Comments about ‘Letters: Hidden head tax’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Feb. 26 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Shaun
Sandy, UT

Yes, parents need to step up and pay for their kids.

Curmudgeon
Salt Lake City, UT

The question is not "does Utah really want this virtual, creeping head tax?" The real question is "does Utah really want a quality education system, and if so, how will it be funded?" Briscoe's proposal is a rational, appropriate way to start to shift some, but certainly not all, of the cost to the cost-causers. There is no free lunch.

liberal larry
salt lake City, utah

We want education, but we don't want to get taxed to pay for it! Another example of the conservative entitlement mentality that is infecting our nation.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

A person's true character seems to exhibit itself when money is at stake. You would think that every liberal in Utah would be outraged if the Legislature capped government "tax benefits" to anyone, especially those with large families.

The liberals demand that "government" pay any and all costs for healthcare, for out-of-wedlock housing and meals, yet some liberal posters are outraged when THEY might have to pay a few more dollars every year because people with large families might get the same break - per child - that the liberals get.

What hypocrisy! If you believe that some "rich guy" should pay for health and welfare, why are you baulking when YOU are the "rich guy"?

Grover
Salt Lake City, UT

Interesting is all for getting the government off our backs and lowering or eliminating taxes, until the subject turns to something they favor. They are largely "exempt" from paying liquor taxes because they don't use the product. By the same token childless persons and parents who limit their families to two children shouldn't be forced to pay for services they don't use. Who is the real hypocrite here?

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

What is the "true value" of a bottle of liquor? What is the "true value" of a child?

Maybe it's time that some people put things into perspective and put their time, their effort and their money into things with true value.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"in order to raise money for our schools.....it hits families raising children with proportionately higher taxes than the rest of us."

And that is unfair because?

"What hypocrisy! "

Yes Mr Richards. As someone who screams daily about people's need to pay their own way, you sure change your tune when school funding is involved. Look, I agree that we should all help out with school. I just dont understand that those who use the system the most, pay the least.

What I get is a deserved break. What others get is an entitlement that makes them takers.

Pot, meet kettle.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

So which is it --

You had the kids, you pay for them or educate them yourselves,
or
It takes a village (yes, a form of Socialism)?

The double-standard, hypocritical Conservatives need to answer this one for themselves.

The rest of us are comfortable ponying up for the benefit of Society.

Grover
Salt Lake City, UT

When it comes to taxation, how does "true value" enter the equation?

one old man
Ogden, UT

I don't understand your comment, Mike. It looks to me as if all the "liberals" posting here are in full support of this.

John C. C.
Payson, UT

"Who will help me plant my wheat in my garden?" asked the Little Red Hen.
"Not I," said the pig.
"Not I," said the dog.
"Not I," said the cat.

- Skip to the end of the story. -

"Who would like soldiers, police, doctors, and leaders?" asked the little red hen.
"Who wants a share of my children's Social Security Taxes?" asked the little red hen.
"Who would like their lawn cut?" asked the little red hen.
. . . ad infinitum.

That's OK, all of you don't want to share in the heavy lifting. We share. We are parents. We have never been able to repay our parents, and we don't expect our children to repay us. We are content to see them grow up as givers.

You are welcome to join us and help 'pay it forward' on behalf of a better future world.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

No one is advocating that we should not all pitch in for education.

But the letter was written in protest of legislation essentially making those with children to pay a small amount more towards the education of those children.

Keep in mind that today, it cost about $8000 per school year per kid.

And Mr Clark is worried that he might have to pony up a few dollars more?

That takes some brass.

Emajor
Ogden, UT

Mike Richards,
So all the big government liberals ought to be applauding the child tax break because it is providing more government benefits to people? That's a bit snarky, and meant to point out the irony of liberals supporting health care coverage, food stamps, etc. It might even be clever, except for 2 important points:

1. You have admitted that you support and gladly accepted the per child tax subsidization of your family.
2. You frequently & adamantly criticize government benefits for others even though you took this subsidization for yourself.

So you support government help that you want but oppose that which you don't. And then you strongly criticize others for the same contradiction. Really, sometimes it is best to keep quiet rather expose our own hypocrisy by criticizing others for that which we are guilty of.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

So all the liberals posting here support the idea that those with more kids should be required to pay more.

OK, I'll believe you are sincere when you start demanding the earned income credit also be reduced or eliminated, because people with more kids get a higher earned income credit.

They should also DEMAND the child tax credit be revoked, especially since those evil high-income people do not qualify for it.

The focus of the whole argument is in the incorrect place. It should not be on income taxes, but property taxes. With our "flat tax", the state's income tax structure is less progressive (those who can afford to pay more should pay more and those who cannot, should not). A higher percentage of property taxes go to schools than do income taxes, so increased school funding should be through property taxes, since they are more likely to be means based. A person who can afford a more expensive house generally can afford to pay more taxes.

L White
Springville, UT

Wow! Look at these comments! King Noah had nothing on today's posters. He told his people, "every man for himself". He told them to leave their wives and their children behind and save themselves. It doesn't look to me like anything has changed.

I cannot believe the comments on liquor and children. Those posts tell me everything that I need to know about the posters.

All of the posts from people who want the women and children to fend for themselves tell me that all their talk about helping each other is just a lot of hot air. What they're really saying is that if they have to open their wallets, they're against it. If it is a program that fills their wallets then they are for it.

Never before has a subject shown so clearly people as they really are.

I believe in being taxed to help all kids get an education. To me, that is what families in a society do.

Thank you Deserst News for posting that letter and for allowing people to show their true feelings.

Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

This certainly is an interesting issue. I agree something must be done about education funding.

The Utah State Constitution guarantees every child the right to a free public education.

But we all know that nothing is free. As a parent of 3 I have absolutely no qualms about paying my share for their education. Like all parents, I want the best education possible for my kids. If the Legislature can guarantee that every dollar beyond the proposed cap would go toward education, I would have no problem whatsoever with this.

Education should be looked at as an investment rather than a "cost". Either way we will pay the price. We can pay it now and reap the benefits later, or cut corners and pay for it when we are no longer competetive, productive members of society.

jsf
Centerville, UT

Hypocrisy is one of the characteristics of every tax system.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"all their talk about helping each other is just a lot of hot air"

Sorry L White, but most of the hot air is coming from you.

You write "I believe in being taxed to help all kids get an education."

Can you show me any posts that does not feel the same way?

The issue with many posters is that the letter writer is concerned that he may have to pay a bit more to educate his children.

We should all pitch in to help with education. I have yet to see a poster who felt differently. But, it seems fairly unreasonable to me that those with kids in public school pay the least for that privilege.

Is that concept really that difficult for some to grasp?

Lower taxes and get the cotton picken gubment out of our lives. Except when the do stuff I like.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00
So which is it --

You had the kids, you pay for them or educate them yourselves,
or
It takes a village (yes, a form of Socialism)?

The double-standard, hypocritical Conservatives need to answer this one for themselves.

The rest of us are comfortable ponying up for the benefit of Society.

11:33 a.m. Feb. 26, 2013

===========

L White
Springville, UT

I believe in being taxed to help all kids get an education. To me, that is what families in a society do.

1:07 p.m. Feb. 26, 2013

=========

To L White --
I would just like to say Thank You for showing us clearly that you are indeed a closeted "Socialist".

Thank you Deserst News for posting that letter and for allowing people to show their true feelings.

John C. C.
Payson, UT

By insisting that parents pay more for their own children's education, many conservatives actually reveal that they feel entitled to the work of others and that they are anti-family. Parents already bear the brunt of all the expenses, career sacrifices, and inconveniences of raising children while those who refuse to raise children are the free-loaders. Children are an investment for the future of all of us, not a luxury to be consumed by the parents. The per-child exemption is a small thank you, and I appreciate it.

Remember also that this veiled head-tax bill also penalizes disproportionately those who care for the handicapped and the disabled elderly. Would you rather have them become wards of the state or to believe Korihor's philosophy ("every man prospered according to his genius")?

It's not socialism to care for others voluntarily. We don't have to leave it up to private charity. There's nothing wrong with people voluntarily banding together to serve their common interests. For us it happened in 1776 and has been responding to the voluntary wishes of its citizens ever since.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments