An argument for keeping tax breaks for parents

[101A]

HOUSEHOLD INCOME SHORT OF $68K? WELCOME TO THE NEW POVERTY

You will, however, spend an average of $12,000 a year on car insurance and payments on your crappy mid-sized sedan, because we don’t have much in the way of public transportation in this country.

Ten you're an idiot.

Bought an '03 Odyssey in '07 for $11,500.

Paid cash, but even if you don't; no way it amounts to 12K a year. Insurance is $550/yr - full coverage.

Have put 110,000 miles on it since then; and should have another 100k on it.

[TeyshaBlue]

We already do; only right now we only do it for the least productive among us.

The converse being targeted reproduction incentives for the most productive? Sounds a little eugenics-ish to me.

[CosmicCowboy]

Hey your the one who said your life doesn't have meaning without children so don't get pissed at me. LOL talking cause you've been to Colorado... ing rednecks.

another reading comprehension fail

[Wild Cobra]

Ten you're an idiot.

Bought an '03 Odyssey in '07 for $11,500.

Paid cash, but even if you don't; no way it amounts to 12K a year. Insurance is $550/yr - full coverage.

Have put 110,000 miles on it since then; and should have another 100k on it.

I thought about bringing that up, but it's boutons... Nobody believes his BS anyway.

[101A]

Do you think there should be a discount for all parents, or just those under a certain income level?

Although I do think that other forms of promotion child-bearing would be something to look at... what's Singapore doing, for instance?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...477900124.html

Promoting Sex = Great, but my wife doesn't watch commercials, so whatever.

The converse being targeted reproduction incentives for the most productive? Sounds a little eugenics-ish to me.

To both; never actually said I supported addl. tax breaks for children; just made a statement about a truism regarding the Welfare state. As for the tax break; making it equivalent to what it ACTUALLY costs to raise a kid, on on hand, seems appropriate; our country is swimming in debt and large scale tax deductions for vast swaths of the public right now is not feasible; don't think it would encourage addl. children anyway. The article in the OP seems like a woman justifying to her man why she doesn't want kids.

Gonna go watch Idiocracy again...

[TeyshaBlue]

Promoting Sex = Great, but my wife doesn't watch commercials, so whatever.



To both; never actually said I supported addl. tax breaks for children; just made a statement about a truism regarding the Welfare state. As for the tax break; making it equivalent to what it ACTUALLY costs to raise a kid, on on hand, seems appropriate; our country is swimming in debt and large scale tax deductions for vast swaths of the public right now is not feasible; don't think it would encourage addl. children anyway. The article in the OP seems like a woman justifying to her man why she doesn't want kids.

Gonna go watch Idiocracy again...

Yeah, I was just posting the converse to head off the predictable knee jerk reaction.

[Wild Cobra]

The argument presented in the OP is that, while no one in particular needs children, society as a whole depends on them. After all, do you think our society would last long if the birth rate dropped precipitously?

Do you think a tax break is going to change if people have kids or not? If it does, it most certainly woun't be any significant amount.

"Oh look honey... If we have another child, we can pay $100/month less in taxes.

Wow... 100 bux. Does this come close to the price of raising a kid?

Now, people CHOOSE to have children, so we shouldn't necessarily reward this. However, if the birth rate drops greatly, and the expected life rate goes up, then maybe producing children SHOULD be rewarded.

I see... So you wish to move any possible hardship on your generation, to theirs... How touching!

People who have capital gains and other types of savings have their tax burden reduced because it's (in theory) a benefit to the nation.

I disagree with your choice of words, and capital gains are taxed lower because of risk.

You yourself have argued we need to keep tax rates low to keep producing jobs in America. This is the same argument, except replace "jobs" with "children".

I disagree with having variable exemptions. I believe all people who pay income taxes should pay on the same scale. I believe in equality rather than favoritism.

[boutons_deux]

"capital gains are taxed lower because of risk."

bull ing . capital gains are taxed lower because the 1% paid legislators to lower the rate.

