Tax Reform

24567…38

Comments

  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    CM189191 said:
    Stated differently: why is a tax payer punished for not having children?

    Still doesn't make sense to me. 
    Maybe it's true where you live or maybe not, but where I live someone with significant medical issues who incurs extra costs for their health care, like for medical equipment, expensive prescription drugs, special diet, etc, can get a tax deduction once costs have exceeded a certain threshold. Would you say then that I am being punished for being healthy? I wouldn't, because I haven't incurred those costs in the first place. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Halifax2TheMax
    Halifax2TheMax Posts: 42,255
    CM189191 said:
    Stated differently: why is a tax payer punished for not having children?

    Still doesn't make sense to me. 
    This might help

    http://www.epi.org/publication/ib370-earned-income-tax-credit-and-the-child-tax-credit-history-purpose-goals-and-effectiveness/
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • benjs
    benjs Toronto, ON Posts: 9,374
    CM189191 said:
    Stated differently: why is a tax payer punished for not having children?

    Still doesn't make sense to me. 
    Couldn't you argue this about any imbalance in opportunity or overhead, on the topics of taxes?

    If you take five people who make $30,000 annually, you probably have five unique scenarios which affect opportunity, access to opportunity, and overhead: how many people are each supporting financially (and which of those five people are one of multiple financial supporters), what assets does each person possess, how many people are seeking an education, which of those people have a disability inhibiting their ability to find work (or higher paying work) or limiting their time available to work.

    I thought that at least to some degree, these scenarios are contributing towards a 'blended' tax rate, which, when they each receive the same tax rate, is immediately treating some favourably and others less favourably based on their specific lives.

    I wouldn't refer to this as 'punishment' or 'reward', I would call this a necessary evil unless the government wants to go more granular, which is precisely what they're doing when they define tax rates as well as deductions for specific circumstances. 
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    People who don't have kids just love to make petty, bitter little arguments like this...like, ok, we get it.  You choose not to have kids, quit trying to justify and tear others down, you're getting to be worse than vegans lol
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • CM189191
    CM189191 Posts: 6,927
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    CM189191 said:
    Stated differently: why is a tax payer punished for not having children?

    Still doesn't make sense to me. 
    This might help

    http://www.epi.org/publication/ib370-earned-income-tax-credit-and-the-child-tax-credit-history-purpose-goals-and-effectiveness/

    "The credit was adopted because Congress believed that the personal exemptions for dependents ($2,550 in 1996) did not “reduce tax liability by enough to reflect a family’s reduced ability to pay taxes as family size increases” (Joint Committee on Taxation 1997, 6). "

    Kids are expensive and make it difficult to pay taxes.  So if you have kids, you should get to pay less taxes simply because they're expensive?

    Sorry, still doesn't make sense to me.  
  • Halifax2TheMax
    Halifax2TheMax Posts: 42,255
    CM189191 said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    CM189191 said:
    Stated differently: why is a tax payer punished for not having children?

    Still doesn't make sense to me. 
    This might help

    http://www.epi.org/publication/ib370-earned-income-tax-credit-and-the-child-tax-credit-history-purpose-goals-and-effectiveness/

    "The credit was adopted because Congress believed that the personal exemptions for dependents ($2,550 in 1996) did not “reduce tax liability by enough to reflect a family’s reduced ability to pay taxes as family size increases” (Joint Committee on Taxation 1997, 6). "

    Kids are expensive and make it difficult to pay taxes.  So if you have kids, you should get to pay less taxes simply because they're expensive?

    Sorry, still doesn't make sense to me.  
    Okay, that's fine. I was just offering up the history. Do more research? Reagan explained it I thought but oh well.
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • tbergs
    tbergs Posts: 10,410
    rgambs said:
    People who don't have kids just love to make petty, bitter little arguments like this...like, ok, we get it.  You choose not to have kids, quit trying to justify and tear others down, you're getting to be worse than vegans lol
    Nothing wrong with vegans. Just trying to help save the environment, our world and reduce meat and dairy consumption.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • josevolution
    josevolution Posts: 31,632
    show us your tax returns then we can talk , you can't believe a word this habitual liar says !
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    tbergs said:
    rgambs said:
    People who don't have kids just love to make petty, bitter little arguments like this...like, ok, we get it.  You choose not to have kids, quit trying to justify and tear others down, you're getting to be worse than vegans lol
    Nothing wrong with vegans. Just trying to help save the environment, our world and reduce meat and dairy consumption.
    I don't think it was the "vegan" aspect that was being alluded to...... ;) 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Gern Blansten
    Gern Blansten Mar-A-Lago Posts: 22,192
    CM189191 said:
    Stated differently: why is a tax payer punished for not having children?

