Why do singles pay more tax??

[toolbox 0]

I want my reward for not having kids!
I would also like to be rewarded for having to endure the parents lack of control over their offspring.
It makes an 18 hour trip to tokyo far harder when little Egbert's mommy will not restrain him from kicking the back of your seat throughout the flight.
Married people should pay the same % on taxes for their combined income as singles pay.

[kallend 1,622]

Quote

I want my reward for not having kids!
.

You have it already. The kids that I diapered, hauled on family vacations, listened as they whined about homework, and then paid for their college educations will be paying for your retirement.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The big question should be,why do those without children pay more than those with them?
With the obvious problem of over population,it seems that you should reward those who choose not to have children with huge tax breaks.

the real problem is this mentality of trying to reward or punish behavior instead of just expecting people to be responsible for themselves

I hope you realize you're decrying a form of social engineering that has existed for many thousands of years.

So did slavery.

Stop defending slavery, John. It's impolite.

Have you been taking debate lessons from mnealtx?

I think the difference is that he takes this seriously.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Married people should pay the same % on taxes for their combined income as singles pay.

That's a lot different than saying single people should get better treatment.

Frankly, I see no reason to have "Married filing (jointly or separately)" options in the first place. Each "individual" should file a tax return as an 'individual'

government should be completely out of it

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

I love the way your nostrils flare when you act mad at me. It's part of your special appeal.

Call me?

And I love the way your little ears perk up and your eyes light up whenever you hear a siren.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I want my reward for not having kids!
.

You have it already. The kids that I diapered, hauled on family vacations, listened as they whined about homework, and then paid for their college educations will be paying for your retirement.

Only if they can find a job.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2010-12-06-collegegrads06_ST_N.htm

[davjohns 1]

Well...here goes.

Social engineering.

The government wants you married, homeower, with kids, etc. So, you get deductions for living your life the way they want you to. Perhaps they see the population as more manageable that way, or it meets their worldview or something.

You get a deduction for kids. Why? Why should the government care?

You get a deduction for owing on a home. NOT owning a home. Owing. So, we have subsidized the mortgage industry indirectly for decades. That went well. And again, why should the government care?

You get a deduction for giving money away. Why?

You get deductions for anything you can tag a job expense. Why?

Nobody has managed to explain to me yet why a flat tax isn't simple, fair and easy to enforce. We'd save a fortune by eliminating the tax code and IRS overnight. Everyone pays. You earn little, you pay little. You earn much, you pay much. No deductions. Spend it how you like. No tax returns necessary. XX% per month is the same at the end of the year. I know there would have to be some system to report and pay and such, but so much less than today. And no more tax code that even the IRS doesn't understand. What a nice bonus that would be. And then there's that whole intangible of keeping 535 Senators and Congress Members from holding my pay ransom to get me to live the way they determine I should....

Soap box vacated. Next!

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

The government wants you married, homeower, with kids, etc. So, you get deductions for living your life the way they want you to. Perhaps they see the population as more manageable that way, or it meets their worldview or something.

You get a deduction for kids. Why? Why should the government care?

Because for a country to grow, its population needs to grow. If you don't have babies, you need to let other people in.

Let's say your population levels stagnated at 1920's levels, how successful do you think you would have been as a country?

Like any business, a country needs growth.

[davjohns 1]

I haven't done any research on that theory, but I understand some growth is necessary to take care of elderly and such. The problem is that it seems to have a definite endpoint, doesn't it? Resources are finite. What happens when we reach the population the country / planet can sustain? Soylent Green?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

haven't done any research on that theory, but I understand some growth is necessary to take care of elderly and such. The problem is that it seems to have a definite endpoint, doesn't it? Resources are finite. What happens when we reach the population the country / planet can sustain? Soylent Green?

What happens when a company outgrows itself? There is a forced contraction or eradication.

In "country" terms: wars, unrest, illnesses, migration, etc.

[kallend 1,622]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I want my reward for not having kids!
.

