November 14, 2013

When Conservative Tax Proposals Aren't Very Conservative
— DrewM

While we wait for the ObamaCare disaster of the day (which is now scheduled for 11:35 Obama Time), there's a fight going on on the right for the future political and policy direction of the right. It's one we should all be taking part in and evaluating.

One of the go-to moves for some conservatives on tax policy is the "child tax credit". It combines a couple of things conservatives tend to like...lowering people's tax bills and helping families.

Sen. Mike Lee advocated for an expanded child tax credit in his recent speech at the Heritage Foundation outlining what he sees as the future conservative governing agenda.

AEI economics writer Jim Pethokoukis picked up the theme and Ramesh Ponnuru at National Review has been a long time supporter of the idea.

There has been pushback on the right against the idea of targeted credits vs. across the board cuts. Writing in The Federalist, Scott Lincicome makes the case against approach on economic and political grounds since it essentially co-opts liberal tactics for conservative ends.

Furthermore, conservatives (and libertarians) repeatedly and rightly deride liberal policies which promote preferred classes or lifestyles over others and thereby pit citizen groups against each other for a place at Uncle SamÂ’s feeding trough. They also constantly preach clarity and consistency in fiscal policy, including a streamlined and simplified US tax code. Promoting and expanding a direct tax subsidy for child-rearing would fly in the face of these principles, only with a right-leaning, pro-family gloss. And while such a gloss might be laudable, itÂ’s entirely inconsistent with the classic conservative/libertarian message that the State is too intrusive and unwieldy, and that Uncle Sam shouldnÂ’t be, and isnÂ’t capable of, dictating the intimate details of our daily lives.

Instead, a far more ideologically consistent (and, as noted above, economically efficient) policy would be one which eliminates and streamlines the tax code to make it easier for all Americans, not just parents, to pursue happiness and live their lives as fully as possible

There are plenty of people on the right who are quite comfortable with a large federal government, they simply want to see it used for conservative ends. While I agree that pro-family policies are preferable to their liberal alternatives, the real go should be minimizing the role of the federal government in people's lives, everyone's lives. The government shouldn't be picking winners and losers that conservatives favor any more than liberals should be. Once you start arguing that bribing people with their own money (while empowering the federal beast) is a key to winning elections, you're simply engaging in a bidding war the liberals will always win.

Read the whole piece for alternatives on how to reach the same goals but through broad-based policies.

Personally, my goal is to make the government smaller and less invasive for everyone, not just a chosen few. That's the key to maximizing individual happiness and liberty.

Posted by: DrewM at 05:57 AM | Comments (211)
Post contains 501 words, total size 4 kb.

1 So if we can't get tax cuts for all, we should settle for tax cuts for none?

Posted by: Lincolntf at November 14, 2013 06:00 AM (ZshNr)

2 I guess Mike Lee is a big-government stooge, too?

How many times are you planning to go back to this "I'm more conservative than everyone" well?

Posted by: Lou at November 14, 2013 06:01 AM (VrJUC)

3 1 So if we can't get tax cuts for all, we should settle for tax cuts for none? Posted by: Lincolntf at November 14, 2013 10:00 AM (ZshNr) Yes.

Posted by: eman at November 14, 2013 06:05 AM (AO9UG)

4 Amen

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at November 14, 2013 06:07 AM (4Fpt9)

5 Hear. Hear.

Posted by: flounder at November 14, 2013 06:08 AM (Kkt/i)

6 H8er.

Posted by: Octomom at November 14, 2013 06:10 AM (GmTxn)

7 I can't help but agree with this the way you lay it out (I haven't read the linked articles). But the counter is, supposedly we have tax standard deductions to theoretically go towards not taxing money spend on housing and food. People with children spend more on these things than people without children. So is that just too bad for them, the choice they made? Or are you in favor of keeping the standard deductibles for children, too (assuming we stay roughly on the current tax structure)?

Posted by: Anwyn at November 14, 2013 06:10 AM (uh+QG)

8 I am sick and tired of this Federal Leviathan, 10% Federal Flat Tax.

Let the states keep their own money and tax their citizens as they see fit.


Their citizens in turn will work their will on their Governors and Legislatures to get their preferred policies and proscriptions.

Instead of this madness of sucking money into the federal money pit to be doled out to the well connected and giving scraps to the makers that support this country.

Posted by: Kreplach at November 14, 2013 06:11 AM (qH/2Y)

9 So if we can't get tax cuts for all, we should settle for tax cuts for none?

Posted by: Lincolntf at November 14, 2013 10:00 AM (ZshNr)

Yes.

Equal tax burden for all is as conservative as anything.

If there is room in the budget for targeted tax cuts, then simply spread it around to everyone.

If that's not reasonable, please explain why some are more entitled than others.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 14, 2013 06:11 AM (oJ5Fd)

10 So the true conservative position these days is full implementation of Obamacare and no tax cuts? Same as Nancy Pelosi's positions, how very ironic.

Posted by: Lincolntf at November 14, 2013 06:12 AM (ZshNr)

11

I make more money than    my parents, yet have a much smaller tax bill.  Why?     My mortgage is not paid off, and I have children.      Neither of those considerations should be in the federal purview.     If    we can get the government out of the social engineering business, I am willing to pay more taxes so that everyone is on the same playing field. 

 

The only qualification I can see for the mortgage interest deduction is that that interest is    income to somebody    else,    who is paying income tax on it.  For the child tax credit, I see none.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at November 14, 2013 06:13 AM (4Fpt9)

12 If that's not reasonable, please explain why some are more entitled than others. ---- Because won't somebody think of the children?

Posted by: Octomom at November 14, 2013 06:13 AM (GmTxn)

13

6:  "H8er."

 

In this brave new world, hate is how I keep warm. It's the only affordable option.

Posted by: Azenogoth at November 14, 2013 06:13 AM (OJn3e)

14 Assuming we CAN ditch the current structure, though, I am 100% in favor of a flat tax. @Kreplach

Posted by: Anwyn at November 14, 2013 06:13 AM (uh+QG)

15 I saw Federal Leviathon open for Emerson, Lake and Palmer back in '74. Oh, those heady days of enormous Moog synthesizers, airborne spinning pianos and hour-long concept pieces.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at November 14, 2013 06:13 AM (7ObY1)

16
If you aren't making taxes flatter and lower, you are doing it wrong.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 14, 2013 06:13 AM (iGPSR)

17 I believe Drew is correct. A smaller, less invasive government where our leaders don't pick the winners and losers. You can keep the dependent exemptions. They certainly can make the tax code simpler and flatter. But that takes them out of controlling everyone's life. I don't see a revised tax code in my life time. But, you have to start somewhere.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at November 14, 2013 06:14 AM (HVff2)

18 Look, Lee's proposals are pretty nakedly designed to benefit his state, Utah, where families are very large and the pursuit of higher education is very non-traditional (because of the missionary service and also because women tend to not complete their degrees). I am for lowering tax rates and pursuing initiatives that will reduce cost of living across the board. And, on the face of it, the higher ed initiative (which still hasn't been fleshed out, I believe, but based the outline he provided in that speech I think I get the gist of) is non-sensical. If his premise (and some other conservative groups' premise) is that federal student loans are THE CAUSE for higher ed cost increases (which I do not think is true based on what I know about higher ed costs/funding), then expanding the student loan program to for-profit institutions by loosening up the accreditation system is NOT going to control costs. I'm pretty sure that piece is pandering to the Western Governors University, a for-profit that has a presence (and seems to have political clout) here in Utah. Hatch and Liljenquist (and Romney's fundraiser, Zwick) have been gunning for Lee for quite a while now. They are going to primary him. So Lee is trying to pander to Utahns. It's really that simple.

Posted by: Y-not (@MoxieMom) at November 14, 2013 06:14 AM (zDsvJ)

19 I hate the tax code.  I want it to be strictly a revenue collector.  I don't want it to remain the carrot and the stick for social engineering.  Lower the marginal rate and eliminate deductions and credits. 

Posted by: no good deed at November 14, 2013 06:15 AM (k55Fc)

20 16 If you aren't making taxes flatter and lower, you are doing it wrong. Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 14, 2013 10:13 AM (iGPSR) flat across the board....none of this graduated crap

Posted by: phoenixgirl @phxazgrl at November 14, 2013 06:15 AM (8JJ6O)

21

On the one hand, encouraging people to have kids so that those kids can later pay taxes that will support us in our dotage, okay. Plus they will be our future nurses, doctors and nurse aids.

 

On the other hand, said kids will be trained (more often than note) by liberal teachers who will make sure they are nice and stupid and dependent on government hand outs.

Hmmmm.

What to do? What to do?

Posted by: Darth Randall at November 14, 2013 06:15 AM (Zswg6)

22 1 So if we can't get tax cuts for all, we should settle for tax cuts for none? ---- Now is the time to push for tax cuts for all, when so many working Americans are being clobbered by Obamacare.

Posted by: Y-not (@MoxieMom) at November 14, 2013 06:15 AM (zDsvJ)

23 I have no problem with extending a comparable cut to everyone, but that's not on the table right now. Anything that keeps more money in the hands of the people who earn it is a good thing.

Posted by: Lincolntf at November 14, 2013 06:15 AM (ZshNr)

24 Let the "Mike Lee is a RINO!!!!" talk begin.  Give me a break.

Posted by: Waingro at November 14, 2013 06:16 AM (+k7pf)

25 hate is how I keep warm. It's the only affordable option. ---- See, I pile up my 14 tax credits, er, I mean adorable investments in the future, to stay warm. It's very affordable for me (not so much for you, I guess).

Posted by: Octomom at November 14, 2013 06:17 AM (GmTxn)

26 I still want a 75% tax on gross overseas movie receipts.  Just until all the films stop being anti-America.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at November 14, 2013 06:17 AM (/kI1Q)

27 Bear in mind that "families" are not always a right-wing priority. In previous generations, the Left was more than willing to court the votes of Big Breeders, not only with tax fixes but with Public Health, Public Schools, Public Universities, the Public Dole and so on. It turned out to be all about the cannon fodder.

