Comments about ‘Letter: Child exemptions’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Nov. 6 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
micawber
Centerville, UT

I no longer have children at home, but I would prefer to see the state income tax rate raised rather than eliminate the child deduction. It benefits me to have an educated populace in Utah. I want Utah's economy to grow and education is the key to economic growth.

Hamath
Omaha, NE

so... the 3rd child is somehow different than the 2nd?? Reeks of discrimination.

I would prefer to get rid of the tax exemption for children altogether. It's just the way the Republicans found of selling Chinese borrowed money to their constituents for votes in the future. It's called entitlement programs. Just like the Democrats sell their Chinese borrowed money to welfare and food stamp constituents. Good job to all those bought voters out their. You sold your vote by getting money from China, via politicians, that your children will have to repay. It's called stealing in most civilized societies.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"It benefits me to have an educated populace in Utah"

Of course an educated populace benefits everyone. That is not the point, nor is it the argument.

It is not unusual that, because of the deductions, the families with the most children, pay the least for their children's education.

Yes, we all benefit, but none more than those who actually receive the education.

Sal
Provo, UT

Let's not discourage parents from having children. We need the kind of citizens that Utah parents produce.

I prefer that the legislature identify waste in the education system, especially at the administrative level, and apply that to the decreasing of class sizes and the raising of pay for teachers.

Can the letter writer explain how the most highly funded district in the nation (D.C.) still produces the worst scores?

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"We need the kind of citizens that Utah parents produce."

Really? As opposed to the "the kind of citizens" produced in Iowa or Georgia?

Or do you mean "mormons"?

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

"We need the kind of citizens that Utah parents produce."

Oh well sorry for being born in Maryland.

J in AZ
San Tan Valley, AZ

Unless Utah changed how it funds schools, Income taxes with our without deductions do not fund schools, property taxes do. In that environment a larger family has a high probability of actually paying a higher amount into the school system than someone who does not need a larger and more expensive house. So, cowboy up and quit griping about educating the people whose labor in the future will be creating the return on your retirement investments.

1covey
Salt Lake City, UT

As of now, school is funded mainly from property taxes; there is no child exemption. As for income taxes, there are lots of other exemptions and "tax credits". Economists will tell you that it makes good economic sense to have growth. Indeed the our economy is suffering in no small part because of the decline in our birthrate. Curiously, Muslim countries have the highest birthrate. I'm also reminded of those who move out into the mountains and then seek to prohibit others from doing likewise.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Child exemptions seemed to work well years ago when it was not just the LDS who had larger families, but everyone did. Why don’t they work now? Oh, because now YOUR family is smaller than your neighbor’s family.

Hamath,
Actually the dems have borrowed more money from the Chinese than the GOP. Why do you feel the need to introduce dishonesty into the conversation? BTW, I don’t believe Utah is borrowing from the Chinese. Oh, the Chinese may hold some Utah bonds, but nothing compared to dem-generated federal obligations.

Sal,
No, the author probable cannot

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"As of now, school is funded mainly from property taxes; there is no child exemption."

"Income taxes with our without deductions do not fund schools, property taxes do."

What? By law, ALL corporate and Individual income taxes in Utah go to schools.

Yes, the exemptions make a difference.

Google. It is a wonderful thing.

Education Funding Sources
1. State Income Tax

Utah has a 5 percent individual and corporate income tax. Utah’s Constitution mandates that all of those funds be spent on K-12 and higher education. Approximately 55 percent of all education funding comes from state income taxes.

isrred
South Jordan, UT

"Unless Utah changed how it funds schools, Income taxes with our without deductions do not fund schools, property taxes do. "
In Utah 100% of state income taxes go to education. So no, it makes absolutely zero sense to give exemptions on income tax to the very people using the most educational resources.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

Wouldn't it just be easier to cut the fat out of the state and district education groups? Since nationally less than 70% of the money spent on education actually makes it to the classroom, wouldn't it free up more money to cut out worthless positions and get education plannin back down to the school level where they can customize it for their local needs, rather than somebody from Panguich deciding what Salt Lake City schools need?

