| Author |
Message |
    
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2010 - 12:44 pm: | 
|
I don't see how a radical activist judge mandated redefinition of the word "marriage" relates to enabling families.
If we are to survive and prosper as a nation, we need children.
As to the deduction for dependent children, we certainly recognize that caring for dependents is absolutely vital to the general welfare of our nation and a vital responsibility of parents. Young children after all are virtually helpless to do so themselves. Thus we mandate that parents look after their children.
Higher income earners get the same deduction where it is really unjustified, but they also are subject to a higher overall tax rate, so that pretty much makes it a wash.
The alternative in many cases would be that more parents would find themselves truly lacking the ability to properly care for their children, and they would need help, and the Progressives/Socialists would mandate gov help for them.
I'd rather parents just keep more of their own money so they remain most in charge of their children's care, not the gov through redistribution, which often comes with strings attached. Their are no strings attached to the dependent child deduction, just that they have a SS #. Okay that's not a trivial string, but is another discussion for another topic. 
Is it unreasonable to incentivize and/or subsidize beyond some reasonable number of children per family, say three or four? I think it is, so it seems appropriate to limit deductions to three or four deductions for dependent children. Beyond that, the parents are on their own.
I can speak for myself, not having any children. I'm happy to see productive families paying less income tax. They more than make up for it if they do a good job raising productive young Americans.
There is validity to one of our founders clearly stated intentions "to provide for the general welfare"--though I now despise that word thanks to Progressives/Socialists--. Where the delineation between providing for the general welfare versus intrusive/abusive federal government is the big issue.
I think that recognizing in tangible terms the absolutely vital role that family and children contribute to the success and prosperity of America as a free nation is a necessary thing and not infringing upon our freedom.
quote:We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
"Promote the general welfare", the meaning and intent of that is the crux of the debate on all such issues. |
Kenm123t
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2010 - 12:48 pm: |
|
promote is not provide |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2010 - 01:33 pm: |
|
"charge of their children's care, not the gov through redistribution"
But are not tax credits a redistribution? Someone has to pay for their credit in the form of a higher tax.
Parents who aim to provide for their children will do so regardless of a measly $1000 a year bonus from the feds. No one is buying shoes for their kids with that money, they're buying plasma TVs or other useless crap (or shoes for themselves at $400 a pop). That isn't even $100 a month. Buy fewer video games for your playstation or xbox per month, and it's a wash. Stop drinking $5 cups of coffee or, heck, stop smoking. If you can't pay to care for your children and are doing those other things instead, I absolutely do not think you deserve an extra $1000 a year of my tax money.
I do agree that families are important and caring for a child properly is the most important thing an adult can do in their lifetime. Will $1000 a year from the fed make that happen? I don't think so. Bad parents are bad parents. The money doesn't matter. I was dirt poor when my kids were young (active duty) and we did OK. I didn't have game consoles, I drove a 40 year old truck and a 15 year old motorcycle to save gas. We didn't go to Disneyland. We didn't have HBO. I didn't frequent Starbucks. My kids turned out great. They are both honor students, are exceptionally well behaved, and are on course to be productive members of society.
There are tens of thousands of parents just like me who did the same with what I had, or even less. There are tens of thousands in the same financial situation that are horrible parents, because…they are horrible parents. Their priorities are not their children. Giving someone in that mindset a thousand dollars won't make them a better parent. It’ll just buy them a new TV.
(Message edited by hootowl on March 09, 2010) |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2010 - 01:38 pm: |
|
Also, "promote the general welfare" is one of the REASONS they "do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"
"Promoting the general welfare" is not included as a rule, process, or law as delineated in the text of the constitution.
It's meaning and its context is being horribly misconstrued. |
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2010 - 06:47 pm: |
|
"But are not tax credits a redistribution? Someone has to pay for their credit in the form of a higher tax."
Depends. If everyone is able to take advantage of them, and most do, but some choose not to, then maybe it's more of a penalty for those that don't.
I don't think it's valid to argue that extra money for parents on a tight budget won't aid their children, that it is only spent frivolously. I know my parents sure put the money to good use. They were on a very tight budget when I was young, even more-so when my older sister was young.
Again, I think it is vital that we promote family. The tax deduction for children helps do that. It might also be thought of as an adjustment for household tax.
Then there is the so-called "marriage penalty." What's up with that? |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2010 - 07:51 pm: |
|
The marriage penalty is a big revenue raiser. it's that simple. it's also a stupid tax, since doing the same people's taxes different pays less taxes. A bit dishonest of Congress? sure.
Like I said, I'm not hardcore against tax breaks as a form of encouraging good behavior. A bit more set against tax increases to discourage bad, but that may just be a personal philosophical quirk.
A little help with the kiddies?
How about home ownership?
High mileage vehicle purchase incentives?
( since I do 2 of the 3 above....how hypocritical am I if I am set against such tax incentives?  )
All 3 above sound & probably are good for society as a whole. but.....
Sin taxes? Booze, evil weed, the other evil weed, etc. etc. ( then again maaaaaaybe a cannabis tax would help with the debt, and reduce violence? )
High performance toy taxes.
Soak the rich taxes on high ticket items like yachts. ( a proven job & regional business destroyer see: new england yacht builders) |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2010 - 09:29 am: |
|
Tax deductions are one thing, the credits are another. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2010 - 12:14 pm: |
|
Speaking of government trying to force behavior modification, what is up with Nancy Pelosi on the health care bill? "Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting."
She is actually talking about forcing you to change your diet through insurance legislation. I'm not clear what tools she thinks the government will use to change our habits with insurance regulations, but it doesn't sound good. Talk about overreaching your authorized powers! |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2010 - 12:46 pm: |
|
I think there was someone here from Canada, not sure, that described being counseled and setup with a fitness regimen and diet to help improve their health, all on recommendation by their gov paid doc. They thought that it was great.
The results were good, no doubt.
Not sure what the consequences if any of non-compliance would have been. |
|