    Still doesn't make sense to me. 
    you aren't punished...you don't have the costs associated with raising a dependent


    Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
    The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
    2020: Oakland, Oakland:  2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
    2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
    2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,836
    You know - with the estate tax thing...I know it only applies to very few people.  And they are super rich.  But still...I don;t think it's the right thing to tax.  I honestly don't see how it's an ok thing to do.  So - even though it only helps a very small %, I'm for that being abolished.  It will never help me, but doesn;t mean I cant think it's still the right thing to do.

    I still have to get into this deeper.  On the surface, I'm not a huge fan of the plan.  I personally am against a tax plan which doesn't lower the % paid for by everyone really and this plan has some staying the same or actually going up some.  Which is nuts since it's not the top of the bunch.  

    I'd really just like a flat tax on income...with a strict level where non is charged (low income) and then increase consumption taxes.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,836
    CM189191 said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    CM189191 said:
    Stated differently: why is a tax payer punished for not having children?

    Still doesn't make sense to me. 
    This might help

    http://www.epi.org/publication/ib370-earned-income-tax-credit-and-the-child-tax-credit-history-purpose-goals-and-effectiveness/

    "The credit was adopted because Congress believed that the personal exemptions for dependents ($2,550 in 1996) did not “reduce tax liability by enough to reflect a family’s reduced ability to pay taxes as family size increases” (Joint Committee on Taxation 1997, 6). "

    Kids are expensive and make it difficult to pay taxes.  So if you have kids, you should get to pay less taxes simply because they're expensive?

    Sorry, still doesn't make sense to me.  
    Cause you are actually contributing to the future of the human race and all.  Not just spending it on booze and vinyl. ;)

    I understand your position here, though I disagree.  These same arguments have been made about employees with kids vs those without in the workforce alot and the different benefits each seem to receive.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • tbergs
    tbergs Posts: 10,410
    edited October 2017
    More lies and deception. It's amazing how bad greed and corruption is.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-report-trump-officials-dont-want-you-to-see/2017/10/02/f6c77a6c-a7ab-11e7-850e-2bdd1236be5d_story.html?utm_term=.0da0106c4295
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • Go Beavers
    Go Beavers Posts: 9,561
    cincybearcat said:
    You know - with the estate tax thing...I know it only applies to very few people.  And they are super rich.  But still...I don;t think it's the right thing to tax.  I honestly don't see how it's an ok thing to do.  So - even though it only helps a very small %, I'm for that being abolished.  It will never help me, but doesn;t mean I cant think it's still the right thing to do.

    I still have to get into this deeper.  On the surface, I'm not a huge fan of the plan.  I personally am against a tax plan which doesn't lower the % paid for by everyone really and this plan has some staying the same or actually going up some.  Which is nuts since it's not the top of the bunch.  

    I'd really just like a flat tax on income...with a strict level where non is charged (low income) and then increase consumption taxes.
    We already don't pay our bills, why support everyone paying even less taxes then they do now?
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,836
    Go Beavers said:
    cincybearcat said:
    You know - with the estate tax thing...I know it only applies to very few people.  And they are super rich.  But still...I don;t think it's the right thing to tax.  I honestly don't see how it's an ok thing to do.  So - even though it only helps a very small %, I'm for that being abolished.  It will never help me, but doesn;t mean I cant think it's still the right thing to do.

    I still have to get into this deeper.  On the surface, I'm not a huge fan of the plan.  I personally am against a tax plan which doesn't lower the % paid for by everyone really and this plan has some staying the same or actually going up some.  Which is nuts since it's not the top of the bunch.  

    I'd really just like a flat tax on income...with a strict level where non is charged (low income) and then increase consumption taxes.
    We already don't pay our bills, why support everyone paying even less taxes then they do now?
    That is a fair statement.  I was just speaking about the tax plan specifically by itself.  But you are correct, it is really apart of the overall budget.  And yes, I believe that the budget should actually be balanced.  So for me, tax cuts would come with spending cuts.  BUt that's not how either party does it once they have power.


    hippiemom = goodness
  • Gern Blansten
    Gern Blansten Mar-A-Lago Posts: 22,192
    cincybearcat said:
    You know - with the estate tax thing...I know it only applies to very few people.  And they are super rich.  But still...I don;t think it's the right thing to tax.  I honestly don't see how it's an ok thing to do.  So - even though it only helps a very small %, I'm for that being abolished.  It will never help me, but doesn;t mean I cant think it's still the right thing to do.

    I still have to get into this deeper.  On the surface, I'm not a huge fan of the plan.  I personally am against a tax plan which doesn't lower the % paid for by everyone really and this plan has some staying the same or actually going up some.  Which is nuts since it's not the top of the bunch.  

    I'd really just like a flat tax on income...with a strict level where non is charged (low income) and then increase consumption taxes.
    The estate tax theory is to keep personal wealth under control.  By taxing estates you keep power in check.

