How about a tax rebate for NON breeders?

I have an Economics degree and an MBA. I'll back you up on your post until aneconomist and Kartlite come along!

Children are both expensive and good for the economy.

Taxed wrote:

I agree on this one. My fiance and I both work and are simply not ready for kids. However, we are both taxed like crazy because we make pretty good money.

Maybe if they applied the tax break to "non-breeders" this country would have less kids growing up in and/or near poverty. People would possibly wait until they were really prepared to have kids, instead of today's "oops! oh, well" practices/mentality...

Good theory. Not realistic in practice.

I agree with most of what you have stated.

However, don't we want the people with kids to be the ones who can afford them? Rather than those who suck on the extra tax breaks and whatever other privleges are granted to those who have children just to make money.

Yes, there are people who do think of it that way. Ever look into how much a Foster parent makes for raising a child? The corrupt ones blow the cash on tvs & 22 inch rims while the kids eat beans & rice.

Blah Blah Blah wrote:

Hmm lets think about this one. You have no kids so your expenses of school, extra food, children clothing, more medical bills, more furnature, etc etc. So because you spend less on expenses and sacrifice less of your time/body/money you deserve a tax break like those who choose to give up so much to have a family and provide for their children, thats pretty funny.

I have four kids......and you are a moron. You CHOOSE to have kids, it's a totally SELFISH decision. If you choose to have kids it should be your responsibility to support them. Single and childless married people get screwed.

Maybe this would be a better argument if you hadn't been a child once yourself...using all of those resources such as schools, roads and the like yourself. But thank you for not having children, you shouldn't be breeding. Leave that to those of us who are competant at it.

SC Slim wrote:

JJTMB wrote:

How do my kids use more of the government's resources?

Do your kids go to school? Do they use the roads to get to school? Do you ever pass a police officer helping to keep you safe on those roads?

I agree. Let's stop society so you can live your life worrying only about yourself.

Lets be honest here, the only reason the American birthrate is high because of all our immigrants, mainly from the Hispanic community. I would be all for people having kids but I don't think it helps the American economy to be one of 8 kids where only a few speak English and no one has an post-high school education as if often the case in the Hispanic community. If we want more people if anything we should be encourage those that are more educated to procreate. This is not meant to sound bigotted but really only Americans that have the education and the means should be having kids. If you have trouble putting food on the table for yourself, aren't you doin a diservice to your country and to the child themself if you choose to have kids. Just my two cents.

P.S. I think there should be a lower tax system for those over a certain age without kids. Every day people complain about overpopulation and the best way to fix it is to incentive-laden reasons to not have so many kids. Don't get me wrong, kids are great but once you have a couple, is there really any need for any more?? Each child deserves a loving home and the utmost attention which is hard to get no matter how good a parent you are when you have lots of children.

disgruntled wrote:

Perhaps you could identify the "false premise" for us?

That "non-breeders" do not receive a tax rebate under the current plan.

Taxed wrote:

I agree with most of what you have stated.

However, don't we want the people with kids to be the ones who can afford them? Rather than those who suck on the extra tax breaks and whatever other privleges are granted to those who have children just to make money.

Yes, there are people who do think of it that way. Ever look into how much a Foster parent makes for raising a child? The corrupt ones blow the cash on tvs & 22 inch rims while the kids eat beans & rice.

Of course you are correct. As I said in my post, I was speaking from a macroeconomic or societal standpoint. Of course our country is better off with educated children from households that can support them as opposed to uneducated children that the government must support. No doubt about that.

There is simple solution to all of this, here is my proposal:

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout.

I do therefore humbly offer it to public consideration that of the hundred and twenty thousand children already computed, twenty thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof only one-fourth part to be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle or swine; and my reason is, that these children are seldom the fruits of marriage, a circumstance not much regarded by our savages, therefore one male will be sufficient to serve four females. That the remaining hundred thousand may, at a year old, be offered in the sale to the persons of quality and fortune through the kingdom; always advising the mother to let them suck plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump and fat for a good table. A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends; and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.

So there you have it, less children using up resources and more food for the non-breeders. Problem solved.

a parent wrote:

Maybe this would be a better argument if you hadn't been a child once yourself...using all of those resources such as schools, roads and the like yourself. But thank you for not having children, you shouldn't be breeding. Leave that to those of us who are competant at it.

Is it me or are there an inordinate number of people on a percentage basis who are as militant about not having children as there are in the running community? Heaven forbid you should have to move your precious run or egads!...skip it sometime.

d3alum wrote:

Lets be honest here, the only reason the American birthrate is high because of all our immigrants, mainly from the Hispanic community.

