NationStates Jolt Archive

Here in the US, I pay a good amount of Federal Income Tax each year.

And when filling out the tax forms, I get to count my three children as deductions. I also get an additional "child tax credit" of 1,000 dollars per child.

Assuming that my wife and I were childless, and had the same incomes and mortgage, etc., we would, at a minimum, pay 3000 dollars more (probably a bit more as the regular three deductions we get would be absent as well).

So, do you think it's fair that people with children get to pay less tax than the people who are childless?

If I just go with the normal deductions from my pay, we get back around 4400 dollars from the Feds at tax time. I figure that would be close to zero if we didn't have the kids.

yes because kids cost money, this affects your income

tax deductions and credits are supposed to offset your income so that you don't pay taxes on income that you use for "necessities" that's why if you go long form you can deduct some of your medical expenses etc. The tax credit is fair for people who have children vs. people who do not, because people with kids spend more money feeding and clothing etc than the people who do not.

yes because kids cost money, this affects your income

So? In Britain the NHS pay for both contraceptives and abortions, so nobody has any excuse; if you can't afford the sprogs, don't have 'em.

yes because kids cost money, this affects your income

What you said!

So? In Britain the NHS pay for both contraceptives and abortions, so nobody has any excuse; if you can't afford the sprogs, don't have 'em.

Heheh this line of reasoning always makes me laugh!

It is estimated(although it seems to change) that over the course of a life one child would cost you about £150000 to bring up.

Then if we all waited until we could afford to have children, only the emensly rich would bother.

Naaa the best time to have kids is, when you want them. It is after all a biological imperitive.

Also the National Insurance, that every adult pays, helps pay for the NHS.

So? In Britain the NHS pay for both contraceptives and abortions, so nobody has any excuse; if you can't afford the sprogs, don't have 'em.

And let's watch as the human race goes quickly extinct as 90% of the human populace do not have children.

Hey... that's not such a bad idea...

So? In Britain the NHS pay for both contraceptives and abortions, so nobody has any excuse; if you can't afford the sprogs, don't have 'em.Ah yes, but though we like to believe we are beyond needing to have children to help us in our old age we are not. Though we longer have kids who will work the farm when we are old and fraile, we have kids so that they will be the investment banker we are old and fraile. The only real difference is that with the advent of capitalism and socialism we do not need to have kids ourselves - just society as a whole needs to have kids to keep the economy going. Capitalism provides this through investment oppurtunities in the said economy. Socialism provides this through redistribution of wealth of said economy.

So it's only fair that we enable as many children as possible to have good childhood and education, so that when we are old and fraile they do not fuck up the economy.

Or something like that.

since when is the tax code FAIR?

the only question is, is this a reasonable tax policy--to have those with children pay significantly less tax than those without?

i think its too high a credit.

Heheh this line of reasoning always makes me laugh!

It is estimated(although it seems to change) that over the course of a life one child would cost you about £150000 to bring up.

Then if we all waited until we could afford to have children, only the emensly rich would bother.

Naaa the best time to have kids is, when you want them. It is after all a biological imperitive.

Also the National Insurance, that every adult pays, helps pay for the NHS.

And if only the very rich had children there would be:
1) fewer children
2) fewer children in poverty.

Hardly the end of the world, there...

If you can't afford to even feed and clothe your offspring (face it, everyone else already pays for their education and healthcare at least) you really shouldn't have them. You shouldn't demand everyone else pay for that too.

And you will note that I'm not bitching about the NHS or state-funded education, both of which I merrily support - I use those contraceptives too, for starters, and am a product of that education.

yes because kids cost money, this affects your income

Exactly. For those of you whining about 'oh look, those people with kids save tax money waaaa'....go ahead and have your aged parents live with you. You can claim them as dependents and also get a tax deduction.

Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

since when is the tax code FAIR?

the only question is, is this a reasonable tax policy--to have those with children pay significantly less tax than those without?

i think its too high a credit.

Yeah, boy oh boy, $3000 is a veritable prince's ransom! Why...it would actually cover child care (for 3 children) for a whole two months! How unfair!

And if only the very rich had children there would be:
1) fewer children
2) fewer children in poverty.

Hardly the end of the world, there...

If you can't afford to even feed and clothe your offspring (face it, everyone else already pays for their education and healthcare at least) you really shouldn't have them. You shouldn't demand everyone else pay for that too.

And you will note that I'm not bitching about the NHS or state-funded education, both of which I merrily support - I use those contraceptives too, for starters, and am a product of that education.

I don't think anybody demands that anybody else pay for thier kids. The State decides to look after all of it's citizens, it will provbide aid to those that need it; this isn't wrong is it?

People will always have kids, it's what we do, it's what life is about, every living things feels the inhate drive to continue it's genetic line, heh that is apart from some humans.

It's fair for two reasons that I can think of right now:

1. Raising children costs a lot, and it would be really unfair if parents would be left with less money to spend on themselves than people without children have. No? In any case, they need the money more than the people without kids do.

2. The society needs children to survive on the long term, and therefore it's only understandable if it rewards people, who make those children.

And if only the very rich had children there would be:
1) fewer children
2) fewer children in poverty.

Hardly the end of the world, there...

If you can't afford to even feed and clothe your offspring (face it, everyone else already pays for their education and healthcare at least) you really shouldn't have them. You shouldn't demand everyone else pay for that too.

And you will note that I'm not bitching about the NHS or state-funded education, both of which I merrily support - I use those contraceptives too, for starters, and am a product of that education.

Eh, other people aren't paying for you to raise your children(Except for welfare and foodstamps and the like, but come on). People with children are paying less. Big difference there, bub.

And the very rich only make up about 10%(if not less) of the populace. 10% is not a very good breeding population, especially for humans.

So? In Britain the NHS pay for both contraceptives and abortions, so nobody has any excuse; if you can't afford the sprogs, don't have 'em.

if you have more people in your home (thus more people to support), your home is making less income since it has to be divided up between more people this is fairly simple stuff here

its not an issue of not being able to afford it, its the issue that your income has to be spent more on necessities thus you have less to spare and so less to give in taxes

Exactly. For those of you whining about 'oh look, those people with kids save tax money waaaa'....go ahead and have your aged parents live with you. You can claim them as dependents and also get a tax deduction.

Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

And really, the tax breaks don't really help as much as some people seem to think. Considering that it easily costs well over $1000, more like 2000 or 3000(if not more), a year to raise a child, $1000 merely "helps".

And really, the tax breaks don't really help as much as some people seem to think. Considering that it easily costs well over $1000, more like 2000 or 3000(if not more), a year to raise a child, $1000 merely "helps".

Tax credits also rarely translate to actual dollars. You get to claim a certain amount, let's say...$3000...which might mean you pay about $350 less in income tax.

Not to mention here in Canada...Harper is 'doling out' $100/month per child to help with child care expenses...but the extra money is taxable and in some cases can just push you over into the next tax bracket. You're better off giving that money away.

It's fair for two reasons that I can think of right now:

1. Raising children costs a lot, and it would be really unfair if parents would be left with less money to spend on themselves than people without children have. No? In any case, they need the money more than the people without kids do.

2. The society needs children to survive on the long term, and therefore it's only understandable if it rewards people, who make those children.

Hell, it's not even rewarding parents for having children. A reward would be:

Here! Have a brand-new Ferrari! Enjoy!

This is merely making having children somewhat affordable.

My computer hardware habit affects my income too, I don't get tax credits for that.

"But it's not essential!" - yes, I think the world would go so well if we removed all the computers, would it? My habit helps pay for their development.

And no, it's not essential for you to have children; it's a lifestyle choice. Like my e-penis; it's not essential for me, specifically, to have a computer. They both may have other advantages, but your failure to maintain adequate contraception doesn't mean I have any obligation to your brats, any more than you have an obligation to my PC.

*Hits preview, sees thread*
Bugger, I'm not going to keep up with this...
Eh, other people aren't paying for you to raise your children(Except for welfare and foodstamps and the like, but come on). People with children are paying less. Big difference there, bub.
And how do they support the tax cuts for people with kids?
They charge the people without kids more.

its not an issue of not being able to afford it, its the issue that your income has to be spent more on necessities thus you have less to spare and so less to give in taxes
Yeah, necessities... That you deliberately brought on yourself.

People will always have kids, it's what we do, it's what life is about, every living things feels the inhate drive to continue it's genetic line, heh that is apart from some humans.
And now - in the developed world, at least - you get a choice of when to have them. If you spend all your money on other stuff, don't. The species won't die out because you don't breed.

Um, sorry if I got any quotes mixed up there...

I believe that many childless people complain about the breeders getting the tax break because of their ignorance. Do they know why we need children? I dunno. Don't they know that kids cost more than $1000 apiece per year to raise? If you spent $3000 a year on something that saves you $1000 a year on taxes, what's the point? You're out $2000. It's fair because everyone who doesn't die early gets old and I don't think 90 year olds can farm land and manage stuff quite as easily as 20 year olds and 30 year olds. Plus, I think we have too much of a me-me-me society. Our societies have gotten too selfish. I blame Elmo and Barney for giving kids self-centered propoganda about how they are SOOOOO important and how the world should revolve around them.

