Should people without children pay higher taxes?

I read an article in the paper today that said the city of Chicago is 20 billion in the hole on its pension fund. That's billion! That will be fixed with tax money eventually. We should only tax people on the pension plan and city employees just like only taxing people with kids for school funds right? Yeah that will not happen.way to many hands in the money pot.

TAX is unnecessarily complicated by design to keep the accountants/tax consultants in work and to ensure the elite and mega corporations don't have to pay tax.

THE EASY solution is to do away with all existing taxes and just have 1 flat sales rate of 'x' percent on everything except food, paid at the time of transaction.

That way EVERYBODY would pay according to how much they spent on all the crap they don't need - 1 supercar/yacht would probably cost them more in tax than they have ever paid.

johnb
TAX is unnecessarily complicated by design to keep the accountants/tax consultants in work and to ensure the elite and mega corporations don't have to pay tax.

THE EASY solution is to do away with all existing taxes and just have 1 flat sales rate of 'x' percent on everything except food, paid at the time of transaction.

That way EVERYBODY would pay according to how much they spent on all the crap they don't need - 1 supercar/yacht would probably cost them more in tax than they have ever paid.

The advantage over this rather than a flat income tax is that a sales tax captures the underground economy. Drug dealers don't file income tax, but they do buy stuff at the store.

DonVoigt
I understand it's not you saying this, but this is the same as saying that the healthy should be forced to buy health insurance that they don't need because there are sick people in the world who deserve your money more than you deserve your money.

I know this may be hard for you to comprehend, but even perfectly healthy people sometimes have accidents that have the potential to leave them bankrupt. It would be a big mistake for you to believe that you are somehow immune from a healthcare disaster just because you're young and healthy.

I have a 34 yr. old daughter who was in perfect health 2yrs. ago when she was involved in an accident, resulting in a traumatic brain injury that left here in a coma for over a month and then, in-patient rehabilitation therapy for another month and a half after that. While she is doing much better now, she still isn't able to return to work. The hospital bills alone bills totaled over half a million and had she not been covered by a great healthcare plan, (thanks to the union she worked through) bankruptcy would have been inevitable.

I'm not saying that I agree with being forced to purchase healthcare insurance through a private, for-profit provider, but I do believe that everyone should be covered through a truly universal, not-for-profit, single payer system like those found in every other industrialized nation in the world today.

Everyone should pay the same tax regardless of age or any other factor. Of course that means if you have children, you'll be paying their taxes too, but you had them, now pay for them.

By April 21, to group says, Americans will have made enough to pay the $3 trillion in federal taxes and $1.5 trillion in state taxes — more than they will spend on food clothing and housing combined. Read more: dailycaller.com...

Maybe it's time we stop griping about who should be paying the taxes and demand that our gov't spends less!!
I got a feeling that we all could be giving them every cent we own and they'd still spend it all want more and borrow what we didn't have to give!

reply to post by watchitburn


I agree %100 , the thing is I was married and single so I do think you are taxed more overall as a single individual, if you have no kids you get another strike against you, if you have children you get a deduction for dependents so right off the bat, you are at a disadvantage being single and also having no kids when it comes to the government spreading around the tax burden correctly.

One thing that stuck with me though is that one of the main arguments that I used to make was sort of shunted to ground by one of my friends who made this point, I was always saying that kids use up more resources, schools, school buses, energy , logistical resources, road maintenance induced by the extra bus traffic over time and a whole list of things that tax the society and consume local budgets the other being the health care system , so I said why should I have to pay for that ? well the counterpoint made by my friend was you were once a child and someone's tax money more than likely benefited you somehow and those people had no say in the matter.

But honestly if anything people that do have kids should actually pay more taxes if anyone was serious about fair taxation, but honestly all taxation does have an element of socialism, the other evil of course is usury or paying interest on loans, the winner in either of these cases is not the citizen and taxpayer because you are going to get the short end of the stick.

DonVoigt
I understand it's not you saying this, but this is the same as saying that the healthy should be forced to buy health insurance that they don't need because there are sick people in the world who deserve your money more than you deserve your money.

When my husband and I were first married, young and 'healthy', we didn't have health coverage. We didn't think we needed it. Out of nowhere, my husband ends up in the hospital diagnosed with diabetes and we ended up thousands of dollars in debt.

People without children should not pay more taxes. People with children get tax breaks that childless couples don't. Some people choose not to have children because they know that financially, they can't afford to. Some people are sterile. The reason doesn't matter. They shouldn't be paying a higher tax period!

We should not be dividing government debt as not our own. Ours government debt is ours, like it or not.

Government needs newborns, who will be the future money makers to pay the debt.

If population suddenly stops having kids, imagine the impact 18 yrs from now.

It will probably be raised taxes and other ways to get money from living people.


We now have a way where we funnel money, get money from young working kids to pay for gov pension and other social security.. and us whoa re paying those tax, hoping the next generation will pay for us.

This is how the system works.

Flatfish

DonVoigt
I understand it's not you saying this, but this is the same as saying that the healthy should be forced to buy health insurance that they don't need because there are sick people in the world who deserve your money more than you deserve your money.

