Why Does the U.S. Pay People to Have Children ?

Tax time is coming and my married friends with kids are already looking at new cars and one is looking at a boat. Why ? because one couple got 8000 last year and another couple I know got 6700 last year from the IRS simply because they have kids. At least they are not buying drugs like Im sure some are doing. If You don't pay taxes then You should not be sympathizing or complaining, I pay taxes so I can complain. Last Year I paid 13000 plus change in taxes, why ? because I worked my butt off. So I work my butt off, barely pay bills and then turn around and am forced to give what is left over to people who cant afford children but choose to have them anyway. Is that correct ? Yes it is, is it right? NO Maybe I would like my own kids, I cant have any because I cant afford them, why? partly because of high taxes but especially because I cant afford them, I can but I my job isnt secure forever and I cant take the chance of having a family with no job. I wish some others thought about it like that. We had no money growing up and it sucked, I wouldn't do that to a child, but some have n problem doing it. Do You think it is ok for the U.S. to pay people to have kids ? Ill bet You do if you have kids You do. Enjoy spending my money and the money everyone else worked for who actually pays taxes so You can have kids You cant afford !

a reply to: Foderalover

I understand your resentment.
Some people do get ridiculous amounts of money. I had a friend who, a couple of years ago, got about 10,000 no kidding...

I don't know the formula that the IRS uses but, it does seem skewed.
Two years ago we owed, it was our own fault, around 2800. Thought I was going to die!

I thought we had done everything properly throughout the year!

Well, maybe they will do good things with the windfall like give some of it away or help those less fortunate or something of the like.

a reply to: Foderalover

Why do couples who have no children have to pay taxes specifically for others children?

Paying for those who paid for my education, I'm told. If so, is it an equitable dollar amount?

a reply to: Foderalover

That is hard to read.. I bet if You did an edit and broke that up into paragraphs You'd get more rebuttal..

I only type this to You because there may be some readers like Myself who are aged who would respond about school taxes and not having kids OR why some that are "On The Dole" and their work is going to the mailbox to get a check from Uncle Suga and they too get a "raise" when they pop out more kids..

I don't know if You typed that or not as I have My ATS 'in the black' and this makes Me see things as if I've done shots in the midst of a Peyote run while on shrooms...

Sorry,

namaste


Edit: o.k. that works.... Some may also type about the folks who make the REAL BIG $$$$$ have a team of tax experts to cull every law to make sure they pay less than You do..

How about the NFL™ they haven't paid taxes since 1954?

a reply to: Foderalover

The people having kids are raising tax payers - you are not. The tax deduction is what one thousand dollars per kid? (IRS Not sure what your gripe is. The people having children have taken on responsibilities you have not. You realize that the population is aging and we need to replace those people. Who is going to take care of the people who never had any kids when they age? A better argument is why do people who can't afford children have them. It sounds like you may not have a spouse or can afford children, so good for you in realizing you cannot raise them properly.


V

a reply to: Foderalover

Why Does the U.S. Pay People to Have Children ?

To make you angry and resentful against your fellow Americans, keep us fighting and hating, and further the divide-and-conquer game.... and it works every time.

A better question is why does the government tax our sweat and labor period? And why is our labor taxed at a higher rate than unearned income?

You are not giving money to people with children. Parents get a deduction for each child meaning they don't pay as much tax. Their refund is money they overpaid throughout the year.

You do give money to people with an earned income tax credit.

a reply to: Variable

That's an interesting response. But the argument can go both ways, can't it.

The people having kids are raising tax payers - you are not
The people having kids are producing more "burden" on the system; more kids to educate, more kids to go to the doctor, more kids to get sick. Maybe rather than paying them to have kids, society should be charging them an annual fee for the new burden on the system. Also, with the open borders immigration system, we get a million or more new potential "tax payers" without anyone having to birth a child.

The people having children have taken on responsibilities you have not.
That's their choice......no one is forcing them to procreate and it doesn't create an obligation upon society to compensate them for their having made that choice.

