posted on June 28, 2001 10:59:02 PM new
So do people with tax shelters or any other numerous tax deductions. My best friend who is married and they both work with no children when all was said and done paid less taxes last year than I did. Granted she is probably the exception not the rule but no people with more kids don't neccesarily pay less taxes. I hardly think the government graciously allowing me to keep my own money constitutes my not supporting my own children without their help. Take any person in society and there (with the exception of one) will always be someone who pays more taxes and someone who pays less. Do I think the whole nation minus the guy who paid the highest dollar amount are not suppoting themselves or taking government welfare? Nope I don't think that.
I do think the goverment takes far too may taxes from ALL people and there is plenty of room to cut the pork but that's a different thread.
Hepburn
No no good mud here we have clay Rock hard clay. What I would give for a good garden.
Oddish~ The Odd One
posted on June 28, 2001 11:33:18 PM new
I've always wondered why my sister never had children, but I've never asked her. I asked my mother once why my sister had never had children, and my mother said she had never asked her either. This isn't something about me and my mother, it's something about my sister that I can't quite put my finger on. Not that we're not close, we've always lived either in the same house, or on the same street. We argue. We take vacations together.
But there's a certain something about my sister that's difficult to describe, that gave even my mother and me the unmistakable impression that asking such a personal question would be inappropriate.
What this is all getting around to is this - I think that not only the attitudes of questioners have changed, but that the attitudes of the potentially questioned has changed. Maybe it's that we're all less formal people used to be, that we seem more open...
A truly "total stranger" might ask someone why they have so many children, but could never ask someone why they have no children. If we see a man and a woman on the street with 10 children, we could jump to the conclusion that they were the parents of those 10 children. But if we saw a couple on the street with no children, we couldn't jump to the conclusion that they had none.
So, someone who asks why you have no children probably isn't a total stranger, but more in the realm of a casual acquaintance, and it might be that we're exuding something that gives an unspoken message that those kinds of questions would be perceived as appropriate.
posted on June 29, 2001 06:05:33 AM new
When I was married, I didn't work outside the house even though I didn't have children. I was amazed at the number of people that found this offensive - and the number of them that had to ask my ex-husband why he "allowed" me to do that.
He's a class act, my ex; his answer was always, "Because it makes her happy."
One of his friends actually had the nerve to tell him that he thought I was ripping him off by not bringing money into the house. Of course what he couldn't see was that by my liking and doing the housework, shopping, paying bills, etc., the ex actually got his weekends off to play. All he could see was a free-loading wife.
Before this thread scrolls away, I just want to respond to your allegation that I am in the business of "baiting" posters.
You state,
posted on June 28, 2001 08:21:35 AM new
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Helen - I've watched you bait peopleon other threads so I know better than to fall victim to it here."
I have not attempted to "bait" you or anybody else at any time. I have disagreed with some posts, but that should not be viewed as "baiting." The fact that some people respond in an emotional and inappropriate manner is not my fault.
Thank you for realizing that my comment to your thread was not intended as bait. As I understand "baiting", it is an effort to get someone's
posting priviledges revoked. That is not my game. If you will review the posts that you watched, I am sure that you will agree.
I think video PC's will improve out ability to communicate without so much misunderstanding.
...but no people with more kids don't neccesarily pay less taxes.
See now- here's the problem... that doesn't address my previous comment. What I said was-
...everything else equal, people with lots of children pay less taxes than people with none.
Note the part that says "everything else equal".
There's a guy I work with who has a wife and 9 kids. He pays a monthly medical insurance co-payment of $100. I have no dependents, and pay a co-payment of $60. I'm paying at a rate of $60 per person while he's paying at a rate of $10 per person, and he doesn't think he's getting any kind of a break, either.
I hardly think the government graciously allowing me to keep my own money constitutes my not supporting my own children without their help.