I know this may be hard for you to comprehend, but even perfectly healthy people sometimes have accidents that have the potential to leave them bankrupt. It would be a big mistake for you to believe that you are somehow immune from a healthcare disaster just because you're young and healthy.

I have a 34 yr. old daughter who was in perfect health 2yrs. ago when she was involved in an accident, resulting in a traumatic brain injury that left here in a coma for over a month and then, in-patient rehabilitation therapy for another month and a half after that. While she is doing much better now, she still isn't able to return to work. The hospital bills alone bills totaled over half a million and had she not been covered by a great healthcare plan, (thanks to the union she worked through) bankruptcy would have been inevitable.

I'm not saying that I agree with being forced to purchase healthcare insurance through a private, for-profit provider, but I do believe that everyone should be covered through a truly universal, not-for-profit, single payer system like those found in every other industrialized nation in the world today.

And yet, many healthy young people were (before this monstrosity of a law) able to purchase very inexpensive catastrophic coverage that covered that very contingency. When I was 18, such coverage was the cost of a few dinners out a month.

Its funny how the premise of this topic keeps coming up, but no one replying ever connects how its related to similar earlier discussion here on ATS.

Basically we have TOO many people being born and not enough desire on the behalf of the "owners of capital" to employ them all for the sake of having a stable and safe civilization to live in day to day. The owners of capital want more people born, not simply for "growing the future tax base", but for the true purpose of DECREASING overall wages for everyone. More people MEANS less jobs and pay per person, affecting even the educated and highly skilled. Its actually quite simple for the peons/peasants of the world to start having more say in how the world is run. Simply don't have children or support those having children. The result will be wages soaring and diverse employment options expanding for all. Taxing those without kids is a subconscious way to influence the birth of more kids, by punishing those whom are abstaining from having kids in their own best FINANCIAL interests, while also not giving in to the desires for increased population coveted by both government and large corporations.

I have been making the argument, for a very long time, that the ever increasing "non-1%'er" population is lowering the overall influence of those whom are not in the 1%.

How is this possible, you ask?

Because its easier to "pay less" or "nothing at all" to contracted or indentured "labor" when there is another willing laborer/slave waiting in the wings to do the work for less or nothing at all. Its actually quite simple, if those not in the 1% refused to get married or have babies from here on out & block any future immigration, the 1% would very quickly need to raise wages. Otherwise nothing the 1% want to get "worked on" would ever get done. When low-wage/low-skilled labor becomes scarce in the larger market, wages go up.

This kind of "baby making with benefits" thinking on a grand scale is the problem. There are not enough paying jobs to go around as it is and the "baby makers" somehow think bringing another human onto the earth is a good idea. Their future, unborn, child is going to do nothing except drive down wages for everyone else who was already here. These people, quite simply put, need to rethink their purpose in life. Its not to make babies in a world without a job for them to earn a living from. People who think like this are doing nothing more than driving the rest of us deeper into slavery at the hands of the "owners of capital", whom use "extra living bodies" as an excuse to constantly drive down wages and increase the costs of goods due to increased demand or lack of demand. People need to change their world view, RIGHT NOW, its not about making babies anymore! Save a job for a person already born and living, by getting a vasectomy and vilifying those who choose to make more human beings through biological reproduction!

Guess when the largest “recorded” wage increase happened in history for, non-land owing, wage-laborers, post the introduction of fiat currency?

Any ideas?

I’ll tell you, it was after the black death pandemic in the 14th century, especially in post-pandemic England.

How is that possible?

Because “the owners of capital”, post-black-death-pandemic still needed wage-laborers, but there was a HUGE shortage of able bodied people, so, in order for ANY work to get done they had to pay the peasants and other undesirables more, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE. This principle is still at work today, when you take the time to recognize that portions of the population are actively discouraged from participating in the full-time labor market. This is easily done, by throwing people in prison, forcing them to attend formal school longer and allowing more people to claim themselves as disabled or collect long/short term welfare. The next obvious step for government to further reduce the number of people participating in the full-time labor market is to allow them easier access to welfare or as some have been recommending lately, a guaranteed minimum wage or allowance that everyone gets, without having to provide labor to an employer first. I’m not going to go into any specific economic theory, but this above noted cohort of non-participants collecting a base amount of guaranteed welfare/allowance will likely keep wages stable for those whom are still working full-time. If all people capable of working full-time, entered the job market simultaneously, wages would crash and to a certain extent have, as of 2014.

Contrary to popular, academic and authoritative opinions, history has already proved my above inference to be VERY effective against the 1% quest to drive down wages. Hence, if those NOT in the 1% refused to get married or have babies from here on out & aggressively blocked any future immigration, both legal and illegal, the 1% would very quickly need to raise wages for non-land owing/peasants/undesirables/wage-laborers, etc. Otherwise nothing the 1% want to get "worked on" would ever get done. When low-wage/low-skilled labor becomes scarce in the larger market, wages go up, FOR EVERYBODY. For us the peasants, "self induced labor shortages" is one of the few ways to get the "owners of capital" to pay more for services rendered. This includes the concept of the UNION, but Americans have already voted against their interests in that respect. All they have left now to negotiate with is making less babies and stopping both legal & illegal immigration.

