# Should Childless people pay more taxes to cover others children?



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...uld_pay_lower_taxes_and_childless_people.html

2nd paragraph:



> 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.



google search used to find many sites with this being covered.


> childless Americans should pay more in taxes


I saw something about this on a site or Facebook or somewhere so I did the above google search and found the article linked, but there are many more so you can see it from most any viewpoint.


I thought this would be an interesting topic and probably very few will agree with. And I was a single mom, and did not think anyone of you owed me anything. I took what deductions that applied when doing taxes, but don't remember EIC ( I think my girls grew up before that or something kept me from having it.)

So, I do not agree with this at all.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

I already sacrifice everyday so my coworkers with children can have it easier. I cover for them all the time when they have to miss or leave early because of anything from a doctors visit to a school function or I volunteer to be the one who has to stay late so they can pick up their kids from daycare. 

Despite that, I often get a hard time about wanting time off. I am not even supposed to want time off around the holidays because I don't have a 'family' (said one woman who had to cover christmas this year, "What so you can get time off to spend with your husband and CAT??") I was even told by my boss that I am not allowed to take vacation time this summer because my coworker will be on maternity leave. 

And I could cite dozens and dozens of examples of how childless folks get the short end of the stick at work.

So do I think I should pay more taxes to benefit people with children? HECK NO. I already 'pay' more, thank you very much.


----------



## Tommyice (Dec 5, 2010)

Angie this is a very interesting topic. Like Feral, I don't have children (heck I don't even have a cat or husband--do have a dog though) and I experience what she does at work all the time. 

I only read the Slate article, but the writer fails to discuss all the taxes. I pay property tax, a majority of which goes to our town's school district and I don't have kids in school. 

I just did my taxes. Not too many deductions out there for the single, childless, mortgageless person.


----------



## DAVID In Wisconsin (Dec 3, 2002)

While I sympathize with parents I do not think childless people should pay more taxes. Lots of good and not so good things about kids. Lots of extra love, laughs and expenses. It just goes with the territory. I pay dreadfully high property taxes mostly to fund schools that I don't mind. I do mind the waste of almost all tax funded enterprises.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Childless people already do pay more taxes, they don't have children so they don't get those deductions on income tax. In our state we have real estate tax and personal property tax and the biggest piece of pie goes to the schools. The tax is based on value of the property so people without children in the home will likely have more money to have a "special" car, a motorcycle, boat, etc. and pay more taxes that way. So it isn't a hypothetical discussion, it is already happening.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

:umno:

Please Angie, it's approaching April 15th, I've yet to write Secretary Lew explaining why the IRS and I will soon be going to war with each other, and I just finished an exasperating conversation with my mom whereby I explained for the 10th time that NC won't tax her retirement money if she moves in permanently.
:hair
My blood pressure only goes so high before the vessels blow........lol.

Maybe what's her name should send the IRS her guilt contribution. Reihan Salam is a columnist for Slate. Maybe it's a what's his name, I dunno, i don't care.

Apparently the reporter for Slade has never looked at the tax laws. To say that childless adults are paying less taxes is an outright lie and I would think in today's world of EIC credits, dependent check boxes on 1040's, everybody would know by now that isn't true.


----------



## Tommyice (Dec 5, 2010)

Actually a single, childless person can get the EIC. After I had been unemployed and finally find a job (albeit a part time job) that year I qualified for EIC--the income threshold was $13,000-ish if I recall. 

Yes I did take that credit that year. But I still *owed *money that year too.


----------



## Michael W. Smith (Jun 2, 2002)

It's already bad enough that childless couples / people with grown kids still have to support everyone else's kids with property tax that goes to the schools for every child's "free" education.

For them to have to pay MORE taxes because they didn't have children . . . . well that is just insane.

I realize every child getting a "free" education - it is hoped they all will productive members of society. The problem is the children who don't really care and cause problems - they are already on a road that they will regret in the future, but to interrupt their classmate's classes only detracts from the classmate's education.

Sadly, the school system is just about as bad as the Federal Government in how they spend their money. And throwing more money at the problem won't solve anything - it will just mean bigger wages and salaries for the administration and staff, and spending the money wastefully.

I know, because I was on the school board for 8 years. Here in PA, the teachers are in a union. Salaries for teachers starting out start at $30,500.00 and within 15 years the teachers are at the top of the system - making $60,000 - $75,000. Add in their medical insurance, vision, dental, pensions . . . . their benefits go on and on.

Our Superintendent makes $118,000.00 / year, and principals range from $65,000 - $90,000.

Our school board this year decided to add a Jr. High Volleyball team for next year - estimated start up cost of $3000.00 + plus $2500.00 / year thereafter. We certainly didn't NEED a Jr. High VB team - never had one in the past - but the Athletic Director thought we should. 

Even though the board is trying to figure out how to balance the budget - we are going to be out of money within a few years due to the higher pension costs the state and schools have underfunded - but yet they decided to ADD another program.

Our taxpayers did have a personal tax they had to pay - $200.00 for full time workers that the school board did away with before I got on it. So now it's just property taxes that fund the school. So any families that are renting in our district, simply pay rent and do not contribute to the property tax other than through their rent.

Then you have the poor 80 year widow who owns her house and can't hardly afford to pay her taxes. She raised her children 50 years ago - why is she now continuing to pay for everybody else's children today?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I suspect there would be a lot more childless people if the government would stop paying impoverished single women to have babies!


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

Michael, I used to think teachers were a big problem, and perhaps many are, but this school year, my wife got her first teaching job (5th grade) after years of homeschooling, being a teacher's aide, and subbing. It has been a disaster. Not sure if she will continue next year.

She is working 80 to 90 hours a week trying to meet the demands of administrators and parents. She leaves at 7AM and gets home at 7PM and then grades papers. All day on weekends. The feds bribed states to adopt common core, without a curriculum, so she has to design her own. And she is expected to spend countless hours documenting what she is doing. And is not allowed to discipline or correct students, lest they get their feelings hurt. Anyway, little time for teaching. She gets shot down if she brings up any of these issues.

In addition, parents regularly blame her for any shortcomings of their child, and fail to have them do homework. They want higher grades for their kids without them earning it, so she can't grade honestly. She has lost many nights of sleep trying to figure out what to do with certain kids, including the son of a teacher who thinks he can do no wrong, but he is constantly disrupting her class.

As I see it, parents don't want to be responsible for their kids, in more ways than one. Not only do they get money from others to support them, but expect schools to babysit and teach them and even feed them.

Government is supposed to exist to protect your rights, but now it does the opposite. It steals to give to others, to satisfy any special interest. We all have our pet thing we want gov't to steal for. Supporting our kids, or Israel, or farmers, or providing healthcare, or bombing or fighting drugs or raw milk or you name it.

Our country now looks to government as the solution to all our problems. We are all hogs at the trough, fighting over the slop.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

People with kids should be taxed at a much higher rate than those who do not. A progressive rate would be good.... no kids? You pay "x" tax rate.. one kid... you pay 2x... two kids you pay 4x... doubling the rate for each parasite brought into the world.


----------



## Kasota (Nov 25, 2013)

People with dependent children get to take additional tax deductions already. I have no trouble with that. 

I do have trouble with the concept of EIC. That is simple income redistribution because it is a credit. I know people who get more back from taxes than they paid in because of the EIC. Plus they qualify for all sorts of other benefits already paid for by others. 

I have no trouble contributing a reasonable amount to make sure that those among us who cannot work or are elderly or disabled are taken care of. I do have a problem with endless welfare for those who choose not to work or who keep having children because of the benefits they get. 

I no longer have dependent children, but I pay in to educate all the kids in town. I have no problem paying a reasonable amount for that. I do have problems with a city board of education that crammed a spending plan down our throats. That school board was going to do what they were going to do regardless of the input from the community and now their plan is running in the red and they want more money. Our local school board is frankly out of control. Some of the new school buildings they put up under their plan are stunning in their expansiveness. In their mind it is perfectly reasonable. In my mind it is extortion. 

They took a small neighborhood school not far from me and tore it down and built a bigger one so they could ship kids in from different neighborhoods. 
Our taxes went up. The traffic went up. Property crime is up. Gee, thanks. 

Birth control is inexpensive and readily available. How about people have children if they can afford them without having to ask others to pay for them? Yes I know there are instances where birth control may fail or something horrible like rape happens - but those are not what I am talking about. For the most part, people who have children do so because they have chosen to do so or because their lack of action taking birth control has put them in that spot. Why should I have to pay more because of choices they made?


----------



## fishinshawn (Nov 8, 2010)

AngieM2 said:


> http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...uld_pay_lower_taxes_and_childless_people.html
> 
> 2nd paragraph:
> 
> ...


