English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I am married, without kids. I have worked hard for years and have now paid off my house, yet you get a deduction for carrying debt in the form of mortgage interest. You may even get some relief for the sub-prime debacle once congress is done with things.
I don’t have any secondary mortgages to pay for toys and obtain additional write-offs. I live within my means (which is how I managed to become debt free). Interest payments goes towards business, which is very different than government so I can’t understand an argument that it is close to a “wash” whether you pay the interest or the taxes.
I don’t have kids – why on earth should that constitute a credit?
I don’t qualify for social programs, yet I pay 50+ times more in taxes than those that benefit from them.
Why should I strive to be fiscally independent, yet our government shows no sign of comprehending that model.

I am interested in opinions on why I should be treated any differently from a taxation standpoint.

2007-11-09 09:31:05 · 6 answers · asked by mgeorge17 2 in Politics & Government Government

6 answers

Kids and taxes?
Simple. Governments want you to have kids. Offspring are another potential tax payer, soldier, etc... something useful to people in power. So the better question is why wouldn't Government encourage people to have kids through whatever means at their disposal? More to the point- if we cease procreating who will the rulers rule?

Fiscal responsibility?
Being fiscally irresponsible is good for the economy. If I were to sign up for a 10k credit card tonight then go max my card at the mall I have boosted local businesses- meaning they will employee more people, who in turn will spend more money. I also ensure the continued employment of those annoying debt collectors, as I would be paying that sum off in no timely manner- more jobs!
More jobs = lower unemployment = perceived notion government is doing good = government likey lots.

2007-11-09 10:01:13 · answer #1 · answered by donfolstar 3 · 1 1

Kinda hard to perpetuate a country if people don't have kids. Why would you not want to provide some incentive for families to have children? Otherwise you end up with an aging society with little income/tax base. How does that work?

You had a mortgage at one time and I am sure you were more then happy to take the write off. Once again, families need a home. When purchased properly a home is a good investment. Why should the government not encourage this behavior?

I too live well within my means. I do not like government entitlements but some I think are justified. They create an environment we all share/enjoy. Use your lifestyle to take advantage of opportunity when it presents itself. I do. Others can not because they are too extended into debt buying crap they really do not need. This is how the rich become richer and the outwardly rich file for backrupcy.

2007-11-09 17:43:33 · answer #2 · answered by A Person 3 · 1 0

I'm in the same boat. Own my home sans mortgage, married, no kids.

I am paying less taxes than I would if were not married, though, and you may well be, too.

You get a tax break for having children on the theory that 1) kids are expensive and 2) they're the future of our country. Doesn't sound too unreasonable to me. Wish I'd been able to have a couple.

All interest used to be deductible, now it only is if it's for your home or business. Many people see thier homes as an 'investment,' that might be part of the logic.

Social programs mostly amount to transfer payments. The idea is simple egalitarianism. You have more than they do, so they are entitled to some of your money.

Fiscal independence isn't good for the government. They prefer voters who are beholden to them. This is particularly true of your congressmen. And, the more economic transactions you under take (working, borrowing, buying) the more tax revenue (payroll, corporate, sales) they get.

2007-11-09 17:44:38 · answer #3 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1 0

Many would get like 125dollars a week. A large segment of the population can barely afford the basic necessitys as it is. If you taxed low income workers 50% of theyre salary the homeless problem would become insane. I get 25% of my check taken. I bring in like 300$ a week. This is enough to live and thats it. Many people bring home less than this.

This is on long island where a 1bedroom often goes for 1000 dollars a month with no utilities

2007-11-09 17:39:44 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Then you are in a position to put money into some tax sheltered investments instead of whining like a school kid.

2007-11-09 17:35:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

There are investments & shelters that you can put your money in. That's what the wealthy do.....no taxes on that money. Talk to an investment councellor.

2007-11-09 17:58:56 · answer #6 · answered by The Wiz 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers