Quantcast
Opinion

Letters: Hidden head tax

Comments

Return To Article
  • Demo Dave Holladay, UT
    March 1, 2013 4:52 p.m.

    Mr. Clark says, "The more kids the more the increase." Isn't that how it should be? Isn't that the basis of personal responsibility?

    If you breed them, you had better be able to feed them, clothe them, house them, educate them, and turn them into productive citizens without whining about how much it costs you. It's not my job to pay for your children's education, and yet, as a single man with no children of my own, I pay for six or seven of someone else's children to attend public school. Meanwhile, the guy who has six or seven kids not only skates away from the cost of educating them, he gets a per-child tax credit too.

    You have a lot of nerve, Mr. Clark. I don't feel bad for you.

  • The Moose Southern, UT
    Feb. 27, 2013 1:46 p.m.

    Jory:
    Have fun with that. Remember you need to consider all the things public education offers when you make your claim. When your kids want to play junior jazz basketball, have fun telling them they can't because the gyms were paid for by public ed dollars. That's ok, they'll play lacrosse. Oops, the fields are public ed fields. Band then....not a lot of private bands...of course you can get private lessons, but to be in a band...more public ed. Remember: Education is more than the three "R's" just like sports is more than X's and 0's.

  • Jory payson, utah
    Feb. 27, 2013 1:27 p.m.

    I would gladly pay for my children's education when I have them. i know it won't cost $8000 dollars to educate them and I will get better results. How much of that $8000 actually goes to the kids instead of the administrators and the district? I can guarantee you that I can provide a better education to my kids, when I have them, better than what the public schools are offering.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Feb. 27, 2013 10:41 a.m.

    "An investment in knowledge, pays the best interest." ~ the progressive, Benjamin Franklin

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Feb. 27, 2013 9:36 a.m.

    I'm all in favor of level loading.

    Those with no or less children, benefit from those who do have large families.

    It's what/how Socialism works.
    We pool together all our resources/blessings - whatever they maybe - and redistribute them for the benefit of ourselves and our society in general {i.e., the general welfare clause in our Constitution).

    No man is an island.

  • Dektol Powell, OH
    Feb. 27, 2013 7:20 a.m.

    People raising families SHOULD pay more as they use more services and cost the rest of society more money as a result. Want to have a dozen kids - why shouldn't you shoulder more of the cost for schools and support?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 27, 2013 4:12 a.m.

    It would be a sad future for this country and this world if we need an ever increasing population to survive.

    Can anyone imagine a future with a birth rate where every couple has 5 kids?

  • Al Vernal, UT
    Feb. 26, 2013 9:28 p.m.

    Fine, I'll pay more for the education of my five children than someone who has just one child.. It's only fair. But then, I should receive more of the social security taxes that my five children generate than the person with only one child.

    If you want fewer of your tax dollars going to education because you have fewer children, then I want fewer of their tax dollars going to support you in your old age because your children (lack thereof) aren't contributing as much to the social security pie. So when would you like the money?

    But, of course, with less people paying into social security and people living more and more years after retirement, there won't be a social security left when I could use it. At least I did my fair share in having five children to pay into the system, how about you?

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Feb. 26, 2013 6:14 p.m.

    John C.C.

    "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."

    Freudian Slip?

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Feb. 26, 2013 6:12 p.m.

    John C.C.
    "Parents already bear the brunt of all the expenses, career sacrifices, and inconveniences of raising children..."

    Yes we do. So what? It's our choice to have them, we knew the economic consequences of it.

    "...while those who refuse to raise children are the free-loaders. "

    How? They pay taxes. They don't get your tax exemption. They have careers. Some of them advance farther in their careers because they didn't have children, leading to higher income, more input into Social Security. How, exactly, are they freeloaders?

    "Children are an investment for the future of all of us..."

    Not all children. There are people in the news everyday who prove that. And that 47% conservatives love to beat up on as freeloaders? Well, they didn't spring out of holes in the ground, did they?

    "The per-child exemption is a small thank you, and I appreciate it"

    It sounds to me like you are having no trouble thanking yourself without the tax exemption.

  • L White Springville, UT
    Feb. 26, 2013 4:18 p.m.

    My golly, but some people have almost no understanding of "civics".

    Don't we have many levels of government? The most important level of government is the one closest to us. Our city and local government deals directly with us. We usually know the city council and the mayor and they know us. We tell them about things that are too big for us and our families to handle. They tell us how much it will cost for the city to do those things. We get with our neighbors and decide if we want to pay the city to do it or if we want to find a way to handle things on our own.

    We have a State Constitution that provides for the education of our children. If we decide to live in Utah, we automatically decide to pay taxes to educate the children of Utah - not just some of the children; all of them.

    The level of government with the fewest responsibilities is Federal; it has only seventeen authorized duties.

    Misunderstanding our responsibilities vs government authority leads to hand wringing and smear attacks. If you live in Utah, you pay taxes to educate children. Period.

  • John C. C. Payson, UT
    Feb. 26, 2013 3:58 p.m.

    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.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Feb. 26, 2013 2:24 p.m.

    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.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 26, 2013 2:19 p.m.

    "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.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Feb. 26, 2013 2:12 p.m.

    Hypocrisy is one of the characteristics of every tax system.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Feb. 26, 2013 2:08 p.m.

    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.

  • L White Springville, UT
    Feb. 26, 2013 1:07 p.m.

    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.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 26, 2013 12:43 p.m.

    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.

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Feb. 26, 2013 12:28 p.m.

    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.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 26, 2013 12:18 p.m.

    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.

  • John C. C. Payson, UT
    Feb. 26, 2013 11:51 a.m.

    "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.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Feb. 26, 2013 11:43 a.m.

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

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 26, 2013 11:40 a.m.

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

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Feb. 26, 2013 11:33 a.m.

    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.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 26, 2013 11:28 a.m.

    "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.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Feb. 26, 2013 11:17 a.m.

    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.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 26, 2013 8:07 a.m.

    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
    Feb. 26, 2013 7:54 a.m.

    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"?

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    Feb. 26, 2013 6:11 a.m.

    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.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 26, 2013 6:03 a.m.

    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.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Feb. 26, 2013 5:06 a.m.

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