Well, you may think that is true, but it is just plain wrong. The birthrate of American Latinos is higher than American Anglos. That is true. But the birthrate of American Anglos is also much higher than the birthrate of white Europeans. This is true across the board -- in France, the U.K., Germany, etc. And it is true of people from comparable socio-economic backgrounds. It is actually a very interesting subject that a lot of people are studying -- why exactly does an average upper middle class white family in the U.S. have, on average, more children that a comparable family in France. No one is sure of the answers. James Surowecki has had some interesting summaries of this reasearch.

Dim Whitman wrote:

Blah Blah Blah wrote:

Hmm lets think about this one. You have no kids so your expenses of school, extra food, children clothing, more medical bills, more furnature, etc etc. So because you spend less on expenses and sacrifice less of your time/body/money you deserve a tax break like those who choose to give up so much to have a family and provide for their children, thats pretty funny.

I have four kids......and you are a moron. You CHOOSE to have kids, it's a totally SELFISH decision. If you choose to have kids it should be your responsibility to support them. Single and childless married people get screwed.

Hmm I think I'm not and others agree. I am 1 of 5 so I know how much my parents sacrifice to better their children's lives in order to do something in this world. Yes having a child is a choice I won't agrue that but it is a choice of sacfice, and they should be giving a break. If you choose not to have children and sprend your money one stupid shit when you can actually try to better this world then you should get screwed. On top of it everything in this dam world decides to increase prices and wages don't so in the long run no one will be able to afford children. If you sacrifice you should be rewarded and helped some.

disgruntled wrote:

wont tell wrote:

In the U.S., when people are receiving social security and medicare in their old age, they are drawing government resources.

Those people paid INTO social security and medicare for decades before the few years in which they drain form them.. The fact that todays dollars are used to pay them does not somehow negate that.

We all know that retired people paid into social security and medicare. Of course they did; that wasn't my point. Here's a different way of explaining my point: Let's say every American decided today not to have any kids and zero kids are born in the U.S. for the next 40 years. How would we pay social security and medicare to our senior citizens? Would that be beneficial for society?

I think a really good idea would be to give money only to people who think we should have lower taxes.

That would show those liberals who want to give my job to a black woman and who want to let illegal aliens eat food off my table and everything like that.

But then how would we prove that we've always been in favor of lower taxes. Some people who want to have higher taxes might lie. That's be just like them.

OK, so instead we should only give rebates to people who make enough money to buy really expensive items because then they'd buy something expensive and the money would shower down upon working people in the form of tips at Starbucks and a Walmart gift card or something.

Are single people unable to stimulate the economy? NO.

Or are they merely less worthy? IN A WAY, YES. FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN ARE MORE LIKELY TO SPEND (RATHER THAN SAVE)THEIR REBATE, THUS STIMULATING THE ECONOMY MORE THAN A SINGLE LOSER LIKE YOU.

Why do we continually reward people simply for choosing to breed? THE TAX CODE IS NOT SET UP TO 'REWARD' HAVING CHILDREN. IT IS SLIGHTLY FAVORABLE (I.E. CHILD TAX CREDIT, EXTRA EXEMPTIONS) TO INDIVIDUALS OR COUPLES HAVING CHILDREN IN AN ATTEMPT TO OFFSET THE HIGH EXPENSES INCURRED IN RAISING A CHILD. THE NET EFFECT IS THAT DESPITE SOME TAX BREAKS, HAVING A CHILD WILL PUT YOU IN THE HOLE.

BTW, isn't "breeder" a term used by the GLBT community to describe straight couples?

Tek Jansen wrote:

Are single people unable to stimulate the economy? NO.

Or are they merely less worthy? IN A WAY, YES. FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN ARE MORE LIKELY TO SPEND (RATHER THAN SAVE)THEIR REBATE, THUS STIMULATING THE ECONOMY MORE THAN A SINGLE LOSER LIKE YOU.

Why do we continually reward people simply for choosing to breed? THE TAX CODE IS NOT SET UP TO 'REWARD' HAVING CHILDREN. IT IS SLIGHTLY FAVORABLE (I.E. CHILD TAX CREDIT, EXTRA EXEMPTIONS) TO INDIVIDUALS OR COUPLES HAVING CHILDREN IN AN ATTEMPT TO OFFSET THE HIGH EXPENSES INCURRED IN RAISING A CHILD. THE NET EFFECT IS THAT DESPITE SOME TAX BREAKS, HAVING A CHILD WILL PUT YOU IN THE HOLE.

Hit is right on the nose. I was just about to mention this. Those without children can save more for retirement and such where as if you have children well you save for school. Very nice touch Tek

Well, your illiterate post proved you are in fact a moron. Maybe if your parents had less children they would have spent more time with you learning to write. Your post insinuates that those with children are entitled to handouts from those without, that is patently unfair.