On Apr 5, 2008, at 9:41 PM, Hal Vaughan wrote:
On Saturday 05 April 2008, Nate Duehr wrote:
On Apr 5, 2008, at 8:56 PM, Charlie wrote:
I suppose by that standard you imagine that children have no worth
at all? I
can't really agree. As one who was a child once, I think children
are an
extremely valuable asset to a species in the now as well as the
future.
I never said anything of the sort. I said that as a society we
reward parents for having children, and it's odd. If their values
are to have a "big family" that's fine, but government encouraging it
is a different thing. Not necessarily bad, just not real "obvious"
to the majority that have children.
I was debating to respond earlier, but I thought I'd wait.
If you're talking about taxes in terms of rewards, as you said
initially, compare how much the deduction for a child is or how much
is
added on to the refunds we'll get this year to how much it costs to
take care of a child for one year. It's about as much of a reward as
someone paying me $5 to spend a month doing some tough coding that
keeps me up day and night.
Doesn't matter, economically it's still a reward for behavior that you
as an adult were always 100% responsible for anyway.
There's no bigger "welfare" for a larger group of people anywhere in
the U.S.
if you're making roughly middle-class money, it comes off of your
taxable income. It reduces your tax liability quite significantly. I
made similar comments on another list and challenged any parent to
calculate the difference on their taxes, and to send the difference to
their local school district during an "education reform" debate. I
haven't seen any e-mails yet from any takers... thus, obviously the
parents are not putting their money where their mouth is -- they want
to put my money (thus my labor and skills) in that breach instead and
run experiments with the school system on my dime.
I'd rather see them up the limits for future education spending for
the children under that particular parent's care, than take a straight-
off-the-top taxable income change. Go ahead and let 'em save lots and
lots of money for that child's education to reduce their tax liability
just as much as they get back for any dependents if they will... (more
than they can save already today as a tax shelter).
Education of their children benefits society far more than yearly
reductions in taxable income.
And this year, additional money in the rebate checks for those with
children? Why? Think about that one for a minute...
1. They already paid less in taxes.
2. Now they get more money than childless taxpayers back?
What a deal! I bet ALL of the "concerned parents" will be sending
BOTH the difference in their original taxes in 2006 and their rebate
checks straight to the education system. (Rolling eyes.)
--
Nate Duehr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]