Interesting to think about, I'm in favor of a flat tax system myself. IMO the tax issues have become so complicated that it is rather pointless to get into discussions like this, as we have already seen it has drifted into schools, property tax, work situations etc. Not to mention so many states and counties tax differently that we can't really compare. 

Sometimes I think it would be better if we got rid of the federal government and let the states become separate countries onto themselves.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

I see a lot of what Feral Female is talking about at my work place. In my department, a group of people were put on a specific schedule due to one person needing certain days off because those were the days of his visitation with his child. Another person is receiving full-time benefits but doesn't even work a 25 hour work week due to always leaving to deal with children.
It's not anyone else's fault these people chose to breed. It's also not the fault of the employees that one of them couldn't keep a marriage together and now has to deal with the fallout. Nor is it any of their fault that the other one has a useless partner at home who can't drive when the kids need to go somewhere. However, everyone has to adjust their lives and pick up the workload for these people. 
I could go on and on...
I admire that companies try to accommodate families (even if some of it is forced by law). But, when it comes down to it, these are all circumstances outside the workplace. I understand trying to make things easier in order to keep valuable employees, but when it is done at the expense of other valuable employees, sooner or later they are going to say "Enough" and seek employment elsewhere.

As for the tax issue, I believe it's been explained pretty thoroughly that people who do not claim children as dependents are already pulling enough of the load.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Yes, because I benefit from the next generation too. As I was subsidized in my turn with people paying school taxes and extra deductions. And taking time to pick me up from school when I spent a whole year being sick as a child.

But the plethora of tax credits I think is a step too far.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

fishinshawn said:


> Interesting to think about, I'm in favor of a flat tax system myself. IMO the tax issues have become so complicated that it is rather pointless to get into discussions like this, as we have already seen it has drifted into schools, property tax, work situations etc. Not to mention so many states and counties tax differently that we can't really compare.
> 
> Sometimes I think it would be better if we got rid of the federal government and let the states become separate countries onto themselves.


I don't mind having a federal government if it would confine itself to the few basic functions spelled out in the constitution... defense of the states... keeping the states playing fair with each other etc.


----------



## haley1 (Aug 15, 2012)

I don't like paying for a bridge to no where in Alaska, or supporting the industrial military complex for wars and drones we don't need beyond defense of our borders etc etc


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

No. Having children and the resulting sacrifices are a choice. If you can't afford them, don't have them.


----------



## PricklyThistle (Feb 6, 2014)

One day I decided, I don't care for taxes. So I don't pay any. The end.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

I do not agree that childless folks should pay more.
I do think taxes are from the devil.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

No, absolutely not.
I have kids and I still don't think a childless person should pay more taxes than me.
Just like he shouldn't have to pay (through his taxes) for my healthcare, groceries, utilities, etc.
Nor should I have to pay for any of those things for anyone else.


----------



## bigjon (Oct 2, 2013)

I pay local/state/federal/sales/school.kids are grown and on thier own now,so technically i'm now childless.i don't want to pay more! if u don't have a kid in school-why do we have to pay school taxes?


----------



## snowcap (Jul 1, 2011)

It seems like their having the school levy votes closer together.
And they don't post information about them more than just a few days before they happen.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Sorry I've posted the above and didn't come back. But, all of you have posted just as I would expect most reasonable persons to think on this.

I know when I had my two girls, it was massively thought out as it was a huge responsibility and blessing that I was considering. Not something to be entered into lightly.

They were MY girls and MY responsibility. For about 2 years after the divorce I did have some help from g'ment that I had paid huge amounts into in previous years, and would not have need if the child support ever came. But I got out of school asap and had my certificate on Friday and went to the new job on Monday and stayed 19.5 years. 

So, I don't think anyone that thought and decided that responsibility and blessing and lifestyle is not for them, should have to pay for those of us that want the children.


----------



## Michael W. Smith (Jun 2, 2002)

DJ in WA - perhaps you are thinking I'm anti-teacher. I am not.

We have many fine, hard working teachers in our school district. We also have some who do little, and could care less - they are there for their pay check and little else.

You would think we could get rid of them - but with the union, it's near impossible. I've seen teachers who have started relationships with students. In order to get rid of them - we accepted their resignation in exchange for continuing their health insurance for 6 more months - otherwise, we would have had to fire them - (or try) and go through court at a much higher cost than the 6 months of insurance.

As for the long hours, yes, I can believe that. It sounds like your wife is a good teacher. However, remember that a school year is 180 days. The other 185 days, the teachers are off work. So in essence, they are working a part time job while getting a full time salary, benefits, etc.

I've also seen the parents who think their kids could not possibly cause trouble, or demand their children get a better grade.

And I know full well the mandates the Federal and State have put on the schools - anymore it's not about teaching the kids - it's about teaching them to pass the Federal / State tests.

As I said, the administration tells the story that "More money will fix the problem." The problem is more than just money - throwing money at it will only result in an even more expensive failure.


----------



## snowcap (Jul 1, 2011)

We were told the teachers needed more to keep up the great job they were doing. Found out Idaho students are #36th in the country.
The schools are not going to do any better with more money, And we don't have it to give.
What gets me is the people with kids complain about the rents are so high while at the same time voting yes on school levys. Not understanding that land lords pass the costs on to renters.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

As the father of five I say yes. They should let me barrow their car too. Actually the only people who should pay more taxes are the ones who pay nothing.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

I don't agree with them paying more. But there is some personal responsibility for the community and such from each person that is paying taxes. Are the rates high enough or to low? Depends on the situation.

I agree with the poster above, most of the people here (broad base) utilized public schools and utilities while growing up (while people without kids paid taxes). So not much has changed (except for the credits and wiggle room built into the tax code).

I also think that any extra-curricular activities (football, quiz bowl, etc) should be self funding by either the parents/students or donations.

More taxes.....NO.


----------



## Twobottom (Sep 29, 2013)

Childless couples already do pay much higher taxes. Couples with children get to deduct dependents. But more importantly, your children are your responsibility!! If you can't afford them DON'T HAVE THEM. Don't try to take from me to pay for your decisions.

Maybe what we need to do, since apparently we are all in this together as one collective unit rather than as personally responsible individuals....is to mandate a permit for having children. For the collective good of society, only people with enough resources should be allowed to have children. This would ensure that your children do not become a burden on others.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Twobottom said:


> Childless couples already do pay much higher taxes. Couples with children get to deduct dependents. But more importantly, your children are your responsibility!! If you can't afford them DON'T HAVE THEM. Don't try to take from me to pay for your decisions.
> 
> Maybe what we need to do, since apparently we are all in this together as one collective unit rather than as personally responsible individuals....is to mandate a permit for having children. For the collective good of society, only people with enough resources should be allowed to have children. This would ensure that your children do not become a burden on others.


People get an exemption because they are people, whether they are big or little people. You, me, everyone. I suppose it is because everyone eats, needs clothes, etc and at least no one should pay taxes on money that is needed for survival. So every person gets an exemption. That is not ant kind of a special break. 
I know of no one who gets rich raising their own children. The dang little buggers keep eating, pooping, want clothes, going to the dentist, etc. That is why many people do not have spare money or for that point, time until the kids are out on their own. I doubt as if a dependent deduction covers those costs.
Then there is the benefit to me of other people's children. If they took the care to raise them well, those children are going to pay the taxes too. And will be the professions and trades I will call on all my life. Of course if they do a bad job, I will call on the good ones for protection.
Frankly a childless couple will probably end up wealthier despite paying more taxes because they do not have the expenses either. Yet they will still get the benefit of other people's grown children. I suppose childless people could be looked at as getting more out of the social bargain than people who spent time and money raising kids. Hmm..... 
No one likes paying taxes , especially the vile way that government seems fond of doing. But it is blind to see the liabilty of not having children while ignoring the advantages.


----------



## badlander (Jun 7, 2009)

bigjon said:


> I pay local/state/federal/sales/school.kids are grown and on thier own now,so technically i'm now childless.i don't want to pay more! if u don't have a kid in school-why do we have to pay school taxes?


Precisely, bigjon. We are childless and every year look at our taxes when the bill comes. Why, we asked ourselves do we have to pay so much in 'school' taxes when we do not have children. 50%+ of our taxes goes to the local school district which is still operating in the red. The district is filled with fine, dedicated teachers, many of which are dipping into their own incomes to provide their classes with materials that they need to teach their charges. The big thing in the town where we worked was sports. Everything was sports orientated within the school districts. Look at the local newspapers and three pages were dedicated to local school sports. So there was no big question as to what the priorities were in the school district.