Posted by: Stringer Davis at November 14, 2013 06:17 AM (xq1UY)

28 Unless we go to a flat tax, the middle class must always bear a disproportionate burden. As it is, the poor pay little to nothing while the rich can afford to take action to decrease their tax share.

Posted by: toby928© at November 14, 2013 06:18 AM (QupBk)

29 And I would do away with the earned income tax credit. Its about time people that a large segment of our population put some skin into the game.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at November 14, 2013 06:18 AM (HVff2)

30 We are pleased that our partners across the aisle are finally seeing the light. We too believe that the President's repeated "promises" should be legislatively enforced. However, he didn't just promise that everyone that liked their current plan could keep it. He vowed that you could keep your doctor. He vowed premiums would drop. $2500 ring a bell with everyone? It's time to "fix" these as well. Any ideas on how to accomplish that? Hmmmmm.......

Posted by: House of Reps next move at November 14, 2013 06:18 AM (ugAvG)

31 I still want a 75% tax on gross overseas movie receipts. Just until all the films stop being anti-America.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at November 14, 2013 10:17 AM (/kI1Q)

---------------- 

 

 

Harumph!

Posted by: Darth Randall at November 14, 2013 06:18 AM (Zswg6)

32 What to do? What to do?

End the dept. of mis-education while we are at it.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 14, 2013 06:19 AM (iGPSR)

33 Rather then child tax credit, give my wife and I an extra vote for each kid.  After an election cycle - we can talk about child tax credits.

Posted by: Jean at November 14, 2013 06:19 AM (CMlD4)

34 It'd be nice to get a refund for all the tax money I've spent on other people's children someday.

Posted by: Y-not (@MoxieMom) at November 14, 2013 06:19 AM (zDsvJ)

35 You want serious tax reform?  Here it is in one simple sentence:



End withholding.



I guaran-fucking-tee you, this simple little change will shake the whole country down to the core.  Everything else we want for tax reform would spring forth from there.  Lower taxes?  Simpler tax laws?  More freedom?

End the withholding and watch it preference spiral from there.


Posted by: EC at November 14, 2013 06:19 AM (GQ8sn)

36

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals -- if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."

 RONALD REAGAN, Reason Magazine, Jul. 1, 1975

 

Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at November 14, 2013 06:20 AM (klGLB)

37 In previous generations, the Left was more than willing to court the votes of Big Breeders ----- Hey! What's with this "previous generations"?

Posted by: Octomom at November 14, 2013 06:20 AM (GmTxn)

38 I don't see Lee's proposals (the three-pronged one outlined in his Heritage speech) as RINOism. But it is a sign he's feeling tremendous political pressure from Utahns, who are not really the prinicipled conservatives they may think of themselves as. His initiatives were all targeted to benefit Utah. That's simply politics. I do not support the proposals, but that doesn't mean I don't support Lee.

Posted by: Y-not (@MoxieMom) at November 14, 2013 06:21 AM (zDsvJ)

39 I don't know what I think about this. Okay, no, to be fair, I know that I think there should be a flat tax with no deductions. Since that's not going to happen and since we need to maintain at least a replacement birth rate, I don't know. I don't want to knee jerk say bad idea bad but I've been pondering this for years and I still don't know. I do know that anyone who sells their kid's SSN should go to jail for fraud, that I do know.

Posted by: alexthechick - Commence drinking now. at November 14, 2013 06:21 AM (VtjlW)

40 I'm pretty certain that as a single, childless, employed, homeowner, I'm already heavily subsidizing 'families'. Here's a proposal: Pay for your own fucking kids for a change.

Posted by: mugiwara at November 14, 2013 06:21 AM (W7ffl)

41 Once again, EC has come up with a brilliant solution. Imagine all the idiots out there on April 15 screaming I don't have the money I spent it......

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at November 14, 2013 06:21 AM (HVff2)

42 You want serious tax reform? Here it is in one simple sentence:



End withholding.



I guaran-fucking-tee you, this simple little change will shake the whole country down to the core. Everything else we want for tax reform would spring forth from there. Lower taxes? Simpler tax laws? More freedom?

End the withholding and watch it preference spiral from there.


Posted by: EC

Thats my line!

Posted by: Jean at November 14, 2013 06:21 AM (CMlD4)

43

Replace the 0 - 16 child tax credit with a 16 - 22 (female) and 25 (male)  teen driver auto insurance tax credit.

Posted by: Count de Monet at November 14, 2013 06:22 AM (BAS5M)

44 Anything that keeps more money in the hands of the people who earn it is a good thing.

So stop taking my wages and giving them to other people's kids.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at November 14, 2013 06:22 AM (/kI1Q)

45 Eh. I'd love a streamlined tax code too, but the fact is you're not going to get it in one fell swoop. So we tweak a bit here (under the guise of helping families) to get something bigger there (an actual tax cut.) Am I supposed to say "NO!" Bah, it's still a better plan than most things on the table, and perhaps we can fix the rest with incrimentalism later. I'm curious though, if we had hard science showing that people who have more kids utilize less federal resources when they're older (as I suspect is true up to a certain point) would this change the calculus of whether it's acceptable or not?

Posted by: tsrblke PhD(c) (No Really!) at November 14, 2013 06:22 AM (GaqMa)

46 Posted by: Anwyn at November 14, 2013 10:10 AM (uh+QG) When you get some time, read the Linscome piece. He lays out some of the answers to that (and so does Lee). It's not an either or.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 14, 2013 06:22 AM (8cWgt)

47 I never took anything from you, Radish. I don't have kids.

Posted by: Lincolntf at November 14, 2013 06:23 AM (ZshNr)

48 Once again, EC has come up with a brilliant solution. Imagine all the idiots out there on April 15 screaming I don't have the money I spent it...... Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian

Which is why taxes should be due in full, using certified funds on election day.

Posted by: Jean at November 14, 2013 06:23 AM (CMlD4)

49 End the withholding and watch it preference spiral from there.

No kidding.  It sure is tough for taxes to be voluntary when they are taken before I even get the check in my hand every month. 

Posted by: no good deed at November 14, 2013 06:23 AM (k55Fc)

50 A long time ago the Federal government was inconsequential to the everyday life of Americans.  We need to get back to that.

Posted by: Minuteman at November 14, 2013 06:24 AM (7/um6)

51

Generally I would agree with the premise here, about reducing EVERYONE's tax burden.

 

However...

Home ownership, marriage and having children promotes a more stable populace in general (lots and lots of detracting examples to my point, for sure, but I'm generalizing).

 

I'm OK with deducting one's mortgage interest from income taxes, for applying a child tax credit, and for giving married folk a slightly better deal on their taxes.

 

Full disclosure: I'm a married homeowner with no chillens. Yet, before I was married and before I owned a home I was pro-tax break on these items.

Posted by: Jonathan Soss at November 14, 2013 06:24 AM (r7+X8)

52 I'm curious though, if we had hard science showing that people who have more kids utilize less federal resources when they're older (as I suspect is true up to a certain point) would this change the calculus of whether it's acceptable or not? --- You know what, my friends and neighbors here in Utah, who all have large (4+ kids) families, seem to be just as quick to put their parents in assisted living centers and just as quick to draw federal benefits. Just sayin'.

Posted by: Y-not (@MoxieMom) at November 14, 2013 06:24 AM (zDsvJ)

53 I agree with Drew's basic sentiment. When Lee - my Senator - proposed this I had similar thoughts. I'm of two minds about this. My preference is for a flat tax and no special tax carve outs. But this is a hard sell. You have to convince people that they are better off with a flat tax than having a myriad of deductions to keep your own money. I also think a flat tax makes raising taxes more difficult because when you have a simple and fair/equal system of taxation additions to it and modifications of it are easier to detect, message and understand. But, on the other hand, if we're stuck with the current system for a while why not tweak it to actually help families.

Posted by: gwelf at November 14, 2013 06:24 AM (+7Usq)

54 I never took anything from you, Radish. I don't have kids.

That was a general "you."  But the specific you should understand where I'm coming from, then.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at November 14, 2013 06:25 AM (/kI1Q)

55 CBO Debunks Obama’s Claim “Only A Small Number of People” Will Lose Their Health Plans, Predicts Up To 30 Million Will Lose Their Plans… Weasel Zippers: And that is before the big companies start shedding their plans which is coming as sure as night follows day

Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 14, 2013 06:25 AM (t3UFN)

56

As is, the deduction encourages debt, i.e. gives a break on interest paid. Why not flip that and give the break on equity? Would that not encourage more economic responsibility? Of course that's just a pipedream I know. Our economic "growth" relies on debt.

Posted by: Tweak the mortgage deduction at November 14, 2013 06:26 AM (ugAvG)

57 Unless we go to a flat tax, the middle class must always bear a disproportionate burden.

Posted by: toby928© at November 14, 2013 10:18 AM (QupBk)

Eh? Based on what evidence? What criteria?

The rich (top x%, however you want to define them) pay a huge proportion of the total. And that is out of proportion. Why should I pay a greater % of my income because I make more money than my neighbor? That makes no sense.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 14, 2013 06:26 AM (oJ5Fd)

58 Lincicome comes across as an asshole (not that he is one, just this article comes across that way).

We have 2 options. First is wholesale tax reform  - flat tax, semi-flat (aka 12% of everything above 2x Fed Poverty line), or whatever change to the entire system. Second is to tinker with what we have - expand the child tax credit, reduce rates, increase deductions, etc. While I'd prefer going for 1 (and W should have done that in 2005 instead of SS reform), if you are going to do tinkering, it's probably going to be a bit of all of the above. It seems like Lincicome is going for #2, but with condescension for the breeders - hence my first line up there.