    The exemption used to be $600K....now it's over $5Million
    Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
    The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
    2020: Oakland, Oakland:  2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
    2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
    2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,836
    Gern Blansten said:
    cincybearcat said:
    You know - with the estate tax thing...I know it only applies to very few people.  And they are super rich.  But still...I don;t think it's the right thing to tax.  I honestly don't see how it's an ok thing to do.  So - even though it only helps a very small %, I'm for that being abolished.  It will never help me, but doesn;t mean I cant think it's still the right thing to do.

    I still have to get into this deeper.  On the surface, I'm not a huge fan of the plan.  I personally am against a tax plan which doesn't lower the % paid for by everyone really and this plan has some staying the same or actually going up some.  Which is nuts since it's not the top of the bunch.  

    I'd really just like a flat tax on income...with a strict level where non is charged (low income) and then increase consumption taxes.
    The estate tax theory is to keep personal wealth under control.  By taxing estates you keep power in check.

    The exemption used to be $600K....now it's over $5Million
    I'm still not sure why it's ok to take $ that someone has earned in their lifetime away because they died.  You've already taxed it in other ways, likely more than once.  If I had that $...when I died, I'd sure as shit want it to go to my family instead of the government.  
    hippiemom = goodness
  • Gern Blansten
    Gern Blansten Mar-A-Lago Posts: 22,192
    edited October 2017
    cincybearcat said:
    Gern Blansten said:
    cincybearcat said:
    You know - with the estate tax thing...I know it only applies to very few people.  And they are super rich.  But still...I don;t think it's the right thing to tax.  I honestly don't see how it's an ok thing to do.  So - even though it only helps a very small %, I'm for that being abolished.  It will never help me, but doesn;t mean I cant think it's still the right thing to do.

    I still have to get into this deeper.  On the surface, I'm not a huge fan of the plan.  I personally am against a tax plan which doesn't lower the % paid for by everyone really and this plan has some staying the same or actually going up some.  Which is nuts since it's not the top of the bunch.  

    I'd really just like a flat tax on income...with a strict level where non is charged (low income) and then increase consumption taxes.
    The estate tax theory is to keep personal wealth under control.  By taxing estates you keep power in check.

    The exemption used to be $600K....now it's over $5Million
    I'm still not sure why it's ok to take $ that someone has earned in their lifetime away because they died.  You've already taxed it in other ways, likely more than once.  If I had that $...when I died, I'd sure as shit want it to go to my family instead of the government.  
    Well...the first $5million would go tax free.  The estate tax is meant to encourage consumption or gifting in order to avoid the estate tax.

    Give the money to family before death.  Give the money to charity before death or via will.  If you don't....you pay tax.

    Remember that all property is stepped up to market value at date of death....that's another kicker
    Post edited by Gern Blansten on
    Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
    The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
    2020: Oakland, Oakland:  2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
    2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
    2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
  • vaggar99
    vaggar99 San Diego USA Posts: 3,431
    edited October 2017
    cincybearcat said:
    You know - with the estate tax thing...I know it only applies to very few people.  And they are super rich.  But still...I don;t think it's the right thing to tax.  I honestly don't see how it's an ok thing to do.  So - even though it only helps a very small %, I'm for that being abolished.  It will never help me, but doesn;t mean I cant think it's still the right thing to do.

    I still have to get into this deeper.  On the surface, I'm not a huge fan of the plan.  I personally am against a tax plan which doesn't lower the % paid for by everyone really and this plan has some staying the same or actually going up some.  Which is nuts since it's not the top of the bunch.  

    I'd really just like a flat tax on income...with a strict level where non is charged (low income) and then increase consumption taxes.
    i consider myself rich.  i have everything i need and then some.  i'm okay with the estate tax.  i don't want my grandkids and great grand kids growing up entitled.
    Post edited by vaggar99 on
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,836
    vaggar99 said:
    cincybearcat said:
    You know - with the estate tax thing...I know it only applies to very few people.  And they are super rich.  But still...I don;t think it's the right thing to tax.  I honestly don't see how it's an ok thing to do.  So - even though it only helps a very small %, I'm for that being abolished.  It will never help me, but doesn;t mean I cant think it's still the right thing to do.

    I still have to get into this deeper.  On the surface, I'm not a huge fan of the plan.  I personally am against a tax plan which doesn't lower the % paid for by everyone really and this plan has some staying the same or actually going up some.  Which is nuts since it's not the top of the bunch.  

    I'd really just like a flat tax on income...with a strict level where non is charged (low income) and then increase consumption taxes.
    i consider myself rich.  i have everything i need and then some.  i'm okay with the estate tax.  i don't want my grandkids and great grand kids growing up entitled.
    So - since you are ok with it, then it's ok for everyone?
    hippiemom = goodness

Categories