Yes, I have been discriminated against for being childless. Working long hours as a nurse is something you expect to do, but being forced to work mandatory double shifts because a co-worker can't do it because they have kids wears pretty thin after a while, and asking for Christmas day off so you can spend it with your husband or family and getting told no, you can't have it, they give that day to the nurses with children just plain sux.

So absolutely NO! I do not think childless folks should be forced to pay or sacrifice for those who have been blessed with children. If we had kids, we would pay for them. Nor do I think that workers with children deserve any special more special treatment than ones without kids.


----------



## Twobottom (Sep 29, 2013)

where I want to said:


> People get an exemption because they are people, whether they are big or little people. You, me, everyone. I suppose it is because everyone eats, needs clothes, etc and at least no one should pay taxes on money that is needed for survival. So every person gets an exemption. That is not ant kind of a special break.
> I know of no one who gets rich raising their own children. The dang little buggers keep eating, pooping, want clothes, going to the dentist, etc. That is why many people do not have spare money or for that point, time until the kids are out on their own. I doubt as if a dependent deduction covers those costs.
> Then there is the benefit to me of other people's children. If they took the care to raise them well, those children are going to pay the taxes too. And will be the professions and trades I will call on all my life. Of course if they do a bad job, I will call on the good ones for protection.
> Frankly a childless couple will probably end up wealthier despite paying more taxes because they do not have the expenses either. Yet they will still get the benefit of other people's grown children. I suppose childless people could be looked at as getting more out of the social bargain than people who spent time and money raising kids. Hmm.....
> No one likes paying taxes , especially the vile way that government seems fond of doing. But it is blind to see the liabilty of not having children while ignoring the advantages.


We all benefit from each other through pursuit of our separate interests. Children benefit from me being a farmer and providing food, they benefit from my cousin being a Dr and providing medical care. I am compensated for my efforts, and they will be compensated for theirs...that is the only reason we offer services to others. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. There is nothing "owed" to tomorrows children...anymore than there is anything "owed to me".

This crazy idea that we should give people special tax breaks for having children is nonsense. Your children are your responsibility, claiming that I will benefit from your kids so I owe you more of my tax money completely discounts the benefit you and your kids receive from me...what do I get? I think I should get some of your tax money for helping to provide a societal framework wherein your children can thrive. Without me, and others like me you'd have to go out and feed your own kids and wouldn't have much time for anything else.


Bottom line....your kids are 100% your responsibility. Nobody owes you anything in life. If you chose to have kids than you need to be prepared to make the sacrifices ( and reap the rewards)...I chose not to have them so I don't have to make those sacrifices. When you choose a path in life you make the sacrifices, and take the rewards. Don't try to foist the hardships of your choices on to others who chose differently. Sorry, no more tax breaks for your children..you get enough. 
It really does amaze me the convoluted reasons people come up with to try to get a piece of other people's money. Now some want to be paid for having children...unbelievable.


----------



## Twobottom (Sep 29, 2013)

I think, a more realistic idea given the problems of over population would be to offer tax breaks to childless couples. They are doing that in China to control their population because having more and more babies does not benefit society, it hinders it.

It would take an awful lot to convince me that we need more and more people, breeding and breeding to infinity. Resources are limited. With a smaller population we'd have more abundant resources, a cleaner environment and better quality of life. If you doubt it, go move to NYC for a year and tell me how much you are benefiting from other people's children.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Twobottom said:


> We all benefit from each other through pursuit of our separate interests. Children benefit from me being a farmer and providing food, they benefit from my cousin being a Dr and providing medical care. I am compensated for my efforts, and they will be compensated for theirs...that is the only reason we offer services to others. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. There is nothing "owed" to tomorrows children...anymore than there is anything "owed to me".
> 
> This crazy idea that we should give people special tax breaks for having children is nonsense. Your children are your responsibility, claiming that I will benefit from your kids so I owe you more of my tax money completely discounts the benefit you and your kids receive from me...what do I get? I think I should get some of your tax money for helping to provide a societal framework wherein your children can thrive. .


But you already derived the benefits and will all your life. You have already spent what you claim no one owed you.
Just what would you do if all the children cease to exist? When you're 70 and your doctor is 80? Or you get sick or injured and there are no other people to help? When the road falls apart and there is no one there to fix it? No one to repair a utility line? Etc etc etc.

The aging of a society is a sign and guarantee of it demise.


----------



## sand flea (Sep 1, 2013)

More people might be willing to support their local school districts, if the students valued learning and did more than simply just report "present" to home room. Believe it or not - it is NOT the school's or teacher's failure if students don't value skills or knowledge. That's the parents' responsibility.

Until that situation changes, I have to say NO, it is not fair for childless households pay for public education at all, must less owing even more taxes.

By now, it should be OBVIOUS to everyone that throwing more money at education simply doesn't result in better grades and higher graduation rates, if the parents and students don't consider "schooling" to be valuable. In fact, it should be possible to cut the amount of costs required per student to effectively teach and learn and graduate students - because motivated students who value education will learn from very cost-effective resources: books and a teacher.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

Honestly, I don't have a problem with the idea of paying school taxes - to a school district that is run responsibly, employs dedicated workers and teaches children to be more than cogs in the machine. Granted, that is an ideal that doesn't exist in its perfect state but, until we can reach such an educational Nirvana, I'm still ok with supporting my local school through taxes, even though my children are grown and no longer using that system. My children both went through a public school system that is not only blessed with caring teachers but also with a LOT of involved parents, grandparents and community members, so activities were rarely ever lacking for support.

I'd even go so far as to support an activity stipend for each child to join at least one activity free of charge. I don't think that should fall on the parents entirely as that leads to only the children of more well-do families reaping the benefits of those activities. Not every child finds his/her way in a classroom setting but often through a coach or mentor that is able to get through some other way.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

sand flea said:


> More people might be willing to support their local school districts, if the students valued learning and did more than simply just report "present" to home room. Believe it or not - it is NOT the school's or teacher's failure if students don't value skills or knowledge. That's the parents' responsibility.
> 
> 
> By now, it should be OBVIOUS to everyone that throwing more money at education simply doesn't result in better grades and higher graduation rates, if the parents and students don't consider "schooling" to be valuable. In fact, it should be possible to cut the amount of costs required per student to effectively teach and learn and graduate students - because motivated students who value education will learn from very cost-effective resources: books and a teacher.


This (had to remove the middle paragraph).


----------



## Aozora (Jan 13, 2014)

I think it's absolutely wrong to ask childless people to pay higher taxes.

I can't have children due to several medical issues. Why should I be punished through extra taxes for something I have no control over? I already pay taxes to send other people's children to school...

This society is very heavily focused on having kids; when you can't, or you don't want to, people guilt trip you really hard or treat you like you're worthless. The fact that someone came up with this idea is just a symptom of a society where not having kids makes you a second class citizen in people's minds.


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

Maybe the problem is too many taxes (not who pays them).


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

Aozora said:


> I think it's absolutely wrong to ask childless people to pay higher taxes.
> 
> I can't have children due to several medical issues. Why should I be punished through extra taxes for something I have no control over? I already pay taxes to send other people's children to school...
> 
> This society is very heavily focused on having kids; when you can't, or you don't want to, people guilt trip you really hard or treat you like you're worthless. The fact that someone came up with this idea is just a symptom of a society where not having kids makes you a second class citizen in people's minds.


I already feel punished enough for not being able to have children. Talk about adding insult to injury....


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

where I want to said:


> But you already derived the benefits and will all your life. You have already spent what you claim no one owed you.
> Just what would you do if all the children cease to exist? When you're 70 and your doctor is 80? Or you get sick or injured and there are no other people to help? When the road falls apart and there is no one there to fix it? No one to repair a utility line? Etc etc etc.
> 
> The aging of a society is a sign and guarantee of it demise.


How did we ever manage to procreate before the government started giving tax breaks to parents?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Could it be that parents and non-parents didn't have this issue or problem before the taxes.

Wasn't it better when the community funded the schools and paid for the teacher's salary? 

I realize that is long ago, but long ago they didn't dumb down learning so every one would pass at the same time. In some cases it helped to have the one or two room school houses as the bright children could pick up and join in on the higher levels? or the slower would have more reinforcement when going over it again with others?

Why is this way considered better in any way? Are tax financed schools teaching better than alternatives? Overall?

And if someone thinks non-child people should pay more, I think they have ever right to give as much as they want if they feel strongly about this, then they would have a platform to stand on more strongly than trying to get everyone else to do it.

Just some more thoughts after seeing only a few of the posts in the thread since last time I dropped by.