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Redshirt
Utah is already last in the nation in per child education spending. What do you want, class sizes of 50?

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "atl134" spending more won't solve any problems. Right now we spend over $8000 per year per child if you include building costs for public schools. You can send a child to the Challenger Private schools for about the same amount of money. Why is it that a for-profit private school can provide better educations for kids than public schools, if the problem is money?

HaHaHaHa
Othello, WA

"it makes absolutely zero sense to give exemptions on income tax to the very people using the most educational resources"

Yeah, and while were at it, it makes zero sense giving exemptions and handouts to the very people using welfare, wasting all our social resources. Same logic!

And while your at it lets take away any exemptions for those who own extra houses, boats, cars, jewelry, land, medical care and benefits or any other kind of property and compensation.. Since the typical ninny complaining and making this argument is trying to equate kids to property, lets just take it to the extreme.

Here is why the exemption exists. 2 families making 50K a year. One has 2 souls living off 50K, the other has 6 souls living off 50K. Why should one family have less after tax dollars per soul then the other. They will anyway, but why should they be penalized more. BTW, how much are you really going to increase revenue with this idea? Couple million? One school district will make that disappear in mere moments, they think they are so underfunded.

Shaun
Sandy, UT

@redshirt. Challenger is a joke. And besides private schools can discriminate and public schools can not.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"Why should one family have less after tax dollars per soul then the other. They will anyway, but why should they be penalized more."

Uh, wouldn't it be because they made the choice to have more children? Children cost money.

How do you figure that they are being penalized? Today, the smaller family pays more in taxes than the larger family. Are they not being penalized for that choice?

We all benefit from an educated populace. But it is ridiculous to make those who use the education system the least pay the most.

You rant most days about the entitlement mentality, but then you espouse it here.

Spoc
Ogden, UT

Joe, I appreciate your comment about, "We all benefit from an educated populace."

You find financial value in ensuring every child is educated, yet complain when you have to contribute to that education because your perception is that you use the education system the least. You are using that system whether you also contributed to the other expenses of raising the current or future generation of taxpayers or not. They are the ones who are, or will be, paying taxes for your participation in society.

The alternative would be to require that parents cover the full cost of educating their children. Then any future tax revenues resulting from that education flow back to the sole investors in education, the parents. And since all taxes of any kind can be attributed to education, all government functions would be exclusively for those with children.

So, as long as you insist on scamming future government services off the backs of my children, I see nothing wrong with giving you the privilege of investing in their education.

By the way, did I help pay for your education?

You are welcome.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Shaun" if challenger is such a joke, how do you explain the fact that they have an average of 96 on the Iowa Skills test?

Also, since they can pick and choose, doesn't that say that schooling is more than just how much money is spent per child? A prime example is the Washington DC school district. They spend around $15,000 per child, yet their test scores are near rock bottom.

If you want to discuss class size, lets look at Korea. They constantly out perform the US on international tests. Yet their average class size is 32 students in elementary school and 35 in High School. Apparently class size isn't a factor either.

What makes the difference? Is it possible that the difference is the society and the home environment? How do you legislate that parents care about their child's education and demand that their children behave?

HaHaHaHa
Othello, WA

@ Joe,

How much choice do you really believe in? Are you an advocate of the state dictating family size? Do you believe in setting government policy, so that it penalizes choice? Do you only believe in choice, when is comes to abortion? Are you certain that family size is ALWAYS a choice? Why not penalize welfare and foodstamp users. Make them pay more for their choice to use the welfare system? Afterall, I don't use it. I CHOOSE not to use it, why should I pay for it?

"Children cost money"

Master of the obvious, what does that have to do with taxes? Kids are not possessions, they are persons. Each person should represent a deduction, unless you want to eliminate all deductions for everyone. If you only want to look at one side of the equation, yes smaller families pay more actual taxes. However, larger families are penalized also, because they have less after tax dollars to spend, per person. And I know, that would be the case even if their were not taxes, but I find that to be even more reason for self centered persons to quit complaining.

to comment

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