Posted by: Memories at November 14, 2013 06:26 AM (px4x9)

59 The IRS wouldn't get 10% of what they get now without withholding. They'd have to hire a collection agent for every neighborhood in the country. It would be hilarious.

Posted by: Lincolntf at November 14, 2013 06:26 AM (ZshNr)

60 I'm pretty certain that as a single, childless, employed, homeowner, I'm already heavily subsidizing 'families'. Here's a proposal: Pay for your own fucking kids for a change. Posted by: mugiwara at November 14, 2013 10:21 AM (W7ffl) Hey, I'm a single, childless, employed, non-homeowner. I have no deductions other than the standard. Oh, wait, no, now I have student loan interest deduction which is utter bullshit but I'm taking it. I'm paying for everyone's everything. By the by, my taxes should take approximately two minutes to do, including the time it takes for me to get a paper cut and hop around the room yelling motherfucker. It takes far longer than that. That's some bullshit right there.

Posted by: alexthechick - Commence drinking now. at November 14, 2013 06:26 AM (VtjlW)

61 It'd be nice to get a refund for all the tax money I've spent on other people's children someday. ^^^^^^^ This!

Posted by: rickb223 at November 14, 2013 06:26 AM (ix+5k)

62 Henry George was right - the only good tax is a land tax.

Posted by: Bob at November 14, 2013 06:27 AM (DOtxt)

63 if we had hard science showing that people who have more kids utilize less federal resources when they're older

I don't think the science will show that at all.  Half the "kids in poverty" stories Gannett runs are about women in their sixties raising the grandkids and great-grandkids the first batch of kids they raised dumped on them.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at November 14, 2013 06:27 AM (/kI1Q)

64 Posted by: alexthechick - Commence drinking now. at November 14, 2013 10:21 AM (VtjlW) An important point though. There's government picking winners and losers (Green energy!) and then there's reality: we need either a replacement birth rate or more probably population growth. You can replace it in sorts via immigration, but it's not quite the same. Plus you have to deal with culture bending fun then. I'm not sure what the right answer is. I'm opposed to government social engineering via the tax code. But it's hard to escape the reality of this one. But on the third hand where does it stop? Do you start using the tax code to create a pro-family environment (since families have better outcomes than non-families.) It seems quite the slick slope.

Posted by: tsrblke PhD(c) (No Really!) at November 14, 2013 06:27 AM (GaqMa)

65 Lincicome comes across as an asshole.

Posted by: Memories at November 14, 2013 10:26 AM (px4x9)

You'd be angry and a bit of an ass if you lost 5mph on your fastball.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 14, 2013 06:27 AM (oJ5Fd)

66 As is, the deduction encourages debt, i.e. gives a break on interest paid. Why not flip that and give the break on equity? Would that not encourage more economic responsibility? ---- Along those lines, I've always thought it was criminal how low the threshold is for taxing interest earnings. Insane.

Posted by: Y-not (@MoxieMom) at November 14, 2013 06:27 AM (zDsvJ)

67 You want serious tax reform? Here it is in one simple sentence:



End withholding.



I guaran-fucking-tee you, this simple little change will shake the whole country down to the core. Everything else we want for tax reform would spring forth from there. Lower taxes? Simpler tax laws? More freedom?

End the withholding and watch it preference spiral from there.

Posted by: EC at November 14, 2013 10:19 AM (GQ8sn)

---------

 

 

Neal Boortz had an awesome rant on this before he retired. It was a pet peeve of his that most people had no idea how much money they were paying in taxes. That they would cheer when they got their tax refund of a couple of bucks, but when asked, "What did you pay in taxes?" they would respond "I got money back."

It would certainly suck to have to try an hold onto 15-20 percent of my income until tax day, but I do think if people suddenly had to fork over their 5, 10, 15 thousand etc, dollars once a year, they might be a little more interested in what the government was wasting it on.

Posted by: Darth Randall at November 14, 2013 06:27 AM (Zswg6)

68 Once again, EC has come up with a brilliant solution. Imagine all the idiots out there on April 15 screaming I don't have the money I spent it......


The idea would be to impress upon everyone just how much of their take-home pay has be to reserved to write checks to the govt.  The inevitable screaming of bloody murder would make them see with their own eyes, just as we're seeing with the o-care meltdown, how much they're being taken for.  Force them to write the checks back to the fed and state.


Also, one side benefit would be that his lesson hopefully teaches people about becoming better stewards with their own money.  You just got your $1000 paycheck, but you can't go out and buy that new HDTV until you set aside money to pay your tax liability first.

Posted by: EC at November 14, 2013 06:27 AM (GQ8sn)

69

52 Just sayin'.

 

Y-not, you can't blame your friends and neighbors for their actions. If something is available, it is only human nature to take advantage. Not being judgmental about the assisted living thing one way or the other. But, if the government wants to provide handouts, people will take advantage.