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

bloogrssgrl said:


> Honestly, I don't have a problem with the idea of paying school taxes - to a school district that is run responsibly, employs dedicated workers and teaches children to be more than cogs in the machine. Granted, that is an ideal that doesn't exist in its perfect state but, until we can reach such an educational Nirvana, I'm still ok with supporting my local school through taxes, even though my children are grown and no longer using that system. My children both went through a public school system that is not only blessed with caring teachers but also with a LOT of involved parents, grandparents and community members, so activities were rarely ever lacking for support.
> 
> I'd even go so far as to support an activity stipend for each child to join at least one activity free of charge. I don't think that should fall on the parents entirely as that leads to only the children of more well-do families reaping the benefits of those activities. Not every child finds his/her way in a classroom setting but often through a coach or mentor that is able to get through some other way.


I would respectfully disagree. Privatize education and let people who use the schools pay for them and those who don't...not.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Win07_351 said:


> I would respectfully disagree. Privatize education and let people who use the schools pay for them and those who don't...not.


But we all use the schools.... for ten years at least. I went the full twelve as do the majority.


----------



## gweny (Feb 10, 2014)

I'm concerned about it yes, but I think there are bigger issues of unfairness... Like noncustodial parents paying child support not allowed to claim thier children. or people choosing to homeschool still having to pay school taxes. 
I think that anytime a law or tax is created to benifit one group it creates an unfair bias to another group.
How about all those tax breaks for the rich and big business?
The only way to fix this is to have one tax rate across the board.


----------



## Kasota (Nov 25, 2013)

Gweny, I'm all for a flat tax, too. I think there are so many taxes layered on here and there that people really lose sight of how much they are actually paying in taxes. When you add it all up it's pretty staggering. 

I frankly think the government doesn't want a flat tax because it would take away some of their power and control.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Like noncustodial parents paying child support not allowed to claim thier children.


At least in the states where I've lived, this is negotiable in the divorce and/or custody decree.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

I don't have a problem as a childfree family paying our fair share towards the schools but paying more than people with children..not so much.

ETA In the interest of full disclosure, we no longer pay property taxes, but when we did which was only until last December, we had no problem with a FAIR portion of our property taxes going to the schools. Now we're exempt I suppose we don't have a dog in this fight any more.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

jtbrandt said:


> How did we ever manage to procreate before the government started giving tax breaks to parents?


Because they did not have the ability to do otherwise. Now children can be prevented. 
There are now some countries that are giving incentives for their citizens to produce more children. I've read about the Danish and Japanese doing this. I'm sure there are others. They are doing this as so many young people have decided to live life for themselves and avoid the burden of children. After all children used to be considered security for old age too but that function has been taken over by goverment in many places.

In fact I read an article recently about the problem with Social Security not being a finding issue but a birth rate issue. I don't think it's that simple but it does raise ideas about what happens in a country where there are more old than young.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Tiempo said:


> I don't have a problem as a childfree family paying our fair share towards the schools but paying more than people with children..not so much.
> 
> ETA In the interest of full disclosure, we no longer pay property taxes, but when we did which was only until last December, we had no problem with a FAIR portion of our property taxes going to the schools. Now we're exempt I suppose we don't have a dog in this fight any more.


How does one get exempt from property tax?


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

where I want to said:


> How does one get exempt from property tax?


It's not worth the trade off, trust me.

Become 100% totally and permanently disabled by combat.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

As bad as most kids are these days, I should get paid to put up with them.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Tiempo said:


> It's not worth the trade off, trust me.
> 
> Become 100% totally and permanently disabled by combat.


Ow- you're right.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

Win07_351 said:


> I would respectfully disagree. Privatize education and let people who use the schools pay for them and those who don't...not.


Ah, I feel the very same way about some of what the military does in the name of "protecting my freedom". I wish I could pick and choose to support what I believe in.

Would that we lived in a country where children were only born to people who are completely mentally, emotionally and financially ready to have them. However, that is not nor do I imagine it ever will be the case. The situation is a child is brought into this world and now what do we, as a society, do with it? To me, it is more to my benefit (also to my moral beliefs) that certain things be provided to that child - an education being one of those things. (I wish it were a much better education but that's a different discussion.) If the parent(s) cannot or refuse to provide those things, yes, I feel society should step in. Otherwise the child will be either a drain on social systems for its entire life or likely enter into the criminal world to provide for itself in a world in which s/he has no formally learned skills for survival.

Perhaps there should be a yearly financial incentive to not have children. I don't think removing the safety net of public education would really do much to impact the birth rate in a negative way. I don't know what the ideal answer is, but I know it is never the fault of the child that had no choice in being born.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

bloogrssgrl said:


> Ah, I feel the very same way about some of what the military does in the name of "protecting my freedom". I wish I could pick and choose to support what I believe in.
> 
> Would that we lived in a country where children were only born to people who are completely mentally, emotionally and financially ready to have them. However, that is not nor do I imagine it ever will be the case. The situation is a child is brought into this world and now what do we, as a society, do with it? To me, it is more to my benefit (also to my moral beliefs) that certain things be provided to that child - an education being one of those things. (I wish it were a much better education but that's a different discussion.) If the parent(s) cannot or refuse to provide those things, yes, I feel society should step in. Otherwise the child will be either a drain on social systems for its entire life or likely enter into the criminal world to provide for itself in a world in which s/he has no formally learned skills for survival.
> 
> Perhaps there should be a yearly financial incentive to not have children. I don't think removing the safety net of public education would really do much to impact the birth rate in a negative way. I don't know what the ideal answer is, but I know it is never the fault of the child that had no choice in being born.


There ia already a financial incentive not to have children- it is the natural result of intelligent people seeing that kids are a pain in the rear, expensive and time consuming. Thank goodness that some who are intelligent and, despite that, want to raise a family. The alternative of only the incompetent having kids........ shudder.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

where I want to said:


> There ia already a financial incentive not to have children- it is the natural result of intelligent people seeing that kids are a pain in the rear, expensive and time consuming. Thank goodness that some who are intelligent and, despite that, want to raise a family. The alternative of only the incompetent having kids........ shudder.


Now, now...it's just _other_ peoples' kids that are a pain in the rear.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

where I want to said:


> But you already derived the benefits and will all your life. You have already spent what you claim no one owed you.
> Just what would you do if all the children cease to exist? When you're 70 and your doctor is 80? Or you get sick or injured and there are no other people to help? When the road falls apart and there is no one there to fix it? No one to repair a utility line? Etc etc etc.
> 
> The aging of a society is a sign and guarantee of it demise.


What would I do if all the children ceased to exist? Rejoice! :nana:


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Just what would you do if all the children cease to exist? When you're 70 and your doctor is 80? Or you get sick or injured and there are no other people to help? When the road falls apart and there is no one there to fix it? No one to repair a utility line? Etc etc etc.


There will always be children, as long as birth control isn't 100% reliable. 

I don't think the question is, "Should we provide for children?" Obviously, we can't just let them starve. The real question is, "_Who_ should provide for them?" Except in unusual cases (for instance, orphans), I think it's entirely appropriate for it to be the parents' responsibility. Period.

It's generally believed that society reaps some reward when it succors the children of parents too lazy to provide for their offspring. But what if the children don't go on to become productive members of society? What if they instead confine themselves to producing yet another generation of kiddos for the state to support? (Actually, some studies have found that children of welfare mothers are more likely to themselves become welfare recipients.) At what point do we say, "You're cut off!"?


----------



## snowcap (Jul 1, 2011)

If the kid would come over and rake my yard, maybe I'd give him a few bucks.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> There will always be children, as long as birth control isn't 100% reliable.
> 
> I don't think the question is, "Should we provide for children?" Obviously, we can't just let them starve. The real question is, "_Who_ should provide for them?" Except in unusual cases (for instance, orphans), I think it's entirely appropriate for it to be the parents' responsibility. Period.
> 
> It's generally believed that society reaps some reward when it succors the children of parents too lazy to provide for their offspring. But what if the children don't go on to become productive members of society? What if they instead confine themselves to producing yet another generation of kiddos for the state to support? (*Actually, some studies have found that children of welfare mothers are more likely to themselves become welfare recipients.*) At what point do we say, "You're cut off!"?


And there is the tricky part of it. What is the likelihood of breaking that pattern _at all_ if the responsibility is put solely on parents who can't even take care of themselves or get themselves out of the system? 
I don't think there are any easy answers. Education is one of the answers but I think we are failing in that realm. 
How to break the cycle is beyond my problem solving skills. I think it has to do with a lot more than money, though. Our society places value on a lot of fleeting things. I think that is where the problem begins.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

where I want to said:


> Because they did not have the ability to do otherwise. Now children can be prevented.
> There are now some countries that are giving incentives for their citizens to produce more children. I've read about the Danish and Japanese doing this. I'm sure there are others. They are doing this as so many young people have decided to live life for themselves and avoid the burden of children. After all children used to be considered security for old age too but that function has been taken over by goverment in many places.
> 
> In fact I read an article recently about the problem with Social Security not being a finding issue but a birth rate issue. I don't think it's that simple but it does raise ideas about what happens in a country where there are more old than young.