Hell, it's not even rewarding parents for having children. A reward would be:

Here! Have a brand-new Ferrari! Enjoy!

This is merely making having children somewhat affordable.

Various expenditures are taken into consideration when it comes to filing taxes. Things like, medical expenses, business expenses, tuition, so on and so forth. Do people bitch about these things? No. They hone in rather on expenses relating to children. "Don't have kids wa wa wa".

Fine. Don't get sick. Don't run a business. Don't go to school. I'm sick of you people getting all these perks for choices that you make. It's so totally unfair.

Yeah, necessities... That you deliberately brought on yourself.
So again...you will support cutting the tax breaks for the tuition you pay while attending a post-secondary institution? Breaks for public transit (if available), breaks for medical expenses, breaks for work gear (tax credits for those who are required to buy certain tools/etc in the course of their employment) and so on? Good.


Or rather, why don't we support MORE tax breaks for all of us, covering a variety of possible situations?

YOU aren't paying for squat when it comes to the tax breaks I get. That's MY money, and I'd like to keep more of it. I think you would too.

Yeah, boy oh boy, $3000 is a veritable prince's ransom! Why...it would actually cover child care (for 3 children) for a whole two months! How unfair!

if YOU dont pay that $3k, someone else has to make it up. why should WE pay you $3k to raise kids that you decided to bring into the world? why should every parent of children under 17 get the credit as long as they make less than $100k/year? (i dont remember the real cutoff number)

does that mean that its more important for us to pay for your kids than it is for a childless couple who make .... $30k ...to get some tax relief of their own? or to reduce the deficit? or to pay for other necessary programs that benefit more than just breeders?

Tax credits also rarely translate to actual dollars. You get to claim a certain amount, let's say...$3000...which might mean you pay about $350 less in income tax.

Not to mention here in Canada...Harper is 'doling out' $100/month per child to help with child care expenses...but the extra money is taxable and in some cases can just push you over into the next tax bracket. You're better off giving that money away.

I got a check for 4400 dollars. It doesn't count as income here.

Exactly. For those of you whining about 'oh look, those people with kids save tax money waaaa'....go ahead and have your aged parents live with you. You can claim them as dependents and also get a tax deduction.

Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

This is in addition to the deduction for a dependent.

Outside of a 'Child Benefit' tax, there are areas in a tax form where you can fill in a list of dependants, and this includes and is not limited to, disable adults living under your roof, your elder parents you care for or anyone else who lives in your house not providing an income who is a family member.

IE: I'm a grown woman, but last year because I was still a student, unemployed and living at home, my father put me as a dependant on his tax return because he has to pay for my upkeep.

The only reason people bitch is because they only think of children as people who can get other people tax deductions, forgetting that dependants aren't just children, but that they can even be a spouse who is a home maker, or disabled...

Not to mention here in Canada...Harper is 'doling out' $100/month per child to help with child care expenses...but the extra money is taxable and in some cases can just push you over into the next tax bracket. You're better off giving that money away.
This is untrue. In Canada, higher bracket percentages only count on every dollar you earn past the amount that makes up the previous bracket. Essentially, being in a higher bracket cannot reduce your overall income.

And how do they support the tax cuts for people with kids?
They charge the people without kids more.


Uh... no. Not quite. Everybody pays a certain amount of tax every year. Whether or not someone has kids does not mean that your taxes will be raised, only that their will be lowered. It doesn't raise your taxes at all.

Not only that, but I'm sure you have PLENTY of tax breaks, as Neesika pointed out. So, stop whining your little ass off because, you know what? You fail to realize that you to are probably getting tax breaks for just as many things you think are necessities, but I could twist into being "luxuries" or "choices".

if YOU dont pay that $3k, someone else has to make it up. why should WE pay you $3k to raise kids that you decided to bring into the world? why should every parent of children under 17 get the credit as long as they make less than $100k/year? (i dont remember the real cutoff number)

does that mean that its more important for us to pay for your kids than it is for a childless couple who make .... $30k ...to get some tax relief of their own? or to reduce the deficit? or to pay for other necessary programs that benefit more than just breeders?
It's so unfair, I know! WHy should WE pay for all those seniors getting income breaks? Why should WE pay for all those people getting medical expense breaks? Why should WE pay for this, that and the other thing?

Bitch about all of it, or admit that you focus on this issue alone for other reasons.

My computer hardware habit affects my income too, I don't get tax credits for that.

you should go to the library and post on NSG then as far as I can tell you can't do the same with children

Yeah, necessities... That you deliberately brought on yourself.

so what your saying is there shouldn't be any kind of unemployment benefit if you quit your bullshit job and that the government shouldn't help strikers at all?

This is untrue. In Canada, higher bracket percentages only count on every dollar you earn past the amount that makes up the previous bracket. Essentially, being in a higher bracket cannot reduce your overall income.

Bullshit. Your automatic tax credits are radically different from bracket to bracket, and this is not indexed to the single dollar amounts over the last bracket.

if YOU dont pay that $3k, someone else has to make it up. why should WE pay you $3k to raise kids that you decided to bring into the world? why should every parent of children under 17 get the credit as long as they make less than $100k/year? (i dont remember the real cutoff number)

does that mean that its more important for us to pay for your kids than it is for a childless couple who make .... $30k ...to get some tax relief of their own? or to reduce the deficit? or to pay for other necessary programs that benefit more than just breeders?

Why should I have to pay for part of your tuition? Why should I have to pay so that your small business can stay afloat? Why should I have to pay for any of the deductions you(specifically) get?

People love complaining about things that they don't benefit from, but ho-boy do they love it when the same system helps them.

The only reason people bitch is because they only think of children as people who can get other people tax deductions, forgetting that dependants aren't just children, but that they can even be a spouse who is a home maker, or disabled...

Exactly.

Take on dependents, folks...and get your tax credit if you want it so badly.

So again...you will support cutting the tax breaks for the tuition you pay while attending a post-secondary institution? Breaks for public transit (if available), breaks for medical expenses, breaks for work gear (tax credits for those who are required to buy certain tools/etc in the course of their employment) and so on? Good.

AFAIK, here, you don't get tax breaks for any of those things - apart from possibly the work stuff, but that'd come under businesses; not running my own business, I don't know/care.

I already said I happily support the NHS, not that it makes sense to compare the two; you deliberately choose to have children. If you don't want them, pregnancy can be cured, and it's paid for by the NHS. How many people choose to get ill? It's an accidental happening. If it wasn't we could scrap all the hospitals and just tell everyone "don't get ill", and save a bloody fortune!

And, here, the government actively gives parents money, which is even worse than tax breaks.

Or rather, why don't we support MORE tax breaks for all of us, covering a variety of possible situations?

YOU aren't paying for squat when it comes to the tax breaks I get. That's MY money, and I'd like to keep more of it. I think you would too.

Yeah, think about that... The government spends a certain amount of money. The more tax breaks it grants, the less it has to spend. You can be bloody certain it won't reduce its spending, so what happens?

This is in addition to the deduction for a dependent.

Yes. And if you have an aged parent with medical expenses, you get to claim those expenses IN ADDITION to the deduction for a dependent. You have a point?

I pay alot of Federal Taxes myself. I don't mind paying my share and I do take as many deductions as I can. However I am tired of hearing people bitch about the child tax credit. It is usually the ones that do not have children or the ones that do not wish to ever have children. The fact of the matter is that children are the foundation of any nations future. If you do not have children you do not have a future nation. Most governments realize this and wisely have an incentive to have children.

if YOU dont pay that $3k, someone else has to make it up. why should WE pay you $3k to raise kids that you decided to bring into the world?

your forgetting that children are immensely profitable so profitable the government invests billions in there education alone because the return is huge

which is beside the point because in tax more than 3K will be taken away from the income hence why the government can afford to run this scheme and as such you ain't paying a penny really

AFAIK, here, you don't get tax breaks for any of those things - apart from possibly the work stuff, but that'd come under businesses; not running my own business, I don't know/care. You get all of these breaks in Canada.

I already said I happily support the NHS, not that it makes sense to compare the two; you deliberately choose to have children. If you don't want them, pregnancy can be cured, and it's paid for by the NHS. How many people choose to get ill? It's an accidental happening. If it wasn't we could scrap all the hospitals and just tell everyone "don't get ill", and save a bloody fortune! You choose to attend a post-secondary institution. You choose to take public transit. You choose to work at a job that requires you to buy steel toed boots and a hardhat. You choose to let your aged mother live with you as your dependent. You choose to give money to a charity. You choose to buy medications that are not covered by a national health care plan.

So stop it all, or admit, once again...that you just don't like the breaks that don't benefit you.

Oh wait, let me guess...you're about to bitch that childless people should not have to pay school taxes.

