July 21, 2007


Should people with no kids pay more taxes to cover the slack for those who can't afford their own kids? Good thing I'm not the only one who was horrified at the suggestion: this comments section was reassuring.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:38 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Try to grok the bigger picture, and take it from the 3rd richest man in the world: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/art icle1996735.ece Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

Posted by: q at July 21, 2007 05:40 AM (OIxDY)

2 q -- Congrats on missing the point of my post entirely and twisting it so you could make your own point.

Posted by: Sarah at July 21, 2007 06:11 AM (vrR+j)

3 If I missed the point in your two-sentence treatise, then yes I do deserve a commendation. I assumed you were on the topic of lower tax levels for families with kids versus families without. My point was maybe, as Warren Buffett testifies, the whole tax system is to be questioned. If that's a major twist for you, maybe you should see a back doctor.

Posted by: q at July 21, 2007 10:06 AM (OIxDY)

4 You already do pay proportionally more taxes for the two of you than a married couple with children, because of the deductions for children. Anything other than that is ridiculous.

Posted by: Anwyn at July 21, 2007 04:05 PM (aytNf)

5 Let me amend: anything other than that, that is specifically aimed at giving other people more money to raise their children, is ridiculous.

Posted by: Anwyn at July 21, 2007 04:06 PM (aytNf)

6 q -- My point was about taking personal responsibility for raising your own children without stealing money from others to do so. I do agree the tax system is broken, but that's another point entirely.

Posted by: Sarah at July 21, 2007 04:54 PM (vrR+j)

7 The personal responsibility dogma, ala the Ayndroids. Seems like quite a dodge. Does the idea of people with less disposable income paying less taxes than those with more really constitute stealing to you? How far do you carry that argument -- aren't all taxes stealing, then? Seems more likely you are on a roll of posting on a cranky lark. Maybe it's time to go back to knitting tales.

Posted by: q at July 22, 2007 03:20 AM (OIxDY)

8 q -- Look, did you even click on the link? It didn't say anything about rich people. It asked whether "dual income zero kids" folks should have to pay higher taxes. My brother-in-law and his wife fall in that category, and together they bring home about $3000 per month. What on earth makes it OK for them to have to pay more taxes than their peers with kids? They should not be punished for choosing not to start a family. This article's question doesn't rule out the fact that my brother-in-law might be expected to pay more taxes than someone who makes MORE money than him, simply because that person has kids and he doesn't. That's absurd. If you choose to have kids, you choose to provide for them. Why do you get to demand that others should contribute to your childrearing?

Posted by: Sarah at July 22, 2007 04:39 AM (vrR+j)

9 What a silly idea! Please! We have 2 short of a hockey team, and I choose to stay home. The funny thing? We have MORE disposable income and a more comfortable life now than we did when we had three kids and a dual income family! I submit the idea that part of the problem is our collective horrible money management skills - and we have no one to blame for that but ourselves. God knows hubby and I have had to be smacked a few times with the debt stick to finally figure it out. But never ONCE did I think anyone owed me anything. Heaven forbid!

Posted by: airforcewife at July 22, 2007 12:07 PM (emgKQ)

10 S, I agree with you -- basically neither family should be paying high taxes. But by participating in this rather artificial dog-eat-dog discussion you are pitting these types of families against each other, when the real culprit is the history of tax cuts for the rich. Hence my first "twisted" post.

Posted by: q at July 23, 2007 12:15 AM (OIxDY)

11 q, I'm trying to figure out what you're saying. Do you think that: - if tax cuts were minimized or eliminated - and the rich paid what you consider to be their fair share of taxes - then neither family would be paying high taxes?

Posted by: Amritas at July 23, 2007 05:18 AM (+nV09)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
46kb generated in CPU 0.0118, elapsed 0.0944 seconds.
48 queries taking 0.0866 seconds, 180 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.