• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Revisit - Tax Reform

Tax Reform


  • Total voters
    28
Good evening 2m. I'm not sure I would want to meet the person who would base their decision on bringing a child into the world for a $100/month government subsidy...

That person would be, by definition, someone who believes human life is cheap. Best avoided, I agree.:eek:
 
Then you just want to keep the same convoluted system as is where the government decides what behaviors to reward and which to punish...

No, I've stated that's not the case. I don't want a system that rewards or punishes people for having kids. I want a system that recognizes that kids are a drain on a family's resources. That's not an unrealistic thing to expect, since the vast majority of people in this country will have children some day.
 
No, I've stated that's not the case. I don't want a system that rewards or punishes people for having kids. I want a system that recognizes that kids are a drain on a family's resources. That's not an unrealistic thing to expect, since the vast majority of people in this country will have children some day.

You're running around in circles. On the one hand you don't want a system that rewards/punishes the choice to have children, while on the other you want the government to recognize the children are a "drain" on resources. This is where we began. Just let each person have some exclusionary amount of income not subject to taxation and then let them choose how to lead their lives from that point forward...
 
When it's the difference between eating this week and not it's a hell of a lot.

My choice would always be children first, and again, if this amount of subsidy would be required in order for you to support a child, you might want to rethink the decision to have one...
 
You're running around in circles. On the one hand you don't want a system that rewards/punishes the choice to have children, while on the other you want the government to recognize the children are a "drain" on resources. This is where we began. Just let each person have some exclusionary amount of income not subject to taxation and then let them choose how to lead their lives from that point forward...

You continue to miss the point that if it was done that way the exclusionary amount of income you want each person to have would include an amount for children, whether they would have any or not. The whole point of having a deduction is for basic living expenses. Food, water, shelter, transportation to and from work, clothing, etc. Those living expenses are higher if you have kids, which is why the deduction needs to be higher.
 
You continue to miss the point that if it was done that way the exclusionary amount of income you want each person to have would include an amount for children, whether they would have any or not. The whole point of having a deduction is for basic living expenses. Food, water, shelter, transportation to and from work, clothing, etc. Those living expenses are higher if you have kids, which is why the deduction should be higher.

What makes you think this? If so, do not exclude any amount from taxation. You have income; you pay tax...
 
That's quite a leap your attempting to make. I'm sorry for you if that's all you took away from the post...
When you start talking about a given class of people that shouldn't be breeding, what other conclusion would you expect?

Or don't you know what eugenics is?
 
What makes you think this? If so, do not exclude any amount from taxation. You have income; you pay tax...

Because I live in a realistic world. Some people cannot afford to pay any taxes without it seriously impacting their ability to provide basic necessities for themselves and their families. This will always be the case. The amount of money required to provide basic necessities is higher if you have kids to provide for than if it's just yourself or yourself and a spouse. I'm really not sure what's hard to understand here.
 
When you start talking about a given class of people that shouldn't be breeding, what other conclusion would you expect?

Or don't you know what eugenics is?

Complete nonsense. Do you have no sense of humor? :eek:
 
When you start talking about a given class of people that shouldn't be breeding, what other conclusion would you expect?

Or don't you know what eugenics is?

Class was never mentioned. That is your fiction. Feel free to debate the points made, but don't feel free to make up your own thoughts as to what was posted...
 
Good evening, AP.:2wave:
$100 isn't even two weeks of coffee and lunch at work anymore.:shock:
Even when I was working and doing rather well I didn't blow that kind of money on coffee and lunch.
 
Class was never mentioned. That is your fiction. Feel free to debate the points made, but don't feel free to make up your own thoughts as to what was posted...
Of course it was. Shall I quote you? "$100 a month is chicken feed". That's in direct relation to poor people any way you slice it. For many people $100 per month is a lot of money and can tip the scale between being able to afford something or not being able to afford it. For you to say those people shouldn't breed is a eugenics opinion that poor people shouldn't have children.
 
Of course it was. Shall I quote you? "$100 a month is chicken feed". That's in direct relation to poor people any way you slice it. For many people $100 per month is a lot of money and can tip the scale between being able to afford something or not being able to afford it. For you to say those people shouldn't breed is a eugenics opinion that poor people shouldn't have children.

Would you mind putting the "quote" into full context? When you do, you'll find it takes on a whole new meaning...
 
About $4/day on coffee; about $8/day on lunch = $12/day X 5 days = $60/week X 2 weeks = $120.
When I was working I spent ~$20/week on lunch. Now, $60/week is more than what my wife and I each spend for all our food and various household items from the store. We budget ~$100/week for both of us for groceries and cleaning supplies.
 
When I was working I spent ~$20/week on lunch. Now, $60/week is more than what my wife and I each spend for all our food and various household items from the store. We budget ~$100/week for both of us for groceries and cleaning supplies.

Different strokes for different folks.:cool:
 
Would you mind putting the "quote" into full context? When you do, you'll find it takes on a whole new meaning...
It won't change a thing. You either have $100 a month to blow or you don't. A huge portion of the population doesn't make the kind of money where $100/mo is insignificant.
 
Different strokes for different folks.:cool:
I personally don't care what you blow your money on. I preferred investing all I could in a house and reliable cars. When I was younger, I gave up eating out at lunch for a year just so I could afford a computer. Later, that paid off because my computer skills were important for my job.
 
It won't change a thing. You either have $100 a month to blow or you don't. A huge portion of the population doesn't make the kind of money where $100/mo is insignificant.

No, context is important. I try not to cherry pick words from a response to make some point, but you don't seem to have a problem doing so.

To paraphrase myself, what was posted was that in the overall scheme of raising a child, $100/month was chicken feed.

That's why context matters and not selectively choosing the words you want to make a point...
 
I personally don't care what you blow your money on. I preferred investing all I could in a house and reliable cars. When I was younger, I gave up eating out at lunch for a year just so I could afford a computer. Later, that paid off because my computer skills were important for my job.

That's fine. This exchange need not be hostile. I have the house I want, the cars I want and a family that is a blessing.:cool:
 
Back
Top Bottom