And now - in the developed world, at least - you get a choice of when to have them. If you spend all your money on other stuff, don't. The species won't die out because you don't breed.

Um, sorry if I got any quotes mixed up there...

Annnndddd.... that's your perogative my friend. Personly my two kids have brought me much more than mere money can buy. Heh but nobody actulay gets that particular 'truth' untill thay have kids of their own.

Not only that, but I'm sure you have PLENTY of tax breaks, as Neesika pointed out. So, stop whining your little ass off because, you know what? You fail to realize that you to are probably getting tax breaks for just as many things you think are necessities, but I could twist into being "luxuries" or "choices".

You want to know the tax break I get? I get a 25% reduction in my council tax because I live by myself.
Which is very generous, until you realise that council tax is calculated based on households of two people.
Note that households of >2 people don't pay more.

Other than that I pay tax on my income in the normal, PAYE manner, and VAT on stuff I buy the same as anyone else.

you should go to the library and post on NSG then as far as I can tell you can't do the same with children
Was I bitching that I don't get tax-breaks for computer hardware? No, I was using it as a rather tortured analogy. And you got the point! I pay for my hardware because I want it...
And you can, actually; get a job as an LSA or teacher. You get paid and everything, and they're really enthusiastic about hiring more of them at the moment. Lucky, eh?

so what your saying is there shouldn't be any kind of unemployment benefit if you quit your bullshit job and that the government shouldn't help strikers at all?

I don't think you get the dole if you quit, actually.
Striking I know not - I didn't think they got paid, either.

Yes. And if you have an aged parent with medical expenses, you get to claim those expenses IN ADDITION to the deduction for a dependent. You have a point?

Yes. This isn't for expenses. It's just a gratis addition.

Can't deduct for it in advance - it's just a pretty present of thousands of dollars at the end of the tax year.

Yes. This isn't for expenses. It's just a gratis addition.

Can't deduct for it in advance - it's just a pretty present of thousands of dollars at the end of the tax year.

Alright. So bitch about the people getting GST refunds. How dare they choose to make so little that they get set amounts of GST back?

Alright. So bitch about the people getting GST refunds. How dare they choose to make so little that they get set amounts of GST back?

I'm not bitching - I get thousands of dollars. Just wondering if other people thought that was unfair.

You get all of these breaks in Canada.
You choose to attend a post-secondary institution. You choose to take public transit. You choose to work at a job that requires you to buy steel toed boots and a hardhat. You choose to let your aged mother live with you as your dependent. You choose to give money to a charity. You choose to buy medications that are not covered by a national health care plan.

So stop it all, or admit, once again...that you just don't like the breaks that don't benefit you.

Oh wait, let me guess...you're about to bitch that childless people should not have to pay school taxes.

Indeed. He can choose to go to a post-secondary school. Guess what? Practically every single one is funded by the Government! And guess what?! Practically every person pays taxes on for school funding, regardless of whether you have children or are going to school yourself. So, don't go to Post-secondary school. You're only taking money away from the honest folks.

Hospitals as well! Many hospitals receive at least some form of funding from the Government. Everybody has to pay the taxes for these hospitals, regardless of whether or not they have actually ever been to one, or will ever be to one. Oh my god! Those thieving hospitals.

I'm not bitching - I get thousands of dollars. Just wondering if other people thought that was unfair.

Of course they'll think it's unfair. Because they won't look at the benefits they are getting, they will only focus on what they AREN'T getting. Totally absent any real analysis, working on a gut reaction. "Oh no, someone is getting this means I am losing that".

I don't think you get the dole if you quit, actually.

you get a tax break since you now have no income, job seekers allowance and you also open up every benefit aimed at the poor

Striking I know not - I didn't think they got paid, either.

see above just replace job seekers allowance with strike or lockout allowance which usually comes out of the company or a union

You get all of these breaks in Canada.
You choose to attend a post-secondary institution. You choose to take public transit. You choose to work at a job that requires you to buy steel toed boots and a hardhat. You choose to let your aged mother live with you as your dependent. You choose to give money to a charity. You choose to buy medications that are not covered by a national health care plan.

So stop it all, or admit, once again...that you just don't like the breaks that don't benefit you.

I don't know if you can get breaks for any of those things here. I think if you're particularly poor you might get tuition fees paid, but you can't claim them against your tax (or I'd've done so).
So how can you stop them? I don't get them. AFAIK, here, they don't exist (except self-employed people might be able to claim expenses for their business - the hat and shoes, for instance).

Oh wait, let me guess...you're about to bitch that childless people should not have to pay school taxes.
Go and check, um, my second post in this thread I think it was. I happily support state education. Primarily because you can't trust most people to do it properly themselves.

Tax credits also rarely translate to actual dollars. You get to claim a certain amount, let's say...$3000...which might mean you pay about $350 less in income tax.

Not to mention here in Canada...Harper is 'doling out' $100/month per child to help with child care expenses...but the extra money is taxable and in some cases can just push you over into the next tax bracket. You're better off giving that money away.

Nah, in the US a credit is an offset of taxes paid. Provided you paid over $3000 in federal income taxes, you'd get $3000 dollars back.

I don't know if you can get breaks for any of those things here. Then find out. I think if you're particularly poor you might get tuition fees paid, but you can't claim them against your tax (or I'd've done so). You don't get your tuition paid here. You get a tax credit based on what you paid. If you don't have that in your tax jurisdiction, that's too bad, but really not revelent to the mental exercise you are avoiding.

So how can you stop them? I don't get them. AFAIK, here, they don't exist (except self-employed people might be able to claim expenses for their business - the hat and shoes, for instance). There will be other tax breaks specific to your tax jurisdiction that you likely are not aware of. Point being, you are focusing on some sort of 'child break', and not on any of these other breaks. Why? It's hypocritical. And please don't say, 'well I don't know about those other ones'. Find out. If THIS is an issue for you, go find out what other unfair breaks are out there. Anything less is essentially admitting that you just don't like this particular break.

Nah, in the US a credit is an offset of taxes paid. Provided you paid over $3000 in federal income taxes, you'd get $3000 dollars back.

I wish. Tax credits here simply reduce your income by a certain amount, which does not translate to the actual dollar value claimed...not even close.

I wish. Tax credits here simply reduce your income by a certain amount, which does not translate to the actual dollar value claimed...not even close.

I suppose that's one area where the US is being more benign about stuff than Canada.

And if you didn't pay any income taxes at all, the IRS will even send you a refund check of a partial amount of the $1000, so everyone gets a piece of the pie.

It phases out at higher incomes tho'.

In Sweden parent's get money from the goverment for every child they have. Every month they get 1050kr which is approximately 150$. So every year parents get 1800$ for a child. When kids turn 18 they get the money on their bank account and once they finish high school they don't get any more money.

There will be other tax breaks specific to your tax jurisdiction that you likely are not aware of. Point being, you are focusing on some sort of 'child break', and not on any of these other breaks. Why? It's hypocritical. And please don't say, 'well I don't know about those other ones'. Find out. If THIS is an issue for you, go find out what other unfair breaks are out there. Anything less is essentially admitting that you just don't like this particular break.

It doesn't tend to work like that here; mostly, you just apply for some benefit, and they give you the money if you're eligible. Having kids makes you eligible for some, having a low income makes you eligible for one (I've checked, I'm not - well, I am, I can claim £0.00. Go figure). You can get benefits for looking after a disabled person. You can't get any for taking public transport (why would you? I don't understand that) althought the rail companies do get massive government funding (which does annoy me - either privatise them properly, or make them public, not some silly worst-of-both-worlds :rolleyes:). Driving some types of car means you pay less road tax. Poor students can get their tuition fees paid, and some even get grants I think (in addition to their loans). Single people get 25% off their council tax, students don't pay, I think some other groups get it free/reduced too.
I just think it works quite differently here to there.

And as much as I'd love to go and spend time on www.direct.gov.uk (or not), I have to go and get a train in 50 minutes to get pissed with Stalin, Dunes and co. tomorrow (oh, and see my girlfriend ;) ). The good threads always turn up like that, don't they?

But you seem to be arguing that if you support any government funding (eg. hospitals, schools) you have to support all of it... Which doesn't really follow to me. There are some things that I don't consider it worthwhile for the government to spend money on, and this is one of them. The thread asked whether I thought this one was fair; I don't. Doesn't mean I don't think hospitals are a good idea. Why would it? :s

if YOU dont pay that $3k, someone else has to make it up. why should WE pay you $3k to raise kids that you decided to bring into the world? why should every parent of children under 17 get the credit as long as they make less than $100k/year? (i dont remember the real cutoff number)

does that mean that its more important for us to pay for your kids than it is for a childless couple who make .... $30k ...to get some tax relief of their own? or to reduce the deficit? or to pay for other necessary programs that benefit more than just breeders?

Heheh this is also a funny line of reasoning. You pay a certian amount of tax per year, it goes up or down as your goverment decide. You don't actulay get asked to pay more for this, or pay moe for that. You like I, and every other person who pays tax, pays as much as we are asked to do. Then the goverment spend it on whatever they decide will benifit it's citizens.

