Isn't that a bit antiquated? We don't seem to need any incentive to populate this planet, but those who choose to have children are further exhausting our resources. Should we consider giving tax breaks to those who DON'T have children?
2007-08-23 02:12:24 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
morningstar, evidently you DO have children to raise...with my tax dollars.
2007-08-23 04:22:51 · update #1
smedrik, are you assuming that if the tax breaks stopped, that people wouldn't have children anymore?
2007-08-23 04:23:41 · update #2
Abby, honey, tax breaks are given to those who pay taxes. And when children pay taxes (as I did form age 13 on...) they ARE given a tax break.
2007-08-23 04:26:05 · update #3
Damn, girl! You are *brave.* Really, really brave.
And correct. It is absurd that tax breaks are given to people to breed. And the dwindling resources thing is no joke, my friend. This is a subject lots of people have been talking about for years. It's complete baloney that people with NO children are subsidizing people WITH children.
HEY.....is that...
****gasp****
SOCIALISM???
EEEEEK!
And for the poster who said kids are "expensive" ...Well? So what? Why on earth would anyone expect other people to chip in to help them pay for their rug rats? Hey, will YOU help ME buy a house in Hawaii? Don't have them if you can't afford them. WHERE is it written that every damn body has to breed?
And then that part about "financing the future labor force" I almost choked on my coffee.
Uh....that sounds like Communism to me. Better be careful there, girlie.
2007-08-23 02:28:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
Yes, diminishing natural resources is a big issue. The most effective and fair means of allocating those resources is with a free market. A free market means no government interference. I'll give up my "tax break" just as soon as we also end free health clinics, welfare, food stamps, free lunch, and all of the OTHER government aide given to parents to keep breeding.
2007-08-23 02:28:30 · answer #2 · answered by evans_michael_ya 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
You could also suggest taking away all of the services such as schools that are in place for children. But remember, these are the people that will be running our country when we are older.
It's interesting that you liberals want to tax tax tax tax tax...then complain about it.
Liberals also like free socialized programs paid for with...you guessed it, our taxes.
Please...stop the whining.
2007-08-23 02:41:41 · answer #3 · answered by 2BFree 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Actually, I've thought exactly the same thing. After all, since the ozone layer is being depleted, our natural resources are diminishing, and the global population is at a whopping SIX BILLION, I don't think we should give tax breaks to people with children.
2007-08-23 02:31:37 · answer #4 · answered by tangerine 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Tax breaks are given for one children are darn expensive and repopulation is necessary to economic growth. You are pretty much getting a little kick for providing the workforce of tomorrow.
2007-08-23 02:20:34 · answer #5 · answered by smedrik 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
I'm all for tax breaks for people who elect not to have children, or those who chose to adopt instead. I'd vote for you.
The system is set up that way. The more kids you have, the more tax breaks and government services you can get. If you want 10 kids I think that's fine, just pay for them yourself please!
(Can we share our hate mail?)
2007-08-23 02:32:55 · answer #6 · answered by jmmy_crackscorn 3 · 2⤊ 4⤋
evidently you don't have children to raise.
2007-08-23 02:19:08 · answer #7 · answered by morningstar6707 5 · 4⤊ 4⤋