Fellow childfree folks, how much did you love writing the check out to the IRS after hearing all the

[RB TexLa]

people with children talk about everything they were doing with their refunds for the last three months? Aren't "Family Values" great? They have value, we don't.

[msongs]

1. hey, people with no kids have tons more money to spend right? like gays? oh, wait nt

[bluestateguy]

2. I'm single and got a refund

But it was also a smaller refund than in years past, and I'm not a fool to know that married people with children get all kinds of tax treats and writeoffs that single childless people like me cannot get.

Liberals, conservatives, Democrats and Republicans talk endlessly about "working families" this and working families that, and steer public policy in that direction no matter who is in power. It is as if we don't count if we do not make the lifestyle choice to marry and or have children.*


* Just to CYA, I have complete respect for people who marry and have kids. It is a challenging job to be sure and I do not criticize it one bit. OK, got that crap out of the way.

[Ruby the Liberal]

3. I have no children and I got a refund.

Charity donations.

[mindwalker_i]

4. I had to pay ove a thousand this year

since getting rid of a house (short sale) and I'm cool with it. I get at least some civilization out of the deal.

As for children, I'm happy to pay more taxes and not have to deal with them.

[newspeak]

76. our kids are all grown up

and we paid this year. I don't mind paying taxes, as long as, it goes for building our infrastructure, education, libraries and helping those who need help. It's too bad we can't have a list and check where we want our money to go.

I do have a problem with people who are already hurting, who must give their house back or short sale; and then get socked by IRS. Or people who have to take out their pension, 401K to save their house, and then get socked by IRS. It seems these people are already hurting and it just further compounds their misery; while wealthy and corporations find ways around being penalized; instead, are rewarded for their investments. In today's environment, it just seems so callous and unfair.

Again, even though my hubby lost his great paying job and now works for peanuts, we do not cry about paying our taxes. Just wish the greedy, unamerican cretins would pay theirs. What, mittens been living off of his investments (and very well) and only paid about 14% in taxes? Well, we're living off a little above minimum wage now and we paid more than he did.

[former9thward]

121. If you were living off "a little above minimum wage"

you would be paying about 5% if that. If you are paying more than 14% you are way beyond minimum wage.

[newspeak]

224. well, hubby makes under 15 an hour and we must pay for health insurance

however, we got penalized because we had to take out of our IRA and we're not at the eligible age yet.

[former9thward]

227. Yes that is a nasty penalty.

I think that should just be taxed at the regular rate.

[edgineered]

5. Must have taken too much medicine tonight -

because reading this is numbing my mind. But for those who supported my service, and the service of so many others to this country without beefing about their taxes going for naught, many thanks.

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. I have two kids age six and three...we wrote a check

I also write checks of $1000 a month for childcare, and $250 per six weeks for after school care. Lots of checks, actually. Enjoy your disposable income. I can pretty much assure you that you have more of it than I do.

Just sayin', my dude.

[Art_from_Ark]

33. Just wait until those kids reach college age

That's when the "fun" shifts into high gear.

[truebrit71]

226. Tell me about it....

....I'm having so much "fun" I could puke...

[dionysus]

7. i do not pay taxes with you.

[pinboy3niner]

51. :)

[XanaDUer]

164. Lol

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Me, me, me.

We don't have kids and you know what? I got no issues with it...nor paying for schools for the little ones.

I also know societies have favored having children, something about society continuity.

But I am sure it bothers you...

[hfojvt]

24. so you have no problem

if a single person making $13,300 pays $449 in federal income taxes whereas a married couple with two children maing $44,900 pays $0 in federal income taxes. That seems perfectly fair to you? Further, about single people, I think Shari Motro said it best

"Research consistently shows that unmarried Americans are on average poorer, sicker and sadder than their married counterparts. Yet they are denied perks given to married couples who, in many cases, neither need nor deserve them. Though gay couples certainly lose out as well, singles of any preference pay a triple price for not finding love: they don't enjoy the solace and support of a life partner; they don't profit from the economies of scale that come from pooling resources with a mate; and they effectively subsidize spousal benefits that they themselves can't take advantage of."

When somebody is getting screwed and they stand up for themselves, I don't think it's cool to berate them for being selfish. When the world says "kids, kids, kids" and "if you don't have kids, then you don't matter, because it is all about the kids."

Then you just re-affirm our society's bias - "yes, you really do not matter".

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Perhaps I realize those kids

Are the future...

I dunno, it's not all about me.

[hfojvt]

30. yeah, the great part about that is

when the future gets here, those kids won't matter either

only their kids will.

I dunno, it's not all about the future. Maybe the now should matter too.

And it's not all about me either. When I stand up and cry foul, it's not just for me

it's for EVERY single and childless person who is getting screwed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. So you agree with the op

I see you two are missing it by a wide margin.

That's ok, this is what is so great about the interwebs. Have a good day.

[dkf]

90. The hardest part is affording housing as a single person.

Prices are based on two people working. Single people should get a break, not be detrimentally affected by higher taxes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

95. Here is a huge clue

Housing is priced out of the reach of most Americans, married or not.

But it's good to see you change subjects.

[noamnety]

176. single people can still get roommates.

That's what I did as a single mom - took in a local student as a boarder for a year or two. It's what my daughter does now that she's older, she rents a house with three other people.

Anyone who decides to live alone in an apartment or house will pay extra for that; it's a luxury to have a kitchen and bath and all that exists entirely for your own benefit. But that's a choice, whether or not you are married.

[joeglow3]

222. So you should get your own house, while others must room up

Seems like YOU are the selfish one.

[dkf]

223. Well they are MARRIED. You want them to be able to live separately?

Weird.

[SATIRical]

78. So who is going to be paying your Social Security? (nt)

[dkf]

89. If you didn't have to pay for other people you could have saved it.

Then you wouldn't need to pay. 16% a year should have added up to a decent nest egg.

[SATIRical]

93. Yep, but that is not how the system works.

If we privatize or completely do away with SS and Medicare, then you are correct.

That is not the case, so all of the childless rely on the next generation (raised and provided for by others in society) to fund SS and Medicare for them.

[hfojvt]

113. ah, but the math says

that what they pay in will not be any greater than what I already paid in, so it is not like I OWE them anything now for some imaginary future support. I am already paying my share of FICA taxes right now.

[SATIRical]

114. Two things wrong with your math

A) your money paid in is gone. That was the way the system was designed. Wishing otherwise doesn't change the fact. If the next generation disappears, you get nothing.

B) You will almost certainly take out more than you put in. Basically it is like getting 10% APR return on investment. If you find a risk-free investment with that return, please let the rest of us know.

http://www.angrybearblog.com/2009/03/social-security-return-on-investment.html

The system counts on the number of workers continuing to grow. And even with that, the income to the program has already been exceeded by its obligations.

[hfojvt]

117. those are not the numbers I came up with

based on what I paid in and what social security projected to me in various earning reports, it pays less than 4%. Not only does it pay less than 4%, but the equity is gone too. The person at that blog did not seem to include the EMPLOYER portion of the tax. If that was not there, then my employer could pay that to me in wages.

Talking about the next generation disappearing is a nonsense argument. Might as well base you argument on the earth getting destroyed by an asteroid.

Point is that I paid my dues there to receive my benefit. I should have to pay an extra subsidy to support other people's children who are paying their dues to receive their own benefit.

Also, my money I paid in is not gone. It has been borrowed.

There's a difference.

Otherwise you might as well say that the money in my savings account is "gone" too. Because, it too, has been borrowed.

[SATIRical]

119. No, the point is

you will be receiving a benefit from the children of others. And you did nothing to earn that benefit from those children or the additional cost/work those parents put into raising them to provide for you.

And we all know that if employers didn't have to pay into SS, our paychecks wouldn't increase accordingly.

So, please point me to this risk-free investment with a 4% return than you seem to think exists.

Yes, some of the money you paid has been borrowed but that reserve is depleting. I don't know how old you are, but it will be gone by about the time I retire for good.

[hfojvt]

122. I will be receiving a benefit

because I paid the taxes that entitle me to that benefit. End of story. Full stop. The children of others will be paying their own taxes to give THEMSELVES a benefit when they retire. I don't owe them sh*t because I paid my own way. And where I sit, it looks highly likely that I will have paid in far more than I get out. So a pie in the sky does not seem like much of an argument for being robbed today.

As for risk free investments. Clearly even social security is not risk free, as politicians on the right are determined to plunder it even further, so they can cut taxes for rich people.

But I am so old, I remember when bank CDs paid far more than 4%. When I first started my IRA I was getting something like 7% on CDs. Well, I ran a spreadsheet to predict the future value, and decided to use 5% just to be conservative and safe. At the time, it seems like a good bet that CD interest would never fall below 5%. Probably you could go back 30 years and it would always have been over 5%.

Too bad we only got 12 years into the future before rich people blew up the economy.

[unapatriciated]

171. lol

one big flaw and what I find funny.

If that was not there, then my employer could pay that to me in wages.

