sacrificed an entire salary (two decades of salary! AND diminished SS benefits! GONE!) so one of us can stay home to do right by our kids, rather than pawn them off on strangers and peers whose behavior makes curdled milk curdle upon itself. My advice is to shoot for the achievable, as I listed above, and quitcherbeachin.

* Those of you who have chosen not to have children should be honest with yourselves. Your choice may have been made for any of a host of reasons, but the reality is that you have chosen to freely partake of the benefits of society through your own childhood (the beginning of your life) at the expense of others, and will do the same thing in your later years (the end of your life), because the vast majority of Americans will draw far more out of Medicare/Social Security than they ever paid in. Reality. It’s real.

Senator Tom Coburn (a physician in private life) has estimated that the average American couple contributes approximately $110,000 to Medicare over their working careers and receives over $330,000 of Medicare benefits. On Feb. 20, USA Today cited Urban Institute data pegging those same figures at $88,000 and $387,000, respectively.

There are differing estimates of the size of the gap, but clearly Medicare suffers from an unsustainable funding deficit.

If not for people like me, busting our arses rearing responsible kids, your wonderful retirement would be ruined because there wouldn’t be anyone to run the power plants keeping your AC going, to stock the grocery stores you’ll shop at occasionally, to pay into the system you’ll be feeding off of (Medicare, Social Security), and to just keep the wheels of society in motion so you don’t live in a Chernobyl-like abandoned ruin of a society.

Kids. YOU NEED THEM. Especially if YOU DON’T HAVE ANY. So, you don’t need to be grateful to people like me, but I’ll be darned if I’m going to sit back and let y’all dump on people who are building the foundation upon which your rocking chair will be resting in your old age.

Families of 4 or more children are almost always Democratic voters.

MaiDee on April 1, 2014 at 6:28 PM

I have NO EARTHLY IDEA how anyone could possibly be so incredibly wrong on family demographics; I consider this common knowledge!. Liberal/progressive Dems have among the smallest families in the country. The larger the family, the greater the likelihood that the family is religious and conservative. I have six kids. Many of my conservative, Christian friends have large (more than three kids) families. Two thirds of Dems have zero to two children, while half of Republicans have three or more

xNavigator on April 1, 2014 at 6:56 PM

So, where do you think the money comes from when you retire? Other people. Why are they forced to pay for your retirement? Just because you paid for someone else?

astonerii on April 1, 2014 at 6:21 PM

You keep acting as though only married with kids people pay taxes.

Single and childless adults who are employed also pay taxes.

And some of the tax money paid by childless or childfree people also goes to pay for other people’s kids, to public schools, or federal programs that give food to kids (eg, WIC, “The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) provides Federal grants to States for supplemental foods”).

TigerPaw on April 1, 2014 at 6:58 PM

This idiotic idea breeds something: more single mothers.

Philly on April 1, 2014 at 6:54 PM

That’s okay. Socons love them some single mothers, especially young, poor teen ones. Choose life and let the taxpayer foot the bill.

Armin Tamzarian on April 1, 2014 at 6:58 PM

As a single guy, I already pay more taxes to support married people and people with kids. I have no problem paying taxes for things that help turn other people’s kids into productive adults, like education (assuming it’s effective — public education is not), but I think that if you can’t afford to propagate your lifestyle and/or your genetic heritage without a government handout, then it’s likely those attributes aren’t ones we need more of.

I’m also reminded of Ayn Rand’s parable of the Twentieth Century Motor company in Atlas Shrugged:

We began to meddle into one another’s lives. We provoked family quarrels, to get somebody’s relatives thrown out. Any time we saw a man starting to go steady with a girl, we made life miserable for him. We broke up many engagements. We didn’t want anyone to marry, we didn’t want any more dependents to feed.

“In the old days, we used to celebrate if somebody had a baby, we used to chip in and help him out with the hospital bills, if he happened to be hard-pressed for the moment. Now, if a baby was born, we didn’t speak to the parents for weeks. Babies, to us, had become what locusts were to farmers.