 

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at November 14, 2013 06:28 AM (HVff2)

70 Why should I pay a greater % of my income because I make more money than my neighbor? Well of course unless I am your neighbor?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 14, 2013 06:28 AM (t3UFN)

71

DrewM,  this is mostly a local or state tax issue but  are you against  corporate tax breaks to entice businesses to move to certain areas?   In regard to Federal,  are you against revising our corporate tax rates to incentivize growth? (I know that sounds like a lefty.  'Are you for starving grandmas? ' of course not but...)   

Posted by: polynikes at November 14, 2013 06:29 AM (m2CN7)

72 "Hey, I'm a single, childless, employed, non-homeowner..."

Posted by: alexthechick - Commence drinking now. at November 14, 2013 10:26 AM (VtjlW)

Thanks!

And yes, I'll have another beer; and throw another steak on the grill, I'm a bit peckish.

Posted by: Breeders of America at November 14, 2013 06:29 AM (oJ5Fd)

73 If families are such a social benefit, shouldn't the tax breaks be given to people without that social safety net who are getting slammed by Obama's economy?

Posted by: Y-not (@MoxieMom) at November 14, 2013 06:29 AM (zDsvJ)

74 @seanmdav 8s "White House to Allow Insurers to Continue Canceled Health Plans" WSJ: http://tinyurl.com/ob8znfy

Posted by: [/i][/b][/u][/s] Tami at November 14, 2013 06:29 AM (bCEmE)

75 Thats my line!


And I stole it! 

Thanks for it though!

Posted by: EC at November 14, 2013 06:29 AM (GQ8sn)

76 Taking even more people off the tax roles and placing them aboard the free shit wagon is exactly what we should not be doing.

Posted by: whoever at November 14, 2013 06:30 AM (yUY1h)

77 When "conservatives" accept the premise that citizens should report how they earn their livings and how much they make doing it, we've lost. There is only one conservative tax plan on the table and it isn't some flat tax on income. The Fair Tax plan is what the country needs, but sadly a large percentage of people on the right don't know or understand it.

Posted by: jwest at November 14, 2013 06:30 AM (u2a4R)

78 51 The argument that having kids and owning a home are stabilizing/good for society and therefore must be subsidized drives me a little batty. Yes, they are good for society, but people will do them for their own reasons without the subsidies. Huge subsidies on childbearing in other countries have indirectly contributed to lower birthrates and less home ownership by mucking with the economy.

Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at November 14, 2013 06:30 AM (GmTxn)

79 Well of course unless I am your neighbor?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 14, 2013 10:28 AM (t3UFN)

Trust me....I pay Ridgewood taxes. You don't want to be my neighbor.

Posted by: Breeders of America at November 14, 2013 06:30 AM (oJ5Fd)

80

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 14, 2013 10:26 AM (oJ5Fd)

 

Because you, my friend, didn't build that.

 

J/K snarky sarcasm dripping.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at November 14, 2013 06:30 AM (HVff2)

81 Damned sock!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 14, 2013 06:31 AM (oJ5Fd)

82

Pathetic.  Stop the social engineering, including via the tax code. 

 

If one doesn't understand (and it's "understand", not "agree", because there's no serious debate about the matter) that the way to "help" people is to quit distorting the economy and their lives and trying to manipulate reality with government coercion, then it's just a matter of picking your poison.

 

Families don't need "help".  They need to be allowed to be free and responsible and thrive/not thrive in the manner of their choosing in a society where public goods are provided at minimum cost and with minimum distortion of reality. 

 

And here is a case where the superficial mindless harping on empty labels like "conservative" is particularly idiotic.  But typical.  A reminder of how far gone things are that self-identified "conservatives" are merely quibbling with the idiot authoritarians over which sort of social engineering is desirable.

 

Posted by: non-purist at November 14, 2013 06:31 AM (afQnV)

83 The idea would be to impress upon everyone just how much of their take-home pay has be to reserved to write checks to the govt.

I believe an entire industry of financial management firms with short term investments would spring up overnight, their services would be sold thru your bank.

Posted by: Jean at November 14, 2013 06:31 AM (CMlD4)

84 Thanks, Drew, I'll read.

EC FTW, times a million. People don't even know what they pay right now. It was the most brilliant idea some government drone asshole ever had to take taxes directly and then give some back. Yay! I get money!

Faugh.

Posted by: Anwyn at November 14, 2013 06:31 AM (uh+QG)

85 End the withholding and watch it preference spiral from there.


Posted by: EC

 

Gah!  Death Cascade!

Posted by: Left-wing Fucktard at November 14, 2013 06:31 AM (BrQrN)

86 Posted by: Y-not (@MoxieMom) at November 14, 2013 10:24 AM (zDsvJ) Eh, I said hypothesize did I not? I've seen some data that shows that for Alzheimer's patients a larger, cohesive family increases "community living" (defined as not in a facility.) And community living costs less (and uses less government resources.) But to be honest it's weak-ish data (the living part, not the cost, that data is strong). As someone who helps care for a disabled mother-in-law I can tell you when the family is working, it's easier, but when it breaks down it's actually harder. (We oscillate) So there's clearly no ideal to really achieve probably anyway.

Posted by: tsrblke PhD(c) (No Really!) at November 14, 2013 06:31 AM (GaqMa)

87 Lincicome comes across as an asshole.

He hasn't been the same since O'Bannion  paddled him.

Posted by: Waterhouse at November 14, 2013 06:31 AM (LwqhW)

88

"Personally, my goal is to make the government smaller and less invasive for everyone, not just a chosen few. That's the key to maximizing individual happiness and liberty."

===============================================

 

 

Bingo.   Undoing the ravages of ZeroCare is just the beginning of a battle to undo so much more of the Progressive dream.  The surveillance state.  Crony-capitalism as expressed in innumerable federal "programs".  The EPA bubble of intrusive regulation and non-appealable orders.  The size and extent of government agencies generally.

 

Lets have a fire sale.  Buildings, office machines, phone systems...it all goes.  And the MSM propagandists will have to apply for citizenship in some other socialist dream-state.

Posted by: MTF at November 14, 2013 06:32 AM (B5y+v)

89

End the withholding and watch it preference spiral from there.

Posted by: EC at November 14, 2013 10:19 AM (GQ8sn)---

 

I don't have my property taxes included in my monthly mortgage payments.   I just got my property tax bill in.   Yes ,   it does make you  focus on how much  government is taking and wasting.  

Posted by: polynikes at November 14, 2013 06:32 AM (m2CN7)

90 Y-not, you can't blame your friends and neighbors for their actions. If something is available, it is only human nature to take advantage. -- Not really judging them, just observing that the idea that people with children are somehow less of a drain on public systems does not seem to be borne out by my observation. This is a place with large, extended families who live near one another. This is the model for what we think having large, close families might do. And what I've observed is that there is not really any difference from what I've seen in other parts of the country with smaller families or where families move far away from each other. So really not judging, just saying the rationale for promoting families may not really be based on reality.

Posted by: Y-not (@MoxieMom) at November 14, 2013 06:32 AM (zDsvJ)

91

Am I the only one who is more than a little offput by the near constant description of children as      "future taxpayers?"    I understand that, from a    societal and economic standpoint, yes, that's what they are,  and it's important to remember that.    But I don't really want people having kids so that those kids can be the   equivalent of a piggy bank for their future senior care.     Children aren't an ATM.

 

I know it's silly, but it always   makes me feel dirty.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/i][/u][/s][/b] at November 14, 2013 06:32 AM (4df7R)

92 Eh...what about a tax break for those of use without kids? Do I really need to pay for your rug-rats indoctrination into the zombie tribe? Cut me a fricken break here.

 

Posted by: dananjcon at November 14, 2013 06:33 AM (wmU4G)

93

I never understood how the tax code was supposed to "promote families".  Back when the then-Mrs. Bandersnatch and I decided she should whelp a couple of times we never said "because think of the tax breaks!".

 

Same deal with the mortgage interest deduction.  The government likes home owners more than renters?  All coercive social engineering should end.

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at November 14, 2013 06:33 AM (A0sHn)

94 heh. Can't get Jonah's line out of my head: I wake up in the morning and rush to find my just-delivered newspaper with a joyful expectation of worsening news so intense, I feel like Morgan Freeman should be narrating my trek to the front lawn.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at November 14, 2013 06:33 AM (IXrOn)

95 TFG announces he'll speak at 11:35 and promised website would be fixed on 11-30

Does anyone really believe he'll be on time for either anymore?

Posted by: kbdabear at November 14, 2013 06:33 AM (aTXUx)

96
Personally, my goal is to make the government smaller and less invasive for everyone, not just a chosen few. That's the key to maximizing individual happiness and liberty.
..........
Amen, Drew.
..........
"There are plenty of people on the right who are quite comfortable with a large federal government, they simply want to see it used for conservative ends. "

"Conservative ends?"  There are no conservative ends that big government can meet - except for special interests.  Big business to name one.

How about the GOP pivot to being on the side of the little guy for once.  We need a conservative smaller government populist movement (with a libertarian bent).  And with disaster-care crumbling at the feet of the Dems, when would be a better time to do it?

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 14, 2013 06:33 AM (f9c2L)

97 Back onto topic, if we want Mike Lee to be as close to the conservative ideal as possible, then we (everyone conservative) need to show him we'll support him if he is primaried by the Hatch/Romney wing of the party. Because I really think he's running a little scared right now.

Posted by: Y-not (@MoxieMom) at November 14, 2013 06:34 AM (zDsvJ)

98
I am willing to pay more taxes so that everyone is on the same playing field. The only qualification I can see for the mortgage interest deduction is that that interest is income to somebody else, who is paying income tax on it.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada




So, you don't take the mortgage deduction?

Or you still take it -- but you like have a salad for lunch to balance it out ethically?

