Death and Taxes

bry623 · 10-21-2005, 06:06 AM

This a new thread to continue our discussion of taxes that started over in the Democrat/Republican thread. - yustr

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazijoe

My biggest pet peave is dependents and schools. I don't like the way this government has catered to 'families'. If you have children, you get tax breaks. Come on now. Children are a responsibility. If you can't afford them quit producing them. My wife and I do not have kids nor do we plan on having any. I get sick and tired of people saying "Oh I'm getting back 5K because of my kids".
I pay school tax which is the biggest chunk of my property tax. And yet I have no kids. However Miss Johnson, who has 6 children and a live in boyfriend, living in the projects, on welfare, does not pay for these schools.
I would rather pay a healthy sales tax then pay income tax or property tax. That way you know everyone pays.

And why shouldn't the government cater to families? I have a six year old daughter and three year old twin boys. I had to buy 2 cribs, 2 high chairs etc. For a while, I was spending almost $300 a month on formula, diapers and baby food. Also, parents are spenders. I buy food to feed them, I buy all of their clothes, all of their school supplies, all of their medicines, all of their entertainment. If we get pizza, I have to buy more than the DINKS (Dual Income, No Kids) because my one son can crush a pizza. The reason I get "catered" to is because I am spending most of my personal income on my kids.
In Ohio, you can only be on welfare for so long, so Miss Johnson's scenario won't last long here. And my school district gets its state monies, county dollars and 1% of my and everyone else's income, so I am paying for my schools that way.
But here is my bravado: I make pretty decent money. I consider myself middle class. I pay for health insurance through work, which is not taxable. Family health care is expensive. I get to deduct that on my taxes along with my children and wife; I don't itemize. The I get to subtract $1000 per kid from my tax that I have to pay. So if my tax burden for my taxable income is 2300, I subtract 3000 and get -$700. I got every dime I paid to the feds back, plus that $700 differnece. While it may not seem fair to the DINKS out there, the government know that I am going to put that money back into the economy. Kids grow, I am guaranteed to buy shoes and spring/summer clothes every April 15. Thank GOD for the child tax credit.

Quote:

I usually find myself thinking why vote, it won't count. Mainly because I'm in Nebraska which is a prodominatly Rebublican state. But I vote so I can have a voice.
The last election and the election before, I voted for Nader. I can't stand the guy, but I agreed with more of his views than with any other canadate. And I don't want to hear "you threw that vote away, it should have went to so-in-so so they could have won" or "Nader shouldn't be running because he is taking away so-in-so's votes". I'm sorry but in order to get my vote, you have to earn it. In my opinion neither R or D earned it.

I felt the same way when I lived in Kansas in the 96 election. Dole was going to win it anyways and their # of electoral votes didn't matter much so I voted absentee back to Ohio. Our 20 EV makes us pretty important. The only way a third party will flourish is if one party gets almost complete control like the democrats did over the whigs and the republicans were born.

**crazijoe** · 10-21-2005, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bry623

And why shouldn't the government cater to families? I have a six year old daughter and three year old twin boys. I had to buy 2 cribs, 2 high chairs etc. For a while, I was spending almost $300 a month on formula, diapers and baby food. Also, parents are spenders. I buy food to feed them, I buy all of their clothes, all of their school supplies, all of their medicines, all of their entertainment. If we get pizza, I have to buy more than the DINKS (Dual Income, No Kids) because my one son can crush a pizza. The reason I get "catered" to is because I am spending most of my personal income on my kids.

I guess thats why I said If you can't afford them then don't produce. That is why my wife and I decide not to have chidren, because we couldn't afford them and I don't expect handouts from the government E.I tax cuts for dependents. I think its bull that couples that have kids get tax cuts because they can't afford the responsibility they brought upon themselves.

bry623 · 10-21-2005, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazijoe

I guess thats why I said If you can't afford them then don't produce. That is why my wife and I decide not to have chidren, because we couldn't afford them and I don't expect handouts from the government E.I tax cuts for dependents. I think its bull that couples that have kids get tax cuts because they can't afford the responsibility they brought upon themselves.

That's just it, I can afford them. My wife even gets to be a stay at home mom is how well I can afford them. Why should the children be penalized? I spend money on housing, feeding and clothing my children. I couldn't afford by nice new van I got last year without my tax breaks because of my kids. If I didn't have my kids I wouldn't need the van. But it is really nice not paying federal taxes last year. I think you have a lot of sour grapes on this. Yustr and I are far apart politically, but I think he enjoys his tax cuts for his children and all parents would agree that we shell out far more in the daily rearing of our children than we get back at tax time.

**crazijoe** · 10-21-2005, 07:46 AM

Ok,
This

Quote:

Originally Posted by bry623

That's just it, I can afford them.

And This

Quote:

Originally Posted by bry623

I couldn't afford by nice new van I got last year without my tax breaks because of my kids.

Should not even be in the same paragraph.