Employers did not do this in the past and will not in the future. If they no longer had to pay into SS that money would go straight to their pocket not the workers. There was a reason SS was put into place and it wasn't because employers were willing to pay a little extra to fund workers retirement. Know your history. I have heard this logic before from those who support a flat tax.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

139. current world population above 7 billion.

so continue to encourage population growth??

I want to see DISincentives to childbearing. And NO, that's NOT ALL ABOUT ME.

Destroy the planet, those kids ain't gonna have no future.

Imbalance is NOT the future, it is certain death.

[stuntcat]

161. TY

why is this, the most sensible thought, not felt by anyone else in this thread? Growth will slow down.. willingly and slowly, or forcefully and violently. To ME the violence has already started with the mass-extinction, oceans dying, forests razed to grow food, etc etc.

I've been called an extremist but I would kill myself before giving my innocent child the rest of this century. I'm glad my years are half over, I'm horrified by the things I know I'll see.

[bahrbearian]

183. +1

[Warren DeMontague]

200. And I assume you're headed over to Guinea-Bissou right now, where the so-called "population problem"

actually IS.

Because birth rates in the US are at replacement levels, that's it. The "population problem" in the US is due to immigration, not people having "too many kids".

[BlancheSplanchnik]

205. Can the snark.

I'm well aware that population threats don't belong to the U.S. alone.

I looked it up and see that you are right, US pop. growth is mainly due to immigration. However, large populations in "First World" Nations puts a huge demand on resources, as well as a waste stream out of proportion to other nations. Wealth drives exploitation of global resources and destruction of habitat and of other species.

US is third in population to Asia and India, both moving into the industrial age similar to US and Europe's Industrial period, with focus on growth and production, with the pollution and dangers similar to that period.

I notice you say "so-called" population problem. So you think the continuing human increase is a fallacy? If you do think that, I certainly hope you can explain your perspective including links to credible research, because frankly, if you can ease my mind, I'll be your best bud forever.

Seeing as how we're ALL connected, activities aren't isolated but affect every place and everything, like a net spread around the globe. Pull one string and the whole net moves.

[Warren DeMontague]

208. So if no Americans have babies, the population issue in Zimbabwe is solved?

Because that's the logic you're trying to use, here.

If "first world people use more resources", then that's a resource use problem. Not a population problem. Seems to me, we have 3 solutions only one of which I consider reasonable or palatable:

One) we could find less resource intensive renewable ways to power our first world lifestyles,
Two) we could drastically reduce our lifestyle to third world levels, eliminating along the way many completely wasteful, indulgent first world habits that drain resources, like for instance pet ownership.
Three) we could all die off as quickly as possible.


Authoritative sounding platitudes about how "everything is connected" notwithstanding, the FACT is, the so-called population problem is a localized phenomenon, dependent on culture, economics, and personal freedom. and when people have a decent standard of living (i.e. the dreaded "first world lifestyle&quot , access to contraception, and a high degree of autonomy from authoritarian types (usually, but not always, religious in nature) who try to dictate their life choices to them, They manage their population and reproduction rates on their own.

We have this fucking argument every. Damn. Time. Someone tries to float this shit here, and so anyone really interested can dig up the threads from 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007 and so on where this same tax whining about "stop making me pay for yer brats" and "stop having kids dammit!" was floated, every time being soundly refuted with reminders that, no, population is not fungible, the population problem is localized and dependent on localized factors, and really if one is mad about paying taxes for stupid shit maybe one should start with the military or the drug war instead of the next generation.

And if this is really about someone's fine dining experience at TGIFs being ruined by a crying baby or someone's meditative shopping experience at Wal mart being ruined by a demanding toddler whining in aisle 72, then at the very least admit its an axe grinding exercise and not some highfalutin' attempt at a moral point.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

213. Please post accepted research and links to back up your remarks. Thanks. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

214. Why don't you tell me which data point you think needs Additional verification.

Here is the Most recent data on fertility rates by country. Replacement birth rates are generally taken to be between 2.1 and 2.3, depending again, on local conditions such as health care.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate

As you can see, the rates for most advanced countries are generally at or below the accepted replacement rate of 2.1 for advanced industrialized countries with low mortality and modern health care.

In these graphs You will see that the us fertility rate began declining with the introduction of the pill, and continued though the sexual revolution.





That "there is a population problem" is one of those things that people think they just know, but isn't borne out by the facts.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

215. What irritates me is that you are snarking at me and waving data

that I have already said I recognized, regarding US population growth.

didn't you see that? I said, "You are right, US growth is mainly due to immigration"---wasn't that music to your ears, being told you're right? I would have thought you'd remember that.

I don't see the point in attempting to wipe the floor with me on a point I conceded. Poor sportsmanship, dude.

I went on to talk about World population, and net effect, which you sidestepped.

Here are a few links. Many graphs at the links, (Wikipedia, yes...I chose it for a quick general assessment.) Of course, you can google "World Population Growth" for starters and find many articles. Most scientists agree that human population is the cause of most if not all environmental crises.

The topic is deeply complicated with too many factors impacting the issue to discuss in a post on DU. Definitely, it's not something so simplistic that snotty misinterpretations of my words suffice to wrap up the topic.

One interesting thing----In all the research I came across, including the semester that I interpreted for an Upper Level Environmental Science class called Tropical Ecology, not one researcher has mentioned my personal feelings about babies in restaurants. Go figure.

http://populationaction.org/topics/7-billion/
Topic » 7 Billion

In late 2011, the world's population is estimated to reach 7 billion. Demographers project a range of possibilities for future population growth, with the most commonly cited figure being a world population of 9 billion by 2043.

The 9 billion number assumes a dramatic decline in fertility rates across the world, converging to 2.1 children per woman. This is unlikely unless we respond to the 215 million women around the world who want to prevent pregnancy but need contraception. In nations such as Yemen, Afghanistan, and much of sub-Saharan Africa, women continue to have an average of more than 5 children.

Nearly half the world'ss population—some 3 billion people—is under the age of 25 and entering their childbearing years. Their childbearing choices, and the information and services available to them, will determine whether human numbers climb to anywhere from 8 billion to 11 billion by mid-century.

A common argument is that the earth cannot sustain 7 billion people. PAI believes the issue is not the total number, but how much they consume and where they are concentrated. The average person in the United States, for example consumes almost fifty times more energy than a person in Ghana. And the vast majority of greenhouse gasses have come from the developed world. If the problem is overconsumption, the international policy focus should be on developed nations's consumption, not African fertility rates. --emphasis mine

More info:

Wikipedia

As of April 23, 2012 the world human population is estimated to be 7.009 billion by the United States Census Bureau,[3] and over 7 billion by the United Nations.[4][5][6] Most estimates for the carrying capacity of the Earth are between 4 billion and 16 billion. Depending on which estimate is used, human overpopulation may or may not have already occurred. Nevertheless, the rapid recent increase in human population is causing some concern. The population is expected to reach between 8 and 10.5 billion between the year 2040[7][8] and 2050.[9] In May 2011, the United Nations increased the medium variant projections to 9.3 billion for 2050 and 10.1 billion for 2100.[10]

The recent rapid increase in human population over the past two centuries has raised concerns that the planet may not be able to sustain present or larger numbers of inhabitants. Steve Jones, head of the biology department at University College London, has said, "Humans are 10,000 times more common than we should be".[11] The InterAcademy Panel Statement on Population Growth has stated that many environmental problems, such as rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, global warming, and pollution, are aggravated by the population expansion.[12] Other problems associated with overpopulation include the increased demand for resources such as fresh water and food, starvation and malnutrition, consumption of natural resources faster than the rate of regeneration (such as fossil fuels), and a decrease in living conditions. However, some believe that waste and over-consumption, especially by wealthy nations, is putting more strain on the environment than overpopulation.[13]--emphasis mine

Wikipedia

According to projections, the world population will continue to grow until at least 2050, with the population reaching 9 billion in 2040,[40][41] and some predictions putting the population in 2050 as high as 11 billion.[42] Walter Greiling projected in the 1950s that world population would reach a peak of about nine billion, in the 21st century, and then stop growing, after a readjustment of the Third World and a sanitation of the tropics.[43] Recent extrapolations from available figures for population growth show that the population of Earth will stop increasing around 2070.[44]
According to the United Nations' World Population Prospects report:[45]
The world population is currently growing by approximately 74 million people per year. Current United Nations predictions estimate that the world population will reach 9.0 billion around 2050, assuming a decrease in average fertility rate from 2.5 down to 2.0.[46][47]
Almost all growth will take place in the less developed regions, where today's 5.3 billion population of underdeveloped countries is expected to increase to 7.8 billion in 2050. By contrast, the population of the more developed regions will remain mostly unchanged, at 1.2 billion. An exception is the United States population, which is expected to increase by 44% from 2008 to 2050.[48]

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Populations.html
Exponential growth cannot continue indefinitely. If the current world value for r (1.2%) remains unchanged, the world population would grow from its current 6.9 billion to 9.5 billion over the next 40 years (2050).
Could the earth's resources sustain such a population?
If not, how large a human population can live decently on this planet?
Some demographers (students of population) say we have already exceeded the number. Others say the earth can hold billions more.


