Perhaps another program to supplement her income would be in order.
But giving people a pass on paying (even a slight amount) in taxes is counter-productive. She could probably afford a dollar per week. That dollar would give her a stake in federal expenditures and, hopefully, she would help pester the congress-critters to reduce spending.
Let's see, $3.5B/312M is only $11,000 per person. We pay that much (only two of us), and perhaps you do, but I don't see it happening for "the poor". Even I wouldn't much like it with a family of six. No, flat *rate* is good enough, even with *a* standard deduction.
And what makes a person feel they are "entitled" to have 6 kids? Don't get me started...lol.
"HeyBub" wrote in news:nK2dnSPzqIW73gXTnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:
Maybewe could agree on that, but if you increase taxes on people who are already having trouble coping in this economy, then where are they going to get the money to pay the increased taxes?
Are you in favor of the Chinese solution? Nazi Germany? Do you think the government should determine who should (not) have children?
That's where you're going with this.
BTW, a family of six usually has four children. ;-)
Go for it! ;-)
Oh, I think I can come up with something :-). Like your figure is still wrong - it was approximately true for one year only (2009) as I stated.
OTOH, with the "greying" of the population, I would expect the number who owe no federal income tax to go up. For example, since our SS benefits are not taxable, our "taxable" income last year was well below the 21K threshold that would require me to file a return. Guess I'm just another freeloader.
Replace "governments" with "corporations" - heck, replace it with "people" - the end result will be the same.
Unless you can change human nature, we're all whistling past the graveyard.
But a limit on the amount of money in any form that any one can accumulate might work for a few years until the unscrupulous find a way around it. It's difficult to amass power without money.
In case nobody noticed, that's exactly the way our government was set up. Each state tries to grab as much as it can. For example, here in Washington there is great joy over the new free trade pacts. Being a coastal state, we stand to gain quite a bit. Not good for the rest of the country - who cares?
And corporations certainly aren't adverse to the "greed is good" philosophy :-).
Why do you always take the opposite extreme view???
I feel that if you cannot pay your bills and support your children you should think about not having any more.
Or keep popping them out, rely more on the government for support, and become another statistic. That is not working for a particular group.
The government will always be larger than any corporation. I can't imagine one person being larger than 312M.
SO we just give in to the totalitarians?
What a steaming pile of male bovine dung.
BZZZT! Wrong answer! SS benefits most certainly *ARE* taxable.
Read it again. I don't take that view, rather that's the view Bill is expressing; government should control fertility.
Should? We agree. That is NOT what Bill said in:
"And what makes a person feel they are "entitled" to have 6 kids?"
Notice the word "entitled". What's the opposite?
This certainly should be discouraged, but don't you think that needing someone to "allow" someone to have children is a little on the Chinese or Nazi side? In a free society, people most certainly *ARE* entitled to have children.
-- Every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life are based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and that I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I have received and am still receiving. -- Albert Einstein
" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
As almost always, it depends. Check first with the IRS, like here:
Not harder, but he may have done things that earned his company ten times as much profit as the work you did.
You're contradicting yourself. What you're actually saying is that a single woman with no children would pay X dollars while a single women with one child would pay 2X dollars, and the child would pay 0 dollars. That's three people, each paying three very different amounts. For everyone to pay the exact amount, a 40 year old CEO making $2 million a year and a 3 month old orphan would each be required to pay the same amount in taxes.
If the car's still under warranty, have the work done under warranty. Then it won't cost you anything. If the car's not under warranty, shop around; there's no warranty left to "void".
A brake job under warranty? Who? Where? lol
At least in the USA, you are entitled to exercise your constitutional rights. Decisions about procreation are a fundamental constitutional right.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.