Skeptical on the tax cut by Trump

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Originally Posted by Clocker

This argument is usually focused on education. It is debatable in theory, but a failure in practice. Much of that failure falls on the federal government, which has turned the public schools into day care centers providing safe spaces that turn kids into snowflakes, protected from the real world.

Decisions about, and funding for, education belong at the local level. That gives parent a greater role in the education of their children, and gives non-parents the option of considering local taxes in the decision as to where to live.

And I would also point out that there is nothing in the Constitution that suggests a role for federal involvement in education.

You are now arguing about paying more.

You are getting a tax cut.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Lemon Drop Husker

You are now arguing about paying more.

I am arguing that it is not equitable for a single person to pay more than a married person with kids. And I haven't looked at the tax bill, but the discussion here indicates that the bill will increase the current inequity.

[Tom]

And I would also point out that there is nothing in the Constitution that suggests a role for federal involvement in education.

Including having one!

[zico20]

Originally Posted by Clocker

This argument is usually focused on education. It is debatable in theory, but a failure in practice. Much of that failure falls on the federal government, which has turned the public schools into day care centers providing safe spaces that turn kids into snowflakes, protected from the real world.

Decisions about, and funding for, education belong at the local level. That gives parent a greater role in the education of their children, and gives non-parents the option of considering local taxes in the decision as to where to live.

And I would also point out that there is nothing in the Constitution that suggests a role for federal involvement in education.

Clocker, you should become a good liberal and stick your nose a little deeper in the Constitution and find something. After all, liberals "discovered" that the right to privacy and abortion are in the Constitution. You just need to become a little more creative.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

Keep it down, you will ruin the GOP Rep!

Yeah, crap forbid those raising children, contributing to society, and paying more than their share of local, state, and federal taxes.

Such a dreadful people they are.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Originally Posted by Clocker

I am arguing that it is not equitable for a single person to pay more than a married person with kids. And I haven't looked at the tax bill, but the discussion here indicates that the bill will increase the current inequity.

Part of being a contributing member to society is putting forth any kind of effort for its future.

Having children, is a fantastic earmark in that effort. (Now, raising them right would be a massive kudos, but I won't go there quite yet).

Other than taking up quality air, a dwelling I assume of decent nature, and saturating your own individual pocket book, what do you contribute to society as a single person?

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Clocker

I am arguing that it is not equitable for a single person to pay more than a married person with kids. And I haven't looked at the tax bill, but the discussion here indicates that the bill will increase the current inequity.

True. And it also isn't equitable to have different tax rates based on your level of income. It is, however, the most pragmatic way to raise revenue and to help with the costs of raising children. When society decides that children are no longer important you might get your equitable tax scenario.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Lemon Drop Husker

Other than taking up quality air, a dwelling I assume of decent nature, and saturating your own individual pocket book, what do you contribute to society as a single person?

On what basis do you question my "contribution to society"? I did not say that I am or am not single, or that I do or do not have children. You seem to imply that simply producing children is a greater "contribution to society" than anything a non-producer could contribute.

And the last thing we should want or allow is to have the federal government decide the value of anyone's contribution to society.

[JustRalph]

I’ve never had kids and have been screwed royally on it. Mostly with high school taxes. I moved......to avoid them......problem solved.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Originally Posted by Clocker

On what basis do you question my "contribution to society"? I did not say that I am or am not single, or that I do or do not have children. You seem to imply that simply producing children is a greater "contribution to society" than anything a non-producer could contribute.

And the last thing we should want or allow is to have the federal government decide the value of anyone's contribution to society.

OK. Who should decide what taxes one should pay for being a citizen of the United States?

I'm all ears.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

I’ve never had kids and have been screwed royally on it. Mostly with high school taxes. I moved......to avoid them......problem solved.

That's unpatriotic in the minds of some. You have not made a significant contribution to society and you have avoided helping those who did.

You should pay more taxes to make up for that, right? If you don't have kids in high school, then political "logic" says you should pay a larger share of the costs of those schools because you can.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Lemon Drop Husker

OK. Who should decide what taxes one should pay for being a citizen of the United States?

Any decision should be made as low on the government food chain as possible. First at the local level, then county, then state, and then federal for anything beyond the scope of lower entities. The lower the level of government involved, the greater the opportunity for the individual to affect the decision or, as in Ralph's case above, do something about it.

And the decisions should be based on objective measures, not on value judgements about things like "contribution to society".

Assume for discussion that I have no children and my neighbor with two kids in public school lives in a similar house and makes a similar salary. There is no reason to doubt that he imposes greater costs on society than I do. By what objective, not emotional, standard can one conclude that he contributes more to society and that therefore I should pay more taxes than he does?

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Any decision should be made as low on the government food chain as possible. First at the local level, then county, then state, and then federal for anything beyond the scope of lower entities. The lower the level of government involved, the greater the opportunity for the individual to affect the decision or, as in Ralph's case above, do something about it.

And the decisions should be based on objective measures, not on value judgements about things like "contribution to society".

Assume for discussion that I have no children and my neighbor with two kids in public school lives in a similar house and makes a similar salary. There is no reason to doubt that he imposes greater costs on society than I do. By what objective, not emotional, standard can one conclude that he contributes more to society and that therefore I should pay more taxes than he does?

There is no I in me.

50 years from, who is paying taxes?

[zico20]

Originally Posted by AndyC

True. And it also isn't equitable to have different tax rates based on your level of income. It is, however, the most pragmatic way to raise revenue and to help with the costs of raising children. When society decides that children are no longer important you might get your equitable tax scenario.

Part of society already has this view. They are the climate alarmists. Many say having children is the biggest threat to human existence. So you may be on to something. No tax breaks for kids!

https://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/47934...climate-change

[lefty359]

Nobody mentioned the growth this plan will provide. Plus overseas money coming back to the U.S. More jobs and more taxpayers. And right now, it looks like a go.