You're missing my point. You couldn't buy a new van without your tax breaks. This would mean you could not afford your responsibilities without the government bailing you out.
My wife and I thought about it long and hard on having offspring. We decided against it because of funds and sacrifices that we could not afford for the next 18+ years.

ebackhus · 10-21-2005, 10:03 AM

In this era it costs about $1,000,000 literally to raise a child from birth to 18. God forbid he or she live with you longer. I believe that even if you do make a decent income either as a dual-income or single income home, little boosts here and there ARE appreciated.

bry623 · 10-21-2005, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazijoe

Ok,
This
And This

Should not even be in the same paragraph.

You're missing my point. You couldn't buy a new van without your tax breaks. This would mean you could not afford your responsibilities without the government bailing you out.
My wife and I thought about it long and hard on having offspring. We decided against it because of funds and sacrifices that we could not afford for the next 18+ years.

They all fit just fine in my explorer, the van is just easier. But I wouldn't need to have it if I didn't have them to put in it. And I can afford my responisbilities. The tax break is mostly extra money, my money. My kids sleep in nice warm beds, have plenty of clothing, eat 3 square meals a day. They have their toys and games and goto soccer and scouts and library story time. We have health,dental,vision and life insurance on them. I pay my taxes to send them to school.................. sounds responsible to me. Having children is a afrightening and enjoyable experience all wrapped up into one. So what if I get a tax break for that. I don't own my home, should homeowners not get to deduct interest? That's not fair to non home-owners.
My wife and I probably had a similar discussion about having children. We knew it would be expensive. We knew it would cut into our lifestyles. We knew it was an awesome responsibilty. But we took it up anyways. Is it tough? Sure it is, but I'd rather have my hands full than empty. I get much more out of life knowing that there are three pepople who love me unconditionally and genuinely than I would from a fancy car or vacation or other things that I would spend my jack on. I am glad that I come home each day to a house filled with people to spend my money, than anything else in the world. Why do you guys think that you never see me in on the weekends?? It just isn't my dial up. (Which I have due to availibility, not affordability).

**crazijoe** · 10-21-2005, 11:38 AM

I do envy your love for your children and their love for you. Unfortunately that will be something I will probably never experience.
But my question would be, could you afford living, as it is now, without the child tax breaks?

Also

Quote:

Originally Posted by bry623

I don't own my home, should homeowners not get to deduct interest? That's not fair to non home-owners.

I do own my home and no, I don't get to deduct intrest. My house is paid for.

I never had a house loan, so I don't know what it's like to get tax credits for that. I don't have anything to claim on my income tax. I just pay out and never get any type of credits. I guess a person that lives responsively doesn't win a prize. They just get the shaft. And the person that lives out of their means, gets everything handed to them.
Sounds fair don't it.

This is another reason they should just abolish income tax and just impose a federal sales tax that would be non-exempt. This way everyone pays.

bry623 · 10-21-2005, 11:59 AM

There's one we agree on. Opponets would say that peole would buy less things to avoid tax, but if we aren't paying income taxes, we'll have the $ to spend.

yustr · 10-21-2005, 02:07 PM

The problem with sales tax is that they are regressive. The working poor payout a much higher % of their paycheck than the rich.

Would rent be taxed as a sale? Between rent, utilities and food, and the occasional new pair of shoes, some working poor have nothing left. So they just paid tax on 100% of their income.

Would services be taxed like goods? How about stock purchases? How about other investments? (If I can afford to put some money in savings I've just avoided paying tax on that money.)

**crazijoe** · 10-24-2005, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yustr

So they just paid tax on 100% of their income.

This is the whole point EVERYBODY pays into the system. Nobody gets a free ticket.

Tumbleweed36 · 10-25-2005, 06:07 PM

Hi,

I see both arguments of this issue as valid to some degree. However, I would like to throw another rock on the pile.

When we don't get to vote because of disenfranchisement via any method, it is called "Taxation without representation," since the majority of us pay taxes. The cry from the politicians is that we are keeping taxpaying people from voting.

However, some of the so called working poor pay no taxes because of all the breaks for those who are poor whether by choice (refuse to work or try) or by chance (lack of opportunity) or other reason. They also vote. Is this called "Representation without taxation?" Where are the same voices that cry about taxation without representation.

Therefore, I support the national sales tax so everyone pays taxes and also should get representation.

Chevy · 10-25-2005, 08:29 PM

The tax code is not to collect funds, it's to provide jobs to tax lawyers, tax preparers, and the overbloated IRS.

My solution:

If you are 18 or older --> 10% total income to Federal, 5% total income to state, 3% total income to FICA/SSI. No deductions, no shelters, no write-offs, no EIC, no exeptions. Period. Done.

If you are under 18 --> 0% Federal, 0% State, 3% FICA/SSI.

No more filing taxes, the set percentages come out of your check. Reduce the IRS by 60%, put the tax preparers out of business (maybe they'll move to a more usefull endeavor).

bry623 · 10-26-2005, 06:58 AM

But what of city taxes? County taxes? Property taxes? School district income taxes?

**crazijoe** · 10-26-2005, 07:05 AM

City tax and county tax would be part of the sales tax (added on). No property tax. No school district income tax. Both would be part of the sales tax.

School taxes could be a very good topic. One I am very much against.

bry623 · 10-26-2005, 07:19 AM

I hate it because I have to pay one, but I guess since my daughter is getting an education out of it............

