Tea Parties

[MasterBates]

You can say it's incentivizing..

I see it as socialism and social engineering.

People say "well you can afford to pay more, and those motorcycles weren't going to pay X"

Me and LT Dave do equal work. We get equal pay. We do not pay equal taxes.

He chooses to have children and gets $250/wk more towards them.

The govt has decided I don't need that $250 and I can't spend it on SHIT because they took it.

So whether my bikes are productive members of society is a moot friggin point.

 

[Flash]

I see it as socialism and social engineering.

And encouraging something that is vital to the long-term survival as a country.

He chooses to have children and gets $250/wk more towards them.

The govt has decided I don't need that $250 and I can't spend it on SHIT because they took it.

Where do you get $250 a week? From what I can find the Child Tax Credit is $1000 per child, per year. There is a tax incentive, but it ain't that big.

So whether my bikes are productive members of society is a moot friggin point.

Your bikes will never be taxpayers.

 

[MasterBates]

The $250/wk is the difference we pay in income taxes alone (no child credits factored in) spread out over the whole year. See about 5 posts up where I pay $13,023 more a year in income tax.

 

[Flash]

The $250/wk is the difference we pay in income taxes alone (no child credits factored in) spread out over the whole year. See about 5 posts up where I pay $13,023 more a year in income tax.

Putting only the most basic data in I got $9000 for him and $16,000 for you. Still a bit of a difference but not as bad as $250 a week. Either way, he is still producing future taxpayers, so the government will get its money sooner or later.

 

[MasterBates]

I went to that website and entered him as Married, wife, 4 kids

That's the numbers it gave me when I did it then. How many kids did you put in?

 

[Flash]

I went to that website and entered him as Married, wife, 4 kids

That's the numbers it gave me when I did it then. How many kids did you put in?

I put in 4, total of 5 dependents including the wife.

Whatever you may think this country has decided it is in its best interest to encourage people having kids. I believe it is a wise decision, seeing what is happening to Japan and what will happen to China and others when their birthrate is not at a replacement rate. Bad things start cropping up when that happens.

 

[MasterBates]

Well, even though you think it's a good thing..

My opinion is that is SUCKS.. The Manatee costs me more than 3 kids would and I can't claim that sea cow as a dependent.

Maybe I'm a bit too jaded.

If you made 6 figures, lived in a camper and drove a truck with rust holes in the doors you would be too.

 

[HokiePilot]

I am not sure that I like the idea of a constantly increasing population is something that the government should encourage. There has to be some sort of limit as to how many people earth can support. I hope increasing technology can keep moving that number forward.

I see it as one big pyramid scheme that will eventually fail.

 

[jdw006]

"You can't fix stupid"

 

[Flash]

I am not sure that I like the idea of a constantly increasing population is something that the government should encourage. There has to be some sort of limit as to how many people earth can support. I hope increasing technology can keep moving that number forward.

A failure to sustain a replacement birthrate would be pretty bad too for a country, as some are about to find out.

 

[eddie]

I am not sure that I like the idea of a constantly increasing population is something that the government should encourage. There has to be some sort of limit as to how many people earth can support. I hope increasing technology can keep moving that number forward.

I see it as one big pyramid scheme that will eventually fail.

Pandemic seems to work pretty well...

 

[HokiePilot]

A failure to sustain a replacement birthrate would be pretty bad too for a country, as some are about to find out.

Is the sole reason for this that we have created programs that rely on an ever increasing population and any stopping or slowing of that will cause problems? Pyramid scheme?

I can't see any other reason for your insistence that population must expand.

I may be able to be convinced into agreeing with sustaining but not expanding population.

 

[Flash]

I can't see any other reason for your insistence that population must expand.

I may be able to be convinced into agreeing with sustaining but not expanding population.

I am not saying that the population needs to expand, I am talking about maintaining a replacement birthrate (sustaining). Keeping the US at or above the 'replacement birthrate', statistically 2.1 children per woman, is a good thing and I believe one of the reasons that the tax code gives a break to those that have children.

China, Germany, Italy and Japan are among several countries that are facing serious socio-economic problems since their birthrate is not at replacement rate.

 

[PropStop]

I am not sure that I like the idea of a constantly increasing population is something that the government should encourage. There has to be some sort of limit as to how many people earth can support. I hope increasing technology can keep moving that number forward.

Ah, but you forget that we have Canada. When our population grows too large, we'll just send a few extra up there. They have a small population and won't mind.

 

[wink]

I disagree. I would not have anywhere near the services that I have now except for the money I pay. It is a very expensive area, everyone from teachers to cops get paid more because of it and they do a good job.

I can't argue with your own experience. But it clearly does not correlate with any consistency. CA is high cost just like your area, so services are costly and taxes high, yet they get little value for their taxes. My area is low cost yes, but I have some of the lowest local taxes in the country and services that probably rival those you enjoy.

The 'poor' will never pay as much as they consume when it comes to taxes, just like the 'rich' will never consume as much as they contribute. It is a fact of life in pretty much any country with an income tax. And the mount gained by raising taxes on the 40% who don't effectively pay right now would likely be insignificant compared to what the top 1% pay in taxes. Call it an obiligation of citizenship, but those who are 'better off' pay more. Unless you plan on moving to Monaco or Liechtenstein, I think you will find that is the true in most of the world.

I am not talking about getting back what you pay into the system. Just because the taxes a guy might pay do not pay for the services he uses does not mean he doesn't have to do his share. No one hesitates to say I have to do my share. I resent it. You talk about an obligation of citizenship. Why are 40% of my fellow Americans not meeting their obligation of citizenship? If you earn an income you are obligated to help out. It isn't about the dollars of revenue as it is about the immorality of it. It is unamerican. What makes those people so special? Are they better Americans then I am? Because of the taxes I pay there are somethings I can not spend my hard earned money on (not good for the economy either). But 40% of wage earners get to spend every single one of their pennies on anything they please. We are sending the wrong message to America's citizens. If you work, you pay! I don't care if it is $300 or $30,000. The only people getting a free ride in the cart pulled by tax payers should be those that simply can not bear the yoke, that is those below the poverty line and the unemployed disabled. I don't mind being at the head of the team if necessary, just as long there is a team. I will even accept a heavier yoke for a time, just as long as the weight of the cart isn't unduly heavy.