Monday, February 16, 2009

I really don't know but I try...

Now that tax time has rolled around again, I am reminded about how completely ridiculous our tax code is. One of the things I find most annoying and illogical about our tax system is the tax favored status that children have. Of all the things to give someone a tax break for, having spawned is by far the most moronic. The “do it for the kids” argument is a logical fallacy, but it’s one that gets you everywhere if you are in politics. Parents are the biggest special interest group around.

If anything, having a child should mean that you have to pay more in taxes. After all, children use government services, too. They produce trash, they consume police services, medical services, etc. In fact, when you throw in the costs of public schools, children use far more public resources than adults.

I don’t have anything against kids, don’t misunderstand me. What I do have something against is that certain type of parent who views their children as a license to steal from the rest of us. Those parents who have no problem arguing that no expense should be spared on public education- but Allah forbid if those same parents have to incur $10 in fees for their children to take a field trip or a cooking class that isn’t fully paid for from the public till. Unfortunately, our legislators are all too happy to oblige those kinds of parents.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

If we required parents (like me) to actually pay for children, maybe we could do something about the population expanse that no one addresses - even though it's the source of many of our problems.

PZGURU said...

I agree. As a parent, I do find it odd that I get a tax break even though public school service alone costs the County/State thousands of dollars each year. I feel baad for people who don't even have kids and they pay taxes that go toward school construction. People without children should get the tax break - although one could argue that as people get older, and incur more health problems, they will put increasing demands on hospital services and the like, so maybe they shouldn't get a tax break either.

No tax breaks for anyone. Just turn your paycheck over to the socialists in Congress and they'll decide everything for us.

Anonymous said...

Socialist Congress? What about the Republican President bailing out gluttonous wall street bankers who used the money for billions in bonuses for the sorry job they did, and then iced the cake with spa junkets?

Vote 3rd party, people. Any other way just supports the trauma to taxpayer financial security that we're only just now beginning.

jim adams said...

What makes people in the 3th party any different than those in the 1st and 2nd parties.

Are we not all subject to the same forces of human nature???

PZGURU said...

Anon - check the record. Pelosi and Reid wrote that first TARP legislation. SUre, Bush signed it, but anyone bitching about the lack of oversight in that bill can blame the dems. For Obama to keep trying to blame Bush is laughable. If he read the legislation he could have/should have seen that there weren't enough oversight provisions but yet he didn't say a thing back then.

BTW - I oppose Tarp 1 and the recently signed "spendulous" bill.

jim adams said...

PZGURU, have you read "THE FORGOTTEN MAN" by Amity Shlaes ?

Anonymous said...

3rd party candidates are different because they don't owe special interests. They haven't been paid to run for office.

jim adams said...

Anon 12:42, I love the idea of a third pary, I believe in more choice at the voting booth.

But I don't see Independent candidates as effective. They don't belong to a party, so each one would vote as they wish, 50 Independents in a room on fire, vote 50 different ways, instead of working as a team to put out the fire.

Neither the D's or R's are the answer to all of our problems, but they do make group decisions and as a majority, provide some direction to more in, even if some of us don't like the direction.

I liken, Independents to a bag of marbels that have been dropped on the floor, all go in different directions.

It is my feeling that independents at this time are most effective as voters, who are tie breakers for the 2 major parties.

Freemarket said...

I think that the most fundamental problem is that government is just too powerful. Today I saw on the news how the airline pilot that landed his plane in the Hudson went to Capital Hill to lobby for airline subsidies. This man is a true hero for saving all those lives, no doubt. But that does not make him an authority on whether airlines should get handouts or not. Politicians, Pelosi in particular, were tripping over themselves to kiss this man’s ass. Is that how the system is supposed to work?

Anonymous said...

No, it's not supposed to work that way. But television ad expense being what it is(paid by people who want special "access"), you can't buy the kind of PR kissing that guy's butt will provide.