[LnGrrrR]

101A, I agree with you in that sense: If I waited until I was "ready" for children, I would never have had them.

[LnGrrrR]

Do you think a tax break is going to change if people have kids or not? If it does, it most certainly woun't be any significant amount.

"Oh look honey... If we have another child, we can pay $100/month less in taxes.

Wow... 100 bux. Does this come close to the price of raising a kid?

I'm not an economist, I don't know if it would or not. But many people argue that some parents have multiple children to be on welfare... that would seem to be an equally faulty argument in this case.

Additionally, it's not so much the "Yay an extra 100 bucks to spend on movies!", but moreso, "An extra 100 bucks might make it financially feasible for us to afford a kid". I don't think anyone's suggesting that government help pay the total cost of a child's expenditure.

I see... So you wish to move any possible hardship on your generation, to theirs... How touching!

Not at all. I don't think you read me correctly. Tell me, do you agree or disagree that our society ultimately needs children to function?

I disagree with your choice of words, and capital gains are taxed lower because of risk.

Explain please?

I disagree with having variable exemptions. I believe all people who pay income taxes should pay on the same scale. I believe in equality rather than favoritism.

But you're ok with giving corporations and such less taxes, because it benefits us as a nation, correct?

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not an economist, I don't know if it would or not. But many people argue that some parents have multiple children to be on welfare... that would seem to be an equally faulty argument in this case.

I've never seen that argument, but i have made a similar argument of single women spacing their children out 3 years apart. That's entirely different with the way the law reads. It has nothing to do with tax breaks, but the amazing welfare benefits we give single women with young children.

Additionally, it's not so much the "Yay an extra 100 bucks to spend on movies!", but moreso, "An extra 100 bucks might make it financially feasible for us to afford a kid".

Not a very smart move... making financial decisions that close to being in the red now, is it?

I don't think anyone's suggesting that government help pay the total cost of a child's expenditure.

Just wait. Every time we give an inch, they ask for another mile.

Not at all. I don't think you read me correctly. Tell me, do you agree or disagree that our society ultimately needs children to function?

Sure we do, but to use "funding our retirement years" as a reason or excuse is just another cradle to grave expectation of en lements.

I hate the en lement mentality. It is what is destroying this nation!

Explain please?

Why there is risk? Isn't it obvious?

But you're ok with giving corporations and such less taxes, because it benefits us as a nation, correct?

Yes, but my reason is that when you tax something more, you are inhibiting growth in such areas. When you tax something less, you increase growth in such areas. I believe in taxing consumption rather than production. Tax what a person is able to buy. Not what they are forced to pay based on arbitrary facts.

If US corporations and businesses paid less in taxes, or nothing, they would be able to reduce their prices in world trade and here. If we taxed consumption of products instead of production, we would pay more for imported goods. In the balance, we would have a net positive effect to the economy. Our local purchasing power would remain about neutral, while making imports less desirable. It would make the different in some industries to return manufacturing here.

This should be a different thread. I have said this before, and this is the end of my discussion on the topic in this thread.

[SnakeBoy]

Yeah, I think those "18 and Counting!" show parents are pretty reprehensible. At least the Eight with Kate thing happened to be a huge fluke, where they had sixtuplets. I don't think that parents are sinners or saints for raising kids, but I do think the idea that "parents are necessary for society to function, therefore, they should get tax breaks" is an interesting one. Some people will say, "They CHOSE to be parents though! No tax breaks!"... but if that's all that people are bringing to the table, the easy counter is that people choose to run businesses, employ people, etc etc and we give tax breaks to encourage that activity as well.

The counter to your counter is a flat progressive tax code. You make x you pay y. Rates go down, govt revenue goes up, and the govt gets out of the business of using the tax code to "engineer" society and instead the tax code becomes simply a method of revenue collection.

