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 ...
“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
Bingo!
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 didn’t fund it in the first place. Why they give refunds who didn’t 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 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.”
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 it’s 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, 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.”
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.