Whatever the case, there are grounds for some optimism about future population growth.

The world value for r peaked around 1990 and has declined since. This is a reflection of the decline in total fertility rates (TFRs) in undeveloped countries, presumably as the various factors involved in the demographic transition take hold, e.g.,
improved standard of living
increased confidence that your children will survive to maturity
improved status of women
increased use of birth control measures
The projection of future TFRs in the upper graph (from the Population Reference Bureau) predicts that the less developed countries of the world will reach replacement fertility around the year 2020. In fact, they will probably reach it sooner because by 2010 the world TFR has dropped to 2.5. Even so, will the world reach zero population growth (ZPG) then?



The lower graph (based on data from the UN Long-Range World Population Projections, 1991) gives 5 estimates of the growth of the world population from now until 2150, assuming that TFRs decline from the 1991 value of 3.4 to the values shown.

A value of 2.06 will produce a stable population of about 11.5 billion.
A value 5% below that (1.96) will cause the population to drop back to close to 6.1 billion while
a value of only 5% above (2.17) would produce a population of over 20 billion and still rising.
A consensus?

The several agencies that try to predict future population seem to be moving closer to a consensus that:
the world population will continue to grow until after the middle of this century
reaching a peak of some 9.3 billion (up from the 7 billion expected to be reached this coming October) and then
perhaps declining in the waning years of this century.

http://environment.about.com/od/biodiversityconservation/a/population_grow.htm
Environmentalists don’t dispute that many if not all of the environmental problems—from climate change to species loss to overzealous resource extraction—are either caused or exacerbated by population growth.

“Trends such as the loss of half of the planet’s forests, the depletion of most of its major fisheries, and the alteration of its atmosphere and climate are closely related to the fact that human population expanded from mere millions in prehistoric times to over six billion today,” says Robert Engelman of Population Action International. --emphasis mine
Population Growth Causes Multiple Environmental Problems
According to Population Connection, population growth since 1950 is behind the clearing of 80 percent of rainforests, the loss of tens of thousands of plant and wildlife species, an increase in greenhouse gas emissions of some 400 percent and the development or commercialization of as much as half of the Earth’s surface land.

The group fears that in the coming decades half of the world’s population will be exposed to “water-stress” or “water-scarce” conditions, which are expected to “intensify difficulties in meeting…consumption levels, and wreak devastating effects on our delicately balanced ecosystems.”

[Warren DeMontague]

216. Okay, well maybe you missed the part about how we've had this argument (DU, not you and me) several

times, now.

Like I said, the problem isn't population, its the peoples impact on the environment. And that's a real problem, and one which needs addressing. But it's not population.

As several of your links note, there is reason for optimism on population, because (unlike, say, fossil fuel use) people seem to be able to manage it on their own given the right set of tools. That's all I was saying.

Peace.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

228. I think some of my links, or one, anyway

mentioned this point: that there is a very large "bubble" demographic at or approaching childbearing years right now---- In the US and in several other countries too; which ones I can't remember right now.

Anyhow, no matter which way you slice it, stresses on ecosystems and social systems due to massive numbers of us, are presently at breaking point.

Peace

[Warren DeMontague]

229. I'm sure they'll engage you on it in an earnest fashion, as is their wont. Although maybe via text.

Whereas from the likes of myself you are likely to receive only ironic detachment.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Y

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_X

[BlancheSplanchnik]

232. and a marked propensity for vituperation and snark.

From the likes of yourself.




don't know why you needed to get out the contempt grenade again; I find it hostile and unnecessary.

[Warren DeMontague]

233. It's that generation gap, again

There, I thought I was being self deprecating. No snark intended, honest.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

234. OK, then

I don't know about the generation thing, since I know a lot of people of a lot of generations, and I wouldn't say that snarkiness is a particularly generational thing. Not that I've noticed, anyway.

It's more a personality thing, from my observations.

let's chalk it up to very different personalities.

Live long and prosper

[Warren DeMontague]

235. Gen x is definitely a demographic divot between boomers & millenials

Maybe that has something to do with us not feeling the population squeeze as much.

[LiberalEsto]

68. These kids will someday pay into the Social Security that you'll collect

and they may become your caregivers in some future nursing home.

If for no other reason, we owe it to ourselves to ensure that today's children grow up to be responsible, healthy citizens. not starving, uneducated savages.

[hfojvt]

111. that's assuming I live long enough to collect anything

and from my calculations, what I collect will not even begin to cover what I paid in, much less any subsidies that I paid for the child care of other people's children.

I have zero interest in a caregiver in a future nursing home. I got turned off of that by visiting too many nursing homes, particularly my great-aunt in 1984. She spent the whole visit crying (and drooling) and wishing she could escape. Looking back, I consider it a big personal failure on my part that I didn't bust her out of there in 1986 when I had my own place and my own income.

[SATIRical]

115. What return rate do you get on your investments?

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2011/08/updated-approximating-social-securitys.html

This calculator is more pessimistic than the other one I posted to you. But even so, it beats all risk-free investments I know of.

[Bill McBlueState]

193. in your example, the single person is better off

The single person made $12851 after tax. Each person in the family of four made an average of $11225 after tax. Since 12851>11225, I'm not sure what you're complaining about.

[hfojvt]

196. thank you

just as I predicted http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=582115

[seeviewonder]

9. I'm married with one (and soon to be two)

kids. I actually owed money for the first time ever this year (well over $1,000 between federal and the two states I worked in). Did not bother me writing those checks. I do feel the pain of the single and childless folks, though, because I used to be one.

[SoCalDem]

10. We sent off $3,116.00

in addition to the almost $8k that was withheld

But it is what it is, and we are lucky enough to have the money to send them.. It;s the price we pay for collecting SS while my husband is still working.. We just did not plan very well for it.. Next year we'll be okay because we upped the withholding and 401 k deductions

[Logical]

11. Sounds like you would have been a crappy parent anyways! What....

A rude and mean post! Should be locked!

[Darth_Kitten]

65. This is a rude and mean post. Crappy PARENTS are the ones who don't do society a favour.

Last edited Mon Apr 23, 2012, 08:11 AM - Edit history (1)

Giving birth or impregnating someone doesn't automatically make anyone a better, nicer, more caring, more worthwhile, wiser, or more useful human being.

Honestly.

[nashville_brook]

101. +1

[BlancheSplanchnik]

206. Most definitely! n/t

[ceile]

138. If that's not a personal attack, I don't know what is.

Why hasn't it been hidden?

[fascisthunter]

145. did you read the OP... be consistent

[CakeGrrl]

12. Single, no kids here. Got a refund because of mortgage interest and property taxes

but I recall thinking how my sisters were lucky to be able to claim 'head of household'.

On the other hand, I guess it balances out in terms of the money it costs to raise a family.

[doc03]

13. I am single and retired and I wrote a check for over $15000 for federal tax

I paid taxes on 85% of my SS, thanks Raygun and Clinton.

[shanti]

177. single, retired, got a nice refund

thanks to my mortgage credit certificate. one of my better financial decisions.

[txwhitedove]

14. Hmmm? Grandma raised 3 kids last year, with daycare, graduation, etc...., so we LIVE on the refund.

Refunds depend on what you pay in and what your deductions are. I've gotten refunds for buying energy saving garage doors and appliances. Your post is in Grinchy poor taste.

[Fumesucker]

15. Aww.. Bless your heart..

[fishwax]

16. I can't bring myself to be outraged that having dependents results in deductions

[Posteritatis]

83. God, really. This whole thread is absurd. (nt)

[WillowTree]

17. Single. No kids of my own, but did put one niece and one nephew through college.

AND I got a nice little refund this year as I do most years.

[gateley]

18. Plenty of childfree people get refunds and don't "have" to spend it on kids -- what's your point? n

[hfojvt]

41. the point is not about the refund, it is about the tax bill

as in

childless

income * * taxes
12,000 * * $155

equivalent income to have the same tax bill
1+1 = $32,300 (one person with one child)
1+2 = $39,200
2+1 = $37,480

Does that seem like a fair tax system to you when a person making $12,000 a year pays the same in taxes as a household with three times the income?

Or, let's look at my current income, assuming I stay employed all year. $32,310. And further assume that I maximize my IRA deduction (which I will, already having put $4,000 in) at $6,000 (because I am over 50). Now my tax bill is $2,128. That is as much as a couple with two children making $69,050 (if they also maximize their IRA deductions (and are under 50). So again, I am paying more in federal income taxes than somebody with over twice my income. Or, as much as a couple with one child and income of $58,750.

Of course, you might, be a smart alec and divide their income by the number of people and claim that I am somehow financially better off, but that is clearly absurd. For one thing, I already live in a house big enough for three people. If I added a woman and child - my property taxes would not triple, my heating bill would not triple, my electric bill would not triple, my water bill would not triple, I would not need three cars, in fact, the one would probably suffice because I already hardly ever drive it. Other things would be easier too. For example, it takes about as much time to cook for one as it does to cook for three. I could split the cooking duties with my spouse and we'd each be doing it in half the time. The same is true of grocery shopping. It takes about as much time to buy groceries for one as it does for three. Probably each of our auto insurance bills would go down since a married person pays less than a single.

