Tax the Childless - lower taxes for parents

[lawfulevil]

They have not. My "retirement" will be the 15 seconds between realizing I'm dying (at my desk at work) and actually expiring.

[bekkah]

I pay property taxes which a portion goes to the schools in my state. I work with youth all day for my job. I'm studying to be a teacher. If I choose not to have children,I will be penalized. I am contributing to youth and helping them achieve their dreams. I think its ridiculous idea. This makes me :angry-banghead: .

You choose to bring a child into this world knowing how much it costs. They get tax credits. They pay lower taxes. I am single and pay more taxes. I don't think I need to pay a higher rate just to give parents more of a tax break.

[roddma]

One of my childfree friends posted about this earlier, and her entire comment on it was, and I'll just c/p this, "Your kids will be paying for my social security, so I'm fine chipping in for their care to help them get raised right." I was stunned to see her say that. She's against the ACA and pretty much everything else, but is okay with higher taxes since she's not raising any future-tax-payers to fund her retirement years.

Uh No one pays for anyone else' social security and furthermore, she is child-free which I assume she chose. Some of us don't get to choose by circumstance or medical problems. Not everyone is meant to be assets in society. You never know how a person will turn out. By her definition, she has already paid for someone . And what about the women who never worked? Someone mentioned children are the future, they are their own future.

Raising taxes on the childless is taxation without representation. It can cover abroad range of citizens and circumstances .Do people without cars pay for people with cars? Do non-smokers pay for the health care of smokers? It makes no sense.

[mypsychoticself]

Raising taxes on the childless is taxation without representation. It can cover abroad range of citizens and circumstances .Do people without cars pay for people with cars? Do non-smokers pay for the health care of smokers? It makes no sense.

How is that taxation without representation? Are childless people not allowed to vote?

Also, non-smokers do help pay for the health care of smokers, whether through insurance or taxes.

[lizziesmom]

Childless/child free people are already penalized when compared to married couples with kids -- tons of deductions for them and other tax credits. We vote too. This is BS as far as I am concerned. How about reforming the tax laws by reducing the amount of corporate welfare, agriculture entitlements and some of the other 'on the dole' programs that have been around far too long and are sacred cows?

[GolightlyGrrl]

How is that taxation without representation? Are childless people not allowed to vote?

Also, non-smokers do help pay for the health care of smokers, whether through insurance or taxes.

Ugh, don't give the quiverfull fundies any ideas. I'm sure if they had any say, they'd strip the vote from anyone who doesn't have kids for any reason.

[Mecca]

How is that taxation without representation? Are childless people not allowed to vote?

Also, non-smokers do help pay for the health care of smokers, whether through insurance or taxes.

Yeah, but non-smokers are not made to pay a much higher premium while the smokers get to enjoy paying a much cheaper insurance premium.

[roddma]

Taxation without representation is forcing taxes on a certain group of people without consent or anyone representing their interests.

[Rainytown]

As of the last census, 13 million women between 40-44 reported that they did not have children.

I can safely predict that the childfree community would take to the streets over any such legislation. We're already paying through the nose for other people's kids via tax deductions and public education. For instance: We've been out of school for 30 years. We paid off our public education a long time ago. We pay and pay and pay, and we have NO say over people who decide to "homeschool" by using the Bible as a textbook, etcetera. Their kids will not be equipped to for a future as productive members of society, and we'll be paying again due to funding social services for them and THEIR children.

The only way those of us without children will be paying additional taxes will be if we have some say over how those children are raised. I'm sure this won't be a problem, will it?

Of course, IMHO.

[lilwriter85]

I agree with Rainytown, the childfree community would protest that kind of legislation. There are many in childfree community who don't have issues with families getting tax deductions and having to pay taxes that support public education, but if they were to be taxed higher for not having children, they would be pissed.

[Arete]

Taxation Without Representation- means that no one is representing a constituent's interests in a legislative body. If this tax passed, it would NOT be taxation without representation, because elected officials would pass it. You may not like it, but if your representative in the legislature voted for it, it isn't taxation without representation.

For the record, I would fight punitive taxation like this one tooth and nail.

[roddma]

I agree with Rainytown, the childfree community would protest that kind of legislation. There are many in childfree community who don't have issues with families getting tax deductions and having to pay taxes that support public education, but if they were to be taxed higher for not having children, they would be pissed.