The point being, you don't actuly pay more tax so that those with kids can enjoy a lousy 3k a year tax break.

you get a tax break since you now have no income, job seekers allowance and you also open up every benefit aimed at the poor


Except that if you quit employment your benifits are witheld for 6 weeks, and the only option really is to apply for an emrgancy social loan, wich of course you have to pay back, and that they take out of any benifit you get.

I suppose that's one area where the US is being more benign about stuff than Canada.

And if you didn't pay any income taxes at all, the IRS will even send you a refund check of a partial amount of the $1000, so everyone gets a piece of the pie.

It phases out at higher incomes tho'.

I've been told by accountants that Albertans pay higher taxes overall than in any other area of Canada. It freakin' sucks.

The point being, you don't actuly pay more tax so that those with kids can enjoy a lousy 3k a year tax break.

Someone somewhere pays for it. Either thru cuts in services, the tax burden being spread differently, or future debt repayments.

Still, in terms of tax breaks, this one is not all that obnoxious. The $500k cap gains on residential property is far worse.

And as much as I'd love to go and spend time on www.direct.gov.uk (or not), I have to go and get a train in 50 minutes to get pissed with Stalin, Dunes and co. tomorrow (oh, and see my girlfriend ;) ). The good threads always turn up like that, don't they? Hey, enjoy!

But you seem to be arguing that if you support any government funding (eg. hospitals, schools) you have to support all of it... Which doesn't really follow to me. No. I'm not mixing up government funding with tax breaks.

I'm saying, if you don't like child tax breaks, then you need a reason other than 'it's not fair' UNLESS you also do not support the various other tax breaks out there.

Here in the US, I pay a good amount of Federal Income Tax each year.

And when filling out the tax forms, I get to count my three children as deductions. I also get an additional "child tax credit" of 1,000 dollars per child.

Assuming that my wife and I were childless, and had the same incomes and mortgage, etc., we would, at a minimum, pay 3000 dollars more (probably a bit more as the regular three deductions we get would be absent as well).

So, do you think it's fair that people with children get to pay less tax than the people who are childless?

If I just go with the normal deductions from my pay, we get back around 4400 dollars from the Feds at tax time. I figure that would be close to zero if we didn't have the kids.Yes.

This has been another installment of simple answers to simple questions.

I've been told by accountants that Albertans pay higher taxes overall than in any other area of Canada. It freakin' sucks.

I would have thought it would have been the opposite what with all the oil money. Only goes to show, never trust the government.

Hey, enjoy!

Ta :)

No. I'm not mixing up government funding with tax breaks.

I'm saying, if you don't like child tax breaks, then you need a reason other than 'it's not fair' UNLESS you also do not support the various other tax breaks out there.

Ah, here this one works much like Nationalian said; you get a certain amount per child (or that's how it worked when I was a kid), so it is an expense. The confusions of debating things across different countries >_<. It might have changed to something much more confusing now, of course, lots of things have.

To be honest, I think everyone hates paying tax, even if they know some of it is going to useful things rather than John Prescott's Pie Fund ;)

I would have thought it would have been the opposite what with all the oil money. Only goes to show, never trust the government.

Yeah, no shit. Although King Ralph was great at cutting $400 prosperity cheques right before elections...

We don't get a cut on gas either. Go figure.

To be honest, I think everyone hates paying tax, even if they know some of it is going to useful things rather than John Prescott's Pie Fund ;)

On this we can agree.

I begrudge no one but the filthy rich and corrupt a tax break.

To be honest, I think everyone hates paying tax, even if they know some of it is going to useful things rather than John Prescott's Pie Fund ;)

I hardly think so.

Alright. So bitch about the people getting GST refunds. How dare they choose to make so little that they get set amounts of GST back?

My GST cheque was $58 CND... and I got four between last year and this year's tax periods. Wow... a whole $232... :rolleyes:

And the government expects me to be thankful. For what? That we're taxed to the teeth and we still get crappy services because they think a -1% GST cut will make a fucking world of difference and a $100/month cheque for child care will lift people out of poverty while they sink money into defense while our civil infrastructure goes to the dogs?? [/rant]

My GST cheque was $58 CND... and I got four between last year and this year's tax periods. Wow... a whole $232... :rolleyes:

And the government expects me to be thankful. For what? That we're taxed to the teeth and we still get crappy services because they think a -1% GST cut will make a fucking world of difference and a $100/month cheque for child care will lift people out of poverty while they sink money into defense while our civil infrastructure goes to the dogs?? [/rant]

I don't know much about Canada, but don't you have one of the best medicare and other welfare stuff, in the world?

Tax credit? I thought children were a deduction. You know, a portion of your money that won't be taxed because you have a particular expense. Saying that someone has to pay so that parents don't is like saying that if people who go to store A get 10% off, then people in store B are going to have to pay more than if people in store A paid full price. In the end, people hate paying taxes and will seek any excuse to show unfairness.

I want to use some of their reasoning. I didn't go to elementary school A. Why should some of my tax dollars go to that school? I went to school B. My parents' taxes should have only went there. Hospitals getting some tax money? Why? That's not fair! I'm not sick. Why should my tax dollars go to building that road? I take this road, not that one. Wa wa wa. What about me? I don't care about them? I don't care if procreation is vital for our society because it garantees a young work force when the current one gets too old or dead to work. I want ME to benefit! Me! Me! ME! :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: MMMEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

that was fun. :p :)

Yes, birth rates are in decline.

People shouldn't be penalized for having children; I think a person with kids deserves tax relief far more than someone else who would just spend it on accumulating more things. I mean, kids are a significant investment of time and money and it is definitely necessary that they get a break on their taxes in order to make up for some of the cost.

I mean, I personally don't want kids but I'm not going to screw over people who make that decision.

Lets see:

You have a child.

The government legally require you to take a minimum standard of care of that child.

To do this you will need to spend a minimum sum of money feeding and clothing the child.

The government work out this minimum sum that they demand you spend, that you are in fact donating to another person who is not unlike a charity.

They recognise they demand you spend this money and so give you a tax break on the money they require you to spend.



Pretty reasonable I think.

Tax credit? I thought children were a deduction. You know, a portion of your money that won't be taxed because you have a particular expense. Saying that someone has to pay so that parents don't is like saying that if people who go to store A get 10% off, then people in store B are going to have to pay more than if people in store A paid full price. In the end, people hate paying taxes and will seek any excuse to show unfairness.
In the US it's a credit, and it reduces the amount of tax you owe, if you are under a certain income level (thus not having to pay that much in taxes anyway) then you can get the "additional child tax credit" which is refundable, but you really have to have a pretty low income for that to happen.

it's like this say you made $20,000 and had two kids

if you get a deduction of $2000 then you are taxed on $18,000 changing your tax from 2000 to 1800.

if you get a tax credit of $2000 your tax is still $2000 only now you don't have a tax burden at all.

if you make $15,000 and have 2 kids you get a tax credit for $2000 but your tax is only $1500 so you may be able to get the other $500 of it back in a refund.

yes, this is way way simplified, yes I am aware that Monday is "the day" and yes instead of going out on a date tonight I have to do about 27 tax returns and explain this same stupid thing to all those people.

So, do you think it's fair that people with children get to pay less tax than the people who are childless.

I feel like I'm contributing long after the debate is over, but damnit.. I want to weigh in!

Based on the way our tax system works (speaking as a Canadian), I absolutely have zero problem with tax credits for people with children. It's a no-brainer. Families, individuals, society as a whole - all benefit from families with more change in their pockets to cover the living expenses of raising children. For people who decry the 'don't have kids' claim - you were also at one time a child, and would have benefitted from such a system. (Assuming such a tax credit existed during your childhood.)

Tax credits or government subsidies are all about supporting societal goals. Raising children in an environment outside of poverty is generally a good social policy. The long term effects of not having such a policy should be obvious.

If I had my druthers, I'd do things a little different though. The problem with the tax credit idea, is that it doesn't really address the needs of providing funding for helping to raise children. It reduces taxation. The people who benefit the most, are therefore people paying higher taxes, and not necessarily the poorest who pay much less in tax to begin with.

I'm generally in favour of simpler tax systems. The system of rewarding people with 'tax breaks', creates byzantine complexities that generally favour the creation of a whole career of navigating tax laws. And again, it is 'rewards' by government to people who are already making enough to pay large amounts of tax.

I'd sooner see a flat tax, rather than a so-called 'progressive' tax system, and a financial subsidy to people under certain levels of income. It still puts money into the hands of people that need it, while not creating a system that charges you proportionately more, the more you make (and thus creating a complex system of taxation in trying to avoid those higher rates.)

But I'm rambling. More money to help raise kids = good.

Depends if the population of the country is increasing or decreasing. If increasing, it is unnecessary. If decreasing, maybe it is needed.

