Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: CSM
Actually, I do agree with the idea. Each person (legal resident) has the right to have the basics of life untaxed by the government -- that's every man, woman, and child. That means each person, regardless of family structure, is entitled to have a certain level of expenditure tax-free.

But minor dependent children are assumed to not be providing for themselves, but rather to be the responsibility of one or more parents and/or legal gaurdians. This explains why the child's benefit is paid to the head of the household (and not the child), even though it is the child's benefit. Children's benefits are smaller than adult's because their necessary expenditure is lower.

23 posted on 08/30/2004 10:02:42 AM PDT by kevkrom (My handle is "kevkrom", and I approved this post.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]


To: kevkrom

Who gets to determine what is a "basic necessity" of life? Who gets to determine what cost level of these "basic necessities" is fair?

By accepting that we "have a right to have the basics of life untaxed by the government -- that's every man, woman, and child" then we accept that the government has the right to tax us on everything else. By accepting your reasoning, then we accept that the government owns all money and only allows us to keep what we want (or gives it back) based on what the government decides is "basic necessity" and what is an appropriate amount.

Show me where the right you describe has been defined?


24 posted on 08/30/2004 10:20:27 AM PDT by CSM (To spread the wealth the liberal is willing, he'll take YOUR dollar and keep his shilling. -albertp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson