Of course, this shouldn't apply to adopted children, because in that case the parents usually already have to pay an adoption fee and go through a huge hassle, and by adopting children who need homes they are performing a service for the community as well as gaining a child. Adoptive parents should get tax breaks still, and if the kid was older at the time of adoption, they should get more of a tax break. That might encourage some people to adopt instead of having biological children, as well.I've always thought they should have a tax plan that said you pay x percent of your overall income in taxes for every biological child you have. Don't make it a lot of money, just enough to help offset the cost of properly educating them. And there should be a tax on in vitro fertilization as well. Call it a luxury tax. Besides, if you're having a kid at 50 or 60 they'll probably wind up becoming a ward of the state at some point when you keel over and die while playing catch in the yard.
I think that the tax code needs to be completely redesigned to be more effective, and on top of that, there needs to be taxes on specific things, either state of federal-- children and invtro fertilization, any drugs that might be legal (including cigarettes and alcohol-- a sin tax), non-reconstructive surgery (luxury tax), property (not a lot though-- New Hampshire property taxes are a bit ridiculous), income (a fair tax, not a flat tax), and gas-powered cars (to encourage people to switch to a more environmentally-friendly fuel, or at least bilk them until they do). Other than that, they should steer clear of taxes. Sales taxes are a hassle (although probably okay for big luxury expenses, like electronics) and meal taxes really shouldn't be at anything higher than the town level. Obviously there would also be a whole different set of taxes for businesses.
And yes, many of those things would affect me. The car, property, income, restaurant, and child taxes will all affect me some day. And yes, I am aware that taxes suck, but honestly, we have to pay our bills somehow. If the tax code seemed fair I wouldn't mind. I don't particularly mind even now, I just think it's flawed. Yeah, I know, I'm a libertarian, libertarians in New Hampshire are all tax dodgers, whatever. No society can survive without some tax paid to the government, and while I'd rather pay less and have them do less, they're going to do more, so I might as well do my part to keep them from plunging even further into debt.Of course, some of the first things to do would be to improve the IRS, which is owed $300 billion more than it collects, and stop outsourcing to other companies, because we're paying them between 22 and 24 % of what they collect. To which I say, why aren't we just hiring more or more efficient tax collectors?
Also, there's commentary on another candidate, Fred Thompson, in the comments to yesterday's post.
5 comments:
I think the fairest, most equitable solution of all would be to eliminate income tax entirely - both at the state and federal level - and replace it with a National Sales Tax. This eliminates the need for the IRS altogether. It eliminates tax brackets. It's fair, because *everybody* buys stuff. If you choose to buy more expensive, luxurious things, you pay higher taxes. Having children would result in higher taxes, as you would like to see (and damn you for that, by the way, because I've got three wonderful children! LOL).
Think it over.
Ian
A sales tax would also affect those who are between jobs, who are spared that with an income tax, and the elderly. People living on savings who are on tight budgets would also be hit. And allowances should be made for people who aren't actively gaining money, they still need to buy food and clothing. Perhaps if you exempted certain kinds of items, such as staple foods (meat, dairy, produce, pasta, rice, and bread) and other necessities (inexpensive soap, toilet paper, first aid supplies, etc), plus offered "tax-free" stores with minimal-quality mass-produced clothing and housewares, it would be okay.
The only way I could support a sales tax was if there was a requirement that the tax be factored into the prices of things. That way it could be considered as an increase in the cost of living, and it wouldn't be such a hassle to deal with.
Also, I'm not exactly planning to remain childless myself. I just figure children in the school system should equal higher taxes.
1) S-CHIP has already been on the books for several years. The project expired and that's why there was all this business on it. They were voting to renew the program, but there was no income cap on it and it was, thusly, vetoed.
2) Ian's ideas about having a national sales tax and no income tax is a bit ludicris because you wouldn't earn that much from a national sales tax, and let's face it, the government needs money to run its programs that help us.
3) I agree with your tax on children
Vivacia-- it would really depend on how much you were taxing people. Let's face it, tax everyone 50% and you're gonna get your money back. Also, mass rebellion.
Exactly. That's why I said it wouldn't be worth while. The idea that it would cause mass rebellion was implied.
Post a Comment