Furthermore, if I put my family on my health insurance I would suddenly get a $400 a month raise. My employer pays about $600 a month for my insurance now, but would pay $1,000 a month if I had a family. They'd pay an extra $400 a month or so, and I would not have to do a lick of extra work. Further, there could be other benefits. If, for example, I died this year (and there was then a modest celebration on DU), all the money I paid into social security would be whizzed into the wind. However, if I had a spouse and a child, according to my 2009 report, they could each collect $660 a month in benefits. All without me having to pay an extra dime into the fund!! I guess the extra benefits would be paid by some unfortunate childless sap whose payments were whizzed into the wind.

Point is, that the benefits for married couples or those with children do not come from a money tree. Some of them come from people who were not fortunate enough to get married or have children.

[ieoeja]

79. There is no special deduction for children. And where are you getting those numbers?

There is one $3700 deduction PER PERSON in the household.

One single person gets one deduction for that one person.

One single person with a dependant child gets two deductions for two people.

Now to the numbers....


$12000 - $3700 = $8300 taxed at 10% = $830, not $155.

$15700 - $3700 - $3700 = $8300 taxed at 10% = $830

So a single person with one child would have to make $3700 more (because their are two human beings involved, not one), not the huge number you threw out there.

Explain your calculation, please?

[newspeak]

84. that's right the exemption

is for each person in the household. Maybe, it's the tax rate "filing single" where a single person pays more than let's say filing jointly?

[ieoeja]

118. Just as exemptions are per person, one could argue that the bracket range should be multipled too.

And since that range is far from doubled, in this regard the tax structure unfairly supports childless people!

FYI: I missed the additional child exemption which offers up to $1000 additional exemption for poor to middle class parents. But this is still a far cry from the numbers the other poster has been inventing.

[hfojvt]

133. Inventing?

Since I do not do taxes for a living, I may not have included everything, but the things I included were accurate. I know a fair amount about the tax code, by virtue of being a math geek who enjoys spelunking into said tax code.

Further, if you look at the tables on about page 98 of the 1040 instructions (I have a 2010 instruction book on my lap, being unable at this point to find 2011) you will note that the brackets do double between single and married people. A single person gets half as many deductions and exemptions as a married couple and also pays 10% of their first $8,375 and 15% on their income up to $34,000, etc. A married couple pays 10% on their first $16,750 and 15% up to $68,000, etc.

Although somewhat curiously I now note that they stop doubling after that. A single person pays 25% on income up to $82,400 but a married couple pays 25% on income up to "only" $137,300 instead of $164,800 (let me stop now to shed some crocodile tears for that poor couple making $150,000 who is so unfairly taxed :cry

And actually a head of household, who already gets another $2,700 in deductions and $3,700 in exemptions, pays 10% on income up to $11,950 and 15% on income up to $45,550, etc.

So, the brackets are definitely expanded for married couples and for those with children. Which is more than fair, since as I mentioned in another post, expenses do not even double when another adult is added to a household. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=582115 Where I live, I could add three or four people to my household and pay the same garbage bill as a single person.

[ieoeja]

140. Your numbers differ from what I see published.

Last edited Fri Apr 20, 2012, 05:11 PM - Edit history (1)

I believe you gave a figure of $12,000 for a childless single person equating to nearly 3x that for a single person with one child. Assuming you are using only personal deductions your single person's deduction would be $3,700 which puts their taxable income at $8,300.

For a household of a single person and one child the deductions would be $3,700 for the adult, $3,700 for the child plus an extra $1,000 for the child. So a single adult and child with a combined income of $16,700 would pay the same tax as a single person with a $12,000 deduction.

$16,700 vs $12,000
2 people vs 1 person


If you do not want separate brackets/etc for a parent, then the only fair thing is to let children file taxes just like the adults. Why don't you try running those numbers. Sure, the adult making $16,700 will pay more than the adult paying $12,000, but with negative taxes on the poorest (and the child has $0 reportable income), I would be surprised if the tax refund for that child did not exceed the tax difference between the adults. Which means the 2nd household's ultimate tax bill would be even better than under the current laws.

On edit: I am going by published tax brackets which say the tax rate for taxable income of $8,300 is 10% no matter how many adults and children are in the house. If you are looking at tax tables that say differently, then I am missing something.

[hfojvt]

178. you are adding that wrong

and also ignoring the EIC.

A single person gets a standard deduction of $5,800 (I used $5,700 because I had a 2010 booklet, for 2011 it was $5.800). They also get the $3,700 exemption, For a taxable income of $2,500 for a tax of $250. However, they also get an EIC of $110 for a net tax of $140. (Again I am using the EIC from 2010, I generally used 2010 numbers which are only slightly different from 2011 numbers).

Now for a single person with a child. First, they get an standard deduction of $8,500 because they get to file as Head of Household. Then they get two $3,700 exemptions. Which takes them up to $15,900. Suppose, they have an income of $30,000. Then subtract the $15,900 and they have a taxable income of $14,100 which the 2010 tax table gives a tax of $1,521 on line 44 of the 1040. However, then they goto line 51 and subtract $1,000 for the accursed child tax credit, leaving them with a tax of $521. Then they goto the Earned Income credit table and get an EIC of $881. Giving them a tax bill of negative $360.

Single person making $12,000 pays $140
single person with child making $30,000 pays minus $360
$500 less in taxes despite having 2.5 times the income.

Ain't progressive taxation wonderful?

And curiously enough, the brackets are the same at $8,300, but if you go higher in the tax table to, say $15,000 then it reads
single - $1,835
married filing jointly - $1,503
married filing separately - $1,835
head of household - $1,656
and so on

What I want, is for the accursed child tax credit which started as $200 under Clinton, but then, just as I predicted at the time, got jacked up to $1,000. I want that accursed piece of excrement to go away.

[Sgent]

109. Its more than that

depending on income level.

Not only do you get the exemption, you also get a huge increase in the range you can earn, and the amount of, the earned income credit, and head of household filing status (vs single). In addition you have the child tax credit and the child care credit.

A single person with 12,000 in income probably pays X, whereas a single tax payer with one child and an income of 18,000 will have no tax liability, and in fact have a negative tax bill due to the various refundable credits.

[hfojvt]

132. there is an accursed tax credit of $1,000 per child

there is also the Earned Income Credit. A single person with a child (who would be able to file as Head of Household and thus get another standard deduction of $2,700) with an income of $28,000 would get an earned income credit of $1,200. A single person with three children and an income of $40,000 would pay no taxes AND get a refund (EIC) of $701.

($40,000 - $8,400 - ($3,700 * 4) = taxable income of $16,800 = tax of $1,934 (versus $2,113 for a single person with the same taxable income, this $200 tax savings coming after an extra $2,700 standard deduction and $3,700 per child) minus $3,000 in per child tax credits (line 51 of the 1040) = 0 in tax (or perhaps a refund, some of the child tax credits are refundable based on a formula I am not gonna try to calculate for purposes of this argument, but that was one more reason that I objected to the child tax credit, because it was more of a benefit for those with higher incomes than for those of lower incomes who were already paying no taxes (but in my memory both the child tax credit and the EIC used to be limited to TWO children but have now been expanded to THREE, which offends both my sense of fairness and my ZPG sensibilities (Zero Population Growth, with 7 billion people I think the planet is already too damned crowded and rewarding those with 3 children is subsidizing a population increase that the planet does not need))

Keep in mind it is only the accursed child tax credit that I object to, not the Head of Household filing status, nor the per person exemptions, nor the EIC (although I do object to expanding the EIC to covering 3 children instead of just two). At least the EIC is aimed for low income households, whereas the accursed child tax credit provides a tax break for some very high income households.

[Chan790]

186. "Does that seem like a fair tax system to you..?"

Yes. Full Stop. Next question you won't like my answer to?

I'm a single-deduction-on-my-taxes unmarried childfree person and I don't think the government taxed me enough (The state of Maryland took plenty though and their ROI sucks.)...I've seen it firsthand, they spend the money a lot more effectively for my benefit than I can. They spend your tax dollars a lot more effectively for your benefit than you can too. Paying taxes is patriotic. I do wish they'd spend the money a little differently, but altogether I can't complain about my taxation ROI.

I get so much for my tax dollar that I could not afford for myself for $1. If they can do that much with $1, I'd rather give them $3.

[Rochester]

19. If sending a relatively small check to Uncle Sam is the price...

...of another year of blessed silence and peace and quiet and adequate sleep and freedom from stress and worry and not having to blow many times the size of the check on extra food and medicine and toys and other crap...
I'd say I came out ahead!

[liberalhistorian]

20. Oh, goodie. Yet another parent-and-children-bashing

thread. The childfree people I know have a helluva lot more money than I or a lot of other parents I know do and did.

And those children you are resentful of will grow up to be your doctors, estate lawyers, police officers, firefighters, geriatric and medical social workers,. nurses, home care attendants, food preparers and servers, and everyone else who will serve and help you.

[TheWraith]

39. +1.