This still doesn't make sense to me. Because people who don't want kids are now able to more easily avoid having them, we should pay them to have kids they don't want?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> But we all use the schools.... for ten years at least. I went the full twelve as do the majority.


No we don't.


----------



## jen74145 (Oct 31, 2006)

Nevermind.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

jtbrandt said:


> This still doesn't make sense to me. Because people who don't want kids are now able to more easily avoid having them, we should pay them to have kids they don't want?


Because we need them ourselves. A society without enough members is dead. As in extinct.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

My answer to Angie.. NO.. I'm sick of working my butt off and paying a huge pile of money for taxes to support all the free loaders... Granted, kids aren't free loaders, but a lot of parents are.. 

I chose not to have kids because part of it was I'm stingy, and I like spending my money on myself.. Now if I chose not to have kids that drained my bank account, why should I be asked to cover the costs for other people's kids???

You want a kid, more power to you, but you should have to pay to cover their costs.. not ask us that don't want kids to cover it... 

I think many people forget that taxes weren't meant to be a permanent thing... I'm sick of giving more and more to a government that does nothing but waste my money.. so why should my money be wasted on your decision to have kids?


----------



## TnAndy (Sep 15, 2005)

MO_cows said:


> Childless people already do pay more taxes, they don't have children so they don't get those deductions on income tax. In our state we have real estate tax and personal property tax and the biggest piece of pie goes to the schools. The tax is based on value of the property so people without children in the home will likely have more money to have a "special" car, a motorcycle, boat, etc. and pay more taxes that way. * So it isn't a hypothetical discussion, it is already happening.*



Exactly. We not only don't get a deduction on income taxes, we don't get an "Earned Income Credit" of many thousands based on how little one worked and the number of kids.

So....PLEASE....


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

where I want to said:


> Because we need them ourselves. A society without enough members is dead. As in extinct.


Wow, I expected you to say that wasn't your position. I can't even get my head around this idea of paying people who don't want kids to have kids. That doesn't sound like something that would be good for society to me. Yeah, we'd have more people...but what quality of people are they going to be if their parents didn't even want to have them? We can agree to disagree on this one, because I don't see much chance of being convinced it makes sense.

I do believe raising kids to be productive adults and contributors to society is a laudable endeavor, and I've done it myself. But I don't think society needs government to promote it. Societies create governments, not the other way around.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

jtbrandt said:


> Wow, I expected you to say that wasn't your position. I can't even get my head around this idea of paying people who don't want kids to have kids. That doesn't sound like something that would be good for society to me. Yeah, we'd have more people...but what quality of people are they going to be if their parents didn't even want to have them? We can agree to disagree on this one, because I don't see much chance of being convinced it makes sense.
> 
> I do believe raising kids to be productive adults and contributors to society is a laudable endeavor, and I've done it myself. But I don't think society needs government to promote it. Societies create governments, not the other way around.


When did it get from allowing child deductions ( not credits) to paying unwilling parents to have children? I think that as having children is an added expense, that it is reasonable that they should be allowed the same personal deduction that any dependent. The rest is not something I ever said.
Being responsible in the terms you state would mean also no mortgage deduction, no exemptions, no state tax deductions, no lower rate for anything. 

Which is ok if you think a flat tax is the only way to go. But not as a reason to eliminate children's personal exemption as dependents only.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

where I want to said:


> When did it get from allowing child deductions ( not credits) to paying unwilling parents to have children? I think that as having children is an added expense, that it is reasonable that they should be allowed the same personal deduction that any dependent. The rest is not something I ever said.
> Being responsible in the terms you state would mean also no mortgage deduction, no exemptions, no state tax deductions, no lower rate for anything.
> 
> Which is ok if you think a flat tax is the only way to go. But not as a reason to eliminate children's personal exemption as dependents only.


I intentionally used a hyperbolic rhetorical question to make a point, but you answered my rhetorical question as if the premise was legitimate, which was why I was surprised. I am now confused about what your actual position is. But that's OK...I don't even know some of my own positions. I apologize for stretching what you said. By answering the rhetorical question the way you did, I thought you were accepting the premise.

To answer your question, this thread has been about credits since the first post when Angie linked to an article about tax credits for parents. And it's not just debating the merits of the ones we already have, but talking about adding more and increasing taxes on the childless to cover the costs.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> And there is the tricky part of it. What is the likelihood of breaking that pattern _at all_ if the responsibility is put solely on parents who can't even take care of themselves or get themselves out of the system?
> I don't think there are any easy answers


I don't think there are EASY answers, but there surely are ANSWERS. We only have to look back 75 or so years at how things were done before we began paying impoverished single women to have children.

Prior to the advent of all the alphabet agencies (TANF, WIC, SNAP, etc.) very few women had children out of wedlock. As late as 1950, only 4 percent of births were to single mothers (vs. 40 percent today). 

If mothers were unable to provide for their children, usually those kids were given or taken away and put in the care of a more competent party. That was probably a pretty champion inducement to either marry the father of your child, or get your act together and find a way to support it.


----------



## gweny (Feb 10, 2014)

willow_girl said:


> At least in the states where I've lived, this is negotiable in the divorce and/or custody decree.


Sure it is... But IRS doesn't care about the court order. They give the credit to whoever files first and it takes another round of family court to get it fixed if the custodial parent decides to take the credit... I'm not spending another 10grand to get a few hundred bucks.
I believe that NC parents that pay child support should get to claim the kids as well as the custodial... Claim the kids twice.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Sure it is... But IRS doesn't care about the court order. They give the credit to whoever files first and it takes another round of family court to get it fixed if the custodial parent decides to take the credit... I'm not spending another 10grand to get a few hundred bucks.


I'd say if you are entitled to the credit, take it.

If you're audited because your ex also claimed the kids, you can point to the decree showing you're entitled. 

The ex will be the one in trouble, not you!


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

jtbrandt said:


> I intentionally used a hyperbolic rhetorical question to make a point, but you answered my rhetorical question as if the premise was legitimate, which was why I was surprised. I am now confused about what your actual position is. But that's OK...I don't even know some of my own positions. I apologize for stretching what you said. By answering the rhetorical question the way you did, I thought you were accepting the premise.
> 
> To answer your question, this thread has been about credits since the first post when Angie linked to an article about tax credits for parents. And it's not just debating the merits of the ones we already have, but talking about adding more and increasing taxes on the childless to cover the costs.


I don't like tax credits at all under any form for any reason. It allows tax farming which is a despicable idea that makes beasts of burden of others.

But I also think that work should be respected, lack of work not respected and work that provides for the common good honored. And work that takes from the common good jailed.

And parenting is work that should be among the honored catagory. And I realize there is bad parenting out there, which is stealing honor.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

where I want to said:


> I don't like tax credits at all under any form for any reason. It allows tax farming which is a despicable idea that makes beasts of burden of others.
> 
> But I also think that work should be respected, lack of work not respected and work that provides for the common good honored. And work that takes from the common good jailed.
> 
> And parenting is work that should be among the honored catagory. And I realize there is bad parenting out there, which is stealing honor.


 
There are a lot of things I do, everyone does, every day that provides for the common good. Just because you and/or yours are capable of procreation doesn't make what you do any more special. You are simply contributing to the common good in a different way. That, my friend, earns you a pat on the back. Not the right to reach into my pocket.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> I don't think there are EASY answers, but there surely are ANSWERS. We only have to look back 75 or so years at how things were done before we began paying impoverished single women to have children.
> 
> Prior to the advent of all the alphabet agencies (TANF, WIC, SNAP, etc.) very few women had children out of wedlock. As late as 1950, only 4 percent of births were to single mothers (vs. 40 percent today).
> 
> If mothers were unable to provide for their children, usually those kids were given or taken away and put in the care of a more competent party. That was probably a pretty champion inducement to either marry the father of your child, or get your act together and find a way to support it.


And we only have to look back 77 years to land ourselves squarely in a time when it was still legal for children under 18 to work dangerous jobs as well as children under 16 being able to work at jobs during school hours. If it wasn't for government stepping in to ensure the welfare of those children, it doesn't seem likely to me that the business/industrial communities of America would have determined it wasn't so very nice and stopped that practice. And I don't know if many poor families would be choosing school over paying jobs if their children could get them.