Agree. We were kids once who used the system and you can even claim adult dependents in some cases. But to raise taxes on those who don't have kids for whatever reason is another story. Instead of raising taxes on one group of citizens, why not budget and allocate the tax money better?

[Childless]

As of the last census, 13 million women between 40-44 reported that they did not have children.

I can safely predict that the childfree community would take to the streets over any such legislation. We're already paying through the nose for other people's kids via tax deductions and public education. For instance: We've been out of school for 30 years. We paid off our public education a long time ago. We pay and pay and pay, and we have NO say over people who decide to "homeschool" by using the Bible as a textbook, etcetera. Their kids will not be equipped to for a future as productive members of society, and we'll be paying again due to funding social services for them and THEIR children.

The only way those of us without children will be paying additional taxes will be if we have some say over how those children are raised. I'm sure this won't be a problem, will it?

Of course, IMHO.

I have a kid and I'd still be out there protesting this with the childfree community. Punishing someone for a lifestyle choice is not acceptable.

[itsnotmeitsu]

I don't want to raise anyone's taxes, I do with that the childcare credit was a better percentage of what you actually paid. We paid $12K last year in childcare, and got $600 off our taxes. (And it makes me wonder what in the H*ll I was wasting this much money on before I had a child). I didn't have kids as an investment, but I didn't realize how bad it was.

I'm all about a better use of my tax dollars. I am a supporter of WIC, because no matter how they got into this world, kids shouldn't go hungry. And we shouldn't shame people who use it, because there but for the grace of God go any of us, and I am not done raising kids, I might need WIC or foodstamps til I'm done. But it's also not fair that people make babies and there is no real consequence to them not supporting them, then we have politicians who want to ban abortion, but don't want to close the loopholes in the safety net so that you can raise the child you had to bring into the world.

[Ave Maria]

There are already benefits for parents/young families. I don't think childless people should be penalized further, and it isn't just because I currently am one (though the idea of paying adoption fees and waiting while also being taxed more because things aren't proceeding does sting, I'll admit).

Policies that tax everyone for not having children, even if they are single, seem odd to me, even if I wasn't opposed to the idea in general. It doesn't seem right to fault people for not settling on the wrong relationship. But then if they started it only for married people, are you really going to tax a newlywed for not managing a honeymoon baby? Some people are single, infertile, etc, etc, and even if the goal is to raise the birthrate, I don't think punitive measures are fair or wise.

[DGayle]

Yeah, but non-smokers are not made to pay a much higher premium while the smokers get to enjoy paying a much cheaper insurance premium.

As a non-smoker, I'm subsidizing the choice of those who do smoke. The argument can be made that people without kids are subsidizing those who do have them. At least with the former, people who choose to do something still have to contribute.

[Mecca]

As a non-smoker, I'm subsidizing the choice of those who do smoke. The argument can be made that people without kids are subsidizing those who do have them. At least with the former, people who choose to do something still have to contribute.

Yes, we subsidize many personal choices because that is how insurance works, but as I stated, we, non-smokers are not made to pay higher premiums while the non-smokers are paying less in premiums. That is what is being suggested us childless do. Pay even more for other people's choices while others pay less. Oddly enough, I am on my husband's insurance and a family policy is a family policy. My husband and I have to pay the same premium as a family of, say, six.

And let me say again because I do not want it getting lost in the shuffle, I have no problem paying my fair share for the betterment of society. I just believe paying more simply because of a health issue or a personal choice is wrong and punative in nature. It still ticks me off anyone suggesting such.

[DGayle]

As of the last census, 13 million women between 40-44 reported that they did not have children.

I can safely predict that the childfree community would take to the streets over any such legislation. We're already paying through the nose for other people's kids via tax deductions and public education. For instance: We've been out of school for 30 years. We paid off our public education a long time ago. We pay and pay and pay, and we have NO say over people who decide to "homeschool" by using the Bible as a textbook, etcetera. Their kids will not be equipped to for a future as productive members of society, and we'll be paying again due to funding social services for them and THEIR children.

The only way those of us without children will be paying additional taxes will be if we have some say over how those children are raised. I'm sure this won't be a problem, will it?

Of course, IMHO.

Which do you think costs less? Funding education or funding jails? What YOU get by there being schools for other people's kids is lower crime, which makes you safer. Would you rather stop funding schools and paying more for jails? It costs about $10k per year per student, or $50k-$70k for an inmate. You personally benefit from your contributions to educating other people's kids.

