The best part about Pat Jones is that at least she came out and admitted she is
a Democrat. There are too many people who believe in government control of
everything but they run as Republicans to get elected. NeilT - are
you going to feel punished as you collect your social security benefits? Those
children you were "penalized" for are going to be paying your benefits
for 15-20 years because there is no money in the "trust fund" to pay.
As they try to start families and hopefully find jobs they will be paying more
than 7 percent of their income (14 % if self-employed) to pay out benefits which
will add up to several times of what you paid into the system. Ironically, much
of what they pay in will go to people far wealthier than they. Why should they
be "penalized" to pay for rich old people?
Re: ". . . do the right thing and eliminate an unfair exemption."Funny how it was perfectly fair when others were paying for your
education, but it's unfair when you have to do the same.Hmmmmm.
I am single adult and I am being punished for it comes tax time. I agree with
deserethound. Senator Jones is a courageous lady and I wish her the best. I
seriously doubt her proposal will ever pass. At least she is trying to do the
right thing and eliminate an unfair exemption.
Author,Thanks for the article. I enjoyed reading it. One big
omission, though. What accomplishments, specifically, does the Eleanor
Roosevelt Award recognize? While the article described many great
accomplishments on Pat's part, the reader wasn't told why she received
this award.Honestly, we more frequently see articles like this, that
have a headline which leads us to believe the article is about one subject, and
then when we read the article, we find very little content about the headline.
Why don't you write an article about that, and tell the DMN reader, why
Sure sounds like she still wants to impose her preferred liberal solutions, as
is the case with most Democrats.So, the only question is- What
statewide office is she itching to run for: Governor, or Senator?
Re: ". . . it IS INDEED shortsighted to think we should be able to raise
these large families with lots of kids and not be obligated to pay for their
education."Oh, we pay for their education. In fact, we pay a
larger percentage of our state budget to education than any other state. And
nearly all that comes directly from Utah family incomes, not from taxes on
property, as is the case almost everywhere else.We're greatly
hampered, of course, by huge [70+ percent] non-taxable absentee federal
landholdings in Utah, although Big Education in Utah has NEVER pinned itself
down to a figure that would satisfy its union bosses, even if we were able to
somehow replace federal losses.But, by EVERY objective measure, we
do quite well with what we've got.
@ DeserthoundHave some issues with your post:1. Please explain
the difference between if I have to pay $1000 more due to a tax hike vs paying
$1000 more due eliminating a deduction? Either way I'm out $1000 bucks
regardless of word choice.2. The concept of tax deductions is an
acknowledge that certain individual behavior is beneficial to the public as a
whole. IE..alternate energy credits. Is your argument that having children
should no longer be considered beneficial anymore because there are just too
many of them running around now?3. Please draw the correlation
between $ thrown at education and the quality. I know general common sense
dictates it must be there somewhere, but I've seen so much government waste
in many areas I'm skeptical. Please explain what NY (highest per pupil in
FY2011) gets for their $19,076 per pupil that Utah (lowest per pupil in FY2011)
doesn't get for their $6,212.
@ Florwood - It depends on how you choose to look at it. Jones' proposal
isn't actually "raising taxes." She is proposing to eliminate the
tax exemption, one that should have never been there in the first place. That is
far different than "raising taxes." In a state where our public ed
system is already heavily burdened with our large families and young
demographics, Utah should be paying more for public ed rather than dead last in
the country. If Utahns were so inclined to put their money where their mouths
are - that being the value of kids of large families - they would also be
inclined to consider this exemption elimination as the long-overdue investment
in our kids and the state's future. A populace supported with good and
affordable education opportunities for all pays everyone back in many, many
ways. On the other hand, it IS INDEED shortsighted to think we should be able to
raise these large families with lots of kids and not be obligated to pay for
Re: ". . . eliminating the state income tax deduction for children."Yeah, that ought to be popular.Of course, she's got a
lot of experience at hopeless windmill jousting.
Typical lib. do the families get money back as they will be the ones supporting
While I think her push to raise taxes on families with children is shortsighted,
Sen. Jones sounds like a woman to emulate. Best of luck on her next ventures.