Childless people should pay more in taxes (Slate article)

valet

The official Chaplain of the Coli
Joined
May 18, 2012
Messages
30,349
Reputation
6,425
Daps
65,861
Reppin
Detroit
Just posting this. Not my view necessarily.

When my mother was my age, she was working full time while raising three small children, and she spent every spare moment studying to finish a
graduate degree. My father was working extremely hard as well. Between the two of them, they were able to provide their kids with a solidly middle-class life. But it wasn’t easy, and it wasn’t always fun.

So now, as a childless professional in my mid-30s, I often reflect on the sacrifices working parents make to better the lives of their children. And I have come to the reluctant conclusion that I ought to pay much higher taxes so that working parents can pay much lower taxes. I believe this even though I also believe a not inconsiderable share of my tax dollars are essentially being set on fire by our frighteningly incompetent government. Leviathan is here to stay, whether I like it or not, and someone has to pay for it. That someone should be me, and people like me.

Who should pay more? Nonparents who earn more than the median household income, just a shade above $51,000. By shifting the tax burden from parents to nonparents, we will help give America’s children a better start in life, and we will help correct a simple injustice. We all benefit from the work of parents. Each new generation reinvigorates our society with its youthful vim and vigor. As my childless friends and I grow crankier and more decrepit, a steady stream of barely postpubescent brainiacs writes catchy tunes and invents breakthrough technologies that keep us entertained and make us more productive. The willingness of parents to bear and nurture children saves us from becoming an economically moribund nation of hateful curmudgeons. The least we can do is offer them a bigger tax break.

Read the rest. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...uld_pay_lower_taxes_and_childless_people.html
 

Skooby

Alone In My Zone
Supporter
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Messages
25,665
Reputation
10,720
Daps
60,680
Reppin
The Cosmos
I'm also a childless professional in my mid-30s and I don't want to pay a penny more than I have to. People who have children should budget for them. The sacrifices they make shouldn't come into the equation. They choose to have a kid, they should live with that decision with no extra benefits.
 

Camile.Bidan

Banned
Joined
Jan 7, 2014
Messages
1,973
Reputation
-1,756
Daps
2,325
let's see... current tax code... Assume a 25% tax rate for simplicity. Assume both people take the Standard deduction rather than itemizing.

one person (X) makes 50K (non parent)

One person (Y)makes 50K (has two kids)

X gets a one personal deduction and a standard deduction ( 3,950 + 6100) for a total 10,050. This leaves person X with a taxable income of 39,950. Person X owes Obama a total of $9987.50 dollars . Person X gets no EIC to apply to his tax liability.

Y, correctly files as a head of household, and gets a standard deduction of 9100, and the gets a personal deduction plus two fukking kids for a total of (3 * 3950) 11,850+9100 or 20,950. Person Y has a taxable income of $29,050. Person Y owes Obama $7262.50 But wait! Person Y also qualifies for EIC. SO person Y gets a tax credit of $(3,423) Person Y has a total tax liability of (7262.50-3423) of 3839.50.


The parent owes 3839.50 the non parent owes 9987.50. The parent pays less than half of what the non parent pays.

The parent has an effective tax rate of 3839/50,000 or 7%. The non parent has an effective tax rate of 20%. How much more is enough? I don't don't understand.

Does the author know anything about the tax code at all? I shouldn't even ask, it's always the same crap with progressives.
 
Last edited:

Brown_Pride

All Star
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
6,416
Reputation
786
Daps
7,887
Reppin
Atheist for Jesus
let's see... current tax code... Assume a 25% tax rate for simplicity. Assume both people take the Standard deduction rather than itemizing.

one person (X) makes 50K (non parent)

One person (Y)makes 50K (has two kids)

X gets a one personal deduction and a standard deduction ( 3,950 + 6100) for a total 10,050. This leaves person X with a taxable income of 39,950. Person X owes Obama a total of $9987.50 dollars . Person X gets no EIC to apply to his tax liability.

Y, correctly files as a head of household, and gets a standard deduction of 9100, and the gets a personal deduction plus two fukking kids for a total of (3 * 3950) 11,850+9100 or 20,950. Person Y has a taxable income of $29,050. Person Y owes Obama $7262.50 But wait! Person Y also qualifies for EIC. SO person Y gets a tax credit of $(3,423) Person Y has a total tax liability of (7262.50-3423) of 3839.50.


The parent owes 3839.50 the non parent owes 9987.50. The parent pays less than half of what the non parent pays.

The parent has an effective tax rate of 3839/50,000 or 7%. The non parent has an effective tax rate of 20%. How much more is enough? I don't don't understand.

Does the author know anything about the tax code at all? I shouldn't even ask, it's always the same crap with progressives.
basically this. I already thought they did pay more....
 

FaTaL

Veteran
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
106,915
Reputation
5,539
Daps
212,759
Reppin
NULL
Childless people should pay less taxes for not being a burden on society and having kids before they're ready.

Oh, it was hard for your parents to raise kids on their shytty salary? They shouldn't have had you before they were financially ready. :camby:
2nqytl4.jpg
 

mbewane

Knicks: 93 til infinity
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
19,424
Reputation
4,321
Daps
56,327
Reppin
Brussels, Belgium
Already the case in Belgium and in France I believe, I mean we don't pay more in absolute numbers but relatively more. It's not about taxing childless people more (as in "punishing" them, something negative) but about taxing people with children relatively less (something positive) in order to sustain natural population growth. It's the same logic with an appartment with one room and one with two rooms. All things being equal, the second is more expensive in absolute terms, but cheaper in relative terms.

In developped countries, having kids is more expensive than not having kids on a micro-level, but at the macro-level it's ultimately more expensive not to have kids than to have them. Thus countries seek to support families with kids by various incentives.
 

Detroit Wave

Veteran
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
23,639
Reputation
8,265
Daps
98,546
Reppin
The D
Childless people should pay less taxes for not being a burden on society and having kids before they're ready.

Oh, it was hard for your parents to raise kids on their shytty salary? They shouldn't have had you before they were financially ready. :camby:
this
 
Top