@I know it. I Live it. I Love it: "We shouldn't punish children because
of the choices adults make."So we can count on you to encourage
your congressional representatives to increase funding for WIC, food stamps,
welfare payments, and child care vouchers for working low-income parents, as
well as children's medical care for everything from routine wellness checks
to glasses. Oh. And fully funding school lunch and breakfast for poor kids. Than you so much. Too many people do think the children of the poor
should be punished.
So... Welfare is wrong because it takes money from hardworking Americans and
gives it it people who have kids they can't support. But taxing
the hardworking single people and childless couples so families who have kids
they can't support can get tax breaks is a really good thing...Hypocrite much?If taking money from one group to reward another
group for their reproductive choices is wrong and socialist and unAmerican, then
it is always wrong and socialist and unAmerican. World-wide there is
a birth every 8 seconds and a death every 12, with a current population of
7,000,000,000 and growing by 6,000 people a day. Ezekiel 34:17-18.
"As for you, my flock... Is it not enough for you to feed on good pasture?
Must you also trample the rest of your pasture with your feet? Is it not enough
for you to drink clear water? Must you also muddy the rest with your feet?"
FierceMissus,It isn't penalizing you at all. If anything,
you're taking too much from the system as it is. So am I.The
problem with seeing it as a you vs them argument is that you're pitting
yourself against other adults. The CHILDREN are the ones who have no control
over their existence or income at all. A child has no ability to give themselves
a roof or income, etc. This isn't about giving other adults a nicer car.
You don't see that many married couples living the "bachelor life"
for a reason. Because they pay a boat load of their money into their
children.We shouldn't punish children because of the choices
adults make. Point the responsibility finger at whoever you like. But while
people point fingers all day long, I'd rather make sure kids have a meal
and proper upbringing.
Slcdenizen -- I would say that both the right and left are intellectually
bankrupt. It does no good at all to point at only one side or the other as the
sole source of our ills. Both sides of the political spectrum are more
interested in obtaining and holding on to power than they are to do what it best
for the people or country. On this topic, I would argue that it's not about
tax breaks/increases, loopholes, or direct payments to the impoverished (due to
their own choice or not), but it should be more about true equity,
accountability, and responsibility across the board - both at the political and
The right is constantly ranting about socialism and keynesian intervention in
the markets. But when it comes in the form of tax breaks, suddenly they're
on board. We can't make direct payments to impoverished citizens, money
that would go straight in to the economy anyway, because that's immoral and
encourages dependancy. But when a loophole for tax breaks or subsidies are given
to those same individuals because they performed the difficult feat of
procreating, it's not just moral but absolutely necessary. The right has
become intellectually bankrupt.
The larger the family the more deductions can be made. This is already the case.
The best answer is still a 10 percent flat tax rate for everyone, regardless of
income. If it''s good enough for God, it ought to be good enough for
man. BTW, not every single, childless person has deliberately chosen that road.
I spend my days teaching everyone else's kids and in many cases parenting
them more than their natural parents do. I subsidize my classroom out of my own
funds, as do many teachers in this state. I have had no raise in 7 years, and in
fact, my income keeps going down.
This is a no brainer. Marriage is under siege. Who is going to pay for your
How about just lowering taxes for everyone? We need to cut back on programs and
reduce the tax burden and allow people to keep more of the money they earn.Firing those in Washington DC would be the first best step, followed by
hiring people that won't sell their souls to everyone except the voters.
The HammerYou said "When people decide they don't have to
contribute to society". I assume you are talking about those who want to
shift the cost for raising their kids to others?
A next generation is needed by everyone. Even with the tax credits credits
parents get, they are the ones who contribute most to the raising of their
children. So to take these tax credits away wouldn't be fair.
When people decide they don't have to contribute to society. Or they make
choices that are detrimental to society they ultimately leave society no choice
but to tax them for their behavior. As much as I want more freedom to make good
decisions there are too many people making poor, selfish choices that effect us
all.Getting married and having kids is the right choice, but too
many decide to forgo that choice and live a care free life. In the mean time I
raise kids on one income and they grow up and pay the retirement of the single
guy or gal who decided to not have kids and who was able to make more on a scale
compared to me.I will not hesitate to support a greater tax increase
on single people or a tax credit increase for families with kids. Its the
families that keep our society stable and growing and we bare the greatest cost.
If single people want to be single and free without any responsibilities thats
fine but they will pay for it just as I have to fork over my hard earned money
to keep our society growing.
Oh, yes. Please. Penalize me for something that I HAVE NO CONTROL OVER. You
do realize that I already pay more than most people because we have two incomes
and NO DEDUCTIONS or as some people like to call them, children. Also keep in
mind that I don't usually get a refund. So, if you really think about
it...I already pay for that $6k refund that my part time working neighbor just
got because she has kids. Yeah. That's great logic, man. Step on
childless couples more than people already do. Great idea.
Utah (and all other states) already tax families without kids in order to
subsidize families with kids. Utah spends a little over $8,000 per year per
student. That means for the average family with 3.2 children the state spends
$25,600 each year. For 13 years of school that's $104,000 per child or
$332,800 per family. This number is in actuality an understated figure as every
family in the state does not have 3.2 kids. The ones that do have children have
5 (or more). Using actual per family figures and not the ones misrepresented by
averaging the total number of kids by the total number of families the real
world numbers are $40,000 in educational subsidies per family per year and
$520,000 to get all 5 children through High School.I guess
that's not enough for Mike Lee. How much, in the way of financial family
subsidies, does Mr. Lee think is enough.
Sounds like more socialism. If parents choose to have seven or eight kids, they
shouldn't rely on other taxpayers to pick up the tab.
Shifting money from childless to those with kids does not a better parent make.
I seriously doubt it costs $300k to raise a child from infant to 18. Try half of
that or even a 1/4 of $300k.What we need less of, are tax breaks,
subsidies, deductions, and loop holes.All designed to favor one
group of people over another. Our tax law shouldn't benefit the rich, the
poor, the childless, the large family, black, white, etc.What wee
need is an across the board flat tax with zero favoritism.We'd
be hard pressed find politicians who think like this though. They're all
about doing favors for their donors. The biggest injustice of the voter today
are the "donor dinners" or fundraiser events with $1000 a plate access
conditions. Really? I have to have money to buy my representatives attention?
Every politician does it. How bout a blanket ban on all campaign donations as
well? There's no reason to go down this road playing favorites with
whatever corporation or group a politician favors at the moment.
I totally agree!!
why not begin by simply not phasing out the tax credit for kids who turn 17.
Why not wait until they are at least out of high school? That year is one of
the most expensive in raising a child. Then you could raise the income limit
to at least Obomas magical $250,000 household limit. Beyond that,
credits for parents who help pay for kids to go to school or some type of help
for kids to go to college would be good.
Mike Lee wants to increase the deficit? I thought he was a deficit hawk?