bry623

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

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.

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

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

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

Ok,
ThisAnd 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.

ebackhus

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

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

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
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

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

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

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

Tumbleweed36

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

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

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

crazijoe

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

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

crazijoe

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

bruiser

Although I hate taxes in general, having a "free" public education benefits the local community as well as the country as a whole. If only the wealthy could afford to educate their children, where would everybody else's children be at when it came time to compete in the job market?

Tumbleweed36

Hi,

My perspective is different in that "we all" (even parochial in many ways have federal support) do receive a free public education. So, if you can read this, most likely YOU were the receipient of educational dollars being taken from the general public. Therefore, it is a necessary and probably just form of taxation for the all of us.

However, what I object to is the irresponsible spending of schools and some examples are listed:

Why do we need football stadiums for high school students that seat 10,000 people? They include elaborate locker rooms, weight rooms, conference rooms, trophy display rooms...and on, and on, and on.

Why do we need baskeball gymnasiums that seat 6000 spectators? Includes weight rooms, two or three coaches offices, shower rooms (necessary), personal coach showers, conference rooms, trophy room, health classrooms (while some classrooms in the building are empty), and it goes on and on.

Why do we need an olympic sized swimming pool with seating for hundreds if our objective is to teach children to swim? Oh, we did have a swim team with about twenty swimmers and five coaches, so guess that was important.

Why do we need auditoriums that seat 3000 people to attend a band concert or a play that draws about fifty or sixty people? In the corporation I was living in, the sound system for that was over $75,000.00 for that auditorium. The lighting system about that much also and curtains for the auditorium about $40,000, but no problem, taxpayers will pay for it.

Why do we need 12 coaches for a football team that has 50 players? All were paid a large supplement (head coach about $8000.00 and graduated down from that for assts) on top of their teaching salary and the top two coaches even were relieved of a couple of hours of teaching duties for the year each day to meet the responsibility of coaching. (sounded like double dipping to me) Program ran from August through November in our area.

Why do we need 4 basketball coaches for a varsity basketball program that has a total of 12 kids on the team? This supplement for coaching was about $8000.00 on top of a teaching salary for the head coach and graduated less for the others. The head coach only taught a half a day so he could work on basketball responsibilities. (The season was October through March although he never did teach over half a day during the year) This also sounds like double dipping to me.

Why do we need 3 varsity golf coaches for a team that has less than ten players on it?

and on, and on, and on....I could write a book on that one.

At one time, I was on a committee for salaries and supplements at a public school corporation. The supplementary salaries for coaches (including band, sports, science clubs, etc) approached $800,000 dollars for one year. That is simply stupid and irresponsible, but it happens all over the country.

Committee members (not school employees on the committee) objected to the outlandish spending and top heavy staffing, but we were quickly told in no uncertain terms by the school corporation that reducing staff was not an option in those areas. Well, you know the rest of the story.....I quit the committee as did some other members, but it continued with school personnel (some of the same teachers who were receiving the suppliements) dominating what decisions would be made. It remains today a great drain on taxpayers while the school corporation keeps crying they are broke and need more taxpayer money.

So CraziJoe, you do have a great argument on the total school picture. I just believe that if responsible usage of money was demanded, that your tax burden for schools would be about half what it is now.

Chevy

Well, part of the school funds would be from the immense savings realized by a simplified tax code/process.

Property tax ... It would stay as is, with one ammendment. All non-profit orgs must pay as well. Churches, ARC, everyone.

City and Parish/County Taxes - they keep sales tax, and property tax (a cut).

Tumbleweed36

Hi,

The big bug in our state is constantly rising property taxes. We have seen double digit raises in property taxes in the past two years and have just received word from the state that the next two or three years could be even worse.

What has happened is that the state has used a portion of their income to support local schools, but this year they voted to stop doing that....so, the local group must raise the property tax to replace what the state used to give. Now the state is able to do some of their pet projects that they wanted to do for a couple of years, but were tied up from the lack of money because they supported local schools. One change in political party and away we go.....more and more taxes.

I also wanted to correct a typo in my posting....the auditorium in question that I spoke about held 1000 people and not 3000. Just wanted it to be correct.