_I believe_ the rise in children born out of wedlock is not so much a result of social programs as it is an unintended consequence of the sexual revolution and the loosening of the sexual moral reins on society. I'm not saying that that was necessarily a bad direction to go - I'm not a fan of prudish or draconian views on sex - but I think it is one of those situations where you have to take the bad with the good. Sure there were fewer children born out of wedlock in the 50's but that has a lot to do with societal views and that's not really a place, as a woman, that I would like to go back to. I think it also has a lot to do with our society's general aversion to personal responsibility. Everyone loves to be a victim because then you can't be held accountable.

Like I said before, the social programs could be cut, we could appoint a Tsar of Parenting and sweep in and remove children from homes deemed to be unfit (which society would then have to raise anyway), but until there is a major shift in what we value - away from fame, financial wealth, exterior "beauty" and material possessions to compassion, charity, earth stewardship, health, etc. - I don't foresee much of a change in anything.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

where I want to said:


> I don't like tax credits at all under any form for any reason. It allows tax farming which is a despicable idea that makes beasts of burden of others.
> 
> But I also think that work should be respected, lack of work not respected and work that provides for the common good honored. And work that takes from the common good jailed.
> 
> And parenting is work that should be among the honored catagory. And I realize there is bad parenting out there, which is stealing honor.


Thank you for clearing that up.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

FeralFemale said:


> There are a lot of things I do, everyone does, every day that provides for the common good. Just because you and/or yours are capable of procreation doesn't make what you do any more special. You are simply contributing to the common good in a different way. That, my friend, earns you a pat on the back. Not the right to reach into my pocket.


I felt the same about a mortgage deduction. Why should I pay more for someone to pay off his house? Of course I took the deduction when they applied but that was then.

One of those never to be resolved issues. I will not begrudge a small difference to make it easier for parents to finance a child. You have objections. No common compromise on this that I can see.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> And we only have to look back 77 years to land ourselves squarely in a time when it was still legal for children under 18 to work dangerous jobs as well as children under 16 being able to work at jobs during school hours. If it wasn't for government stepping in to ensure the welfare of those children, it doesn't seem likely to me that the business/industrial communities of America would have determined it wasn't so very nice and stopped that practice. And I don't know if many poor families would be choosing school over paying jobs if their children could get them.


I'm not sure you can equate my viewpoint that we shouldn't pay poor women to have children out of wedlock with the notion that we ought to send the kiddos off to the mines. I think it's possible to support child labor laws (which I do) without believing it's a good thing that 48 percent of the births in this country are being subsidized by Medicaid.


> _I believe_ the rise in children born out of wedlock is not so much a result of social programs as it is an unintended consequence of the sexual revolution and the loosening of the sexual moral reins on society.


Actually I recall reading that the year with the most teen pregnancies, since statistics have been kept, was ... get ready for it! ... 1957. Yeah! Our moms and grandmas were getting their freaks on, too, but when they "got caught," they usually married the fathers of their fetuses, and thus ended up better off than the women of today, who often choose Uncle Sam as a partner instead. 


> Like I said before, the social programs could be cut, we could appoint a Tsar of Parenting and sweep in and remove children from homes deemed to be unfit (which society would then have to raise anyway),


True, but perhaps the cycle of poverty and dysfunction might be broken? 

I'll acknowledge it may be hard to overcome nature with nurture, but if we don't even try ...?



> but until there is a major shift in what we value - away from fame, financial wealth, exterior "beauty" and material possessions to compassion, charity, earth stewardship, health, etc. - I don't foresee much of a change in anything.


With all due respect, I think it's a wrongheaded approach to say we can't make things better without fundamentally changing human nature (which I'm not sure is possible anyway). I'm a pragmatist. I say we accept reality, and what motivates people, and work within those parameters. 

For instance, most people will toil as hard as is necessary to get the things they want or need. A smart society tries to remove the roadblocks that prevent people from reaching their full productivity. A dumb society gives them handouts, short-circuiting the necessity of working. We tend to be a dumb society.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

willow girl, âm not attempting to equate your viewpoint on social services for children with child labor â Iâm merely pointing out that âthat is how things were doneâ before these programs existed and I donât necessarily agree that it is a time that should/could be held up as an example of how things should be done today. The children still existed but ended up in dire circumstances because there was no help provided to families. To think it would be any better for todayâs children of similar circumstances, or to think those children would magically stop appearing should those programs be repealed is, I believe, naÃ¯ve. I donât think it is the magic pill to cure the illness.

Perhaps it is true that part of the reason there were less births to un-wed women during our motherâs and grandmotherâs time is because they married out of economic pressure, but I think it was far more out of a societal pressure which is not present today (hello, sexual revolution!). The perceived âshameâ of the notion of a non-married woman being sexually active has been removed, for better and for worse. Even though women were getting their freak on in our grandmothersâ and mothersâ times, it was not nearly as accepted in the public eye to do so. Again, Iâm not saying itâs a period to emulate â Iâm just saying the things society accepts today, as always, come with a certain set of pros and cons â itâs just a different set than what they used to be.

I donât think they cycle of poverty and dysfunction will be broken by removing social programs for children. History has already proven that the children will be there whether the programs are or not. And I donât believe that changing the values of a society is going against human nature. We learn to value the things we do as a society â we can learn to place that value elsewhere. I agree with you that we are a dumb society â just not for the same reasons.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> willow girl, âm not attempting to equate your viewpoint on social services for children with child labor â Iâm merely pointing out that âthat is how things were doneâ before these programs existed and I donât necessarily agree that it is a time that should/could be held up as an example of how things should be done today. The children still existed but ended up in dire circumstances because there was no help provided to families.


Too many children are still ending up in dire circumstances despite the fact we provide tens of thousands of dollars of assistance over the course of their childhood, often because their parents are mentally ill or addicted. IMO, if the parents are dysfunctional, as characterized by the chronic inability to provide for their children, maybe the kids are better off being raised by someone else. 



> To think it would be any better for todayâs children of similar circumstances, or to think those children would magically stop appearing should those programs be repealed is, I believe, naÃ¯ve.


It might be unrealistic to think they'd magically stop appearing, but there are alternatives to allowing them to be raised on the taxpayer's dime. As late as 1970, about 80 percent of the babies born to single mothers were put up for adoption. By 1995, that figure had fallen to around 1 percent. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_scoop_era)




> Perhaps it is true that part of the reason there were less births to un-wed women during our motherâs and grandmotherâs time is because they married out of economic pressure, but I think it was far more out of a societal pressure which is not present today (hello, sexual revolution!). The perceived âshameâ of the notion of a non-married woman being sexually active has been removed, for better and for worse.


_Should_ a woman be ashamed of being so irresponsible as to give birth to a child she doesn't have the means to support? Perhaps a little shame is a _good_ thing. The pendulum has swung a little too far in the opposite direction, IMO. There is nothing wrong with having sex, but if you get knocked up when you're in no position to raise a baby, perhaps you deserve that 'L' on your forehead.


> I donât think the cycle of poverty and dysfunction will be broken by removing social programs for children.


It doesn't seem like social programs (at least as they're currently conceived and constructed) are going to break the cycle, either, so where does that leave us? I say we might as well keep our money in our pockets if it isn't going to do any good. As Ronald Reagan famously stated, "We fought a war on poverty and poverty won." Time to try a different strategy IMO.


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> At least in the states where I've lived, this is negotiable in the divorce and/or custody decree.


In Michigan, the custodial has to sign a release for the non-custodial. Every year. If they do not, one has to determine whether the time and money spent are worth the pain and hassle

I am firmly believing in to vote for property taxes/etc you MUST own and pay property tax.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

To answer the OP....... _certainly not_ in a free republic.

Good indication that the vast bulk of the American population has been presumed to consent to some other form of government.....


----------



## bluefish (Jan 27, 2006)

In answer to the original question, no. I have kids and if other people pay money to support my kids, in the form of taxes, then they have a say in how my kids are raised. NO.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> Too many children are still ending up in dire circumstances despite the fact we provide tens of thousands of dollars of assistance over the course of their childhood, often because their parents are mentally ill or addicted. IMO, if the parents are dysfunctional, as characterized by the chronic inability to provide for their children, maybe the kids are better off being raised by someone else.
> 
> It might be unrealistic to think they'd magically stop appearing, but there are alternatives to allowing them to be raised on the taxpayer's dime. As late as 1970, about 80 percent of the babies born to single mothers were put up for adoption. By 1995, that figure had fallen to around 1 percent. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_scoop_era)




And so I ask you, who is the someone else? When the social program rug is pulled out, who is going to step in and take its place? There are still children waiting for adoption, where do you suppose the additional influx to that system would end up? And who would foot the bill for it? Or would you be content to let the chips fall where they may?





willow_girl said:


> _Should_ a woman be ashamed of being so irresponsible as to give birth to a child she doesn't have the means to support? Perhaps a little shame is a _good_ thing. The pendulum has swung a little too far in the opposite direction, IMO. There is nothing wrong with having sex, but if you get knocked up when you're in no position to raise a baby, perhaps you deserve that 'L' on your forehead.


