Skip to comments.Should you pay more taxes if you don't have kids?
Posted on 04/14/2014 1:35:52 AM PDT by South40
A Slate columnist argues that childless Americans should pony up some more cash for taxes and that parents should get a bigger break.
Nonparents should pay higher taxes so that lower- and middle-income parents can receive a much-deserved tax break. That's the proposal of conservative Slate.com columnist Reihan Salam.
"The willingness of parents to bear and nurture children saves us from becoming an economically moribund nation of hateful curmudgeons. The least we can do is offer them a bigger tax break," Salam, who is childless, said.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.msn.com ...
Social engineering through tax rates is nowhere in the Constitution, and FedGov has no business doing it. Tax law should serve the purpose of collecting revenue - only. [Note: I personally would benefit a lot from this proposal, but cronyism is wrong, even when it’s an overreach in my favor.]
Thats on oxymoron.
It seems that the main point of the article is to label the writer as "conservative". I originally read the article on the BBC site and it was simply a conservative-bashing screed. A lot of "dog-whistle" phrases as the left likes to put it.
MONEY(taxes) is heroin to government giving it to them(it) is a negative procedure..
COLD Turkey is the only recourse..
If givernment is NOT suffering...... YOU ARE!..
Krystal needs to look at her 1040 form, specifically lines 42, 48, and 51.
There should be a tax break for raising kids
I would argue the OPPOSITE.
Your “carbon Footprint” is smaller (throw that in their faces). Everything you do is fractionally smaller than those who have families.....yet they are looking for more money from them.
No, those without children should receive a partial refund of property taxes.
Everyone should pay higher taxes so that Mrs. Obama can enjoy another much-deserved vacation!!
In the long term, a country that doesn’t keep itself populated (and populated by its original people) simply dies off and is repopulated by whatever fills the vacuum.
And long term is not that long, as Europe as we know it, will be gone in less than 3 generations - us a generation or two later.
If people are cool with that, I feel sorry for them. If they have kids and are cool with leaving that future to them, they are about as selfish as I can imagine.
Don’t we already do something like this and it’s resulted in single parents and folks who really can’t afford them popping them out over and over to get more welfare checks?
“I pay $7200 per year in property taxes (NJ), 65% of which goes to fund the local schools. I have no kids. If anything; I should probably get a property tax reduction on the amount of my tax bill that funds the schools.”
This is killing the housing market here in NJ amd radically changing the state demographically. People who don’t plan on having children don’t want to buy a house with those high school taxes, while those who would need a house for their children can’t pay the high taxes so they look elsewhere. Those taxes were bearable when NJ had good jobs, but now they are a deterrent to companies and individuals who head to greener pastures elsewhere.
When Jon Corzine was governor he admitted that we’d lost population without the illegals in the state (and we lost an electoral vote); it has only gotten worse since then. The state is ending up with large populations of “replacement Americans” (Hispanics & Asians), the permanent underclass, and the government worker class to administer them.
Programs to “freeze” property taxes for seniors are failing because they are being frozen at high rates already; if your taxes were frozen you’d still pay $600 per month in property taxes alone. How many retirees can do that? I like Christie’s cap of 2% increases, but that brings different problems where nothing can be paid for. Our government retiree class is bankrupting the state, and much of your $7,200 is being used to pay people who retired a long time ago.
“No, those without children should receive a partial refund of property taxes.”
I understand the logic but it could never happen logisitically; if our schools were paid for by the parents using them teachers would be earning $10,000 per year. I have no objection to that, but the teachers’ unions are the ones fighting to ensure that EVERYONE is contributing to their till.
“WELFARE MOMS FOR JUSTICE!”
We are already paying deadbeat welfare vermin to have babies and they ain’t white! Hell, they are spitting babies out like wet watermelon seeds now and just think how many they will spit out if they get the incentive to produce more.
I’ve lived long enough to see the demise of our nation into a cesspool of leeches the those who have absolutely no intention in integrating into our society nor being responsible for their own actions.
With Obama, we are at the tipping point and it would not surprise me (if I live a few years longer) if they rounded up whites (especially males) and put them in internment camps so the GREAT SOCIETY could advance without obstruction.
We already do. We don’t have the extra individual deductions. We don’t have tax breaks for day care or health care.
“Nonparents should pay higher taxes so that lower- and middle-income parents can receive a much-deserved tax break. That’s the proposal of conservative Slate.com columnist Reihan Salam.”
