"Just as the family of 12, who shares their same income with 12
people.".... except they don't want to share the expense of educating
them. They actually want a discount in their taxes, because it is everyone
else who has the responsibility to subsidize their families.Let me
see... people with 2 children as "un-thinking" and
"self-centered". Wow... we've raised the intellectual level of
this discussion greatly. What other self aggrandizing comments can we add? If
you have 4 kids... does that make you just ignorant...... or are you still
To "Blue" since the public infastructure now includes Social Security
and Medicaid, what we have is a big problem. The retirement entitlement
programs depend on large families being raised and those children paying taxes
to cover their parent's generation. The problem arises when we complain
about the cost to educate kids. That discourages some people from having large
families. Without the large families, the retirement programs run out of money
faster or else have to cut back on coverage.So, who is the bigger
drain. The family with many kids that cost more to educate, or the family with
few adult children paying taxes into the retirement entitlement accounts?
Actually, if the un-thinking persons among us could get over their self
centeredness, you would easily realize that children are persons to. Even if
they are dependent, they are not toys or possessions or objects. A family of 2
gets 2 deductions, if society chooses to allow deductions, and a family of 12
gets 12 deductions. Fair is fair, and if you self-centeredly decide to limit you
family to 2 so that all your income is in the hands of only 2 people, then you
get your just reward. Just as the family of 12, who shares their same income
with 12 people.
This has nothing to do with "punishing" anyone. This persecution
complex many feel they are under just cracks me up. If you have more kids,
expect to have more expenses. It is just that simple. It is part of the
responsibility and stewardship you take on when you start a family. Why in the
world should that become someone else's responsibility to subsidize your
family?We can't afford to heal the sick, to feed, cloth and
shelter the poor, nor care for the elderly... but mention education.... oh
my.... now we are punishing and persecuting people if we examine and suggest
changes to funding there.Again, it seems to be pick your pet
@Sal. It is the parents choice to have a large family and they should be
responsible for their children and the cost to raise them. We shouldn't
penalize people with no kids or small families so we as a society can reward
There are already significant economic pressures on couples to limit the number
of children that they have. People are marrying later and having fewer children
due primarily to the cost of raising a child to adulthood. World-wide
birthrates in developed countries are way down - in Shanghai, it has reached
0.68, thought to be the lowest in the world (Straight Times, Shanghai, Dec. 30,
2013). A birth rate of 1.5 is considered the minimum to maintain stability of
the race, but that's simply a statistical calculation that does not take
into affect adverse economic consequences and geo-political instability.
Communist China is easing off on its one-child-per-couple penalty. Utah should
not attempt to squeeze more revenue out of the population with a tax-code
disincentive to have as many children as they want.
DeLoa Sharp, all children in this district, state and nation serve us all by
being educated but in turn I would like you to spend extra for my two to catch
up with your 6. Isn't this why the conservative moans so much about the tax
system, fairness? I'm suppose to subsidize those who are not in need, such
as building new a billion dollar prison so a few can have the real estate but
point fingers and shame those who are in need by tossing lunches, cutting
unemployment and SNAP. Something is amiss with our priorities.
Senator Jones reflects the liberal stance of not defending the unborn while
penalizing those who would have more children. She doesn't understand that
the 'earth is full and there is enough and to spare.' God didn't
make a mistake in the number of beings this earth can sustain. We need to reward
pragmatistferlife said:"Yea, let's just have every human
re-produce themselves 2 to 3 times over. That out to work out just fine for the
human race over the next 100 years."Actually, birthrates world
wide are in decline. This is not a good thing.
DeLoa said:"Rep. Jones should look to other countries and
cultures where her mindset is prominent — now they have an aging
population without a young population to help support them."Very
true!This is amplified when you take into account we abort over 1
million precious babies annually in our nation.
Getting a little frustrated with the argument that we need large families to
help support the elderly in the future. When does this cycle of increasing a
younger population end? When our planet is overrun and resources depleted? Of
course that is long after you are gone, so who cares? ZPG or a slight decline in
population will not be disastrous. What will be is overpopulation and scarce
resources. Here in the Southwest it will be not having enough of a fairly
essential resources (sarcasm), water.
So the writer thinks people will have fewer children if they have to pay their
fair share for education? Somehow, I doubt it.
If your decision to have children is based on tax credits, then maybe you should
reconsider having children.
Limiting exemptions strengthens our educational system and benefits children and
our society. It's the responsible, conservative thing to do.
This is a strange and mean spirited bill, indeed. Realizing that an educated
populace is beneficial to all of society, we have made school attendance
mandatory. Now we want to impose a user fee? Should those who have had less than
2 children pay a higher tax since they have never gone to the effort and expense
to raise children who will support all of us with their taxes? The ACA has done
away with prior conditions and illness severity criteria (Read: analogous to
more than two children) realizing that a certain level of health care is
necessary regardless of economic circumstances. This bill is a most illiberal
penalty to those with larger families. Education benefits all society, not just
those with small families. If we value education as fundamental to our
democracy, let us all pay.
Ever think that those with large families penalize those with small families.
They get the tax breaks & small families pay for their kids. Doesn't
sound like "conservative values".
How is it a penalty when those with many kids will see the most benefit?Having you folks pay your fair share will improve education. You're
not being penalized here. Large families will benefit from smaller class sizes,
more individual attention, better materials, and teachers who aren't
"large school registration fees"Is that a Utah specific
thing? I've never heard of such a thing before but also didn't go
through grade school in this state.
I take issue with the title of this letter. How can making large families pay
their fair share be considered a penalty?
Yea, let's just have every human re-produce themselves 2 to 3 times over.
That out to work out just fine for the human race over the next 100 years. Did you ever study exponentials in school?
"she is saying the State only has interest in educating two children per
family."Exactly the opposite is true. The goal is to ensure the
education of _all_ children by funding schools by fairly collecting revenue from
families proportionately with their use of public schools. What the
writer is really defending is her own interest in have taxpayers pay to educate
all her children while she pays no taxes towards their education because she
receives so many tax deductions.You have the freedom to have large
families. That does not mean you are entitled to be free from paying your
family's fair share of their costs to public infrastructure. Fair is fair.
Yeah, but if we do the math we get in trouble real fast. There can't always
be 2 or 3 25 year olds supporting one 70 year old. In one generation three 25
year olds are now 70, and they need 9 25 year olds to support them. Next
generation is much worse. Growth necessary to sustain the elderly component of
the population becomes unsustainable real fast. We've got to consider how
many of us are sustainable, throughout our lives. Without simply adding another
layer to the ponzi scheme.