Man, I hate Liberals

[Rizzo]

What should be done away with is property tax, income tax and the IRS and it should be replaced with nothing. If we balance the budget and obey the 10th amendment we don't need those taxes.

Vote only for people who will fight to return to constitutional limited government and get rid of the Federal Reserve and the IRS forever!

 

[irishfan]

What should be done away with is property tax, income tax and the IRS and it should be replaced with nothing. If we balance the budget and obey the 10th amendment we don't need those taxes.

Vote only for people who will fight to return to constitutional limited government and get rid of the Federal Reserve and the IRS forever!

I agree with you but highly unlikely as almost everybody has some pet project they want taken care of. Fortunately, some Republicans are realizing their party isn't the GOP they thought it was and are waking up along with some democrats that are losing their seats because people are fed up.

Oh..... for smoking357 as this thread cracks me up

 

[Expat]

Yeah, we should discourage affluent tax paying citizens from having more children. Let's just encourage the 50% of us that pays no Federal income taxes. That will really improve our society.

 

[tuoder]

Next we'll have people complaining about our socialized gun ranges at our socialized FWAs, competing with perfectly good private sector gun ranges and canned hunts.

Socialized public schooling, roads, police, and military, too, are evil. Why have a government-run military when we could have mercenaries and let the free market decide whose ass needs kicking?

 

[HandK]

my adivse, have a few children? oh yeah, that thing about minding your own business, thats good advice too. i have three kids and i'll gladly take my deductions. i guess if you don't like it, don't listen to others conversations in line at a crappy chcken restaurant. call it what you want, i'm legally allowed to do so and if thats hurting your pocketbook so much why didn't you mention all of the special intrest or welfare programs you literally pay for with you taxes. those woud be more of a burden on the individual than a dependent exemption others claim.

I can't believe you suggest he procreate!!!!

 

[smoking357]

I can't believe you suggest he procreate!!!!

Hey, I don't mind letting you keep taking those child-credit tax deductions that rightfully belong to me.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

for letting the free market decide whose ass needs kicking.

Next we'll have people complaining about our socialized gun ranges at our socialized FWAs, competing with perfectly good private sector gun ranges and canned hunts.

Socialized public schooling, roads, police, and military, too, are evil. Why have a government-run military when we could have mercenaries and let the free market decide whose ass needs kicking?

 

[redneckmedic]

This Thread can be summed up very easily...

1. Fair Tax Law
   
2. Socialized INGO Board, by definition
3. Socialized Troll Unions

 

[IndyMonkey]

This Thread can be summed up very easily...

1. Fair Tax Law
   
2. Socialized INGO Board, by definition
3. Socialized Troll Unions

Are you on the clock?

 

[LEaSH]

make the kids fill potholes after school to earn the deductions for the parents.

All seriousness aside, If I had kids I wouldn't hesitate to use them to get my money back that shouldn't have been taken in the first place. I know people that make more money than I do but still struggle under the cost of their little snowflakes costing them big bucks. Be it one thing or another, kids are costly.

I sympathize.

 

[hornadylnl]

If we did away with the child tax credit, those with 0 or 1 child would pay less and those with more kids would pay more. Every time I debate the issue of child tax credits, those on the other side always say that they spend more money on diapers, food, etc and should get a break. People choose the number of children they have. If I didn't get to help make your babies, I shouldn't have to subsidize them.

It doesn't end at the chid tax credit either. I pay ful price for my daughters book rentals and lunches. At my income, I could spit out more kids and get book rentals and lunches reduced or free.

 

[bowhunter_1978]

If we did away with the child tax credit, those with 0 or 1 child would pay less and those with more kids would pay more. Every time I debate the issue of child tax credits, those on the other side always say that they spend more money on diapers, food, etc and should get a break. People choose the number of children they have. If I didn't get to help make your babies, I shouldn't have to subsidize them.

It doesn't end at the chid tax credit either. I pay ful price for my daughters book rentals and lunches. At my income, I could spit out more kids and get book rentals and lunches reduced or free.

Why should I have to pay more in taxes if I have more children than you do? I get nothing from the government, no reduced lunch, reduced books, food stamps or any of that. Do away with the tax credit, wouldn't bother me in the least. To put everyone with more children than you into one group is full of FAIL.

 

[hornadylnl]

Why should I have to pay more in taxes if I have more children than you do? I get nothing from the government, no reduced lunch, reduced books, food stamps or any of that. Do away with the tax credit, wouldn't bother me in the least. To put everyone with more children than you into one group is full of FAIL.

I'm not saying those with more children should pay more, it should be the same. Example under the current system. 2 families with identical incomes. The guy with 3 children has a tax liability that is $2,000 lower than the family with 1 child.