Lower and middle income parents already pay less. How about dependent deductions, child care credits, and the best of all the earned income credit. For households qualifying these can add up to $8,000 ~ $10,000 of tax returns. Not only do many of these folks not pay any net federal taxes (50% don’t) about half of those 50% actually pay net negative taxes! meaning as an example if FICA withholdings should be $2,000 an individual meeting the right criteria could receive back after filing an IRS check for perhaps $10,000 or more. Not bad, huh?
Leave it to dhimmicrats to always want to raise taxes; it’s all one way w/ them.
all of society benefits from producing educated citizens, so all of society needs to contribute to funding public education- this is what our nation decided a long time ago, so that ship has sailed
The problem has become the tax burden dumped on property owners as if they were all “rich” or willing to pay anything levied on them, to save their homes. Eventually there just are not enough bucks. This needs to change
and those who don’t drive, use public transportation, or use the libraries or parks should get a partial tax refund, too - why pay for tax-funded service for things they don’t personally use?
Flat tax-with no REfunds going to people who didn’t fund it in the first place. Why they give refunds who didn’t pay any taxes in the first place is insane.
My son's school is paid for by the parents, and the teachers make a lot more than $10,000. Probably less than at public schools, but not much less. Plus, I still pay for everyone else's kids' school, too.
“Flat tax-with no REfunds going to people who didnt fund it in the first place. Why they give refunds who didnt pay any taxes in the first place is insane.”
Agree for sure. I’m a proponent of the flat tax as well. In fact, I would be willing to support the elimination of all deductions, credits, and other forms of tax avoidance. However, having said that, I am a pragmatic person. So, for starters I’m willing to compromise. So to get it through congress, I would support a two tiered tax, say 10% for those earning under $40k/yr and 15% for those earning more. I would also support continuation of homeowners tax deduction as this bad become sacred and the public would not support its elimination - if eliminated it would be a deal breaker I think.
You can’t start having deductions and tiers. It just gets to what we have now eventually. It should be an 8% flat tax for everyone. Including businesses. If you make 1000 you owe $80. If you make 100k you owe 8k. God asks for 10%. No way we should be expected to give as much to any government.
“You cant start having deductions and tiers. It just gets to what we have now eventually. It should be an 8% flat tax for everyone. Including businesses. If you make 1000 you owe $80. If you make 100k you owe 8k. God asks for 10%. No way we should be expected to give as much to any government.”
I agree with you in theory. However, I don’t believe your scheme would ever get through both Houses, regardless of which party may be in power. I’m merely suggesting that we take what we can get, prove that a flatter tax concept is better than current scheme, then take another bite out of the apple so to speak :)
In some ways, people without children already pay higher taxes. They pay property taxes for schools without putting children in them. They don’t get child tax credits.
stop having kids if you can't afford them.
I have failed to see any output of ‘educated’ citizenry vs. $$ and spent in the name of that endeavor.
And, though, that Social ideal of ‘community education’ (it takes a village B.S.) may have sailed, does not make it set it stone for eternity.
One, like all other things in life, should pay for services rendered. No use = no pay.
Sorry, but a Flat Tax is not the solution. Already, even with two tiers, you’ve opened the door for the 100-yr creep again.
National Sales Tax is the way to go: EVERYONE pays, voluntary, anonymous (consumer > biz > State > Fed), etc. For all its warts, the Fair Tax for me.
Social engineering through tax rates is nowhere in the Constitution, and FedGov has no business doing it. Tax law should serve the purpose of collecting revenue - only. [Note: I personally would benefit a lot from this proposal, but cronyism is wrong, even when its an overreach in my favor.]
Thank you for elucidating this so succinctly. I have four children, but concur with you that taxes are only for the purpose of collecting the monies needed to perform the Article 1, Section 8 powers granted in the Constitution.
James R. McClure Jr.
Jeffersonian Anti-Federalist Democrat candidate for IN09
It’s not about the taxation, it’s about the spending...Let’s attack the spending first.
“Sorry, but a Flat Tax is not the solution. Already, even with two tiers, youve opened the door for the 100-yr creep again.”
“National Sales Tax is the way to go: EVERYONE pays, voluntary, anonymous (consumer > biz > State > Fed), etc. For all its warts, the Fair Tax for me.”