I have no problem with people deciding not to have kids--I have none myself--but some people who aggressively identify as "childfree" seem bound and determined to not only portray having children as a horrible, emotionally draining and life-destroying thing, but also whine that they don't get the advantages of having done said horrible draining and life-destroying thing.

[liberalhistorian]

92. I hear ya. I also have no problem

at all with those who either don't have or choose not to have children, hell, I even understand it. People have the right to make their own choices and decisions in such a personal matter without being judged for it. What they don't have the right to do is be obnoxious and aggressive and self-righteous and superior about it.

There are plenty of advantages childfree adults have that many parents would love to have, more discretionary income being just one of them.

[doc03]

21. Mostly married people with children vote the politicians in that are also married and

have children, so they make the rules to favor married people with children. That's just the way it is there is nothing you can do about it.

[Luminous Animal]

22. Fellow renting folks, how much did you love writing the check out to the IRS after hearing all the

people with mortgages talk about everything they were doing with their refunds for the last three months? Aren't "homeowners" great? They have value, we don't.



This is sarcasm, by the way.

[hfojvt]

34. I've owned 3 homes

and have never been able to take a mortgage interest deduction.

I think that subsidy is bogus too, being mostly a subsidy for richer people, but unlike the child tax credit, at least it has a longer history rather than being something which was created in the 1990s and started small, but then had every politician in the book pandering to increase it.

[jeff47]

123. Your problem is you need a better accountant, not others with children. (nt)

[LiberalFighter]

23. I had $9500 of my income exempt from taxes.

As a single:
My grocery costs are higher for perishable items. If I don't finish it before the expiration date it goes to waste. I mostly avoid going to restaurants because there aren't good deals like there are for couples.

Instead of a home for multiple residents it is just me. All utility expenses are just for me.

When it snows it is me that shovels it. When the grass needs mowing it is me out mowing.

Guess who does the laundry, dishes, grocery shopping, feeding the girls, paying the bills, checking my bank account, making arrangements for car maintenance, recycling and garbage? Fix all of my own meals.

My average federal tax this year was 13.5 percent. I didn't have enough to itemize as my mortgage payments were at the end of its time. So I started paying off more each month and now have about $900 extra staying in my bank account each month. I think original loan payment was about $500 or $550 monthly. Years ago I started paying $50 extra each month.

What am I going to do with my refund? Put it into my bank account until I think I need something or make an appropriate contribution.

[pipoman]

61. You avoid restaurants?

What "good deals" are you talking about? Two for $20 at Applebees? It is a whole $.80 savings over menu pricing. Most restaurants I go to have menu prices for entrees, buy one or buy 10 makes no difference...in fact, Applebees is the only place I can think of that has a two-fer price..

[hfojvt]

26. lots of negativity in the replies

The people with children are resentful when the childless point out that our pockets are being picked to subsidize those with children.

Go figure.

Viva la subsidy.

Or: note to the childless "shut the fuck up and fork over the cash. We've got kids to feed."

[REP]

27. +1

[Luminous Animal]

37. Pockets being picked?

Now you personally may not have been able to take a mortgage deduction, but I remember when it proposed that it be eliminated there was outrage across the U.S.

Or: note to renters "shut the fuck up and fork over the cash. We've got a mortgage to pay."

Jesus H. Christ. The 1% are ripping off the national treasury by the billions and you begrudge your neighbor a few hundred dollars of relief.

[hfojvt]

43. the record is clear

I have personally called for the elimination of the mortgage deduction twice http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/151

Yeah, when a family making $20,000 or $30,000 a year more than I do gets a $2,000 subsidy and I get nothing. Why, yes, I do think that is bullsh*t. I prefer that tax rebates be tilted to favor those at the bottom, or, at the very absolute minimum, be equal.

I guess it is too much to expect other progressives to a) care about the poor and b) be in favor of equality.

Thousands for the upper middle class, nothing for the poor, and if the poor complain, tell them to shut up and focus on the rich, while we keep grabbing those thousand dollar bills.

A few hundred dollars of relief? For a couple with two children who live to be 17, it is $34,000 over that span - plus interest. Just chickenfeed to you, I suppose, but I happen to have paid $35,000 for the house I live in. So from where I sit it looks like a free house.

[snooper2]

81. I'm not real sure what you are complaining about here, you want the mortgage deduction gone

are complaining about people who make more than you (why that is material not sure) getting a mortgage deduction, but you have a house too? You don't get one?

[hfojvt]

108. Did you read the link?

The mortgage interest deduction, like most of the deductions of schedule A is mostly a benefit to higher income households. I don't happen to be part of a higher income household, even though I bought a cheap house. My mortgage interest would only be deductible if I had more of it (combined with other deductible expenses) to make it greater than the standard deduction.

Why isn't it material if tax cuts go to people who make more money than I do? I thought that was the whole complaint with the Bush tax cuts.

[snooper2]

112. I think you should read this, then some of the comments

http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/mortgage-interest-deduction-myth.html

[SammyWinstonJack]

48. +1. That's how it is in America. Everyone is concerned the next person

might be getting over on them.


Whatta great way to be.

[laundry_queen]

42. Those children will be subsidizing your retirement. nt

[HiPointDem]

45. as the poster subsidized the retirements of others. so?

[laundry_queen]

77. That's exactly the point. I'm sorry you missed it. nt

[LeftishBrit]

58. 'Pockets are being picked'?

Do you also think that it is 'picking your pocket' to pay taxes for the care of people with illnesses that you don't have; or for dealing with environmental hazards that don't affect the place where you live?

The whole concept that taxes and public services are 'picking pockets' is fundamentally right-wing. Once can argue about whether the way that tax credits are being used benefits the wealthy more than the poor, etc.; but the idea that people should not have to pay taxes for services that they don't personally use or need is playing into the hands of the economic Right.

I have no children, by the way. And in case you think the issue is irrelevant to me because I live in the UK, parents get child tax credits here too.

[hfojvt]

105. I would argue that my share of the tax burden

should be based on my income. That I should not pay taxes at a higher rate than people with twice my income just because those people have multiple children. The fact that I do so, seems to me the equivalent of a subsidy that I am paying to take care of the childcare expenses of others. It has nothing to do with public services which I don't take advantage of, or cannot. It has to do with paying more than a proportionate share for those services (while receiving less than a proportionate share of benefits).

[NewJeffCT]

168. well said

it is an argument of the RW about taxes.

[n2doc]

70. You reap what you sow n/t

[4th law of robotics]

87. Why should I pay for cancer research? I don't have cancer

why should I pay for education, I've already got mine. Why should I pay for police, I don't break the law.

I suspect at some point you were a child so you did benefit from these things.

And who knows, you may change your mind or have a friend/relative who benefits. So it's not entirely selfless to support have child tax credits.

[hfojvt]

116. it's not about what I am paying for

it is about how much I pay.

See my other posts about how the tax system is tilted against the childless.

And so what if my siblings and cousins and friends with children benefit? That really does not change the fairness aspect of it. I personally saved $1,500 in income taxes from the Bush tax cuts on capital gains, but I still firmly believe that such a tax break is unfair. Even if I suddenly started getting the child tax credit, which is still theoretically possible (much like me winning the powerball is, although powerball probably has slightly better odds) then I would still have enough empathy to believe it is still unfair.

Same with the stupid payroll tax cut, which now gives me better than average benefits.

[freshwest]

181. When I was single and childless, I noticed all of this. But remembered I was a child once, and my

Parents probably got some benefits, although there was no earned income benefits then.

There have always been so many things such as you gave examples, that I hated to see my tax money going to pay for, but it was part of funding a system for all.

During the Reagan years, it was a constant battle for me to keep out of the 30% tax range. I didn't care, I was grateful to be making that money. I still had plenty to live on and invest at that time. As a single person, I paid off my house. Things changed for reasons out of my control and I'm not doing as well now as I was then.

It's up to anyone who wants to be angry about what they perceive others to be getting more than them, but for me it's like nipping each other's heels.

And the 1% love it. While our eyes look down, we don't look up at who set things up the way they are, and who paid less than any of the people being discussed here.

But that's just opinion, and everyone has one.

[bahrbearian]

184. So true

[rufus dog]

28. What a fucked up post

I have two kids, I will need to check but I don't believe I get a child tax credit, regardless I never have taken unemployment, no food stamps, welfare, maybe I should take up your piss poor attitude and whine about everything you have ever taken. Of course that would make me a Republican so I would rather just comment.... FUCK OFF!


Edit to add: Look what someone has posted over at Hannity.com

On this TAX DAY, how do you like paying for other people's children?
After just doing my taxes, I was wondering why we have personal deductions?

And especially why we have additional deductions for the more children a person has.

I can understand it for75 or so years ago, or whenever it was enacted, as so many children worked on the farms to help feed everybody else, but why now?

The more children a person/couple has the greater cost they are on society.

Why is everybody else required to subsidize them? I have no problem if somebody wants to have ten kids as long as they can pay for them but why should I be required to indirectly pay for somebody else's family size decisions?

The USA isn't under-populated anymore and with the growing population and strain on natural resources, why don't we limit personal deductions to two children per marriage plus any adopted children?