Its not simply about "wealth redistribution" and taxing those without children, its about overabundance of labor on the market and the ability of the 1% to artificially drive down wages of the 99%. When the Black Death came about and wiped out "excess labor", the 1%'ers of the day somehow found "extra money" to pay said labor, for services rendered. Which means it was always available and wages could have been higher previously, but instead the 1%, of the day, chose to play the game, "pit the desperate against each other".

The French Revolution and the Peasant's Revolt also function within my "scarce-labor of ALL types" theory, resulting in higher wages being paid to non-land owing/peasants/undesirables/wage-laborers. During the French Revolution, from 1789 to 1799, birth rates fell dramatically and the earlier he Peasants Revolt, of 1381, not surprisingly, had roots in the aftermath of the Black Death. In fact, the Peasants Revolt was triggered by the "Statute of Labourers 1351". The sustained wage growth for non-land owing, wage-laborers was rising so quickly that the English parliament, a few decades post the Black-Death, under King Edward III, introduced the "Statute of Labourers 1351", which was used by the "Owners of Capital", as an artificial means to drive down the wages of non-land owning peasants. Despite market conditions signalling the need for increased wages.

avalon.law.yale.edu...

The Statute of Laborers; 1351 ("Statutes of the Realm," vol. i. p. 307.)

Its simple, newborn babies, legal immigrants and illegal immigrants destroy the wage negotiating power of the 99% and the 1% know this.

Hi, taxed/kid fans?

Should people without children pay higher taxes?

! ! Welllll, if you don't, you are VERY LUCKY ! !

PEOPLE WITHOUT CHILDREN __DO__ PAY HIGHER TAXES, here where I live,
in Quebec Canada !!

We pay the same ratios of taxes as anybody else, __BUT__ with kids, or
if we take care of other persons (dependent persons), we have tax "deductions".

So without kids or other dependent person, NO tax DEDUCTION !! We pay more !!

Blue skies.

reply to post by boohoo

I agree with most everything you say except well
I don't see we the people as having enough influence with those in gov't to be able to block immigration.

reply to post by Night Star


Married couples get tax breaks as well. A lot of things are holdovers from when women were not allowed to work, tax breaks for being a married couple and allimoney payments for example.

I agree with the premise of a flat sales tax, no income tax. Imported luxury items should be double taxed though IMO. Maybe help stimulate some manufacturing.

reply to post by luciddream


How is that possible when there are no jobs left for the younger generations? What is it like 1/3 of young adults are back living with their parents? We've got a huge chunk of the population rapidly declining in age and a young workforce unemployed living in mommy and daddy's basement.

Its been a trend for a very long time to incentivize having kids, owning a house, and generally locking into being a drone of society. Tax breaks, kickbacks, benefits.....having kids is a golden ticket in this country.

Why do you think that is?

luciddream
We should not be dividing government debt as not our own. Ours government debt is ours, like it or not.

Government needs newborns, who will be the future money makers to pay the debt.

If population suddenly stops having kids, imagine the impact 18 yrs from now.

It will probably be raised taxes and other ways to get money from living people.


We now have a way where we funnel money, get money from young working kids to pay for gov pension and other social security.. and us whoa re paying those tax, hoping the next generation will pay for us.

This is how the system works.

And you don't see the flaw in that logical breakdown? I mean it's quite apparent with today's reality since people in a recessionary period tend to not have as many kids, coupled with these same people shouldering the debt of the aging boomers is a recipe for disaster. Taxing people because they don't want to have children is just a stupid suggestion that won't fix anything.

I can speak from experiance my taxes this year made me so angry because first I have no kids therefore I can only claim myself. Second I dont own a home but pay out my ass every month for rent which is definitely more than a typical mortgage is in my area (I have looked) so no credit for that. Bought a car this year so im 15k in debt with that but oh wait you only get credit if the car is bran spankin new so no credit for that.... Want to use the FAFSA program to go to school but until your married or in the military or are in physical danger when contating your parents you must include your parents income on the form until you are 24 so it looks like you make wayyy more money in a year. So I get no money for school so I cant go to school and have to work my ass off to keep a roof over my head and feed myself...anddd there is no credit for that. Lastly I personally do not want to get married because I am not religious and to me its just a peice of paper if I want to spend my life with someone I am going to do just that. But guess what you get no credit. So I made 35k this year and I paided 2k in taxes throughout the year and I get a whopping $116 back... wow thank you this will help me soooo much For perspective my coworker who makes the same amount as me is married with 5 kids (yes 5!) and got back almost 6k....yea taxes are bs

reply to post by watchitburn


It should be the other way around. Those with more kids should pay more taxes. I don't think my taxes should pay for another's brood. We have too many people as it is. I'll be damned if I more taxes for being responsible and limiting my reproduction.