[DGayle]

Yes, we subsidize many personal choices because that is how insurance works, but as I stated, we, non-smokers are not made to pay higher premiums while the non-smokers are paying less in premiums. That is what is being suggested us childless do. Pay even more for other people's choices while others pay less. Oddly enough, I am on my husband's insurance and a family policy is a family policy. My husband and I have to pay the same premium as a family of, say, six.

And let me say again because I do not want it getting lost in the shuffle, I have no problem paying my fair share for the betterment of society. I just believe paying more simply because of a health issue or a personal choice is wrong and punative in nature. It still ticks me off anyone suggesting such.

Did you know it costs more per kid to put them on a family plan if you have a single kid than if you've got 19? No matter how many kids you have, if you have a family plan through work, you pay the same price. When we had just a single, it was $450 for one kid. My husband had a coworker with six kids, and he paid $450 also. People with less kids heavily subsidize the people with a whole bunch. You can say we're being penalized in insurance because it was $450 per kid for use and $75 per kid for him.

Your husband's work should have an employee+spouse plan. "Family" is supposed to be "all the kids."

[roddma]

Which do you think costs less? Funding education or funding jails? What YOU get by there being schools for other people's kids is lower crime, which makes you safer. Would you rather stop funding schools and paying more for jails? It costs about $10k per year per student, or $50k-$70k for an inmate. You personally benefit from your contributions to educating other people's kids.

I don't think they are in no way hinting we would rather pay for jails. Many of us are willing to pay for education because we used the system ourselves.. People without kids for various reasons or another do not want to pay more taxes.

[Mecca]

Did you know it costs more per kid to put them on a family plan if you have a single kid than if you've got 19? No matter how many kids you have, if you have a family plan through work, you pay the same price. When we had just a single, it was $450 for one kid. My husband had a coworker with six kids, and he paid $450 also. People with less kids heavily subsidize the people with a whole bunch. You can say we're being penalized in insurance because it was $450 per kid for use and $75 per kid for him.

Your husband's work should have an employee+spouse plan. "Family" is supposed to be "all the kids."

Yep. I really wish employers did not have so much control over healthcare and insurance, but they do.

I could go on a ten year rant about my husband's company's health insurance, but I will spare the class. Short version: I have had pretty significant healthcare issues over the last two years -- ten hospitalization and four surgeries. The insurance coverage has progressively gotten worse, but it is so bad this year, we are contemplating moving back to Australia for my healthcare needs. I hate the healthcare in the state we currently live in also. It sucks. Our deductible is insane and our out of pocket expense is crazy high. Basically, we pay high premiums for worthless coverage. The only benefit I see from our insurance policy as of right now is the benefit of the contractual rate. I had bloody kidney surgery a month ago and that did not even get me to my deductible. The hospital also required the total of my surgery upfront. Yeah, that hurt....a lot. Nuts and very stressful.

[RosyDaisy]

I would not mind paying more taxes if it funded a universal healthcare system, veterans, the elderly, the poor, and disabled.

[Mama Mia]

Did you know it costs more per kid to put them on a family plan if you have a single kid than if you've got 19? No matter how many kids you have, if you have a family plan through work, you pay the same price. When we had just a single, it was $450 for one kid. My husband had a coworker with six kids, and he paid $450 also. People with less kids heavily subsidize the people with a whole bunch. You can say we're being penalized in insurance because it was $450 per kid for use and $75 per kid for him.

Your husband's work should have an employee+spouse plan. "Family" is supposed to be "all the kids."

It varies by insurance plan. Currently the plan we have is broken down by the following options: Employee only, Employee+Spouse, Employee+Up to 4 children, Employee+4 or more children, Employee +Family (spouse and up to 4 children), and Employee+Family (spouse +more than 4 children. With the prices getting progressively higher with each category.

I've had various other price breakdowns over the years with different employers and insurers. Usually with the dividing line for children being 1 or more than 1 , and always a separate option for employee and just spouse or employee and just children.

[mypsychoticself]

I don't think they are in no way hinting we would rather pay for jails. Many of us are willing to pay for education because we used the system ourselves.. People without kids for various reasons or another do not want to pay more taxes.

Pretty much nobody wants to pay more taxes.