Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Should parents of multiple children pay more in taxes instead of less?


  • Please log in to reply
145 replies to this topic

#1 Montsta

Montsta

    Rest In Peace

  • ALL-PRO
  • 6,724 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 12:22 PM

So my coworker and I happened to be talking about tax returns, and he mentioned about how he gets a pretty substantial return each year. He has five kids.

I was telling him how I have a bit taken out each check but with itemized deductions (mortgage interest, property taxes, etc.) I try to make it so I owe the IRS $1 or they owe me $1. I have a daughter, but her mother claims her so as far as the IRS is concerned, I have no children.

I was just wondering, if he has 5 kids, all in public schools, why does he get his whole check and I have to pay for them to go to school? Seems like the government should allow you two kids for free, and after that you are just burdening society and it's limited resources, and should pay accordingly.

He does just fine and this isn't a thread to try and burden the poor or anything like that, I'm just curious if I'm the only one who feels this way?

Those people on TV with 19 kids should be paying an extra $150,000 per year in taxes for excessive breeding.

#2 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Administrators
  • 16,870 posts
  • LocationMatthews, NC

Posted 17 June 2014 - 12:32 PM

The main reason is that increasing the population is what makes most of the economy run.

 

The second reason is that having a kid costs about $30,000 per year and parents are poor.



#3 Zaximus

Zaximus

    I'm Brett Jensen

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,931 posts
  • LocationMatthews, NC

Posted 17 June 2014 - 12:38 PM

Same reason I argued FOR Obamacare, because we SHOULD be paying for healthcare for everyone, because things like this are for the greater good.  I don't get to choose not to pay taxes for YOUR kids to go to school because I don't have any, I can't choose not to pay into defense budget, that is just how it is for the greater good.  

 

 



#4 Cat

Cat

    Terminally bored

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,532 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 12:40 PM

No I don't think they should or that it's fair. At this point we should probably give tax benefits to keep people from having kids. 

 

 

 



#5 Cat

Cat

    Terminally bored

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,532 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 12:43 PM

Same reason I argued FOR Obamacare, because we SHOULD be paying for healthcare for everyone, because things like this are for the greater good.  I don't get to choose not to pay taxes for YOUR kids to go to school because I don't have any, I can't choose not to pay into defense budget, that is just how it is for the greater good.  

 

I have zero problems with everyone paying for public schools, it benefits everyone in society for people to be educated. But I don't think parents should get money from the gov't to have kids and with resources and over population etc. I think kids should be discouraged. I'm sure there is a down side to discouraging kids but I imagine they can't be much worse. 



#6 Awesomeness!

Awesomeness!

    Zulu

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,336 posts
  • LocationArizona

Posted 17 June 2014 - 12:45 PM

Yes. If anything it would deter people that aren't in the position to have children from having children. Also the more kids you have the more border you place on various services. Plus, and perhaps most importantly, there are way to many people on this planet.

Sent from my XT907 using CarolinaHuddle mobile app

#7 PandaPancake

PandaPancake

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • ALL-PRO
  • 4,126 posts
  • LocationGreeley, Co

Posted 17 June 2014 - 12:48 PM

I get taxed at 35%. Nothing will ever change that because I'm a godless heathen who already has a vasectomy at the age of 31 because I have no desire to have kids.



#8 Porn Shop Clerk

Porn Shop Clerk

    Honky

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,167 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 12:53 PM

this is a tax i could get behind



#9 Porn Shop Clerk

Porn Shop Clerk

    Honky

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,167 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 12:54 PM

I get taxed at 35%. Nothing will ever change that because I'm a godless heathen who already has a vasectomy at the age of 31 because I have no desire to have kids.

 

unless you start making more money



#10 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 23,770 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 12:56 PM

The main reason is that increasing the population is what makes most of the economy run.

 

The second reason is that having a kid costs about $30,000 per year and parents are poor.

 

Yep...people with more kids increase the tax base



#11 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Administrators
  • 16,870 posts
  • LocationMatthews, NC

Posted 17 June 2014 - 12:58 PM

us-fertility-figure1.gif



#12 Porn Shop Clerk

Porn Shop Clerk

    Honky

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,167 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 12:59 PM

not to mention it over inflates the prices of the things it takes to raise a child



#13 Porn Shop Clerk

Porn Shop Clerk

    Honky

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,167 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 01:00 PM

us-fertility-figure1.gif

 

 

its almost like a reverse life expectancy chart



#14 Porn Shop Clerk

Porn Shop Clerk

    Honky

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,167 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 01:01 PM

North-American-Life-Expectancy-Chart.jpg



#15 Porn Shop Clerk

Porn Shop Clerk

    Honky

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,167 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 01:01 PM

i have no idea what brith is, but the guy probably got an A anyway




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com