What is with the backlash against feminism?

[Commodore]

I think we need to cut back on the tax penalty we impose on non-parents before we start messing with maternity and paternity leave. The tax penalty for not having a child is an unconstitutional government mandate.

There is no tax penalty for not have children. You just get a tax credit if you do have children. A tax penalty would be having to pay additional taxes for not meeting some government mandated requirements. Not receiving a tax credit does not equate to a tax penalty. Come on JR you're smarter than that.

Also, how exactly is it unfair for parents to receive a tax credit?

 

[JollyRoger]

There is no tax penalty for not have children. You just get a tax credit if you do have children. A tax penalty would be having to pay additional taxes for not meeting some government mandated requirements. Not receiving a tax credit does not equate to a tax penalty. Come on JR you're smarter than that.

Also, how exactly is it unfair for parents to receive a tax credit?

If my taxes are higher for not having a child than they are for having a child, I am paying a tax penalty for not having a child. One man's credit is another man's penalty.

 

[Commodore]

If my taxes are higher for not having a child than they are for having a child, I am paying a tax penalty for not having a child. One man's credit is another man's penalty.

No, you are just paying the normal rate of taxation. A tax penalty would be the government saying something like "the normal tax rate is 10%, but you have to pay an additional 10% if you don't have children."

A tax credit is not a penalty to those who do not qualify. So what, every time someone doesn't have to pay as much as you in taxes it is a penalty? That's some pretty shaky logic and reeks of selfishness and jealousy. Under your logic you had to pay a tax penalty in 2012 because I earned my money in Afghanistan and didn't have to pay taxes on the first $95,000 of it according to the Foreign Earned Income Credit. Do you see how ridiculous that is?

 

[JollyRoger]

One is arrived at by addition and one by subtraction. In substance, there is no difference.

 

[Commodore]

One is arrived at by addition and one by subtraction. In substance, there is no difference.

Wrong. There is a huge difference. One is just you paying the same tax rate as everyone else, while someone who met a special condition received a bit of a break. The other is you specifically paying additional taxes on top of the normal rate of taxation for failing to meet some sort of government requirement.

If you are going to make the argument that a tax credit for having children is a tax penalty for single people, then you also have to make the argument that people below the poverty line not having to pay any taxes at all is a tax penalty to everyone living above the poverty line. And I must say, at the risk of violating forum rules, if you make that argument you are a moron.

 

[bhsup]

Oh, even if it is flat out made a penalty like a line on your 1040 that says to add $500 to your total tax bill if you are unmarried and childless, I'd still be fine with it. I think the government should encourage marriage and procreation.

 

[JollyRoger]

Having a children is a choice. Level of income is not necessarily a choice (I certainly can't choose to make a million dollars this year) - though I suppose if you want to save taxes by purposely taking less income, you can prove how smart you are at beating the IRS. You can argue baseline taxes, but I am arguing any choice such as having a child, having health insurance, or having a mortgage that results in a different tax than if you had not made that choice is a tax penalty for not making that choice. Recognizing that it is irrelevant whether that choice is addition or subtraction intensive does not make me a moron.

 

[Commodore]

Having a children is a choice. Level of income is not necessarily a choice (I certainly can't choose to make a million dollars this year) - though I suppose if you want to save taxes by purposely taking less income, you can prove how smart you are at beating the IRS. You can argue baseline taxes, but I am arguing any choice such as having a child, having health insurance, or having a mortgage that results in a different tax than if you had not made that choice is a tax penalty for not making that choice. Recognizing that it is irrelevant whether that choice is addition or subtraction intensive does not make me a moron.

Where your argument is failing though is that use of the word penalty implies punishment. Being charged the NORMAL RATE OF TAXATION for not making a certain life decision is not a punishment, it is merely paying the NORMAL RATE OF TAXATION.

So do you think everyone who chose to work within the borders of the US were charged a tax penalty since anyone working outside the US didn't have to pay taxes on the first $95,000 of their income? Is it a tax penalty to you because deployed soldiers don't have to pay taxes while deployed in combat zones?

 

[JollyRoger]

Expatriates are being penalized by being taxed on non-U.S. income. I am being penalized for making the choice not to join the military and foregoing the opportunity to live tax free while being deployed.

Paying higher taxes for making a choice is punitive towards that choice, whether that choice involve addition or subtraction while filling out my tax return.

 

[Commodore]

Expatriates are being penalized by being taxed on non-U.S. income. I am being penalized for making the choice not to join the military and foregoing the opportunity to live tax free while being deployed.

Paying higher taxes for making a choice is punitive towards that choice, whether that choice involve addition or subtraction while filling out my tax return.

So now you are trying to make the argument that the government is penalizing you for not joining the military? Wow...just wow.

Since apparently you don't know the legal definition of a tax penalty I'll provide it for you:

Penalty Tax:

Local or federal punitive tax applied to deter non-compliance, such as underpayment of income tax or disregard of the rules governing a business activity.

Source

And if that's not good enough for you here is what the IRS considers to be tax penalties:

IRS Penalties

You see? The child tax credit does not fit either definition of a tax penalty and those definitions carry a lot more weight than your personal philosophies.

EDIT: Whoops, accidently hit the quote button instead the URL button for that first source. Fixed now.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I think the state is right to punish you for not having kids, JR; what will be the state of CFCOT in a generation without JR Jr.?

 

[LoneRebel]

It's just a little odd that the most strident voices complaining about "misogyny" and "patriarchy" come from the West, where women have higher status than almost anywhere else. That'd be fine if they were complaining on behalf of women in Asia and Africa, but nope. Much of the time, they're referring to themselves. #firstworldproblems

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I think the state is right to punish for not having kids, JR; what will be the state of CFCOT in a generation without JR Jr.?

I actually agree, regardless of JR
Bigger younger generations are so awesome in so many ways to a society, things anyone benefits from GREATLY... people with 3 children have a good case to be angry at those with less.

 

[Flying Pig]

Younger working generations yes; younger babies and toddlers have the same economic and social effect as a huge increase in the number of pensioners, at least temporarily. Plus you either eventually end up with a disproportionate number of pensioners or not a lot of space...

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Now you are just nit-picking.

Yea sure freaking kids are of no use whatsoever other than to scream at your apartment from the playground.
But -in contrast to old farts like you (only kidding! I love you....) they pay that back double and quadruple once we push them into the menacing world of productivity!
Hahahahahah!

 

[Borachio]

Having a children is a choice. Level of income is not necessarily a choice (I certainly can't choose to make a million dollars this year) - though I suppose if you want to save taxes by purposely taking less income, you can prove how smart you are at beating the IRS. You can argue baseline taxes, but I am arguing any choice such as having a child, having health insurance, or having a mortgage that results in a different tax than if you had not made that choice is a tax penalty for not making that choice. Recognizing that it is irrelevant whether that choice is addition or subtraction intensive does not make me a moron.

So. You're a glass half-empty kind of guy then. Good luck with applying that principle generally.

Instead of looking it as a tax penalty, why not look at it as an incentive? And if the incentive isn't attractive enough to you, why do you look at it as a disincentive to the opposite?

Supposing there's a sign at the top of a cliff top saying "Warning. Dangerous Cliff."

Do you take that as a penalty on your choice to throw yourself off?

 

[Farm Boy]

I actually agree, regardless of JR

You should. Much of our societies' major "good works" be they medicare, social security, snap, w/e they're called there, rely on the investments that are made into the nations' young. The government takes on some of these expenses through supporting in some ways povertous children, in funding public educations, but it happily offloads much of the expense to people who willingly make the choice to engage in childrearing. It gives, relatively, a tiny rebate on taxes for that activity. If anything, we're starting to develop a free rider problem with the people who don't pitch in to the same degree. I agree that they shouldn't be forced to childrear themselves, but the shrillness of the complaint is really coming from the party with the shakier moral ground.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Wrong. There is a huge difference. One is just you paying the same tax rate as everyone else, while someone who met a special condition received a bit of a break. The other is you specifically paying additional taxes on top of the normal rate of taxation for failing to meet some sort of government requirement.

Fighting in Afghanistan might be classed as a special condition, but there's nothing special about having children. It's pretty much the norm, and so by that metric you could claim that that defines the "normal" tax rate, and people without children are paying more. I think it seems fair to call that a penalty.

I actually agree, regardless of JR
Bigger younger generations are so awesome in so many ways to a society, things anyone benefits from GREATLY... people with 3 children have a good case to be angry at those with less.

Angry?! You can't be serious.

 

[Farm Boy]

Fighting in Afghanistan might be classed as a special condition, but there's nothing special about having children. It's pretty much the norm, and so by that metric you could claim that that defines the "normal" tax rate, and people without children are paying more. I think it seems fair to call that a penalty.

A vice tax then perhaps. But at least it would be one that tends to be progressive rather than regressive.

 

[warpus]

I think that the state (nation, country, etc.) should give incentives for people to have kids..

But not 281512851285 kids. After your 4th or 5th, those incentives need to stop. At that stage you're just .. well.. obsessed. Why should we reward that sort of behaviour?