**crazijoe** · 10-26-2005, 07:57 AM

Yeah I hate it to because I have no children and I have to pay it.

10-21-2005, 10:03 AM	#5 (permalink)
ebackhus Asst. Manager, Design Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: SATX Posts: 12,296 OS: WinXP Pro SP2b My System Blog Entries: 14	In this era it costs about $1,000,000 literally to raise a child from birth to 18. God forbid he or she live with you longer. I believe that even if you do make a decent income either as a dual-income or single income home, little boosts here and there ARE appreciated. __________________ ----------------------------- There are no dumb questions, unless a customer is asking them. Help in the fight against cancer and other serious illnesses.

10-21-2005, 11:59 AM	#8 (permalink)
bry623 Manager, The Conversation Pit/Analyst, Security Team Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: NW Territory circa 1787 Posts: 10,356 OS: winxp pro sp2	There's one we agree on. Opponets would say that peole would buy less things to avoid tax, but if we aren't paying income taxes, we'll have the $ to spend. __________________ Scarlet and Gray in L.A. 9/13/08

10-21-2005, 02:07 PM	#9 (permalink)
yustr Asst. Manager, The Conversation Pit Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Connecticut shore/California Desert Posts: 4,435 OS: PCLinuxOS, XP Pro My System	The problem with sales tax is that they are regressive. The working poor payout a much higher % of their paycheck than the rich. Would rent be taxed as a sale? Between rent, utilities and food, and the occasional new pair of shoes, some working poor have nothing left. So they just paid tax on 100% of their income. Would services be taxed like goods? How about stock purchases? How about other investments? (If I can afford to put some money in savings I've just avoided paying tax on that money.) __________________ I'm helping in the fight against Cancer, YOU CAN TOO find out how; CLICK HERE I didn't mean to say it. But I meant what I said. J. McMurtry

10-25-2005, 06:07 PM	#11 (permalink)
Tumbleweed36 Asst Manager Hardware Join Date: May 2005 Location: USA Posts: 12,643 OS: XP Professional	Hi, I see both arguments of this issue as valid to some degree. However, I would like to throw another rock on the pile. When we don't get to vote because of disenfranchisement via any method, it is called "Taxation without representation," since the majority of us pay taxes. The cry from the politicians is that we are keeping taxpaying people from voting. However, some of the so called working poor pay no taxes because of all the breaks for those who are poor whether by choice (refuse to work or try) or by chance (lack of opportunity) or other reason. They also vote. Is this called "Representation without taxation?" Where are the same voices that cry about taxation without representation. Therefore, I support the national sales tax so everyone pays taxes and also should get representation. __________________ ---------- Last edited by Tumbleweed36 : 10-25-2005 at 06:08 PM.

10-25-2005, 08:29 PM	#12 (permalink)
Chevy Semi-Retired Manager, Microsoft Support Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Notlob Posts: 5,142 OS: Vista Ultimate My System	The tax code is not to collect funds, it's to provide jobs to tax lawyers, tax preparers, and the overbloated IRS. My solution: If you are 18 or older --> 10% total income to Federal, 5% total income to state, 3% total income to FICA/SSI. No deductions, no shelters, no write-offs, no EIC, no exeptions. Period. Done. If you are under 18 --> 0% Federal, 0% State, 3% FICA/SSI. No more filing taxes, the set percentages come out of your check. Reduce the IRS by 60%, put the tax preparers out of business (maybe they'll move to a more usefull endeavor). __________________ “My philosophy, like color television, is all there in black and white” -M. Python

10-26-2005, 06:58 AM	#13 (permalink)
bry623 Manager, The Conversation Pit/Analyst, Security Team Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: NW Territory circa 1787 Posts: 10,356 OS: winxp pro sp2	But what of city taxes? County taxes? Property taxes? School district income taxes? __________________ Scarlet and Gray in L.A. 9/13/08

10-26-2005, 07:05 AM	#14 (permalink)
crazijoe Moderator, Hardware Forums Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Omaha, The Center of the Universe Posts: 7,632 OS: WinXP, Win2K3 My System	City tax and county tax would be part of the sales tax (added on). No property tax. No school district income tax. Both would be part of the sales tax. School taxes could be a very good topic. One I am very much against. __________________ Microsoft MCSA + Messaging, MVP, A+, Network+ Do you want a real Republican? HDD diagnostic tools / HDD data recovery software

10-26-2005, 07:19 AM	#15 (permalink)
bry623 Manager, The Conversation Pit/Analyst, Security Team Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: NW Territory circa 1787 Posts: 10,356 OS: winxp pro sp2	I hate it because I have to pay one, but I guess since my daughter is getting an education out of it............ __________________ Scarlet and Gray in L.A. 9/13/08

10-26-2005, 07:57 AM	#16 (permalink)
crazijoe Moderator, Hardware Forums Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Omaha, The Center of the Universe Posts: 7,632 OS: WinXP, Win2K3 My System	Yeah I hate it to because I have no children and I have to pay it. __________________ Microsoft MCSA + Messaging, MVP, A+, Network+