a question on taxes in America (Page 2)

A vast majority of this country was educated in the public school system so like it or not a generalization was warranted. Shall I now make sure that every post I post takes into account every possible permutation of ever possible outcome and input?

Would they still not want to live there if they did not get tax breaks? They still need a home. School districts are an example and you can argue it increases property value, but what are the real numbers?

And we can all support schools and infrastructure and community in our areas... but why am I paying for people to have kids? Why is it that just because someone has a kid, they pay less tax? The vast majority of people have kids, why should I have to pay more for not?

I suppose so, but for those people we are talking about, do you really think it would make a difference? If you can't figure out your finances as simple as gross and net... I doubt writing out a check is going to change much. Sheep will be sheep.

I don't know why do I have to pay more for owning my house instead of having a mortgage deduction.  Why should I pay more cause I don't want to buy a smart coffin? why should I pay more for you pet ideologies that are not mine...?  Maybe we should quit playing this game and make taxes about generating revenue instead of social engineering.

Yes I do.  The difference is not seeing $100-$150 a week in taxes off your $1200 paycheck vs writing a $1200-1800 check every April.  It'd make a huge difference i perception.  And likely most would not have the $$1200-1800 in April to pay it.

That was pretty much my point. I don't necessarily care if I do have a mortgage deduction. I would still want to own my house. Now if that turned out that nobody ever owned a house except banks, and we all just rented, then all the wealth would not be in the hands of the people. You could argue that is good or bad... owning a home really isn't a good investment, it's just forced savings. So I don't know if home ownership is something that should be given incentives with the tax code.

I am all for a consumption tax or what ever to level the playing field and get rid of the ridiculous tax code we have.

It could be argued that families with kids have it tougher because the parents are essentially paying the taxes for the kids who are not earning money... but those kids have their whole life to pay back in. Meaning a consumption tax would hurt parents because they would consume more with additional mouths to feed. Regardless... I'm not arguing FOR any deductions... yet we have them. I'm just curious why I have to subsidize other people's kids when they are perfectly capable of paying for them... especially if they have 5 of them and pay little Federal taxes because of it.

No but it does mean you should refrain from snarky questions to other posters because you assume they fit into your generalization.

I didn't consider it a snarky question I considered it a legitimate question designed to make one think about their view of taxes payiing for schools.  You one the other hand decided you didn't like it and instead of arguing the underlying principle decided to play a game of brinksmanship.

So you don't see any value in having your peers in society having at least a basic education?   It sounds like your family was well-off enough to provided you education "off the public grid", so everyone else should be able to do it as well?  

It is not only your RIGHT to complain, it is your DUTY to complain.   Get involved in the system if you don't like how it works.  Go to PTA meetings, schoolboards, local govt. etc.  

Red State/Blue State and every color in between...It's suppossed to be OUR government.   If we get involved and stay vigilant to what our elected officials are doing, everybody wins.

I see this poncy scheme just like a Social Security thing.  No one will ever break it, so it continues on.

BUT...I would be ok with paying for one and only one other person to go through school.  That way, I have paid back what I took out.  If someone decides to have 3 kids, they get to pick up the tab for the other 2. 

I think that's fair

Almost forgot:  Love ya Trinnas!

It's just a perception thing... chicken or egg.  Trinnas sees it as paying back the system that provided us with public education.  I see it as paying for what's currently being used by kids - and therefore I feel the burden should be on parents.  In other words, my parents already paid for me.

But chances are the system isn't going to change

Well then, by your reasoning, the kids, when they grow up and pay taxes, should not have to pay for taxes that provide YOU with services. No social security, for example, or medicare; for that matter, police and fire services that you might receive, only YOU should be paying for, not society at large. And I sincerely hope you are not in one of the states that actually gets more money from the federal budget than it puts in, since that would mean I am paying for your stuff.

Like it or not, we are all interconnected. Even if you were schooled at home, you have benefited from the work that society at large has put forth. The clothes you wore? Someone farmed the cotton or raised the sheep for the wool, or drilled the oil for the petroleum in your polyesters; someone created the machinery that was used to make the fabric, someone used sewing machines (made through processes equally involved) to make the clothing, following patterns someone developed using education they obtained through no help of yours or your family's, sold to your family at a store that was run by people who were educated in how to run a business, with underwriting from a bank run by people who learned finances. The food you ate? Similar process. The power you used in your home for lights? The lights themselves? Even the Amish still have to engage "the English" for some things. (OK, not lights and cars, but other basic goods). And, as a society, we have decided (your disagreement notwhithstanding) that ensuring the next generation should be educated is, on the whole, beneficial to us. 

Ummm, you DO know it takes 2 people to make another one? Or are you saying that each family should have to pick the favored child to get the education? "Well, honey, we would have sent you to college, but your sister is our favorite. Anyway, the world needs more maids and strippers, so I'm sure you'll be fine..." And what about the families where the kids go into fields that don't need college (like plumbers. And strippers?)

Or are you against the whole public education till 18? I mean, I guess strippers don't really need any formal education, but really, I think there is a problem sending them off to work before 18, and what should we be doing with the kids till then?

Personally, I think training the kids to become productive useful citizens pays out in the long term. Which is really how we should be thinking. Not "I don't have a kid so I shouldn't pay for others". Besides, leaving the kids to their own devices is a recipe for trouble both now and in the future. Now, when they run amok with too much time on their hands, and in the future when we have to pay to incarcerate them, instead of having them pay into the system as productive humans.

Every stripper I've met has been working her way through nursing school.  I mean, hypothetically, every stripper I've met.

Post fixed ^^^^

not every country does this.....for example, in germany children have the option of entering the workforce to apprentice/learn a trade/become engineers at 13 or 14 years old....

So what I got from this post is that if you don't go to college then you become a stripper.  (a bit tongue in cheek)  Right now, in general, if a parent wants their kid to go to college they subsidize them or the child can get scholarships.  It's a choice.  I'm talking about K-12.

You, as a parent, don't have to choose your favorite child.  It's the first child.  The first kid gets free schooling paid for by US (both childless and with child).  If you (meaning parents) CHOOSE to have an extra child, they also understand that their costs will go up as well.  It's a simple math game really.  So on your tax form, instead of an EIC, there should be a line item for each additional child.  So at the end of they year, instead of getting extra money, you get to pay ($XXX).  Just like paying capital gains on your investments.

If more people would actually think about how much a child costs and bear the burden themselves, then perhaps less children would be born.  And, yes, I think this would be a good thing in general.

I'm loving this idea....

The child tax credit and EIC are two different thngs. it currently costs around $235K to raise a child to the age of 18. The child tax credit is $1000 a year for 18 years. Tell me again how I am not bearing the cost of rasing my child please? If you really think $1k a year is incientivising people to have children I wil give you $1000 and send you my son for a year. Tell me how that works out for you.

To those complaining about the shared societal responsibity for children: lets do a thought experiment. Lets say we all stop having children tomorrow. What do you think would happen to society? When you are old who will take care of you? Who will staff the hospital? Who will replace you in your job so the economy contnues to function? Who will pay the taxes for the upkeep of the roads and the fire depts and Police? Who will do all the things you take for granted now? The average american family has something like 2.4 children and that is continuing to drop. Whether you like it or not a society's future depends on it's children. If you want the future benefit maybe you should rethink your attitude about at least some of the shared costs of the present. My child may be the Dr. who saves you life when you have a heart attack or stroke or cancer when you get older. Does that mean anything goes or procreation at all costs?...NO. but it does mean that if you want the benefit you bear some of the cost.