Socratease on April 1, 2014 at 6:58 PM

There is never a need for new people. The smaller society is, the less people it needs to service it. A society with no population, has no need for workers either, so balance is always maintained. Only socialism requires breeding because it needs givers to cover the takers. A society left on its own, however, has no problem maintaining its own balance whether it is two people on an island, or a two billion people.

Breeding people just so that they can service the ones that came before is horrifying in its socialistic utilitarianism. That is not the purpose of a person.

HugoDrax on April 1, 2014 at 7:02 PM

* Those of you who have chosen not to have children should be honest with yourselves. Your choice may have been made for any of a host of reasons, but the reality is that you have chosen to freely partake of the benefits of society through your own childhood (the beginning of your life) at the expense of others, and will do the same thing in your later years (the end of your life), because the vast majority of Americans will draw far more out of Medicare/Social Security than they ever paid in. Reality. It’s real.

Senator Tom Coburn (a physician in private life) has estimated that the average American couple contributes approximately $110,000 to Medicare over their working careers and receives over $330,000 of Medicare benefits. On Feb. 20, USA Today cited Urban Institute data pegging those same figures at $88,000 and $387,000, respectively.

There are differing estimates of the size of the gap, but clearly Medicare suffers from an unsustainable funding deficit.

xNavigator on April 1, 2014 at 6:56 PM

So your answer is to continue to support the unbalanced, broken system by having more kids who will work to pay for it? What happens when they go to retire amidst a much larger population when their time comes. Do we just keep increasing population to keep the pyramid scheme going with no regard to the solvency of the program and impacts of a growing population just to fund SS/Medicare?

That is a very short sighted view

deuce on April 1, 2014 at 7:02 PM

Let me understand this. If I have grown children, I’m penalized?

jim56 on April 1, 2014 at 7:03 PM

I don’t think you can tax people just on the basis of not having a child. You would need to tax anyone who does not have a child dependent on them.

It’s time that senior citizen started paying their fair share for their grandkids.

malclave on April 1, 2014 at 7:03 PM

I seek no part of your childs interest. Your child in turn should seek nothing from me. You create, you take the responsibility. I want nothing of theirs or yours. I am not your keeper. Nor will you be mine. Should I elect to take interest in that which is yours, I will do so voluntarily and with your approval. Short of that, I want nothing of or from any of you. Personal responsibility is key to not being a burden to others. We have not been following this philosophy for quite sometime. The failure you see around you and yours is not of my doing. It has come out of reliance on all but yourself. Taking does not in the end work. Giving does.

Bmore on April 1, 2014 at 6:15 PM

Keep that in mind when my kid can hit at 600 yards. They’re getting close.

WryTrvllr on April 1, 2014 at 6:50 PM

So, your kids will be shooting at fellow patriots? They’ll probably be the first to be pitch forked and torched. Better make more.

Cheese Wheel on April 1, 2014 at 7:03 PM

You keep acting as though only married with kids people pay taxes.

Single and childless adults who are employed also pay taxes.

And some of the tax money paid by childless or childfree people also goes to pay for other people’s kids, to public schools, or federal programs that give food to kids (eg, WIC, “The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) provides Federal grants to States for supplemental foods”).

TigerPaw on April 1, 2014 at 6:58 PM

I am for ending all those programs. Every last one. That kind of help should come from charity freely given.
While, yes, they pay taxes what they do not do is contribute to their multiple decades long end of life vacation. No amount of paying social security today pays for your own social security and medicare benefits. That money is out the door as fast as it is collected. The only way you can contribute to your social security and medicare is to have children who pay the taxes that support them. Thus the childless are freeloaders when it comes to social security and medicare.

astonerii on April 1, 2014 at 7:05 PM

Childless Americans are already paying taxes for our children to attend school.

b1jetmech on April 1, 2014 at 5:24 PM

Again, only if they are property owners, and this has NOTHING to do with married status, with or without children, etc.

