I understand. I’m not saying its an irrelevant discussion, just that I have no basis to contribute. As a computer programmer, I’ve never been in a job where people had the need or the ability to cover for each other. I’ve had to “cover” for myself, working a weekend to make up for time lost during the week, but I’ve had to do that without children.
Personally, were I a manager or business owner (very little likelihood there!) I would consider a loyal employee more valuable than a couple extra hours work.
Let’s look at this the other way around. I’m in the top 10% (at least) of income. My salary has almost always been over the median througout my adult life. Even now, I’m paying ~$20,000/year just in federal income and Medicare taxes, another $5,000 in state taxes, $2,500 in property taxes, and god knows how much in sales taxes.
Over my lifetime, I will certainly use less tax dollars than I am contributing, even considering my dependent and mortgage interest deductions. My tax deductions aren’t “coming out of anyone’s pocket.” Because I have children, my surplus contribution is slightly reduced.
I am not sucking off the public teat here. I’m not ripping anyone off. The government is graciously allowing me to use a little more of my own income to support my children.
As a very productive person (as measured by my income) I have the obligation to support society to a greater extent than I receive support from that society. And I’m proud of fulfilling that obligation. Even with children, I’m still fulfilling that obligation, just $185.83 less per month.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.
I don’t have kids. Kids bug me, I usually can’t wait to scrape them off when I go visit households with kids. But a lot of my friends and co-workers are parents.
It’s obvious that raising kids is a huge burden. I always have more money to spend than my parent friends. I get to go rock climbing, snowmobiling, skiing, scuba diving, motorcycle racing, etc, ad nauseum. I get to buy toys, oh boy do I have toys. I have a big, heated, well equipped shop. My parent friends have a carport. I eat lunch out, my parent friends are brown baggers. They financial plan 10 years in advance. I cash a paycheck and put it in my pocket. I take vacations to Australia, London, Turkey, Africa. They drive to the beach. They get to go to court because their son broke out a window at school. I take my dog in for shots once a year. They sit on a gridlocked freeway because they have to pick up Junior from daycare. I go have dinner and a beer until it clears out.
I COULD CARE LESS if they get a tax break. Whatever it is doesn’t come anywhere close to the sacrifices they make for love. Remember that word? To some people it’s more than a word. You mysanthropic GEEKS! Bitter is your favorite flavor isn’t it.
Have / don’t have kids? Whatever, but if you do have kids, make goddam sure you do a good job of it. I don’t have a problem kicking in a couple bucks. It’s a good investment.
Holly:
You work for some serious assholes. Do me a favor; quietly shop around for another job, quit at the worst possible moment, and then tell me all about it. Especially the part where they call you and humbly beg you to come back because they are so swamped.
One and all:
Philosophy is fun but doesn’t match one-for-one with real life. Socrates drank the hemlock because he was a dipshit. He should have kept his trap shut for a week and he could have enjoyed 20 more years of diddling teenage boys. GET REAL!! GET OVER IT!!!
SingleDad, do you think you are the only one? No matter how much you pay, every deduction/credit you get is increasing the taxes of someone who pays even more.
(Not that I don’t agree with you that we should put an end to these doubly-progressive income taxes, but that’s another debate.)
If childrearing is so horrible, maybe fewer people should do it. My extended family managed to rear children without giving any of us kids the impression that it was so grueling and expensive. Instead we learned about personal responsibility and thrift.I object to the idea that I should feel sorry for these people and that they are deserving of a “break” when I don’t see many of them ACTUALLY DOING ANY CHILDREARING. How hard can it be to let your kids do whatever the hell they want?
I really can’t address the rest of your…very eloquent argument. Shall we get back to the OP?
The fact is that proportionally you are making nowhere near the contribution of a struggling young, childless, apartment-dwelling couple.
Are you being purposely obtuse? Do you not see that these people are paying more than they should because people in your position are paying less than they should (as a percentage of income)?
But that’s OK, I guess, because gosh, I can see that you really need the money. I mean you have to be able to replace that Sega system if it breaks, or if a more advanced model comes out, right? And those game cartridges do get expensive. What’s a top 10% income-earner to do?
And speaking of whining, please stop whining about the terrible burdens of parenthood. There are costs, and there are benefits (discussed in my earlier post). If the benefits don’t outweigh the costs for you, don’t have kids.