Here in the US, I pay a good amount of Federal Income Tax each year.

And when filling out the tax forms, I get to count my three children as deductions. I also get an additional "child tax credit" of 1,000 dollars per child.

Assuming that my wife and I were childless, and had the same incomes and mortgage, etc., we would, at a minimum, pay 3000 dollars more (probably a bit more as the regular three deductions we get would be absent as well).

So, do you think it's fair that people with children get to pay less tax than the people who are childless?

If I just go with the normal deductions from my pay, we get back around 4400 dollars from the Feds at tax time. I figure that would be close to zero if we didn't have the kids.

I ought to get a tax break for choosing not to procreate.

So? In Britain the NHS pay for both contraceptives and abortions, so nobody has any excuse; if you can't afford the sprogs, don't have 'em.

I do, in principle, agree with that statement. It's quite simple really; don't expect the state to subsidise children.

However, surely the point in tax credits is that they simply reduce what the state takes from you as tax, and thus one already has the means to support a child?

I do, in principle, agree with that statement. It's quite simple really; don't expect the state to subsidise children.

However, surely the point in tax credits is that they simply reduce what the state takes from you as tax, and thus one already has the means to support a child?

Most governments already pay to educate children, why not subsidize them? Maybe most governments think of children as an investment.

I do, in principle, agree with that statement. It's quite simple really; don't expect the state to subsidise children.

However, surely the point in tax credits is that they simply reduce what the state takes from you as tax, and thus one already has the means to support a child?

The state demand that you provide your children with certain minimum needs.

The state recognises that you are basically being forced by them to give away an amount of money to other people (your kids)

They make up for this by giving you a tax break to make up for the money they force/require you to spend/

The state demand that you provide your children with certain minimum needs.

The state recognises that you are basically being forced by them to give away an amount of money to other people (your kids)

They make up for this by giving you a tax break to make up for the money they force/require you to spend/

A sound principle. However, why subsidise those who can't afford to have children? Surely it is more responsible, both on the part of the state, and the individual couples, to achieve a financial state that allows for children first, thus ensuring them a better upbringing?

A sound principle. However, why subsidise those who can't afford to have children? Surely it is more responsible, both on the part of the state, and the individual couples, to achieve a financial state that allows for children first, thus ensuring them a better upbringing?

People are going to have kids, regardless of state or government desire. It's not about rewarding parents, it's about supporting children. Not exactly fair to children born in poverty now is it?

A sound principle. However, why subsidise those who can't afford to have children? Surely it is more responsible, both on the part of the state, and the individual couples, to achieve a financial state that allows for children first, thus ensuring them a better upbringing?

Of course - but unfortunately it would be the child who had little say in the whole matter who actually getsreally fucked over if their parents were irresponsible.



I am no fan of people existing on benefits their whole lives, or having children to access benefits/council housing, but I do think there needs to be a safety net - particulary for the kids who did not actually get a choice in their involvement.

People are going to have kids, regardless of state or government desire. It's not about rewarding parents, it's about supporting children. Not exactly fair to children born in poverty now is it?

My point. Tax credits rarely make up for the general poverty and depredation of those who genuinely cannot afford to have children. Thus, why should they employed as a means to entice such couples to have children? Surely the sole real means to remedy this poverty is to oblige couples to be able to support children in the first case, and then acknowledge this with tax credits?

My point. Tax credits rarely make up for the general poverty and depredation of those who genuinely cannot afford to have children. Thus, why should they employed as a means to entice such couples to have children? Surely the sole real means to remedy this poverty is to oblige couples to be able to support children in the first case, and then acknowledge this with tax credits?

No, the solution would be to provide the parents with the funding necessary to meet the needs of raising children, rather than punish the children with no funding because parents had children without thinking of the financial consequences.

I'd sooner see subsidies, over tax breaks.

How exactly would you like to see the government 'oblige' couples to be able to support children in the first place? By punishing them with lack of financial aid? And thus effectively doom those children to a life of poverty?

Why shouldn't I be rewarded for not applying whole lifetimes' worth of potential extra pressures on government and public resources by foregoing the child-rearing experience? I'm helping to save healthcare and a whole host of governmental programs. If anyone should get some payback, it's people like me - I get dinged for school funding for schools my non-existent children will never attend, so I say fair is fair.

Because you were at one time a child, and a beneficiary of the system.

People are going to have kids, regardless of state or government desire. It's not about rewarding parents, it's about supporting children. Not exactly fair to children born in poverty now is it?

Why shouldn't I be rewarded for not applying whole lifetimes' worth of potential extra pressures on government and public resources by foregoing the child-rearing experience? I'm helping to save healthcare and a whole host of governmental programs. If anyone should get some payback, it's people like me - I get dinged for school funding for schools my non-existent children will never attend, so I say fair is fair.

Why shouldn't I be rewarded for not applying whole lifetimes' worth of potential extra pressures on government and public resources by foregoing the child-rearing experience? I'm helping to save healthcare and a whole host of governmental programs. If anyone should get some payback, it's people like me - I get dinged for school funding for schools my non-existent children will never attend, so I say fair is fair.

It's a service that is available to you as part of your citizenship package - you are just choosing not to use it.

It it sets your mind at ease - when you are no longer working it will be these kids who are then working who will make up the tax shortfall caused by your retirement and will be funding maintenance of the roads you use, the police who are hopefully fighting crime in your area and a whole host of other nifty bits and pieces that you still get to make use of in your citizenship package.

I strongly oppose using the tax system to further social goals or try to change a persons behavior. It causes undue complexivity in the tax system and is one of the least efficient ways of changing society. There should be one simple flat tax without any deductions or credits.

Even without giving deductions and credits, the state subsidizes children through public schools and community programs providing everything from health care to entertainment (depending on your locality).

The choice to have children should not be take away from you, but neither should I be forced to subsidize that choice. You chose to have children just as I chose to have a few goats wandering about the backyard. I don’t expect you to pay for my goats – don’t expect me to pay for your offspring.

The posters who complain that the state should subsidize people having children because otherwise the population will decline only have to look at the rest of the world. Birth rates are declining in advanced industrialized countries (which have the highest rates of child subsidies) and are still very high, and in some cases increasing, in the poorest nations (lowest rates if any of child subsidization). State subsidies are not required for having children.

If you want to argue that ‘investing’ in children has a high payoff for the state, all I have to say is that there would be an even bigger payoff if the state highly discourages child bearing and opens a very expansive yet selective immigration policy. Encourage the intelligent and already educated to immigrate – this eliminates the need to have 18 years (at a minimum) of subsidies for someone with the hopes that they will be a productive member of society when you could get a productive member of society right away for the comparatively negligible cost of whatever incentive for immigration you provide.

Right now the US needs about 2 million people coming into the country per year to hold the population steady. Optimal growth would probably be closer to about 4 million. The US is a highly desirable country to begin with so finding 2 to 4 million suitable people to move here per year would be a very easy task even without incentivising it. The significantly lower tax burden that would result from the government no longer providing any subsidies for children would make it an even more attractive place to live.

Thus arguing that children are an ‘investment’ is ludicrous because the state could get a much higher rate of return by choosing a different investment.

I strongly oppose using the tax system to further social goals or try to change a persons behavior. It causes undue complexivity in the tax system and is one of the least efficient ways of changing society. There should be one simple flat tax without any deductions or credits.

Yup. Agree with you on that one - to a point. I prefer the flat tax system, with subsidies to meet social goals. Otherwise, what the hell is the state for? If society deems having children is a worthwhile goal, then the state should support that.

Even without giving deductions and credits, the state subsidizes children through public schools and community programs providing everything from health care to entertainment (depending on your locality).

The choice to have children should not be take away from you, but neither should I be forced to subsidize that choice. You chose to have children just as I chose to have a few goats wandering about the backyard. I don’t expect you to pay for my goats – don’t expect me to pay for your offspring.

Nope, don't agree with you. The state exists to supports society's goals, not yours specifically. It's about supporting children, not rewarding parents for having children. Having children is one of the basics of life. If you choose not to engage in one of life's basic franchises, don't expect the rest of society to give up on a system that supports it.

The posters who complain that the state should subsidize people having children because otherwise the population will decline only have to look at the rest of the world. Birth rates are declining in advanced industrialized countries (which have the highest rates of child subsidies) and are still very high, and in some cases increasing, in the poorest nations (lowest rates if any of child subsidization). State subsidies are not required for having children.

If you want to argue that ‘investing’ in children has a high payoff for the state, all I have to say is that there would be an even bigger payoff if the state highly discourages child bearing and opens a very expansive yet selective immigration policy. Encourage the intelligent and already educated to immigrate – this eliminates the need to have 18 years (at a minimum) of subsidies for someone with the hopes that they will be a productive member of society when you could get a productive member of society right away for the comparatively negligible cost of whatever incentive for immigration you provide.

Okay, so which is it? Child subsidies create conditions for low birth rates and advanced industrialization (as posited in the first paragraph), or is it better not to have child subsidies (and create higher birth rates, as posited in your first paragraph) and add immigration into the mix? What exactly are you saying?