Well, unless you personally wrote and passed the tax laws which allow you to keep more of your money because you have children, I would argue that you did get help from somebody else.
posted on June 29, 2001 12:37:27 PM new
mrpotatohead -- your argument is logical as an isolated point, but it needs to be considered as part of the larger tax picture. There are many circumstances where, all other factors being equal, we're taxed differently.
It could just as easily be argued that the government supports homeowners by offering large deductions for mortgage interest but leaves renters out in the cold.
The government supports business owners by offering deductions for business expenses; non-business owners have none.
I understand where you're coming from and I've had similar thoughts since I've also chosen not to have children, but the child tax credit is only one among many.
posted on June 29, 2001 01:22:02 PM new
"It could just as easily be argued that the government supports homeowners by offering large deductions for mortgage interest but leaves renters out in the cold."
There's no argument here, it's true
There's a perceived societal benefit to people having families and owning houses, and that philosophy is reflected in the government's encouragement of those actions.
posted on June 29, 2001 01:30:22 PM new
Ah, but then there's the conflicting "marriage penalty." It doesn't quite fit in with the home/family tax break thing....
posted on June 29, 2001 01:51:20 PM newThere's a perceived societal benefit to people having families and owning houses, and that philosophy is reflected in the government's encouragement of those actions.
Is "encouraging" people to live their lives as others (government? society?) think is best one of the founding principles of this country? I wouldn't have thought so, but I suppose I could be wrong...
posted on June 29, 2001 03:24:19 PM new
Nope, the marriage penalty doesn't fit in, when you put together a government policy piecemeal, there'll probably always be some pieces that don't fit.
"Is "encouraging" people to live their lives as others (government? society?) think is best one of the founding principles of this country? I wouldn't have thought so, but I suppose I could be wrong..."
Well, yes, I think that there was always a sense, back to the founding of the country, that there were some behaviors that were conducive to a stable long lasting society. Remember, they thought that having religion was a good thing, and though freedom of religion is plainly stated in the Constitution, the government, at the same time, encourages organized religion by grating religious institutions tax-exempt status for many of their activities, and making religious contributions tax-deductible.
I don't say that it's really to the benefit of society to encourage the formation of families, or even that the implementation of this public policy is efficacious at all (in 4 years my last child will graduate from college and I'll lose my last child-related tax deduction. Not all the tea in China, let alone a measly tax-deduction, would induce me to start another round of this.) All I'm saying is if you perceive that there's some grand plan to reward some for their choices, while penalizing you for yours, you're right.
posted on June 29, 2001 07:34:57 PM new
My husband and I didn't have children due to a medical condition of mine. He does have a daughter from a previous marriage. But, she is like my own child. She will tell people that I am more of a mother to her then her own mother. And have always referred to her as my daughter. When people use to ask me why I didn't have any children of my own. I would look them straight in the eye and tell them because I can't stand the little rugrats. Of course, they didn't know about my daughter that I inherited when I married my husband. That would always shut them up.
posted on June 29, 2001 09:44:28 PM newAll I'm saying is if you perceive that there's some grand plan to reward some for their choices, while penalizing you for yours, you're right.
I have no doubt of that. It was oddish4 who said:
I (and my husband) support all our children by ourselves with no government or any other kind of help...
posted on June 29, 2001 10:03:59 PM new
I think Oddish was saying she doesnt get welfare, or depend on handouts from the government to feed her large family; that she and her husband work hard to support them, feed them, cloth them and keep a roof over their heads. And I personally think they are to be commended for it. Its hard work to raise one kid, much less 7.
posted on June 30, 2001 12:51:39 AM new
No need to feel too taken advantage of, Mrpotatoheadd, you'll reap benefits from today's children, including Oddish's. Just think, if you're sitting around in your twilight years, and your house catches on fire, would you want to depend on a crew of 80 year old firemen? We'll all benefit from children, even if they're not ours.
Rock hard clay. What I would give for a good garden.