Well, I’m not wed to any specific taxation scheme. But, I do know that whatever should be chosen, it should be wider and flatter for sure. In fact, I think every adult should feel the sting of the tax-man, even if it’s only $100. Btw, all tax plans are susceptible to your “100 year creep”. For instance, a national sales tax could have adders such as a luxury tax on high end autos, boats, RV’s, etc. Or, a sin tax on whatever the government decides is harmful, red meat, liquor, gasoline, sodas, candy bars, you name it. The solution to your creep is ever vigilence by the electorate. But, sadly, not even that is a guarantee as we are now at or near the tipping point where there are more takers than makers, or more riding in the wagon than pulling the wagon, choose your metaphor.
“all of society benefits from producing educated citizens, so all of society needs to contribute to funding public education- this is what our nation decided a long time ago, so that ship has sailed”
That argument for it died when “puclic education” stopped educating children. Here in NJ, between a property tax cap (similar to California’s) and a freeze for seniors, a shrinking amount of money is available for the teachers’ workfare program anyway.
“The problem has become the tax burden dumped on property owners as if they were all rich or willing to pay anything levied on them, to save their homes. Eventually there just are not enough bucks. This needs to change”
Here in NJ it is changing; taxpayers (individual and corporate) are fleeing, leaving illegals, the permanent underclass, and the shrinking government workforce (due to budgetary constraints) to “administer” them.
Here in NJ our private schools (religious or otherwise) are closing because nobody can pay $7K+ for the public school system in taxes and on top of that pay a private school tuition. One of my wife’s friends went from making $15K teaching in a private school to $33K in a public school in the course of a year; only a well-off person could afford to teach in a private school.
Without vouchers that would allow parents to use their education tax money for private education, most of those schools will be closed within a few short years. The teachers’ unions have successfully prevented vouchers from being implemented, and as long as they are the de facto owners of the Democratic Party that won’t change.
“stop having kids if you can’t afford them.”
Be careful what you wish for; plenty of Americans are heeding your advice, and it is leading to a permanent Dem majority. The “replacement Americans” replacing the missing children of those who “can’t afford to have kids” aren’t FReepers.
“it would not surprise me (if I live a few years longer) if they rounded up whites (especially males) and put them in internment camps so the GREAT SOCIETY could advance without obstruction.”
They don’t have to; they’re disappearing on their own due to birthrates.
I get it. It’s better to have a bunch of hypocrites calling themselves conservatives screaming to get government out of their lives while gleefully asking for their welfare handouts so they can out breed the other welfare recipients. Glad I finally got that straight.
No, it is just that with everyone’s expectations nobody can “afford” children. Keeping waiting for the right time; your child can be the only English-speaker in his/her class at school...
Have all the kids you want. Just don’t go thinking that doing so entitles you to take a rock out of your backpack and stuff it into mine.
“Have all the kids you want. Just dont go thinking that doing so entitles you to take a rock out of your backpack and stuff it into mine.”
No worries; I’ve assured my children that people of your mindset will never be rocks in their backpacks. You can carry your own, including when you are older.
My issue isn’t with your kids, but nice way to use them as a bullet stop for your collectivist argument. My issue is with you wanting me to subsidize your choices.
My kids aren’t bullet-stoppers for anyone; just don’t expect them to give a hoot when some Third World behemoth repeated cleans your bedpan with your face in your old age. Choices have consequences.
How big of a check should I cut you? Seriously, I would like to know the price you want from me so you can whelp out a litter for the purpose of out breeding some other racial group. Put a dollar amount out of how much I owe you so you can choose to start a family. Don’t hide behind government taxing power and the catch-all “...for the children” bullshit. You want to have people put a gun to my head and the heads of others to subsidize you so you can have kids. Let’s just cut out the middle man and tell me what you think I owe you.
Keep your money; my kids and I will keep our freedom of any obligation to you.
I once asked the two spinster sisters living next to me growing up if it bothered them to pay taxes for the schools.
They said “Oh no! If I want the future of America to be as good as it was for me, I want you kids to get good educations, etc.”
Made sense to me then. Now, when I see the waste involved, I have willed myself to vote NO on any school budget increases. With all of the fancy open architecture, pavilions and stuff at the 2-year old local high school, they are already saying they are “out-of-room” and need to add on! (Not to mention the sculptures, the award winning home-econ area with four complete, state of the art industrial stainless steel kitchens, four assistant principals, etc.)