You have it already. The kids that I diapered, hauled on family vacations, listened as they whined about homework, and then paid for their college educations will be paying for your retirement.

Only if they can find a job.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2010-12-06-collegegrads06_ST_N.htm

Is a 2010 article the best you can manage to make your point?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

haven't done any research on that theory, but I understand some growth is necessary to take care of elderly and such. The problem is that it seems to have a definite endpoint, doesn't it? Resources are finite. What happens when we reach the population the country / planet can sustain? Soylent Green?

What happens when a company outgrows itself? There is a forced contraction or eradication.

In "country" terms: wars, unrest, illnesses, migration, etc.

MMMM...have we thwarted natural solutions in both areas? We've given disease a hard route to population reduction. Unemployment doesn't keep people from eating, so famine is out (in the western world). We bail out companies that run themselves into the ground if they are big enough.

So, is starvation due to over-population the ultimate result? Or are we expecting a resurgence of plague, world war or natural disaster like a comet?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

I haven't done any research on that theory, but I understand some growth is necessary to take care of elderly and such. The problem is that it seems to have a definite endpoint, doesn't it? Resources are finite. What happens when we reach the population the country / planet can sustain? Soylent Green?

People have been predicting a Malthusian population crisis for centuries (since well before Malthus).

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Gravitymaster 0]

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/53-of-recent-college-grads-are-jobless-or-underemployed-how/256237/

I wonder what your ilk will do when the government runs out of money and stops offering low interest rate loans. Then Colleges won't be able to jack up tuition costs the way they have been for the last 20 years.

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/35-shocking-facts-that-prove-that-college-education-has-become-a-giant-money-making-scam

No better than the bottom feeding lawyers that have contributed to many of society's financial problems along with the bankers.

[nanook 1]

Quote

Social engineering.The government wants you married, homeower, with kids, etc. So, you get deductions for living your life the way they want you to. Perhaps they see the population as more manageable that way, or it meets their worldview or something.

Maybe more like self-interest by those who pass the laws. The Govt has children and homes too. If they are into social engineering, they are self-engineering themselves too. Weird for a group that wants control to put themselves under the same rules.

Quote

You get a deduction for owing on a home. NOT owning a home. Owing. So, we have subsidized the mortgage industry indirectly for decades. That went well. And again, why should the government care?

This is wrong. You get deductions for owning a paid off home. I write off taxes I pay on a property that I don't have a mortgage on.

Quote

You get a deduction for giving money away. Why?

Because if you give money away to charities, the govt doesn't have to subsidize as much.

Quote

You get deductions for anything you can tag a job expense. Why?

More money for you to re-invest in your buisness. Less money for overhead, more money that is spent by your or your employees. Sometimes.

Quote

Nobody has managed to explain to me yet why a flat tax isn't simple, fair and easy to enforce.

It's not that it isn't simple. It's that it won't be a better alternative to what we have now. The middle class and the poor will have to pay more and the rich a lot less. Overall, a lot less tax revenue. That is, unless you make it a flat tax of 35%.

Quote

We'd save a fortune by eliminating the tax code and IRS overnight

Without an IRS, who will enforce the tax payments. Not all people in the U. S. use the W2. So no automatic deduction. What about business owners, rental owners, contractors, people stationed overseas, Coporate taxes, import taxes, export taxes, duties, ect. ?

Quote

And no more tax code that even the IRS doesn't understand. What a nice bonus that would be. And then there's that whole intangible of keeping 535 Senators and Congress Members from holding my pay ransom to get me to live the way they determine I should....