BTW, since Romney will be the GOP nominee, a few years ago my son was dating this girl for a short time. The issue of religion never came up until he volunteered to help her move to Utah. On the way in the U-Haul she told him that her father was a polygamist and she was one of 28 children. I wonder how much the tax payer subsidy for that family is/was?

[Rex]

29. Someone is off the chain!

nt.

[Tarheel_Dem]

31. "They have value, we don't."

That's a bit harsh, but I can somewhat empathize. I had to write a couple of checks as well, both state and federal, to the tune of a couple of thousand. Of course, it would have been much more if not for the mortgage interest, and a couple of other deductions. It made me realize that I need to change my withholdings, so hopefully I break even next year.

I don't begrudge the children at all, and I realize that parents have many expenses that I don't have as a single person. Hopefully, my contributions to the tax system makes life just a little bit better for someone who might otherwise be struggling, or hungry.

As someone noted above, being single has its perks, but it also has its downside. Two incomes are much better than one. When it comes to household expenses, we single folks have to pay the same power bill, grocery bill, cable bill, household maintenance, property taxes, various insurances, and sometimes a car note/insurance, all on one income. But it's okay.

[Starry Messenger]

32. Those kids will be funding my Social Security.

[abelenkpe]

35. Are you going to start a thread

Complaining about homeowners who get to write off the interest on their mortgage vs renters who don't? Personally I'd rather complain about corporations that pay nothing and the rich that pay less than workers. Why worry about people with kids. When those kids are grown and your old and collecting ss will you still complain about them when their labor funds your ability to collect?

[jmowreader]

38. There are worse things to be upset about...

Like writing out the check to the IRS after finding out General Electric was paid $170 million by the IRS because they only made $11 billion in profits last year. I dunno, maybe if they made $12 billion in profits they would have had to pay some tax. (And for the record, I got a refund this year.)

I'm also not real upset about Ann Romney not having worked a day in her life. A lot of women don't work. The issue with Romney isn't that she doesn't understand the problems of everyday women because she doesn't work, it's that with a husband who makes $25 million a year churning stocks and cashing commission checks from the deals he set up when he was actively bankrupting companies she's never had to decide whether to put the can of beans or the bottle of medicine for her kid back on the shelf.

[tkmorris]

40. You sound bitter

I can guarantee you that if you had a child to care for you would be in a worse financial situation than you are now in, tax benefits included.

All that hate is gonna eat you up inside if you let it. Don't.

[HiPointDem]

44. another thread where the 99% fight with each other over crumbs. win for the 1%.

[SammyWinstonJack]

49. Exactly!

[LeftishBrit]

59. Exactly

[Javaman]

73. +1000 nt

[JNelson6563]

82. Win!

[freshwest]

180. Yes, in that respect, the 1% are morally superior. They stick together and we shred each other.

[TheKentuckian]

46. Kids are expensive, I don't care about that but I am against the homeowners credit

That isn't equal protection under the law, those that rent are subsidizing someone's investment that is probably better off than they.

That said the nasty attitude of some parents when someone questions deduction for the benefit of their kids is a little much too. It is almost like they are doing some ungrateful soul a personal favor by having kids and they better be damn glad. I don't begrudge it but if someone does they have every right to, especially when they are of very modest means and must keep a roof over their head and eat on what could be near poverty levels subsidizing those with dual incomes and much better off.

I consider all the children an investment but some folks seem to stray into a sense of entitlement and others do seem to get a little haughty with the childless as if they are pretty much spoiled children themselves that are somehow gaming the system.

Helping out with the mortgage is bullshit though, that needs to go away. I don't believe it is an investment into the society but rather a personal benefit. Helping with your education is a boat lifter, I'm good with that. I figure you'll need some place to live no matter what. If a community feels it would benefit from ownership then localities should offer incentives, it isn't a Federal concern.

[Union Scribe]

47. So you support globalism and don't fancy paying your taxes

...anything else you'll be sharing this week?

[SammyWinstonJack]

50. HA!

[alcibiades_mystery]

54. Thread winner

[salin]

52. No children, and no resentment, here.

what a self-centered sentiment to the point of not recognizing societal well being (think The Commons) at all.

Almost as if the OP is simply aimed and starting a flame war.

[schlagehundenancee]

53. One some level I resent it

I support FREE public Ed in America but resent that my tax dollars are subsidizing private religious schools, charter schools and homeschooler’s. I also believe that once you get to 40 and have never had kids you should get a tax credit because you did not nor will not use the services.

I am almost to the point now of agreeing to kill public education as long as the money continues to be wasted on private schools, homeschooler’s and charter schools, public education for all not just the few.

What sense does it make to support an education system that is being destroyed by both parties and their corporate masters?

The few trying to hold the public schools together are being overwhelmed and will not be able to prevent a complete corporate takeover of the schools. If you think the teabaggers and Palinites are idiots now just wait and see their corporate educated kids and grand kids.

Idiocracy is America’s future unless there is a major change very soon.

[Brickbat]

55. Jeez Louise, just have a baby, then. Problem solved.

[LeftishBrit]

56. I don't have children, and I disagree on this

Last edited Thu Apr 19, 2012, 11:39 AM - Edit history (1)

Firstly, society as a whole benefits from children being well-treated and well-educated. Secondly, once you start saying that you shouldn't have to pay taxes for facilities that you don't personally use, then you're going down a very slippery slope. Should non-drivers refuse to pay taxes for roads, or people who don't use public transport for buses/ trains/ underground, or young people for facilities used mainly by the elderly, or currently healthy people for hospitals?

[Codeine]

57. Another hit-and-run shit-stir compliments of The RB TexLa Show! nt

[hobbit709]

60. didn't get a refund but I didn't make enough to pay either.

[Autumn]

62. Childless and retired here, I get pissed that I

wrote a bigger check to the IRS than a lot of corporations. I don't care that people with children get a tax refund. Corporations paying no taxes is what we can use to say " Aren't "Family Values" great? They have value, we don't." That the real pisser.

[Maine-ah]

63. I have one child

and I wrote a check.

[sendero]

64. A child..

.. generates many times more revenue for the economy and the government than the tax break. This is well known, well proven and if you think you are getting shafted you should think again.

[a la izquierda]

66. I never pay the Feds...

but I pay Oklahoma every damned year.

I wish I could claim my three doggie-children, the only kids I'm ever going to have.

[Arkansas Granny]

67. KIds, no kids, it doesn't matter. Gloating and whining are neither one attractive or effective.

Everyone has choices to make and you live with the consequences.

[gkhouston]

69. ^^^^ Thread win. n/t

[GeorgeGist]

71. Got a refund.

Gave it to charity.

Sorry.

[cynatnite]

72. Resentful much? n/t

[Snake Alchemist]

74. Stupid breeders. nt

[Javaman]

75. I have no kids and I got a refund...

I honestly have no idea what tree you are barking up?

this really seems like a completely pointless thread.

[Ikonoklast]

80. I raised my three children, they are no longer deductible, I didn't write any checks

to the IRS and my business grossed in the low six-figure category.

Someone needs to fire their accountant.

[LanternWaste]

85. I can only say this... "bless your little heart..."

I have zero problems with paying my taxes, getting my refund, and having no kids, despite the depression and school-boy angst it may cause the overly and melodramatic among us.


That's my life, those are my choices... and I suppose if I felt undervalued due to no children, I could always move to another country. However, since the belief that people with no children have no value is an invalid inference, I can only say this... "bless your little heart..."

[4th law of robotics]

86. Kinda reminds me of people without a car complaining about paying taxes to build roads

BUT I DON'T DRIVE!!!!!!!

I'm sure you don't. But you really can't claim you derive no benefit from that spending.

You may not have kids. But I'm assuming you're planning on retiring at some point and not having civilization collapse once your generation stops working right? That's the benefit you get from other people having kids.

[Mojorabbit]

88. No children and we pay a huge amt of taxes

but I am hoping it is spread out to make my community and society nationwide a better place. I am not happy it goes to the MIC or for subsidies to huge corporations. I don't mind if it goes to people with children.

[PA Democrat]

91. Theoretically, a progressive tax system is supposed to take into account ability to pay taxes.

So two households with the same total income but a different number of dependents would not have the same ability to pay taxes.

IMHO, these types of posts are a distraction from the very LARGE issue of tax fairness. Why focus on people with kids? I'd rather focus on people like Mitt Romney who pay a much lower rate of taxes than people with a much lower incomes. Or how about the increase in regressive forms of taxation like state and federal excise taxes and sales taxes?

[HillWilliam]

94. Think of us gayfolk

like my partner and I who've been together 16 wonderful years. My partner is totally disabled, totally dependent on me. Do I get the married deduction? Can I claim him as dependent? Nope. Throughout our life together, we've paid thousands more than married couples.

I resent the fuck out of it. I'd resent it a lot less if he and I could get married. That doesn't look likely to happen in our lifetime.

[jayfish]

96. Sounds like you need to adjust your withholding...

if your looking for a refund. It's a bad investment anyway. When you get a refund you've basically loaned the government your money at 0% interest for a year.