Midas on April 1, 2014 at 6:17 PM

Think that the monthly rent amount has no property taxes figured into the total owed each month? All taxes are passed on to the end user. We should encourage families but to say that the childless should pay more taxes than those with children overlooks the fact that they already do pay more into the system than what they take out.

jims on April 1, 2014 at 7:05 PM

I think we should all contribute to society what we can, and the government should give us the food and shelter we are entitled to. There would be no need for money or taxes! It would be great. The housebuilders would build you a house, the car builders would build you a car and the electric people would provide electricity. You would do whatever you do to contribute to the greater good. What downside could there possibly be? We all have each others best interests at heart, so nobody would just slack off. I’m sure of it. Let’s use armed force to bring this to everybody.

tdarrington on April 1, 2014 at 7:06 PM

Kind of sick of saying this, so:

THOSE OF US WHO RENT **DO** PAY PROPERTY TAXES.

Sorry for the caps but many around here refuse to get it. You don’t think our landlords figure their property taxes into the cost of the rent?

Actually, in my current place (a shoebox temporary situation), my landlord actually said: you (shoebox renter portion) guys cover my property tax amounts. So, actually property taxes are the ONLY thing I’m paying right now. lol

Seriously, though: you really, truly want all us conservative renters not to be able to vote?! Say it isn’t so!

Eviva on April 1, 2014 at 7:08 PM

Here we go having the government getting into the family on how many, how much; get the government out of the family. How many politicians have a friend or family in the 1300 federal agencies?

mixplix on April 1, 2014 at 7:09 PM

Being a citizen of a country requires sacrifice for the survival of the country, that includes producing children that are productive.

…sacrifice for the survival of the country — of the human race! — also includes dedicating one’s life to the thankless and ill-recompensed pursuit of knowledge and scholarship so that the children those of you who are simply resetting the clock by “making the new generation” will have a clock that runs a little less menacingly fast.

everyone contributes in different ways. while the breeder-drones are pumping out the next generation, it’s down to those of us who toil in laboratory for 10 hours a day, including weekends, making a pittance that would embarrass a warehouse stockboy, to improve the human condition and figure out how to stretch these limitted resources as far as we can.

you don’t need a φυκινγ tax break for fulfilling your biologically inclined destiny, sorry, but you get one anyone; you definitely don’t get to impose tax breaks on others because you consider your contribution to the next generation inimitably noble.

TigerPaw on April 1, 2014 at 6:50 PM

i’m not religious myself, but it did occur to me upon reading your post — even before i got to the quote myself — that paul instructed the men of the early church that it was better to stay single.

i appreciate your considerate commentary and your ability to reason in the situation without placing your own life choices on an apotheotic pedestal.

jaxisaneurophysicist on April 1, 2014 at 7:09 PM

You’d like my Rottweiler puppy (almost 1 year old, 110 lbs, lol). He’s a sweetheart that likes everybody.

Including the food-bearing pizza guy that *doesn’t* like Rottweilers.

Midas on April 1, 2014 at 6:39 PM

LOVE Rotties! Does he still think he’s a lap dog? My Boston took a run at my neighbor’s 160 lb. Guy. The shocked look on the Rottie was priceless. He just pick up a paw and pinned the little azzh*le.
Boston was humble for almost a week.

katy the mean old lady on April 1, 2014 at 7:10 PM

So your answer is to continue to support the unbalanced, broken system by having more kids who will work to pay for it?
deuce on April 1, 2014 at 7:02 PM

No. My solution would be to address the issue, sooner rather than later (options are less painful sooner than later), with common-sense, but politically difficult, options such as raising the retirement age, means testing benefits, etc.