The IRS doesn't write tax code. They only collect. Think of them as the accountancy side of the US Treasury. All these issues are by those who push and write tax law.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[toolbox 0]

Ha! Are you referring to social security?
I would be surprised if it's still around in another 20 years.
Do you believe in the easter bunny and santa?
The way we are killing the oceans, and poisoning and drying up the rivers and aquifers, trying to sustain the growing population, not only here but around the world,will most likely lead to wars over the basic requirements for life(fresh water and food) instead of wars over religion,oil,ect.
But hopefully it will take several more decades before it gets real bad here in the states,and I'll be gone by then.
Good chance the young ones will still be around to pay the price for the sins of there grandparents though.
I know people like to convince themselves that everything is just fine even when faced with hard evidence to the contrary,I think it's called cognitive dissonance or something.
I used to care about the future,but anymore I just live for here and now.
EFS

[billvon 2,392]

>You get a deduction for kids. Why? Why should the government care?

1) Taking care of the next generation is something that the government sees as its job. Hence long term environmental regulations, schools, deductions for kids, WIC program, special legal protections for juvenile victims, special treatment for juvenile offenders, laws that enforce paternal obligations etc.

2) An increasing population is necessary for the US to remain strong economically and militarily. (Of course people may not agree that those two things are important.)

3) In general people want the government to treat kids well and thus people vote for government representatives who promise to do that.

>And then there's that whole intangible of keeping 535 Senators and
>Congress Members from holding my pay ransom to get me to live the way
>they determine I should....

Most people would pay far more under a flat tax. The moderately rich would pay far less. The very rich would continue to pay almost nothing. Thus those 535 people would have their fingers deeper in many more people's wallets. In general the argument devolves to "yeah, but I don't really care if they get taxed more."

[toolbox 0]

Why not a flat tax? I have asked that question for years.
I like all the rest of your thoughts on social engineering by the powers that be as well.
Makes me think maybe we are seen as some sort of commodity or something.

[Nataly 38]

Quote

Quote

If we paid for only what we personally use, some would not be able to afford to live...

Why is that?

I think it's fairly obvious... Just think of someone who is has a severely debilitating illness... What they use/need could be far more than someone who is in perfect health, plus they have less opportunity to earn a decent living... If everyone looked only after themselves, this person would not survive. In a civilised world, this person *does* get to live, but on the back of other people's contributions/taxes/et cetera.

I get that re-distribution is an essential part of "survival of the most" but basing this redistribution on your marital status does not make sense to me.

Anyhoo... Whoever said fairness and tax do not belong in the same sentence is right. Just irks me in this case.

"There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse."
- Chris Hadfield
« Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. »
- my boss

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

Social engineering.The government wants you married, homeower, with kids, etc. So, you get deductions for living your life the way they want you to. Perhaps they see the population as more manageable that way, or it meets their worldview or something.

Maybe more like self-interest by those who pass the laws. The Govt has children and homes too. If they are into social engineering, they are self-engineering themselves too. Weird for a group that wants control to put themselves under the same rules.

I don't think so. They want you to live the way that they approve. So, they are placing you under their rules. Not letting you make your own decisions.

Quote

You get a deduction for owing on a home. NOT owning a home. Owing. So, we have subsidized the mortgage industry indirectly for decades. That went well. And again, why should the government care?

This is wrong. You get deductions for owning a paid off home. I write off taxes I pay on a property that I don't have a mortgage on.

You don't get a deduction on the interest paid on the home unless you have a mortgage. Yes, you get to deduct the relatively small tax payment. You're starting to be picky and sound silly.

Quote

You get a deduction for giving money away. Why?

Because if you give money away to charities, the govt doesn't have to subsidize as much.

And the government has to take my money away to give it to charities they deem fit because....??? You say it like it is an obligation.

Quote

You get deductions for anything you can tag a job expense. Why?

More money for you to re-invest in your buisness. Less money for overhead, more money that is spent by your or your employees. Sometimes.

I'll buy this as an ideal. However, does it contribute to efficiently run businesses? You can fail to show a profit three out of five years and rake in fake business deductions.

Quote

Nobody has managed to explain to me yet why a flat tax isn't simple, fair and easy to enforce.

It's not that it isn't simple. It's that it won't be a better alternative to what we have now. The middle class and the poor will have to pay more and the rich a lot less. Overall, a lot less tax revenue. That is, unless you make it a flat tax of 35%.