[ctaylors6]

97. refunds are from overwithholding or overpayment

of estimated tax, generally

Or are you talking about something like the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit?

[Xyzse]

98. Well Sir...

It is really dependent on a few things regarding your employment.
If:

A - You are self-employed - Congrats you will more likely than not, always write a check unless you find enough on your operating costs to defray that.

B - You are an employee - If so, you fall under a few categories:

1 - You've set your withholding too low that you will pay taxes.
2 - You've set your withholding lower but have a business on the side that you can use to justify operating costs which then would either make you pay taxes or not.
3 - You've set your withholding high enough that you will always get a refund

I fall under the B2 category. In many ways, I want the Bush tax cuts to expire by the end of the year. That way, the conversation shifts to creating a tax cut rather than raising taxes.

[cynatnite]

99. Maybe you should save your animosity for corporations who don't pay taxes. n/t

[Ron Obvious]

100. Taxes is the price we pay for civilisation

Taxes is the price we pay for living in civilisation. We don't have children, but I've NEVER resented paying taxes for the investment in our future.

[bluestate10]

231. Hear, Hear!!!! nt

[Silver Swan]

102. No children here now, they are adults.

But I don't mind paying Federal income taxes because my taxes are lower now than they have been for anytime in the past forty years.

This is in absolute dollars. If I consider inflation, the current amount becomes very small indeed.

I don't mind that families with children get more tax breaks. I wish those provisions had been around when my children were young!

[WinniSkipper]

103. You have received some interesting responses

I personally think your point is not what everyone thinks it is.

I think you are saying we are being force-fed, through taxation policies, Republican "Family Values", that force us (or some people) to opt for children as a way to financially survive.

Was I close?

[4th law of robotics]

107. Children are still a net loss even with tax-benefits

anyone who is having kids as "a way to financially survive" hasn't done the math.

[WinniSkipper]

126. I think that while true, that's a different issue

I am referring to the message it sends.

What I meant is that we have a tax code that is inherently "unfair" to not only childless couples, but to same-sex couples, partners, and anyone else who can't claim a legal right to the term "family".

To me that smells like the Republican Family Values.

[hughee99]

104. Where did my children go?

I thought I had 2 of them under 6 years old but just wrote the IRS a big fat check. I guess I must be single, though, right? The last time I got a refund was before I had children.

[Odin2005]

106. Ugh, "Childfree" = kid-hater.

The only people without kids that I know call themselves that are the people that hate kids.

[WinniSkipper]

127. Since this is DU

.....what term are we allowed to call ourselves?

[Arkansas Granny]

128. Sorry, but I have to disagree. My youngest son and his wife decided before they married

to be childfree. They like kids just fine, they just don't want any of their own. They make an excellent and doting Aunt and Uncle to nieces and nephews and would probably be good parents, but that isn't in their plans.

[Odin2005]

129. Sorry, I was generalizing.

It's just that a lot of people that call themselves "Childfree" hate kids, and so the term leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[Arkansas Granny]

130. I know what you mean. I've met them, too.

[MADem]

188. I know lots of "childfree" people with the same attitude. nt

[Darth_Kitten]

210. Why would some parents think "child-free" people would make the effort to hate their darling angels?

The opposite of love is indifference, not hate.

Some people with children need a major wake-up call; it's amazing how little child-free people obsess about their children.

[Proud Public Servant]

110. Try doing the math before you troll

I have a kid. What does that get me on my taxes? It allows an extra exemption for her as my dependent. And what it that worth? Her exemption allows me to reduce my adjusted gross income downward by $3700, which means (in my tax bracket) it reduces my taxes by about $925.

$925 ain't chump change, to be sure. But you know what? It doesn't come close to matching the extra taxes -- sales taxes -- I pay to feed, clothe, and otherwise take care of her. To say nothing of the additional real estate taxes I pay to maintain a home big enough for 3 instead of 2.

Sounds like I should resent you and your freeloading kind.

Oh, and my tax return? It was great -- huge. It'll pay for a week's vacation in Maine, a long weekend at a resort in West Virginia, a new digital SLR, and some contracting work we've been meaning to have done for a while. How'd we get so lucky? 3 little words: "mortgage interest deduction." My kid had f*ck-all to do with it.

[ieoeja]

120. You pay taxes for one person. Single parent paying taxes for two gets twice your deduction.

I once read somewhere that children are people too. Does anyone have a link for that?

You are paying taxes for one person: you. A single parent is paying taxes for two people and thefore qualifies for twice the personal exemption. How is that unfair?

Also, while the above single parent hits a higher tax rate at a higher income, it is a far cry from double the income for that bracket for a sole person. Viewed this way the tax brackets are skewed unfairly in favor of childless people!

[spanone]

124. i'd rather people with children get it than the generals.

[Yo_Mama]

125. They also have to support the children!

It costs a lot, you know.

Ask anyone with children whether they'd be financially better off at the end of the year with or without them! Don't plan to get rich and have a better lifestyle by having children - it doesn't work. Unless, of course, you are deadbeat parent, but then if you claim a tax deduction on the child it is tax fraud.

[RB TexLa]

131. That is their lifestyle choice

[Yo_Mama]

147. So? Your point?

Look, it is the lifestyle choice of some people to eat a lot of cheeseburgers, develop heart disease, become disabled and get supported by disability plus free medical care, sleep around and get HIV, likewise, drink themselves blotto or do drugs and get a liver transplant, likewise.

(Note, this is to make a point and I know perfectly well that a diet that will make one person sick will be fine for another, that you can get HIV without ever being reckless or irresponsible in any way, and that many people who need liver transplants do so for causes that are utterly unrelated to lifestyle.)

Now think about that. The families raising children are doing something for all of us - when we are older, we will all need the next generation.

The whole point about society is the people - we seek to make a world in which people can live not necessarily richly, but with human dignity and some basic security. Your implicit argument is even more powerful against the sick, the elderly and the poor for any reason, and quite frankly, it fails the test of rationality.

Do you want to tell the firefighter who fell off a ladder in a fire rescue attempt broke his back and now is on disability retirement, "It was your lifestyle choice"? What the hell, he wasn't climbing the ladder to save you or anyone you know, so why does he have a claim on your money?

Come on now. The numbers in the OP are wrong, but it does cost a lot to raise kids. The purpose of a progressive tax system is to leave people enough money to live on, and those with kids usually need the money to live on.

A society without children is a dead society. Of all the things people do, being parents probably entails the most average sacrifice and the most average good for society.

I support disability for all those who are disabled. I support publicly funded medical care for all those who can't pay for it. I support retirement programs and food stamps and medical care for the imprisoned and public education and yes! The Dreaded Welfare, and I'd rather give tax credits to working single parents so I don't have to support them on welfare, and I don't feel bad about any of it. As far as I am concerned a drunken bum still deserves medical care and help. The other kind of society is one I just don't want to live in - it's one that doesn't respect people as people.

What a single person gets out of all this is not having to drive through intersections where kids are begging and paraplegics are begging, and if you really can't understand the benefit, it's time to sit down and think hard about it.

[SomethingFishy]

134. It's no wonder that every time I come here I see less and less posts

Who the fuck wants to be associated with this kind of shit? The fucking world is falling apart, and your complaint is that people got a tax deduction for their children? The top one percent has continually increased the percentage of money it controls in this nation and you want to blame your fucking problems on people with children?
This has to be the most selfish, egotistical, greedy post I have seen in quite awhile. Congratulations, you have achieved the Apogee of what the right thinks is a stereotypical liberal, and by shouting it to the world have managed to make us all look worse in the process.

[fascisthunter]

135. no shit!

[ieoeja]

141. Which is why I would never, ever recommend DU to anyone who was not a raving lib/prog/leftist.

Too many posters on this site make Democrats look as bad as the Teabaggers and Freepers make the Right look like. Quite a few manage to out themselves as Cons imitating what they think a Lib is. But far too many are genuine in their kookiness.

Should any sane but middle-of-the-road voter wander in here, I always point out that:

1. Posters here are not speaking for the Democratic Party.
2. I have never heard a Democrat endorsing this site.
3. Conversely, Free Republic has been invited to events by Congressional Republican leadership.
4. Teabaggers have been completely endorsed by Republicans.
5. Remove every self-proclaimed Teabagger from the House today, and Republicans would be in the minority.

[fascisthunter]

143. yuh... oh, poor poor moderates

[CreekDog]

167. the centrists are just like us, they just want fewer good things and more bad things than we do

i know. it sounds as smart as it is!

[Marrah_G]

136. You stirred up a bunch of shit and then quickly vanished

I hope everyone on this thread arguing with each other realizes that this is exactly what the OP intended.

[RB TexLa]

144. I said what I wanted to say.

Just like I told the guy who said how can that be we make about the same amount? "Somebody has to pay for all your motherfucking tax credits."

[CreekDog]

156. with a Republican post

i thought this party was about "we" and the other one was about "me".

but you want us all to fight over the crumbs and resent CHILDREN for having gotten some help when more of them live in poverty than any other group.

it's rude and it's not liberal.