And that would be one of the changes in society that I'm talking about. But it is so intertwangled (yes, I made that up) with so many different issues. Look at what many American women still look to in order to feel worthwhile. THAT is one of the big jumping off points from which we need to start making changes. (Not to mention trying to deal with the influx of other male dominated cultures in which women are still socially second class citizens.) When a female derives her worth from male attention and not from within, this is part of the fallout. We've come a long way, baby, but Good Lord we still have a long way to go.




willow_girl said:


> It doesn't seem like social programs (at least as they're currently conceived and constructed) are going to break the cycle, either, so where does that leave us? I say we might as well keep our money in our pockets if it isn't going to do any good. As Ronald Reagan famously stated, "We fought a war on poverty and poverty won." Time to try a different strategy IMO.


I can't agree that the programs aren't doing _any_ good. To be sure, they aren't perfect, but I would rather deal with the fallout of a somewhat functioning broken system then the fallout I believe would occur if that system wasn't in place. 

I think, to bring this whole thing full circle to my first comment, that the answer lies in education. And that is where we are failing miserably. We leave it up to the schools to educate our children on "facts "and processes but we leave it up to media and advertising agencies to educate them on who they should be and what should be important in life. Being that most of the parents fell prey to that same education system, it's going to be a big ship to turn.

I don't know...I don't see either of us affecting the other's opinion on this.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> In Michigan, the custodial has to sign a release for the non-custodial. Every year. If they do not, one has to determine whether the time and money spent are worth the pain and hassle


That is interesting because when I lived in Michigan, my husband at the time had had it written into his earlier divorce decree that he would be able to claim his daughter as a dependent, although he was not the custodial parent, and he always did so without any problems. Of course his ex didn't work (she stayed on welfare until their daughter was 16) so maybe she made no objections as she wasn't paying taxes anyway? This was back in the 80s and 90s, too, so perhaps things have changed in the interim.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> And so I ask you, who is the someone else? When the social program rug is pulled out, who is going to step in and take its place? There are still children waiting for adoption, where do you suppose the additional influx to that system would end up? And who would foot the bill for it? Or would you be content to let the chips fall where they may?


I think the vast majority of people currently reliant on the welfare system would develop a near-miraculous ability to shift for themselves if the alternative were to lose custody of their child(ren). Don't you? 

I have been acquainted with many poor people, and they are seldom as helpless as one would suppose -- most have simply become adept at working the system. If the rug were pulled out, they'd simply find new and perhaps better ways to acquire what they need ... perhaps by _working for it_. 




> We've come a long way, baby, but Good Lord we still have a long way to go.


Perhaps we might accelerate the advancement of our gender by sending a clear societal message that _having children when you're poor and unmarried is a stupid idea_? It generally consigns both mother and child to a life of poverty. 


> I can't agree that the programs aren't doing _any_ good. To be sure, they aren't perfect, but I would rather deal with the fallout of a somewhat functioning broken system then the fallout I believe would occur if that system wasn't in place.


I couldn't disagree more strongly. I believe a program that was put in place to help poor women who had children to support is today encouraging poor women to HAVE children they can't support! 



> I think, to bring this whole thing full circle to my first comment, that the answer lies in education. And that is where we are failing miserably. We leave it up to the schools to educate our children on "facts "and processes but we leave it up to media and advertising agencies to educate them on who they should be and what should be important in life. Being that most of the parents fell prey to that same education system, it's going to be a big ship to turn.


Our educational system certainly leaves a lot to be desired, but I think the real problem lies elsewhere, in the fact that we don't send a clear societal message as to the path to success. On the one hand, we tell young people to stay in school, just say no to drugs, don't have sex, go to college and work hard. OTOH, if they ignore all the above advice, and screw up their lives royally, they're not really penalized for it. Get pregnant at 16? No problem; you'll get welfare (at least temporarily), food stamps, subsidized housing, subsidized daycare, earned income tax credit if you work a little bit, and a Pell grant that will let you go to college for free if you choose to do so. 

The net result is the person who screws up often ends up in equal or better circumstances than the person who makes a good-faith effort to live righteously. Heck, I remember 25 years ago, when I was in college, one of my friends was a young high school graduate who was living with her parents, working part-time at a bank and paying her way through school. I recall her making an observation similar to mine above -- that she'd be better off having a baby out of wedlock, as she'd be able to move out on her own, and she'd get free tuition. 

In short, social programs do such a great job of removing the negative consequences of poor decisions that people no longer are incentivized to avoid them. They're not falling into a safety net -- they're _jumping_ into it.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

A P.S. to the above: As evidence for my last point, I'll cite the fact that last year, 48 percent of births that took place in this country were funded by Medicaid.

Those are not children who were born to middle-class families who later fell into poverty. Those are children who were born to women who already were poor, but decided to bring kids into the world anyway.


----------



## haley1 (Aug 15, 2012)

Not tax related but maybe we should offer free sterilization, to anyone..... will save lots in the long run? Yes I know we don't want anymore gov programs but....


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

That will be forced, soon enough.


----------



## notwyse (Feb 16, 2014)

Deep breaths. Deep breaths. OK. As a general rule persons with no children are able to accumulate more assets. Some get higher paying jobs due to moving up or more education. This alone makes their taxes higher. As for school tax....I payvschool taxes in three different counties. School policies change. Sometimes the schools are good....sometimes not so. I don't mind. I went to public school. My son went to public school. Somewhere there is a person going to public school who will change my life. St the very least they will contribute to my social security. A great deal for me.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> I think the vast majority of people currently reliant on the welfare system would develop a near-miraculous ability to shift for themselves if the alternative were to lose custody of their child(ren). Don't you?


I thought I made my opinion pretty clear on that but I apparently left enough room for misunderstanding. To clear it up, no, I do not.




willow_girl said:


> I have been acquainted with many poor people, and they are seldom as helpless as one would suppose -- most have simply become adept at working the system. If the rug were pulled out, they'd simply find new and perhaps better ways to acquire what they need ... perhaps by working for it.


We are obviously acquainted with different sorts of poor people then. Most of my experience is with the working poor - who are already âworking for itâ but often times without the skills required to get a job with a salary that pulls them out of poverty levels. My best friend recently put herself through school working a nightshift job and is, hopefully, on her way to a better career and life for herself and her daughter. She ended up as a single mother after a divorce. If there were no programs in place to help them, I doubt she would be in the better position she now finds herself. 




willow_girl said:


> Perhaps we might accelerate the advancement of our gender by sending a clear societal message that having children when you're poor and unmarried is a stupid idea? It generally consigns both mother and child to a life of poverty.


Perhaps we might. Perhaps better education on and providing of birth control is also in order. Or perhaps we might accelerate the advancement of our gender by sending a clear societal message that women are worthwhile to begin with and do not need to derive their value from how many men then can attract. Perhaps we also need to educate our boys on how to value women. Again, addressing the baby issue is just looking at one of the many outcomes of the real root causes. Itâs like telling someone who is a "cutter" that it is a stupid practice and believe you solved the problem.




willow_girl said:


> I couldn't disagree more strongly. I believe a program that was put in place to help poor women who had children to support is today encouraging poor women to HAVE children they can't support!


I don't personally know anyone who has felt encouraged enough by the system to purposely get pregnant in order to reap the benefits. Ever. On the contrary, anyone I've ever known who ended up with an unplanned pregnancy was quite distraught about the situation. Granted, sometimes it was by their own poor choice to have sex with a man who would not be a good partner if a child resulted from the act of having sex, sometimes it was their own poor choice in birth control (or lack thereof). Whatever the case, they were quite aware of the vast havoc these new little beings were going to create in their lives. I donât know of anyone who would consciously choose that. At this point we can enter into the discussion of encouraging abortions rather than supporting children but thatâs a whole different discussion.




willow_girl said:


> Our educational system certainly leaves a lot to be desired, but I think the real problem lies elsewhere, in the fact that we don't send a clear societal message as to the path to success. On the one hand, we tell young people to stay in school, just say no to drugs, don't have sex, go to college and work hard. OTOH, if they ignore all the above advice, and screw up their lives royally, they're not really penalized for it. Get pregnant at 16? No problem; you'll get welfare (at least temporarily), food stamps, subsidized housing, subsidized daycare, earned income tax credit if you work a little bit, and a Pell grant that will let you go to college for free if you choose to do so.