I haven't done research, but once read that a flat tax of 13% would replace our current system. Not sure if that was true or if it still stands. I could live with a somewhat graduated tax. I just disagree with all the deductions, exemptions and some people gettting free money they didn't pay in. It makes no sense other than to buy votes.

Quote

We'd save a fortune by eliminating the tax code and IRS overnight

Without an IRS, who will enforce the tax payments. Not all people in the U. S. use the W2. So no automatic deduction. What about business owners, rental owners, contractors, people stationed overseas, Coporate taxes, import taxes, export taxes, duties, ect. ?

You didn't quote the part where I stipulated that some monitoring / enforcement would still be necessary. That wasn't particularly fair debate.

Quote

And no more tax code that even the IRS doesn't understand. What a nice bonus that would be. And then there's that whole intangible of keeping 535 Senators and Congress Members from holding my pay ransom to get me to live the way they determine I should....

The IRS doesn't write tax code. They only collect. Think of them as the accountancy side of the US Treasury. All these issues are by those who push and write tax law.

I didn't say the IRS wrote the tax code. I just said it is unnecessarily cumbersom and should go...along with the bulk of the IRS.

I'm starting to suspect you work for the IRS.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[kallend 1,622]

Quote

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/53-of-recent-college-grads-are-jobless-or-underemployed-how/256237/

I wonder what your ilk will do when the government runs out of money and stops offering low interest rate loans. Then Colleges won't be able to jack up tuition costs the way they have been for the last 20 years.

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/35-shocking-facts-that-prove-that-college-education-has-become-a-giant-money-making-scam

No better than the bottom feeding lawyers that have contributed to many of society's financial problems along with the bankers.

No-one is compelled to go to college. No parent is compelled to send their kid(s).

No-one is forced to major in "womens' studies" or "media" instead of engineering or math.

Supply and demand IS a capitalist value.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[shah269 0]

Quote

Can someone please tell me why I should pay more taxes than if I were married??? Do I cost more in healthcare or benefits??? Do I get extra privileges???

Look it's simple, if god wanted you to pay lower taxes he would introduce you to a very nice, well spoken, well educated, well dressed man who knew how to do the laundry as well as make you a nice dinner twice a week. That man would be me.
But god has not introduced you to me thus he, and yes god is a he, wants you to pay higher taxes and dream of one day waking up in bed to me walking in topless carrying a tray of OJ, coffee, and French Toast saying "Darling, don't you look good this morning."

Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.

The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools!

[kallend 1,622]

Quote

Why not a flat tax? I have asked that question for years.
I like all the rest of your thoughts on social engineering by the powers that be as well.
Makes me think maybe we are seen as some sort of commodity or something.

When ALL federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account it is pretty flat; the bottom 20% of households pays about 16% of their incomes in taxes, on average. The second poorest 20% pays about 21% (or more than their flat-tax share).

While federal tax rates increase with income level, SS tax is regressive, and sales taxes are more burdensome on the lower income levels. The wealthy get more access to tax breaks too.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ryoder 1,381]

Quote

Quote

Can someone please tell me why I should pay more taxes than if I were married??? Do I cost more in healthcare or benefits??? Do I get extra privileges???

Look it's simple, if god wanted you to pay lower taxes he would introduce you to a very nice, well spoken, well educated, well dressed man who knew how to do the laundry as well as make you a nice dinner twice a week. That man would be me.
But god has not introduced you to me thus he, and yes god is a he, wants you to pay higher taxes and dream of one day waking up in bed to me walking in topless carrying a tray of OJ, coffee, and French Toast saying "Darling, don't you look good this morning."

Finally! The thread is back to flirting with Nat instead of all the boring political arguing.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

Makes me think maybe we are seen as some sort of commodity or something.

Because from a big picture, big business, running a country type of perspective, that is exactly what you are: a commodity. One that needs to be replenished either through breeding or through immigration.

If you want to feel special, maybe you are better suited to be a liberal?