I think for most people the benefits (which don’t all fit neatly into an account ledger) are worth whatever costs they must bear.
Over and over we have made the point that you are paying less than other people who are making as much as you (including those who WANT to have a house and kids, but have to save longer because of extra taxes imposed on married, childless apartment dwellers).
Did you think of that? That some pre-parents are paying an obscene amount of tax while they struggle to save enough money for a down-payment in what is currently a very expensive house market. While you are sitting there whining about your parental martyrdom, they are dreaming of being parents but waiting until they have a house in which to raise those children.
No one is saying it’s an either/or choice. What is being stated is the fact that these people were not remembered FOR their children. Their achievements did not include reproduction. Their great contribution to society was not their offspring.
C’est Tout!
ENFP Prayer: Dear God, please help me keep my mind on one - oh look a bird! - thing at a time
CuBorab: “Basta. This is hardly a discussion or a debate anymore.”
You’re absolutely correct. We have two sets of well-to-do people in the wealthiest country in the world, both of which are net tax producers, arguing over how much of an “obscene rip off” $185 a month is. It’s ridiculous, and I thank you for pointing that out to me.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.
“It’s ridiculous, and I thank you for pointing that out to me.”
Are you being sarcastic? No, really. I risk embarrassment, but I admit my inability to tell.
That aside, folks, maybe the next Big Problem we should all tackle with our Great Big Brains is how taxes could be made more fair to everyone involved…
I can’t see this as a question of paying for “other people’s” children. It’s a question of enlightened self-interest. These are the people who will be running the world in 30some years. These are the people who will be running my nursing home. More immediatly, these are the people I will be sharing a desolate subway platform with in a few years. (This would be the difference between taking time off for your children and taking time of for your pet. Not that I don’t wish Skippy all the best.)
That we have common interest in the next generation doesn’t strike me a debatable. The question is what we do about it. I don’t actually believe, thought the newspapers tell me so, that every child left alone for five minuntes will embark on a murderous rampage, but I would think kids spending more time with their parents is a good thing. In general. Something we as a society (if we still are a society) could support.
On the other hand, maybe tax dollars would be better spent on schools and parks the tax credits.
But the principle is the same. We’re all in this together.
Oh and no I don’t have any children.
Well, if you extend that logic, why ever eliminate wasteful government spending? It’s not like the government is going to give the money back to us, right?
I never took any classes in logic. Is an “argument from cynicism” considered a logical fallacy?
I’m just ribbing you, PQ. But it does seem like you’ve given up on arguing that there is really any overriding social need for middle and upper class parents to have this tax advantage over childless folks, and are now simply making a sort of “You can’t fight City Hall” argument.
Rib away Actually your analogy doesn’t fit. Eliminating wasteful government spending isn’t the same as eliminating tax breaks for people. Tax breaks decrease the government’s income, wasteful spending increases the government’s expenses. In reality, more tax breaks force the government to decrease wasteful spending because they have less money to spend, and hopefully they will stop wasting so much.
Consider a normal person’s budget: If they got a $10,000 pay cut, wouldn’t they stop going to the pub so often?
I know it’s a fine line, but I guess it depends on how you view taxes. I view them as me giving my hard-earned money to the government for public works. If I had a child, I would want to give them less of my money, since I’m spending more. I also agree somewhat with the point of view that raising kids is a selfless act. Giving money to charity makes people feel good too, should we eliminate the tax deductions for that?
Also, as someone alluded to earlier, isn’t it good when a special interest gets something to help them out? Doesn’t it make it easier for us to get some help the next time we need it?
I understand where you’re coming from, and to be honest, I’m not 100% sure of my stance. Logically, your arguments have merit, but there’s still some sticking points that lead me to believe that removing the child credits and dependent deductions may not be a good idea. Also, I’m not sure it’s a battle worth fighting.
And I say there’s no sustantive difference between a targeted tax cut and a big fat government check.
Whether the Government cuts your taxes by 185 bucks a month or writes you a check for 185 bucks per month, the net effect is the same. The Government has that much less money and you have that much more. Six of one half dozen of the other. The old accounting shell game, you see.
When a Government check or a tax break goes to one particular group, then that group is in effect receiving a benefit at the expense of other taxpayers, who, as a result, are carrying a heavier tax load than they would otherwise carry.