Right now the US needs about 2 million people coming into the country per year to hold the population steady. Optimal growth would probably be closer to about 4 million. The US is a highly desirable country to begin with so finding 2 to 4 million suitable people to move here per year would be a very easy task even without incentivising it. The significantly lower tax burden that would result from the government no longer providing any subsidies for children would make it an even more attractive place to live.

Thus arguing that children are an ‘investment’ is ludicrous because the state could get a much higher rate of return by choosing a different investment.

The 'investment' is where we have children who aren't born into a life of poverty, and have a reasonable education. There are demonstrable benefits to this. Or would you prefer a nation with uneducated and impoverished children? Because those children are going to be born regardless of government policy (unless you support a Chinese-style 'one child' policy). Making sure those children are healthy and productive members of society is where the investment comes in.

And if only the very rich had children there would be:
1) fewer children
2) fewer children in poverty.

Hardly the end of the world, there...

If you can't afford to even feed and clothe your offspring (face it, everyone else already pays for their education and healthcare at least) you really shouldn't have them. You shouldn't demand everyone else pay for that too.

And you will note that I'm not bitching about the NHS or state-funded education, both of which I merrily support - I use those contraceptives too, for starters, and am a product of that education.

Guess what? I have a kid. I work hard to keep him clothed and fed. I pay taxes. I paid them before he was born and I'll still keep on paying them when he is too old for me to claim the tax credit. The money by no means comes out of your pocket or anyone else's but my own. Let's not confuse hard working parents who will eventually pay far more taxes than they ever get for having a child with welfare recipients.

I think it's very fair that people with kids would pay less in taxes. When you have a family you need to be able to afford a bigger house, a bigger car, more food, more clothing, etc. than you do if you don't have a family. It's just much more expensive, and I'm a supporter of giving tax breaks to those who need them.

Here's the thing. Families NEED the extra help. Contrary to popular opinion, children DO cost money to raise and ARE vital for maintaining a young, strong work force for the centuries to come. Would you want to have nothing but 90 year olds performing your surgeries and growing your food? What if they die? You're screwed because a person with aging organs and aging body parts aren't going to live much longer than someone with a relatively fresh heart and fresh other internal organs.

Why should the childless get tax credits or whatever? They can spend their money that didn't go to taxes on nobody but themselves if they choose. They have more money than someone who "milks" the system by having kids. You don't need that money. You need elementary schools and middle schools and high schools because colleges don't really accept the uneducated and good doctors come from schools and colleges. Society isn't always about YOU. It's about all of us. I'm not going to support buy you stuff. The guy accross the street doesn't want to serve you more than anyone else. Get over yourself and realize that you are almost nothing when alone. If you died, the world wouldn't stop. Flags wouldn't be half-staff. It wouldn't cause the universe to destroy itself. WWIII wouldn't break out. Better begin helping others because united, we're strong; divided, we're all screwed.

Bullshit. Your automatic tax credits are radically different from bracket to bracket, and this is not indexed to the single dollar amounts over the last bracket.
My intent was not meant to disrespectful, but I did just write an Investments exam that included in its material questions about the taxation system in Canada.

If the tax rate is 10% on the incomes lower than $20,000 and 20% when you break that limit and you do, in fact, break that limit, you pay $2,000 (.10*$20,000) plus 20% of the amount you have in excess of $20,000. You do not pay 20% on the whole amount, as your first comment suggested. If I misunderstood your original comment, I apologize, but that is how it reads to me even now.

So? In Britain the NHS pay for both contraceptives and abortions, so nobody has any excuse; if you can't afford the sprogs, don't have 'em.If only the very rich are having children, how would you pay for the NHS in 25 years?
Keep in mind that most of the people alive today would still be alive, but you'll have 25 years worth of retirees to care for who aren't contributing.

Here in the US, I pay a good amount of Federal Income Tax each year.

And when filling out the tax forms, I get to count my three children as deductions. I also get an additional "child tax credit" of 1,000 dollars per child.

Assuming that my wife and I were childless, and had the same incomes and mortgage, etc., we would, at a minimum, pay 3000 dollars more (probably a bit more as the regular three deductions we get would be absent as well).

So, do you think it's fair that people with children get to pay less tax than the people who are childless?

If I just go with the normal deductions from my pay, we get back around 4400 dollars from the Feds at tax time. I figure that would be close to zero if we didn't have the kids.
First, if you are getting $4400 in a refund, you need to adjust your withholding, subject to the usual caveats of abnormal circumstances.
Second, the real question you should ask is about the marriage penalty. Why in the world should couples, filing jointly, have to pay more than singles.

The only answer to all this is to abandon the income tax for the Fair Tax, of course.

First, if you are getting $4400 in a refund, you need to adjust your withholding, subject to the usual caveats of abnormal circumstances.
Second, the real question you should ask is about the marriage penalty. Why in the world should couples, filing jointly, have to pay more than singles.

The only answer to all this is to abandon the income tax for the Fair Tax, of course.

QFT.

I hate it when I see people who know nothing about taxes complain about taxes.

If you are single and you think that you need better than the standard deduction go out and figure out what you can deduct, if you don't have enough be thankful for the standard deduction, if you can't do that......well, support the fair tax, it's fair for everyone.

The reason the tax code is so screwed up is because the government is trying to be fair. (and failing most times) The child tax credit is one of the most fair things they have tried to do.

QFT.

I hate it when I see people who know nothing about taxes complain about taxes.

If you are single and you think that you need better than the standard deduction go out and figure out what you can deduct, if you don't have enough be thankful for the standard deduction, if you can't do that......well, support the fair tax, it's fair for everyone.

The reason the tax code is so screwed up is because the government is trying to be fair. (and failing most times) The child tax credit is one of the most fair things they have tried to do.

There's a real fascination with the Fair Tax down there isn't there? Wouldn't support for the Fair Tax be worse for parents? More consumption due to larger families would mean a larger tax base wouldn't it?

I personally think Friedman was on to something with the idea of Negative Income Tax combined with a general Flat tax on all income. One could adjust the base income on the number of dependants in your family.

There's a real fascination with the Fair Tax down there isn't there? Wouldn't support for the Fair Tax be worse for parents? More consumption due to larger families would mean a larger tax base wouldn't it?

I personally think Friedman was on to something with the idea of Negative Income Tax combined with a general Flat tax on all income. One could adjust the base income on the number of dependants in your family.

it's actually going to be a little worse for me, but I feel better for the country as a whole. If you look at this (http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/PlainEnglishSummary_TheFairTaxActof2005.pdf) (about mid page 14) you will see that there is an allowance that will keep you from paying tax on basic necessities for the most part. The part I really like about the Fair tax is that I can control how much of my money goes out in taxes to a certain extent.

it's actually going to be a little worse for me, but I feel better for the country as a whole. If you look at this (http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/PlainEnglishSummary_TheFairTaxActof2005.pdf) (about mid page 14) you will see that there is an allowance that will keep you from paying tax on basic necessities for the most part. The part I really like about the Fair tax is that I can control how much of my money goes out in taxes to a certain extent.

Thanks for the link!

Ah, okay... rebates. So it's just a matter of whether or not one feels that the US could avoid a large black-market economy in such a situation. But that's a whole different debate (and one we had not too long ago, I think.) But at least the proposed system isn't totally free of family-friendly taxation.

Abolish it. Use the money to provide for poor children who actually need it.

In general, however, I see no reason to subsidize childbirth - and a large number of reasons not to, beyond the simple fact that it uses up valuable money.

Abolish it. Use the money to provide for poor children who actually need it.

In general, however, I see no reason to subsidize childbirth - and a large number of reasons not to, beyond the simple fact that it uses up valuable money.

you don't think that people who have children have to spend more money to raise them than single people without? how exactly does it benefit children to take even more money out of their parent's pockets for taxes? you realize that only low to mid income tax payers get the tax credit at all right?

you don't think that people who have children have to spend more money to raise them than single people without?

Of course they do.

They also have to spend more money if they decide to buy a fancy house or car. Should we subsidize that, too?

how exactly does it benefit children to take even more money out of their parent's pockets for taxes?

It doesn't.

How exactly does it benefit society to encourage population growth at a time where ecological catastrophe and severe resource scarcity loom?

Of course they do.

They also have to spend more money if they decide to buy a fancy house or car. Should we subsidize that, too?
you think that $1000 a year is even coming close to feeding a kid?



It doesn't.
don't pretend you are all about helping poor kids, when you really just want to hurt families financially.

How exactly does it benefit society to encourage population growth at a time where ecological catastrophe and severe resource scarcity loom?
I seriously doubt anyone has a kid because they want a tax credit. However, most people who already have kids.....have to feed them.

you think that $1000 a year is even coming close to feeding a kid?

I didn't say anything of the sort.

A subsidy need not cover the entire cost.

don't pretend you are all about helping poor kids, when you really just want to hurt families financially.