Those of you who scream for SS and Medicare to go away are howling into the wind. Politically, they’re not going anywhere. They’re popular even among Republicans and conservatives, who draw their benefits just like everyone else and scream bloody murder at any attempt to lower the benefits.

But let’s try your option! No more kids! The system sucks. Let it die! /s

So, your kids will be shooting at fellow patriots?

Cheese Wheel on April 1, 2014 at 7:03 PM

You’re not a patriot if your attitude is “GTFO of my lawn. I take care of myself, you take care of yourself.” You’re a selfish bugger with no idea of how great your debt is to the society around you, and the generations who have gone before, who provide the lifestyle you currently enjoy.

xNavigator on April 1, 2014 at 7:10 PM

I am for ending all those programs. Every last one. That kind of help should come from charity freely given.
While, yes, they pay taxes what they do not do is contribute to their multiple decades long end of life vacation. No amount of paying social security today pays for your own social security and medicare benefits. That money is out the door as fast as it is collected. The only way you can contribute to your social security and medicare is to have children who pay the taxes that support them. Thus the childless are freeloaders when it comes to social security and medicare.

astonerii on April 1, 2014 at 7:05 PM

Do you not get that the children you are raising will someday be on SS/Medicare as well perpetuating the problem, and probably in larger numbers? Population growth and more people in a program is not the answer when each person in the program is taking out at a rate higher than they contribute.

deuce on April 1, 2014 at 7:10 PM

Think that the monthly rent amount has no property taxes figured into the total owed each month? All taxes are passed on to the end user.

jims on April 1, 2014 at 7:05 PM

Heh – was typing while you were posting yet we used almost the same words. Yep, renters pay taxes too.

Eviva on April 1, 2014 at 7:11 PM

How about just taking the government to court and pointing out that Amendment XVI allows taxing of income, it does not allow a progressive income tax? As all citizens are to be treated equally, so is their income under Art. IV, Sec. 2, the equal protections clause.

Instead of trying to dole out tax breaks, why not tax all sources of income equally? Of course that means you would tax the poor in equal percentage to the rich, but that would then require those wanting to spend lots of money to realize that they are depriving the poor to fund their own pet projects. Plus the poor would have to put some skin in the game.

ajacksonian on April 1, 2014 at 7:15 PM

So, your kids will be shooting at fellow patriots? They’ll probably be the first to be pitch forked and torched. Better make more.

Cheese Wheel on April 1, 2014 at 7:03 PM

Oddly enough, since no-one else wants to, that was my thought too.

WryTrvllr on April 1, 2014 at 7:15 PM

So, your kids will be shooting at fellow patriots?

Cheese Wheel on April 1, 2014 at 7:03 PM

You’re not a patriot if your attitude is “GTFO of my lawn. I take care of myself, you take care of yourself.” You’re a selfish bugger with no idea of how great your debt is to the society around you, and the generations who have gone before, who provide the lifestyle you currently enjoy.

xNavigator on April 1, 2014 at 7:10 PM

I don’t know the Bmore’s situation, but you can take your sanctimonious a$$ and get off my lawn. Just because you squeezed out a couple of puppies doesn’t make you a savior. Enjoy your tax credits. You and the illegals.

Cheese Wheel on April 1, 2014 at 7:16 PM

No. My solution would be to address the issue, sooner rather than later (options are less painful sooner than later), with common-sense, but politically difficult, options such as raising the retirement age, means testing benefits, etc.

Those of you who scream for SS and Medicare to go away are howling into the wind. Politically, they’re not going anywhere. They’re popular even among Republicans and conservatives, who draw their benefits just like everyone else and scream bloody murder at any attempt to lower the benefits.

But let’s try your option! No more kids! The system sucks. Let it die! /s

xNavigator on April 1, 2014 at 7:10 PM

Now that is a reasonable response, modify the program so it can be solvent. What you pay in is what you get out.

Make babies to save SS/Medicare on the other hand is not a reasonable or responsible plan

deuce on April 1, 2014 at 7:17 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5