[Wild Cobra]

The counter to your counter is a flat progressive tax code. You make x you pay y. Rates go down, govt revenue goes up, and the govt gets out of the business of using the tax code to "engineer" society and instead the tax code becomes simply a method of revenue collection.

This is the key point I didn't make well at all.

Why do people tolerate government engineering society?

[CosmicCowboy]

The counter to your counter is a flat progressive tax code. You make x you pay y. Rates go down, govt revenue goes up, and the govt gets out of the business of using the tax code to "engineer" society and instead the tax code becomes simply a method of revenue collection.

They will never do away with the mortgage deduction....maybe cap it at a certain level...( 1 million?) but it would be devastating to existing home values if they eliminated it completely.

[Wild Cobra]

They will never do away with the mortgage deduction....maybe cap it at a certain level...( 1 million?) but it would be devastating to existing home values if they eliminated it completely.

Things like this need to be phased out over time.

Is it right, that someone who can afford to buy gets a tax break, when the renter does not?

[SnakeBoy]

They will never do away with the mortgage deduction....maybe cap it at a certain level...( 1 million?) but it would be devastating to existing home values if they eliminated it completely.

I don't think the second part is true, the first definitely is.

[CosmicCowboy]

Things like this need to be phased out over time.

Is it right, that someone who can afford to buy gets a tax break, when the renter does not?

The renter pays lower rent because the owner of the rental property is deducting the interest making his basis in the property lower and allowing him to rent it for less.

I don't think the second part is true, the first definitely is.

You have obviously never bought a home and seen how the qualification process works.

[Wild Cobra]

The renter pays lower rent because the owner of the rental property is deducting the interest making his basis in the property lower and allowing him to rent it for less.

I see...

Renters subsidies...

[vy65]

es be baby crazy

I have a tough enough time getting her to agree to abortions; this wouldn't help my cause

[SnakeBoy]

The renter pays lower rent because the owner of the rental property is deducting the interest making his basis in the property lower and allowing him to rent it for less.

If the homeowners tax rate is let's say 15% and he loses his mortgage interest deduction but his tax rate drops to 9 or 10% then where is the new financial burden on the homeowner.

You have obviously never bought a home and seen how the qualification process works.

[CosmicCowboy]

If the homeowners tax rate is let's say 15% and he loses his mortgage interest deduction but his tax rate drops to 9 or 10% then where is the new financial burden on the homeowner.

They aren't talking about eliminating deductions to put more money in taxpayers pockets...quite the oposite, wouldn't you agree?

What to roll eyes at? Thats like increasing the house payment or reducing the amount of house you can buy...say you are looking at financing a house for 30 years and your payment would be $1000...eliminating that deduction makes the house suddenly cost $1300 a month so that a lot of people couldn't qualify.

[SnakeBoy]

What to roll eyes at? Thats like increasing the house payment or reducing the amount of house you can buy...say you are looking at financing a house for 30 years and your payment would be $1000...eliminating that deduction makes the house suddenly cost $1300 a month so that a lot of people couldn't qualify.

Your stament that I must have never bought a home.

Ok let's baby step thru this. When the bank is qualifying someone do you think they take the persons tax rate into account?

[CosmicCowboy]

Your stament that I must have never bought a home.

Ok let's baby step thru this. When the bank is qualifying someone do you think they take the persons tax rate into account?

Of course they do. That's why you have to furnish at least two years tax returns. That is what determines the base income they then use the qualifying ratios on.

[SnakeBoy]

Of course they do. That's why you have to furnish at least two years tax returns. That is what determines the base income they then use the qualifying ratios on.

So then if someome makes 50K they are currently in a 25% bracket. If their bracket became 10% do you think this increase the amount a bank would think they can afford?

[CosmicCowboy]

So then if someome makes 50K they are currently in a 25% bracket. If their bracket became 10% do you think this increase the amount a bank would think they can afford?

@ dropping from 25% to 10%. The ONLY reason they would ever modify the tax code is to bring in more income to the government, not less.