Yeah, that's right!

Soheran the Monster, he's coming for you and your money....

:rolleyes:

I seriously doubt anyone has a kid because they want a tax credit.

Of course not. That would be an incredibly poor economic decision.

But the cost of having kids is mitigated by the tax credit... and if it's really so small as to not matter, then why do you care if it is abolished?

However, most people who already have kids.....have to feed them.

Undoubtedly.

And those who actually cannot feed their children should receive public funds.

There's a real fascination with the Fair Tax down there isn't there? Wouldn't support for the Fair Tax be worse for parents? More consumption due to larger families would mean a larger tax base wouldn't it?

I personally think Friedman was on to something with the idea of Negative Income Tax combined with a general Flat tax on all income. One could adjust the base income on the number of dependants in your family.

I would love to see the discussion evolve into one on the Fair Tax. The reason it's so fascinating is because it's an order of magnitude better than what we are currently doing. In order to understand that, you need to read the resolution, not the commentary. The negative commentary about the Fair Tax nearly always changes the law, as introduced, to have a flaw that they can then exploit. No one has really found anything wrong with the law that has been introduced as HB 25, I believe.

Answering your question directly is cheating. I should make you look it up at FairTax.org, but I'm a nice guy. There is a prebate that is determined by family size. The prebate is a monthly payment that covers the essential purchases. This is paid to every household, every month.

I don't understand why it is generally accepted that the government should have any knowledge of one's income, at all. The Fair Tax would eliminate that enormous intrusion into our private lives.

But the cost of having kids is mitigated by the tax credit... and if it's really so small as to not matter, then why do you care if it is abolished? Oh for the love of...

This shit is still going on? By the way, Soheran...what is it exactly that you have with Smunkee? Because I don't notice this particular tone when you speak to anyone who is NOT her.

The cost of having kids is somewhat mitigated by the tax credit. Somewhat. Not very much, but it's something. You don't say, 'oh, it's so little, I guess I don't want it'.

I'm not reading back to find out, so how about you just tell me. Do you oppose the various other tax credits I've mentioned, applicable or not in your tax jurisdiction? They include credits for: tuition for post-secondary education, work gear, charitable donations, medical expenses for a dependent, etc?



And those who actually cannot feed their children should receive public funds.
How about we do both? Is this just an issue of 'damn rich people' for you?

By the way, Soheran...what is it exactly that you have with Smunkee?

I have absolutely nothing against Smunkee.

It annoyed and offended me when she said that my motive was some weird desire to hurt families.

But my grudges generally last a couple minutes, at most.

Because I don't notice this particular tone when you speak to anyone who is NOT her.

I'm aggressive against most of my opponents... including those I like and admire.

Or, at least, I am sometimes. My mood varies.

The cost of having kids is somewhat mitigated by the tax credit. Somewhat. Not very much, but it's something. You don't say, 'oh, it's so little, I guess I don't want it'.

Of course you don't. That was exactly the point I was making.

I'm not reading back to find out, so how about you just tell me. Do you oppose the various other tax credits I've mentioned, applicable or not in your tax jurisdiction? They include credits for: tuition for post-secondary education,

Yes. That not only enhances equality of opportunity, but generally helps the economy.

Indeed, I'm in favor of massively increasing public funding for higher education.

charitable donations,

Definitely. The reasons are obvious.

medical expenses for a dependent

Medical expenses for anyone, yes. I'd support increased public funding in this area too.

How about we do both?

If I saw a purpose to subsidizing having children in general, I would advocate doing both.

I don't, however. I definitely see a purpose to protecting the welfare of poor children, though.

Is this just an issue of 'damn rich people' for you?

No. Why would it be?

I would love to see the discussion evolve into one on the Fair Tax. The reason it's so fascinating is because it's an order of magnitude better than what we are currently doing. Except of course for the regressiveness inherent to nearly all sales taxes.

I personally think Friedman was on to something with the idea of Negative Income Tax combined with a general Flat tax on all income. One could adjust the base income on the number of dependants in your family.This would be better than the Fair Tax as it would actually be progressive, though not nearly enough.

This would be better than the Fair Tax as it would actually be progressive, though not nearly enough.

See, as long as society can determine a reasonable base income, I would think that negative income tax is far more progressive than so-called progressive taxation. It essentially creates the wage supplements that break the welfare wall that many leftists complain about. The flat tax is also conducive to investment as well, and thus more freindly to a job-creating environment. If anything, I think people who are stuck in the old mindset are less progressive. As long as we are open to alternatives, particularly ones that are both efficient, and capable of meeting the needs of addressing the issues of poverty, I think we should be considering them.

I would love to see the discussion evolve into one on the Fair Tax. The reason it's so fascinating is because it's an order of magnitude better than what we are currently doing. In order to understand that, you need to read the resolution, not the commentary. The negative commentary about the Fair Tax nearly always changes the law, as introduced, to have a flaw that they can then exploit. No one has really found anything wrong with the law that has been introduced as HB 25, I believe.

Answering your question directly is cheating. I should make you look it up at FairTax.org, but I'm a nice guy. There is a prebate that is determined by family size. The prebate is a monthly payment that covers the essential purchases. This is paid to every household, every month.

I don't understand why it is generally accepted that the government should have any knowledge of one's income, at all. The Fair Tax would eliminate that enormous intrusion into our private lives.

I find that most proponets of the FairTax scheme are fans due to ideological reasons rather than pragmatic ones. You won't find many people in Canada that cringe in fear at the idea that there is something inherently wrong with collecting income tax. It seems to be a primarily American phehomenon.

I really don't see tax as an intrusion into our private lives. I think our current taxation systems are needlessly complex... sure. But the idea that government is an obscure bully taking our hard-earned money against our will is a foreign concept to me. It must be my Canuck upringing. And I even consider myself a 'conservative'. (Although I sometimes think I should re-evalutate that notion.)

I find that most proponets of the FairTax scheme are fans due to ideological reasons rather than pragmatic ones. You won't find many people in Canada that cringe in fear at the idea that there is something inherently wrong with collecting income tax. It seems to be a primarily American phehomenon.

I really don't see tax as an intrusion into our private lives. I think our current taxation systems are needlessly complex... sure. But the idea that government is an obscure bully taking our hard-earned money against our will is a foreign concept to me. It must be my Canuck upringing. And I even consider myself a 'conservative'. (Although I sometimes think I should re-evalutate that notion.)
Forget about the idealistic reasons and look at the practical ones. First, there is the complexity of the tax code. I sat here for about 12 hours total trying to figure out what to do about this, that, and the other thing. I don't think that resonates with low earners, or with those that file simple returns, but just imagine taking a math/economics exam where making a wrong answer is penalized by failing the class. If I make a wrong answer, I'm subject to fines, even if I'm doing it all in good faith. So I tend to over pay.

Second, we would capture income that isn't reported.

Third, we would replace _ALL_ payroll taxes with the Fair Tax. That is a huge boon to employers because of the simplified reporting and withholding procedures, i.e. none.

Fourth, we would eliminate the waste and bureaucracy at the IRS by eliminating large parts of that organization.

Fifth, and probably most significantly, we will see an end to the emigration of corporate headquarters from the U.S.A. It makes no sense for a multinational corporation to headquarter itself in the U.S. today. The tax laws are the reason. Get rid of the income tax and you will see an enormous influx of industry to the United States. That means more employment and more consumption.

So, Mikey, did I waste my time typing, or are there good reasons other than idealism for adopting the Fair Tax?

Except of course for the regressiveness inherent to nearly all sales taxes.

This would be better than the Fair Tax as it would actually be progressive, though not nearly enough.

You guys just refuse to discuss it on its own terms, don't you? What part of the fair tax is regressive, except by using a general definition of sales tax that really doesn't capture the entire Fair Tax program?

Forget about the idealistic reasons and look at the practical ones. First, there is the complexity of the tax code. I sat here for about 12 hours total trying to figure out what to do about this, that, and the other thing. I don't think that resonates with low earners, or with those that file simple returns, but just imagine taking a math/economics exam where making a wrong answer is penalized by failing the class. If I make a wrong answer, I'm subject to fines, even if I'm doing it all in good faith. So I tend to over pay.

Second, we would capture income that isn't reported.

Third, we would replace _ALL_ payroll taxes with the Fair Tax. That is a huge boon to employers because of the simplified reporting and withholding procedures, i.e. none.

Fourth, we would eliminate the waste and bureaucracy at the IRS by eliminating large parts of that organization.

Fifth, and probably most significantly, we will see an end to the emigration of corporate headquarters from the U.S.A. It makes no sense for a multinational corporation to headquarter itself in the U.S. today. The tax laws are the reason. Get rid of the income tax and you will see an enormous influx of industry to the United States. That means more employment and more consumption.

So, Mikey, did I waste my time typing, or are there good reasons other than idealism for adopting the Fair Tax?

