a question on taxes in America (Page 3)

Just cause they are wearing naughty nurse outfits does not mean they are working their way through nurshing school guys.

Just because she called me daddy . . .  sorry lost my thought there.

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.

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.

I'm with trinnas on this. And making it "the first child" is foolish. The first child could have Down's syndrome, or cystic fibrosis, or any number of congenital conditions that decrease life span or long term prospects. They could be in an accident. 

Although I tell my younger daughter that she is the "spare" (and like a spare tire, only there for when the main tire is damaged), in reality, making some sort of medieval declaration of primogeniture is pretty ridiculous.

I'm OK with living in a society that sees educating (and feeding and caring for) its children as an investment in our future.  really.  it's not a bad thing.

Excuse me..  I bear the cost by paying your Dr. son $50K for open heart surgery... or at least my insurance does which now we will all pay together.

The thought experiment is pointless. If we have no more children, the human race will die. Sex is one of the most powerful drivers in our body. EVERYTHING I do can be tied to my urge to have it and seek mates. What I'm asking is why does that have to be monetarily incentivized by tax money? Or to ask another way, what benefit to society is that tax money providing? Simple question.

No, $1000 credit does not pay for your kid... far from it, so what is the point? Better yet, if we can agree to cut parents some slack, why do agree to cut slack for having 3-5-7 kids? Frankly, I find more than 3 irresponsible... but that is only an intellectual musing. I am not in favor of population control or telling people how many kids they can have, but why are we encouraging tax breaks for 7 kids? Two of my coworkers have 5 kids each. They would have 5 kids regardless of how little tax they pay. It's like having a deduction for bowel movements. We all have them, it's going to happen no matter what. Why do we put a monetary incentive on it with tax credits and deductions?

Maybe you have missed the medical developments of the last 5 or 6 decades but sex no longer automatically means procreation.

Withougt children you can just keep you $50k as there will be no doctor to pay to save your life.

Tell you what I will give up my deductions when you give up yours, including my $1k child deduction. As for the standard deduction the whole reason for that is to establish a baseline under which we as a society consider paying taxes is too onerous. Those deductions are not for "children" per se but are for dependents including adults in your household who get most or all of their support from your income. It is basically aligned so that most families do not pay taxes on income that would be at or below poverty level. I personaly believe you should have to pay something regardless of your situation, even if that sometihing is a nominal $20 bucks. The government is your and mine and we both bear some responsibility for paying for it.

On your coworkers: I have a coworker with on child and multiple rental properties. He pays far less in taxes than I do not because of the child but due to all his business deductions. I would rather pay for other peoples kids then their businesses. Do we need a revamp of the system, most decidely YES in my opinion but there are far more egrigious wrongs in the system than dependant tax deductions.

Right... so what you are telling me is that with out deductions for kids nobody would have them...that's what you are telling me?

I know what deductions are for, I have no kids, but I do claim my MIL as one. She lives with me and is disabled. If she did not live here, then she would be living in government housing and getting more government support. She would be using more tax money than I get back form the deduction.

And I already said don't do away with deductions, but what is wrong with a max of two? Here is a little break for you guys to get started, or help out a family member, but after that... figure it out.

I've also said perhaps we should not have a mortgage deduction. I'm OK with that. We should have a lot less deductions.

Bottom line is this... the tax code is nothing but a shell game. They give here to disguise taking over there. It hides who is actually paying for what, and how much. It is a vote buying machine used to hand out money to constituents to gain political power. It is a gigantic f'n mess. Never once have I said I want to take your deductions but keep mine. Get rid of them all. If pay the same, or pay more fine. As long as it fixes the problems this country faces. Rationalizing why we should get to feel less pain than the other guy simply perpetuates those problems and accomplishes exactly what the BS tax code wants.

Sorry, I don't mean to direct frustrations at you personally. You're still great.

I was referencing the thought experiment where we all stop having kids.

So you are fine with your deductions just not with someone who has more than you do. And here is why nothing ever gets done about the tax system.

You obviously skipped over everything I said except the first sentence.

^^^ Sweet!

All I was wondering in the beginning is why do we have a deduction for just birthing a child? Obviously, that opens the door to every deduction and how they rate. At that point it get pretty absurd as you pointed out, that there are musc more egregious deductions out there than a young human being.

So ya, it gets silly to argue over smoke and mirrors instead of the real problem. I doubt we are very far apart in our desire to see a much simpler tax code and a government than spends those taxes prudently and responsibly, what ever that amount ends up being, or our share of it.

The only thing I did think of in this thread is consumption tax and kids. I am for a consumption tax, not really against a VAT... at least a VAT is much more complicated and we can still employ all those tax people. Flat tax is the last thing the middle class wants. I am OK with a progressive tax, but not as progressive as it is now.... that is assuming all the craziness ends and everyone actually pays what they should.

But I never thought about a consumption tax and families. Kids consume and the parents are stuck with the taxes. In that case, families would pay more in taxes than I would with no kids... even though out rates would be the same. In that case I  could actually see a need for deductions for dependents. Not that I would want to start adding in more deductions, but I could live with that. I still think though that there should be a max, 2-3. I don't know. It's a start.

The problem with a VAT is that it is a hidden tax, so it will end up being the same shell game taxes are now. People need to see what they are paying or they loose track of the cost of government. Wen they loose track of the cost of government they tend to start demanding more and more and we get right back to where we are now. I am actually for a flat tax with a generous personal deduction under which you pay a set fee of say $50 bucks on that income.

SEE!!! I wish there was a smiley face with the two fingers going eye to eye...

That is exactly why I do not want a VAT... much too hidden, more shell games. I get the intellectual argument for VAT, I just don't want our government administering it.

TriSquared says if we wrote out a check for our taxes people would pay more attention... that is exactly why I want a consumption tax. Everything everyone would buy would be effective and tax hikes would not go by unnoticed.

A flat tax is the simplest. But all he figures I have seen show about a 25% flat tax across the board. That would open a lot of people eyes. That would be huge to middle and lower class.