Do away with the tax credit and taxes will be equal. The cost of raising a child is the burden of it's mother and father alone. We shouldn't be subsidizing them through chid tax credits.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I've often thought about raising taxes as family size increases. While I've never come down on the side of supporting it, there is some validity to the supposition.

The more children you have the more need to be educated, resulting in an increased education cost.

The more children you have the more likely you will be to use roads more frequently to get them from place to place.

The more children you have the more garbage you produce that has to be picked up by the city and placed in a landfill.

The more children you have the more CO2 your family produces and the more damage to the planet (OK, not really, just wanted to see if you were still reading )

And thousand of additional examples that would be boring.

I'm not saying that taxes should increase as family size increases, but I can certainly equally defend any of the 3 sides of the debate.

 

[Robert Richardson]

Jdonhart,

The 8th and 10th Commandments don't say "unless everyone else is doing it."



You is what you does.

Yep,stupid is as stupid does.

 

[Bill of Rights]

It's not about making those with more children pay less. The purpose of the Child Tax Credit is to encourage the growth of the family, as I understand it. This, however, is not an appropriate nor Constitutional government function. How about instead of giving those with more children a bigger refund, we just have the gov't take less money from everyone?

I had a conversation this weekend with a Conservation Officer... we were discussing hunting licenses, and he told me they're a good thing because the FedGov reimburses the state double for the cost of every one, and that's what makes FWAs and public hunting areas possible. I can't argue that having those areas available is a good thing, but I replied that it would be better to just leave the money in the hands of the people, rather than have the FedGov take money from us and under certain conditions, give some of it back to the states.

He disagreed, of course (let's be honest: those areas are job security for him) but I had someone who'd overheard the conversation come up later to thank me for not hiding my disagreement with him.

On the other hand, the conversation was wholly and completely civil. No raised voices, no name calling, just a discussion of the propriety of taxation and payment for a "privilege" that should be an unrestricted right, IMHO, barring such things as wanton waste. Killing for the sake of killing is not something with which I can or will agree, but having someone to enforce that sort of law is not the same as saying, for example, if you're going out to hunt and I can't get away to go this season, I can buy your stamp, but if you take a deer and give it to me, that's one less you can take this year.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[kingnereli]

I'm curious as to the intent of this thread. Is the OP trying to persuade us to claim our children on our taxes? Would he be satisfied if we just called ourselves liberals because we do claim our children. is it just a senseless rant? The twisted logic is so confusing.

It is quite a stretch to label me as a liberal because the government lets me keep so of MY money that I earned based on the number of children I have. Not a single penny of anyone else's money is involved here. Where is the socialism in that?

P.S. By the way, I have another child due in October!

 

[smoking357]

It is quite a stretch to label me as a liberal because the government lets me keep so of MY money that I earned based on the number of children I have. Not a single penny of anyone else's money is involved here. Where is the socialism in that?

The twisted logic is so confusing.

Yours or mine? The post was written to complain about those who call themselves conservative yet tightly cling to and cherish the perks of socialism.

If they let you keep more of your money because of need, that's socialism. If they treat you better than the next guy because of need, that's socialism.

This isn't confusing, in the least. The confusing quality would be to try to hold two competing ideologies simultaneously.

 

[dross]

The system is corrupted by socialism. The tax system is inherently unfair, and is based on corrupted principle and political considerations, not on anything that makes sense, and certainly not on justice.

The government will forcibly take more of my money than I will recieve in services. I will be a net loser in this exchange over a lifetime. I will work and vote to change the system to something fair and equitable. I do not believe my efforts will result in a fair system.

With those as my premises, I contend that there is nothing immoral or hypocritical in using the rules as they are to reduce the amount of money the government takes from me. I may not agree with certain policies, but I will take advantage of them in order to keep as much of my money as possible. I might not philosophically agree with a deduction for a child in my perfect libertarian world that exists only in my mind, but in the real world it's just a way to keep some of the money the government would have otherwise taken from me. It's still MY money regardless of whatever idiotic reason the government has for not taking it from me. There is no moral obligation to let them keep your money because you don't agree with their reasons for doing so.

Also, even though I'd like the repeal of the entire system, there's nothing hypocritical in voting for a particular person because their proposed policy is less socialist than the next guys. I don't often get to choose the best possible outcome, only the best AVAILABLE outcome.

 

[tuoder]

Yours or mine? The post was written to complain about those who call themselves conservative yet tightly cling to and cherish the perks of socialism.

If they let you keep more of your money because of need, that's socialism. If they treat you better than the next guy because of need, that's socialism.

This isn't confusing, in the least. The confusing quality would be to try to hold two competing ideologies simultaneously.

Why is it bad to tax the poor less and help the poor more? What's wrong with helping those who need help?