You realize that the population is aging and we need to replace those people. Who is going to take care of the people who never had any kids when they age?
Well, why ever in the world do you think we have the open borders immigration policy? When was the last time you saw an "American" doctor in a hospital? Nursing home? Emergency Care facility? Those are skilled jobs as likely as not to be filled by immigrants from India, Pakistan, and Cuba, or they are semi-skilled jobs filled by people from Central America and Mexico.

A better argument is why do people who can't afford children have them.
Because.........society hasn't figured out that just like you have to provide proof of financial responsibility to own and operate a motor vehicle, you should be required to provide proof of "financial responsibility" to bear a child.

originally posted by: Boadicea
A better question is why does the government tax our sweat and labor period? And why is our labor taxed at a higher rate than unearned income?

What unearned income do you want taxed and at what rate?

We get a good sized refund every year too. It's not because you are paying for our kids. It's not because the government gives it to us out of the kindness of their hearts. It's not because we can't afford our children. It's because we overpay. It's our money.

a reply to: Foderalover

MAN, thats a DAYAM good question.

If a person earns below a certain level, they dont pay any taxes. they actually GET money in the form of credits (as opposed to a deduction).

Its well established that the US pioneered Eugenics programs, abortions, planned parenthood etc.

The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics.

So on the one hand, the US has been active in Eugenics and population reduction.

On the other hand, theyre PAYING people to have kids!!!

Here's my theory.

TPTB have to keep the poorer masses happy because they are the ones who generally lead revolutions. What better way to keep them happy than to give them free money.

However, the movement taking place in the US is being lead by the middle class. Primarily because we are the ones who are being choked out by taxes (IRS) and inflation (caused by the Fed).

Its no coincidence that the "Federal" "Reserve" was created along side the IRS. The IRS is the enforcement/collection division of the Fed.

One of Ron Paul's goals was to eliminate both the Fed AND the IRS but its a tough sell, especially when an increasingly large segment of our population gets money for nothing...

a reply to: TNMockingbird

I understand your resentment. Some people do get ridiculous amounts of money. I had a friend who, a couple of years ago, got about 10,000 no kidding...

You seem upset. My Wife and I do the same thing. We don't take any deductions (hence, more taxes withheld) until tax time so we get more of a return. Your friends probably do the same and you can too.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Variable

That's an interesting response. But the argument can go both ways, can't it.

The people having kids are raising tax payers - you are not
The people having kids are producing more "burden" on the system; more kids to educate, more kids to go to the doctor, more kids to get sick. Maybe rather than paying them to have kids, society should be charging them an annual fee for the new burden on the system. Also, with the open borders immigration system, we get a million or more new potential "tax payers" without anyone having to birth a child.

The people having children have taken on responsibilities you have not.
That's their choice......no one is forcing them to procreate and it doesn't create an obligation upon society to compensate them for their having made that choice.

You realize that the population is aging and we need to replace those people. Who is going to take care of the people who never had any kids when they age?
Well, why ever in the world do you think we have the open borders immigration policy? When was the last time you saw an "American" doctor in a hospital? Nursing home? Emergency Care facility? Those are skilled jobs as likely as not to be filled by immigrants from India, Pakistan, and Cuba, or they are semi-skilled jobs filled by people from Central America and Mexico.

A better argument is why do people who can't afford children have them.
Because.........society hasn't figured out that just like you have to provide proof of financial responsibility to own and operate a motor vehicle, you should be required to provide proof of "financial responsibility" to bear a child.

All of that creates consumption and keeps the system going it does not for the most part put strain in the system. When people have kids they spend more money extended families spend more money and the government releases more money. Without children the cycle of consumption doesn't continue. Even when the government gives people money for their kids most of the time the money is pit right back into the system. It's not like poor people are hoarding the money in off shore accounts. They are spending it on their children. For the most part.

Also they are cost of living tax breaks for the middle class. Which get spent on the children which keeps the economy going.

Financial proof to have a child is about as totalitarian as it gets. Strait out of an Orwell novel. Do you realize how many poor children grow up to be successful? Adversity makes strong people.

a reply to: donktheclown

Oh goodness, I certainly didn't mean to come across that way. I love my friend.

She earns only about $10/hr...NOW, I think maybe she was making $8.50-$9 or so back then. She DID work insane amounts of overtime though and I suppose that put her in a different bracket. Her husband gets paid cash and makes about $500/wk or so...

I don't begrudge her any benefits she can get...that's on her...She is frugal with that money she gets...it lasts them a long time throughout the year and if something major breaks (washer, vehicle, etc) they have money in savings to cover it w/out a big dent to their regular income...
I just simply (or not so apparently) that I don't understand the math...

I don't know the formula that the IRS uses but, it does seem skewed.
Two years ago we owed, it was our own fault, around 2800. Thought I was going to die!

The above is the reason that I don't do the taxes anymore...the old man has an educated (in tax matters) person wwho handles all of that stuff now...



Forgot to add: they have three of the most adorable girls I have ever seen!

We need more child labor, and of course tax write offs. /sarc. IDK, I chose NOT to include children in my game plan. It does suckers having to pay for other families kids schooling.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

What unearned income do you want taxed and at what rate?

For these purposes, I'm going to say all unearned income; however, I reserve the right to change my mind... there may be a type of unearned income that I'm not aware of or thinking of that I would exempt. It might also depend on how one defines "earned" and "unearned" income. For example, I would not define retirement pensions as "unearned income," since one had to work at a particular job for a particular amount of time to qualify for that income; but I would define stock dividends as unearned income.

As for the rate, I like a flat rate across the board, perhaps 10%? Not stuck on that though.

originally posted by: Boadicea
For these purposes, I'm going to say all unearned income
...

Well, then you should be happy to know the government already taxes almost all unearned income. In some cases this amounts to a double tax.

a reply to: Foderalover

I could also ask why the US pays big businesses to be in business, by not asking for a proper amount of tax from them, or why it pays some companies to do things which slow the progress of scientific advancement, by stifling as much research into alternative energy production as possible, or directly poisons the planet by way of dumping chemicals in landfills and in the sea. Some of these companies do things which exclusively shorten the lifespan of the human race, and yet they pay next to nothing.

Tell me again how parents are the problem? Tell me how there is a problem with paying parents a rate to raise their kids safely, when it was recently discovered that every state east of the Mississippi River has been hiding the levels of heavy metals in their water, meaning that millions, perhaps billions of dollars meant to be used to sort out infrastructure over the years, have been misspent? Please explain to me, how the first problem that needs addressing, is the payments to parents, when states all over the US are misspending money that is supposed to go into long term projects, and instead finds its way into administrative budgets?

I think it should be pretty clear that the majority of money which is misspent in the US, is not being paid to parents, but to corporations in the form of backhanders, administrators sliding money into their departments to keep their jobs secure, and especially through the governments links with big pharma, and the military industrial complex.

You can argue the point till your head falls off, and no matter how loud you shout your opinion, it will still fall to meet the facts half way.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
I could also ask why the US pays big businesses to be in business...

Businesses do not pay tax, they only collect it for the government. The consumer/end user pays all taxes.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Well, then you should be happy to know the government already taxes almost all unearned income.

Not exactly happy...

In some cases this amounts to a double tax.

Could you elaborate please? I'm not sure what you mean in this specific instance... but generally speaking I agree; we're all triple and even quadruple taxed; income taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, and on and on... That's one of my biggest gripes about the income tax on earned labor, because in practice and in effect, we not only pay our income taxes, as consumers, we pay corporate income taxes as well.... and as taxpayers, we pay for corporate welfare and loopholes as well.

So I would completely eliminate the income tax on earned income... and institute a flat tax rate for corporations and unearned income -- no credits/deductions, no loopholes.