[NewJeffCT]

166. +1

well said

[RB TexLa]

174. Are you kidding? They expect people to have reverence in their voice anytime the word

family is said.

[CreekDog]

175. that's not what makes it a Republican post --it's because you want something and it's only about you

you blame children (basically) for taking money that would otherwise be yours.

you want what's yours and blame those who have things you want for what you don't have.

and these are children.

the reason "family" or "children" seem to bother you is that those words have more resonance than your repeated offerings of "ME" "MINE" etc.

so there you go. keep looking out for yourself.

[Marrah_G]

173. Yes, yes you did

[BlancheSplanchnik]

137. I am so with you. Specially since nearly all current problems at their core

come back to human overpopulation.

environment
loss of biodiversity
global warming
factory farming
mass production, factory farming, growing prison populations, overbearing police authority, resource depletion, waste and pollution.....

human needs are endless and must be satisfied---the more of us, the more we will destroy everything around us, just as a side effect of everyday life.

So I really LOVE monetary incentives for people to have MORE.

[stuntcat]

162. (please someone consider this list)

it horrifies me that people will not consider these things. No way would I give the next 90 years to my child, OR make one more 1st-world consumer.

[Zax2me]

142. We have value. In this case, govt doesn't recognize it.

Not the fault of those with children.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

146. I have no kids and got a refund... probably buying another gun with it.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

148. Although you haven't responded to one single response, I suppose I should ask:

What is your specific objection? Once you offer this objection, could you also offer your tax bracket and your various deductions. This will give the community a much better way to assess your objections. Or perhaps you have a much more fundamental objection: just spell out these fundamental principles.

[CreekDog]

149. those children are going to be paying for your retirement benefits, like Medicare and SS

what's next? complaining about having to pay for public schools?

sheesh.

are we Democrats and liberals all in this together so that ALL are taken care of OR NOT???

children suffer more poverty than any other age group. do you want them to suffer more?



count me out on whatever you're advocating. it stinks.

[Hippo_Tron]

150. No, and I think this is about as silly as the 53%er nonsense

If I were pissed about the amount of money I have to pay in taxes (and I'm not, by any means), then I would direct my anger toward the 1%ers who rake in millions a year in investment income and pay lower tax rates than I do on most of it.

[seabeyond]

151. from age 12-32 single and no kids, i got a refund. i also put the most in thru out year

to make sure i got the refund and didnt have to write a check.

[NYC_SKP]

152. The tax code is chuck full of preferential treatments.

And they need to end.

I'm reccing this post.

[fascisthunter]

153. Wanna live by yourself?

go for it... this is called a COUNTRY.

[RB TexLa]

155. Then why do the politicians never say working Americans? It's always working families.

They can't pay for their own lifestyle choice? They made that choice.

[CreekDog]

158. you just scapegoated children for your lack of tax refund --how lame

what's next, puppies, nuns?

[RB TexLa]

159. It's not that I mind paying. It's just we have to pay for their lifestyle choice.

[CreekDog]

160. then you are opting out of Social Security and Medicare, correct?

why should children contribute to helping you retire?

this is madness.

is there a Republican Happy Hour nearby? i'm sure they will be sympathetic to your argument.

[girl gone mad]

182. Just how much have your taxes gone up..

due to the child tax credit?

[Iggo]

154. Divide and conquer, baby.

Divide. And. Conquer.

[CreekDog]

157. +1

[Honeycombe8]

163. Whether you get a refund depends on your deductions. But singles pay the HIGHEST rate. nt

[CreekDog]

165. same poo, different day

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002566264

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6856045

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002469472#post4

[dionysus]

169. i do not poo with you.

[unapatriciated]

170. My children are grown and we pay a fair amount in taxes.

It doesn't bother me at all that those with children at home get a tax deduction. When families with children get a tax break the community as a whole benefits. To a lot of families those tax breaks mean food, clothes and education that they might not be able to afford. This means less dependency on social services for basic needs and a healthier community.

What does bother me is that the gay community does not have the same rights that I enjoy and the benefits that come with marriage.

[Zorra]

172. I don't care as long as people keep their kids of my lawn nt

[progressoid]

179. Of all the things in our tax code, THIS is what you choose this to bitch about?

[ibegurpard]

185. I got a refund

I always do...maybe you need to re-examine the way your deductions are set up.

[LaurenG]

187. You sound jealous or envious and resentful

because others decided to have children. It would be funny if I didn't suddenly want to ask "what, no one will procreate with you"? Or drink with you or party with you?

[RB TexLa]

189. I made the choice to not have children, no one else has a say in that.

[LaurenG]

190. I don't think anyone else wants a say in your private decisions

just like I don't understand why you are focusing on someone else's decision or are getting jealous because they have kids and a bigger tax refund. I don't have dependents that I can claim living with me but I still got a refund this year. Maybe take out more taxes and claim 0 next year.

I seriously hate that you seem so bitter that families get a break...its disturbing.

[RB TexLa]

191. I do have extra withholding. All I'm saying is there is no reason to give them

tax breaks to pay for their lifestyle choice.

[LaurenG]

195. That is not a very progressive opinion

and I don't understand your harsh attitude about everything.

[Darth_Kitten]

211. Oh, right.

Funny how a lot of people with kids think the entire world needs to focus on their glorious lives. And, YES, they do believe they deserve better treatment.

My, my, they sure do seem bitter and jealous, eh?

[LaurenG]

212. Hahaha oh dear

My kids are grown. I had two that I love dearly but if I had it to do over again I probably would remain child free. That is my choice and I'm OK with people who choose to have kids. I draw the line on the Duggars and those like them but still who cares if others decide to have kids, they may get a break for it but I still have a ton more disposable income without kids.

And seriously Darth, your post does sound bitter but what else is new?

[Darth_Kitten]

218. I'm not the one regretting MY choices....

Maybe stop directing your bitterness at other people, honey, and focus on what's really bothering you? I'm not the one expressing regret at my children's existence.

I'm sure your kids are quite used to your attitude, but then again, what else is new? Yawn.

If telling the world you regretted having your own children isn't bitterness, then what is, dear?

[LaurenG]

219. I'm not complaining either way. I understand why people would choose to remain childless

I do not regret my kids, you misunderstand and my kids have kids of their own and have stated the same thing as we grow and see what the population explosion is doing to the planet. Wow such ugliness in your post, breathtakingly ugly.

[Rex]

192. I don't have kids and will never have kids but I pay taxes

like school taxes because I am a progressive and I want a better future for our children. Notice I said OUR...that is how progressives feel.









I am not so petty as to care what strangers say around me.

[Bolo Boffin]

194. I loved it.

I'm happy to contribute to the good things I see my government doing.

Getting refunds doesn't mean they didn't pay taxes. I would have gotten a refund but for withdrawing from my 403(b) for a downpayment on my condo. I still paid taxes either way.

[liberaltrucker]

197. I have no problem with dependent deductions and child tax credits-with limitations

That is, a limit of 2 crotch fruits. You can have as many as you like, it's your choice.
BUT, only 2 could be used as a tax haven. If a couple finds happiness in a large
family, who am I to judge? Just don't expect me to help pay for it. Government
shouldn't subsidize overpopulation.

[Warren DeMontague]

198. What's that? Can't hear ya over the sound of all this DANCING MONEY!

Sorry you're unhappy! Must be real fucking irritating! Hope you feel better! Sorry!

[RB TexLa]

201. Not unhappy. Just don't think we should have to pay for their lifestyle choice

[Warren DeMontague]

202. Well... ya do!

Sorry it bugs you so much!

[RB TexLa]

203. It's not like it is a progressive tax, the people who struggle on the same salaries as the

families have to pay for it. But it's in the name of family values so it's ok to make them cover it.

[Warren DeMontague]

209. Turn down the dancing money, honey

i think someone is trying to say



no, it's hard to hear over the DANCING MONEY



Ah, never mind.

[rucky]

199. There's at least one baby in your household. n/t

[janx]

204. Adjust your withholding amount and deal with it.

You won't have to write a check to the IRS if you have your withholding amount adjusted.

It has nothing to do with "childfree" (or child freedom?) --whatever that means.

[BiggJawn]

217. So it's people with children's fault...

...you cut it too fine on the withholding and wound up owing?

I bought 2 rifles, a .45 Auto AND retired the credit card with this year's refund.

[MineralMan]

220. I made the decision not to father children very early in my life.

It was based on population concerns. I have no problem whatever with paying taxes and not taking deductions for the children I didn't have. I'm not really sure what's troubling you about it. I don't use the term "childfree" to describe myself, either.

[joeglow3]

221. I have 3 kids and gave the IRS $10,000

You're welcome.

[truebrit71]

225. I have one "child" and had to pay over three grand...

...i have no fucking idea what a "refund" is, and haven't for the last 21 years...

[bluestate10]

230. I am childless. I have done well financially.

I have plenty money to spend, and not just at tax time. Children are expensive, people should have children only if they are ready for financial and emotional involvement with another person. BTW, my paying taxes helps fund government. If government is not funded properly, some children born will become people that likely could attack and/or kill me one day, because of their destitution.