No, no, you didn't waste any time typing. I took a look at the Act Smunkee linked to, and it's not like the Act doesn't address issues of family, and poverty level. So, I suppose it all just depends on what area of the underground economy you want to tackle; the employment side, or the exchange of goods side.

Reporting income levels is something many workers in the US are capable of avoiding. I would imagine that tracking down individual sales would be harder than tracking individual incomes.

However, calling it 'fair' is up to debate. We're talking about switching the burden of taxation from large income earners and increasing the amount of tax that low income earners are paying. I'm not sure if the monthly rebates will make up for the increased cost of living that switching to a large sales tax would create.

Any thoughts on the Laffer Curve here? Wouldn't a large sales tax be a disincentive to consumption?

No, no, you didn't waste any time typing. I took a look at the Act Smunkee linked to, and it's not like the Act doesn't address issues of family, and poverty level. So, I suppose it all just depends on what area of the underground economy you want to tackle; the employment side, or the exchange of goods side.

Reporting income levels is something many workers in the US are capable of avoiding. I would imagine that tracking down individual sales would be harder than tracking individual incomes.

However, calling it 'fair' is up to debate. We're talking about switching the burden of taxation from large income earners and increasing the amount of tax that low income earners are paying. I'm not sure if the monthly rebates will make up for the increased cost of living that switching to a large sales tax would create.

Any thoughts on the Laffer Curve here? Wouldn't a large sales tax be a disincentive to consumption?
Read about how embedded taxes raise the purchase price of everything. These are going to disappear and the projections are that after tax prices won't be too much different than they are now. Also, note that the cost of compliance is a huge hidden cost. This will disappear, as well, reducing the retail purchase price of goods. Remember, this tax isn't assessed on raw materials, or at every stage of production, as is a VAT. It's truly a retail sales tax.

Read about how embedded taxes raise the purchase price of everything. These are going to disappear and the projections are that after tax prices won't be too much different than they are now. Also, note that the cost of compliance is a huge hidden cost. This will disappear, as well, reducing the retail purchase price of goods. Remember, this tax isn't assessed on raw materials, or at every stage of production, as is a VAT. It's truly a retail sales tax.

Any way this could be tried at any level other than federal? Naturally, income tax is federal, and you can only attempt it as an all-or-nothing deal. What about taxes at the state level? Could a state try something similar, removing other forms of taxation and levying a sales tax, complete with rebates to state residents? It's not exactly the same thing, but it might work out as a test case...

... then again, you would probably just kill business in the one state, if you could go to the neighbouring state and pay less for the same item.

Is the FairTax even close to being popular enough to pass? Or are we just talking about a passing fad?

*snip*Ugh, never mind me, I was in a terrible mood yesterday and probably shouldn't have posted at all.

I can support more public spending that would benefit those among us who most need the help. What I can't stand are the people who both oppose public spending AND bitch about specific tax credits (child care) while remaining silent on others (tuition credits, or whatever).

Why should I have to pay for part of your tuition? Why should I have to pay so that your small business can stay afloat? Why should I have to pay for any of the deductions you(specifically) get?

People love complaining about things that they don't benefit from, but ho-boy do they love it when the same system helps them.

Why pay taxes at all? I've never had my house broken into -- therefore, I don't need police. My house hasn't burned down, therefore I don't need firemen. I've never been hurt in a car accident -- therefore I don't need EMTs. Why do we need fire hydrants and traffic signals anyway...


At least people shouldn't be hypocrites about it. Just say they're self-centered and let them move to a private island where they don't have to worry about anyone else but themselves, don't have to pay taxes at all... but don't have the benefits of society either.

Any way this could be tried at any level other than federal? Naturally, income tax is federal, and you can only attempt it as an all-or-nothing deal. What about taxes at the state level? Could a state try something similar, removing other forms of taxation and levying a sales tax, complete with rebates to state residents? It's not exactly the same thing, but it might work out as a test case...

... then again, you would probably just kill business in the one state, if you could go to the neighbouring state and pay less for the same item.

Is the FairTax even close to being popular enough to pass? Or are we just talking about a passing fad?

Well, two of the largest economies in the world rely solely on sales tax revenue. Those are Texas and Florida. History shows that nation/states that relied on consumption taxes flourished and prospered, supported democracies/republics, had expanding economies, and high levels of civil rights for their citizens. The exact opposite is true for empires that relied on income/poll/head taxes.

This is a grassroots effort. And it's popular. Every rally has had attendance that exceeds the capacity of the venue. We just surpassed our goal of delivering to Congress 100,000 faxes in support of the Fair Tax by April 15th (Income tax deadline for normal years). The movement has grown from the first introduction by my Congressman, John Linder, where he was the sole sponsor, to a bipartisan bill that is sponsored by 58 Representatives and Senators. It's a movement like any other. It needs support.

I am a radical fan of planned parenthood. If you are not ready to have kids or cant afford them you have no business having them. Screw 'em to the wall!

Tax breaks should be used to promote behavior that is beneficial to society. After World War I France started giving tax breaks for children because France lost so many people in World War I that they had a need for a bigger population. We do not have that situation here right now in the USA. We are overpopulated. We need less kids therefore, screw the spawners to the wall.

Although, I am a right-wing Republican, I am also a tree hugger. I applaud the tax breaks for hybrids. There should also be higher taxes for the SUVs. Sean Hannity might not like it (and I typically like Hannity) but I think it is a great idea.

You guys just refuse to discuss it on its own terms, don't you? What part of the fair tax is regressive, except by using a general definition of sales tax that really doesn't capture the entire Fair Tax program?Regressive taxation is when a poorer person's income is taxed at a higher rate than a richer person's. Since there would be no income tax, it begins to relate to the portion of income that is taxed.
Poorer people will spend more of their income than richer people. Poorer people will be taxed more. This will be regressive, for as Mikesburg pointed out:

Wouldn't a large sales tax be a disincentive to consumption?The richer people will save more, and not consume.
The poor and middle class would not be saving as much.
The rebate plan would not change the regressiveness of the Fairtax, it would simply change the point at which it becomes regressive.

Regressive taxation is when a poorer person's income is taxed at a higher rate than a richer person's. Since there would be no income tax, it begins to relate to the portion of income that is taxed.
Poorer people will spend more of their income than richer people. Poorer people will be taxed more. This will be regressive, for as Mikesburg pointed out:

The richer people will save more, and not consume.
The poor and middle class would not be saving as much.
The rebate plan would not change the regressiveness of the Fairtax, it would simply change the point at which it becomes regressive.
Like I said, just an abstract definition. The fact that the prebate raises the threshold on the sales tax up to the poverty level makes this tax, in an overall sense, just as progressive as the current income tax. If you apply some common sense, you'll realize that lower earners will buy fewer items over that threshold.

Just a parting shot about the overwhelming amount of money that is spent on complying with the tax code...John Stossel reports (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/springtime_for_taxes.html) that we spend more than the national debt on costs and time related to preparing taxes. It's not right when it costs a nation over $265 billion to fill out tax forms.

How about $0? That's what the Fair Tax would cost.

Like I said, just an abstract definition. The fact that the prebate raises the threshold on the sales tax up to the poverty level makes this tax, in an overall sense, just as progressive as the current income tax. If you apply some common sense, you'll realize that lower earners will buy fewer items over that threshold.Not really, no. They'd more likely save their money instead of spending it, at greater percentages than the lower income brackets would.

Just a parting shot about the overwhelming amount of money that is spent on complying with the tax code...John Stossel reports (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/springtime_for_taxes.html) that we spend more than the national debt on costs and time related to preparing taxes. It's not right when it costs a nation over $265 billion to fill out tax forms.

How about $0? That's what the Fair Tax would cost.I agree that the current tax system could use a lot of simplifying, but sales taxes aren't the way to do it.

I agree that the current tax system could use a lot of simplifying, but sales taxes aren't the way to do it.

I have to agree. On top of the added cost to consumption (which can't be made up if you aren't paying much in income tax to begin with), I question some of the other taxes being removed. Why a complete elimination of capital gains taxes for instance? It seems far too rooted in populist appeal, with an attempt to loosen the pursestrings of big business. (Note, I'm not particularly anti-big business or anti-populist, the Fair Tax just appears this way.)

I know that you (Jello) don't find the negative income tax scenario progressive enough, although I imagine anything short of anarcho-communism would fall short of the mark for you. The way I see it, if governments implemented a flat tax with a negative income tax (adjusted to a standard working wage, adjusted by number of dependants), there would be no need to fill out an income tax form as far as an average employed person is concerned. Whatever funds would be owed to a person under the set working wage, would come directly out of funds that the company would have to pay out to the government anyway. It would be social assistance directly at the source.

I know that one of Friedman's fears of implementing the negative tax model, other than the fear that it would be combined with previously existing welfare models, was that it would serve as a disincentive to finding employment. I would imagine, that you could set a different level for an unemployed rate, than a basic working wage. It would still have to be an amount that someone could live on, but there should be a reason to look for employment.

I'm sure there's a balance between simple, and progressive systems.