I have to disagree with part of this. I donât think we are telling young people to stay in school, just say no to drugs, don't have sex, go to college and work hard. I donât think we hold the people who do that up as role models for our young people. If children of poor, single mothers do not have someone who has completed school, obtained a job, said no to drugs, etc. in their lives, they look to society to provide those additional role models. We hold up sports figures, celebrities and reality show people who thumb their noses at responsibility, and those who amass material goods as role models. That is where attention is constantly being focused and I think it is what the youth of our country try to emulate.




willow_girl said:


> The net result is the person who screws up often ends up in equal or better circumstances than the person who makes a good-faith effort to live righteously. Heck, I remember 25 years ago, when I was in college, one of my friends was a young high school graduate who was living with her parents, working part-time at a bank and paying her way through school. I recall her making an observation similar to mine above -- that she'd be better off having a baby out of wedlock, as she'd be able to move out on her own, and she'd get free tuition.


To me that depends upon whether one is looking at the short term or the long term, and what one considers better circumstances. 

And to also clear things up, it's not that I believe there is no one fleecing the system. I know they exist on every level - from the poverty stricken right on up to multi-billion dollar corporations. However, I feel the infighting that goes on with the unwashed masses (read 99%) does nothing but to keep us all where we are right now. I stated this in other threads - we are so distracted arguing and debating social issues that we never can seem to band together and effect any real change in the financial disparities of this country. Is that by design? Maybe, maybe. 

And with that in mind, I will respectfully disagree with your position on this topic and refocus my attention and efforts to real change rather than friendly debate.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I thought I made my opinion pretty clear on that but I apparently left enough room for misunderstanding. To clear it up, no, I do not.


We will have to disagree on that point, I guess. But I'll illustrate my argument with a real-life example:

My second husband got married right out of high school to a classmate. A year later, they had a baby, and a year after that, they were divorced. His ex-wife promptly went on welfare and remained there for the next 16 years, doing absolutely diddly-squat. When her daughter was a sophomore in high school, she probably realized the gravy train was about to run out, and got a Pell grant, went back to school, earned her LPN, and was immediately hired by a nursing home. Within months, she was promoted to charge nurse, and a year or so later, bought a house, and was living a normal middle-class existence, and still is to this day. 

Now, did welfare truly "help" her by allowing her bump along in poverty for a decade and a half when she clearly was capable of more? There is an old saying, "Necessity is the mother of invention," and I believe it holds true more often than not. As a society, we should not be in the business of eliminating necessity. It's a useful commodity, IMO.



> We are obviously acquainted with different sorts of poor people then. Most of my experience is with the working poor - who are already &#8220;working for it&#8221; but often times without the skills required to get a job with a salary that pulls them out of poverty levels. My best friend recently put herself through school working a nightshift job and is, hopefully, on her way to a better career and life for herself and her daughter. She ended up as a single mother after a divorce. If there were no programs in place to help them, I doubt she would be in the better position she now finds herself.


Hang on. I'm not saying we should have _no_ programs; rather, programs should be aimed at encouraging people to better themselves and be (more) productive, rather than maintaining them in a state of comfortable inactivity. 



> Perhaps we might. Perhaps better education on and providing of birth control is also in order. Or perhaps we might accelerate the advancement of our gender by sending a clear societal message that women are worthwhile to begin with and do not need to derive their value from how many men then can attract. Perhaps we also need to educate our boys on how to value women. Again, addressing the baby issue is just looking at one of the many outcomes of the real root causes. It&#8217;s like telling someone who is a "cutter" that it is a stupid practice and believe you solved the problem.


I agree that it would be ideal to address the root causes of why women have babies in inadvisable situations, but _there is also some value in simply preventing them from having babies! _One might say that half a loaf is better than none. (I'm a pragmatist, remember.)

Or, to put it another way, we'll have to marshal massive societal resources in the case of the 14-year-old who is trying to get pregnant because having a baby will show her boyfriend how much she loves him. (Arrgh.) But what about the teen who simply wants to have sex with her boyfriend, but DOESN'T want to get pregnant? Who wants to graduate and go to college?! It's much simpler to help her, and in many cases, we're not even doing that (or doing it very well). 

I'm not saying we should throw the first girl to the wolves, but fergawdsakes, it would be nice if we could at least hit the slow pitches! Hmphf.



> I don't personally know anyone who has felt encouraged enough by the system to purposely get pregnant in order to reap the benefits. Ever. On the contrary, anyone I've ever known who ended up with an unplanned pregnancy was quite distraught about the situation. Granted, sometimes it was by their own poor choice to have sex with a man who would not be a good partner if a child resulted from the act of having sex, sometimes it was their own poor choice in birth control (or lack thereof). Whatever the case, they were quite aware of the vast havoc these new little beings were going to create in their lives. I don&#8217;t know of anyone who would consciously choose that.



I think when the stakes are high -- when the consequences of pregnancy are likely to be very unpleasant -- women will take greater care not to get knocked up, or knocked up by men who are unlikely to stand by them if they do. (Remember, it doesn't seem like single women in past decades had less sex; they were just more likely to marry their partners if they "got in trouble.")

As a society, we've ameliorated most of the unpleasant consequences of unwed motherhood, though, and thus we're experiencing an unprecedented percentage of births to poor single women. Surprise, surprise. Not!



> At this point we can enter into the discussion of encouraging abortions rather than supporting children but that&#8217;s a whole different discussion.


Abortion is not the only option, you know. Childless couples are clamoring to adopt healthy newborns. 


> I have to disagree with part of this. I don&#8217;t think we are telling young people to stay in school, just say no to drugs, don't have sex, go to college and work hard. I don&#8217;t think we hold the people who do that up as role models for our young people.


You could be correct here. I was, of course, referencing the messages I received growing up, but that was a long time ago! It's quite possible young people today are getting different marching orders. 


> And with that in mind, I will respectfully disagree with your position on this topic and refocus my attention and efforts to real change rather than friendly debate.


I have enjoyed having you as a debate partner, and I wish you well.


----------



## notwyse (Feb 16, 2014)

Bloogrssgrl I totally agree with all you said and more. It seems so easy for folks to judge. I always think to myself that they are so lucky. Lucky to have been born with brains. Lucky in love. Lucky to be born on the right side of the tracks or border. Lucky lucky lucky. I have complete sympathy with those less fortunate. I crawled up. Not all can. P.s. most don't know what a cutter is. I do.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> P.s. most don't know what a cutter is. I do.


I was one, a long time ago.


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

My children were my responsibility and I never expected anyone to give me anything. Never took welfare or any of that stuff, I worked and did ok. Not rich by any means, but did ok. When the government steps in and makes it easy to be idle, then the idle are not motivated to do anymore than they have to.

I feel no obligation to pay taxes for anyone else's kids..heck I pay enough for myself and then some.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

No. The people with children should be paying more than the people without children or at least those people with more than 2 kids.

The world does not need more people it needs fewer if we are going to survive as a species.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

fishhead said:


> No. The people with children should be paying more than the people without children or at least those people with more than 2 kids.
> 
> The world does not need more people it needs fewer if we are going to survive as a species.


So the brighter folk don't have children while the dumber have lots of them.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

notwyse said:


> Bloogrssgrl I totally agree with all you said and more. It seems so easy for folks to judge. I always think to myself that they are so lucky. Lucky to have been born with brains. Lucky in love. Lucky to be born on the right side of the tracks or border. Lucky lucky lucky. I have complete sympathy with those less fortunate. I crawled up. Not all can. P.s. most don't know what a cutter is. I do.


Luck plays such a small part as to be negligible over all. People with the same level of intelligence end up differently. People from the same family end up differently. People with disabilities of all kinds can make a good life for themselves.
The main difference in outcomes, in most situations, is that people who believe their life is in their own hands do something while people who see life as something that happens to them as they stand helplessly by don't.
I've seen this in people with both mental and physical disabilities and with people from horrible childhoods. Actually with people with good homes too.

The last thing people who see themselves as victims of bad luck need is sympathy.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

No.

Just another unconstitutional transfer of wealth.

The childless might want to sponsor some poor kid's education for the "good of society", but it should be their choice.

To do otherwise creates graft and waste and opens the door for all manner of abuses.


Tim


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

Wow. 

I read the thread after I posted.

Looks like we found a topic just about everyone agrees on!


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

tarbe - I haven't read the last page of replies, but when I posted the OP I thought most people would agree that this was not a good idea.

Though I am very surprised the thread has lasted this long.


----------