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 14, 2013 06:34 AM (kdS6q)

99 Posted by: alexthechick - Commence drinking now. at November 14, 2013 10:26 AM (VtjlW) I'm married, own a home, and have no kids. And yet I still took the standard deduction last year. Now since the wife and my income were fairly far apart (and getting farther!) I probably benefited from marriage more than most people (Although, possibly not at all honestly, I didn't check the bracket comparison.) But I'm not exactly the king of tax avoidance over here either. (The irony of buying at the low point in interest rates: My mortgage interest doesn't add enough to my deductions to overtake the standard.)

Posted by: tsrblke PhD(c) (No Really!) at November 14, 2013 06:34 AM (GaqMa)

100 Y-not, As a fellow Utahan (and a lifelong Utahan) I've recently come to similar conclusions as you have regarding "conservative" Utahans. I've always known we've had a rapid liberal component here (Rocky Anderson? Seriously?) but the reaction to Lee has really opened my eyes to how "conservative" Utah, or at least revealed some of the contours of conservatism here. I disagree somewhat with families and neighbors taking care of each other. I agree with your specific examples - sending gramps to an old folks home and claiming federal benefits - but I do think we have a pretty good social safety network not based on government.

Posted by: gwelf at November 14, 2013 06:34 AM (+7Usq)

101 I don't have my property taxes included in my monthly mortgage payments. I just got my property tax bill in. Yes , it does make you focus on how much government is taking and wasting.


Right. 

I said "write checks back to the fed and state" because the local taxes like property are written by you once a year and not withheld on your paystub.  The whole point it to force people to write the numbers and then again in words on the checks.

States like CA would burn to the ground overnight.

Posted by: EC at November 14, 2013 06:35 AM (GQ8sn)

102

The Fair Tax plan is what the country needs, but sadly a large percentage of people on the right don't know or understand it.

Posted by: jwest at November 14, 2013 10:30 AM (u2a4R)

 

Of course you say they don't understand it because they including me don't agree with it.  

Posted by: polynikes at November 14, 2013 06:35 AM (m2CN7)

103 Am I the only one who is more than a little offput by the near constant description of children as "future taxpayers?"

Medicaid paid for nearly half the births in 2012.  Kids who grow up in homes where no one works aren't very likely to grow up to want to work.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at November 14, 2013 06:35 AM (/kI1Q)

104 An important point though. There's government picking winners and losers (Green energy!) and then there's reality: we need either a replacement birth rate or more probably population growth. You can replace it in sorts via immigration, but it's not quite the same. Plus you have to deal with culture bending fun then. I'm not sure what the right answer is. I'm opposed to government social engineering via the tax code. But it's hard to escape the reality of this one. But on the third hand where does it stop? Do you start using the tax code to create a pro-family environment (since families have better outcomes than non-families.) It seems quite the slick slope. Posted by: tsrblke PhD(c) (No Really!) at November 14, 2013 10:27 AM (GaqMa) That's why I say I don't know what I think. This is one of those lovely situations where reality is messy and theory goes to hell when it touches reality. We need a replacement birthrate, at minimum. If the tax burden is such that people are discouraged from having kids, then that tax burden needs adjusted. Do I think a flat tax is the best way to do that? Yes. Absolutely, yes. But what do we do until we get there? I don't know. It is a slippery slope. Remember, the whole let's demand that banks give mortgages to everyone was based in no small part on arguments that kids do better when raised in a home owned by a family member. Now, I do believe that was reversing cause and effect (see re: Insty's numerous discussions of believing the outer trappings of middle class values lead to the values instead of the values leading to the trappings) but that argument was advanced. So where does it stop? I don't know.

Posted by: alexthechick - Commence drinking now. at November 14, 2013 06:35 AM (VtjlW)

105 Jugears will propose at 11:30 that if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.  FOR ONE YEAR.

Funny, I dont remember that being said the last 3 years.  How convenient too...gets them just beyond the '14 elections.

Fucking 'rats.

Posted by: AeroFANatic at November 14, 2013 06:36 AM (h8FS0)

106 TFG on time for a presser? Bawahhhhaaa now that there is funny.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at November 14, 2013 06:36 AM (HVff2)

107 Eh...what about a tax break for those of use without kids? Do I really need to pay for your rug-rats indoctrination into the zombie tribe? Cut me a fricken break here.


Posted by: dananjcon

You would enjoy the day when the property tax increase to pay for other people's kids and the private school tuition increase notices for your kids arrive on the same day.

Posted by: Jean at November 14, 2013 06:36 AM (CMlD4)

108 I wake up in the morning and rush to find my just-delivered newspaper with a joyful expectation of worsening news so intense, I feel like Morgan Freeman should be narrating my trek to the front lawn.


hehehe....


I can hear his voice in my head right now.

Posted by: EC at November 14, 2013 06:36 AM (GQ8sn)

109 "There are plenty of people on the right who are quite comfortable with a
large federal government, they simply want to see it used for
conservative ends. "
=======
I give you Mike Fuckabee.

My wife and I don't have kids, therefore, we deserve to be punished with higher taxes.

Or something.

'Cause that's how it feels when I look at my tax bill compared to what it would be if we had 1-3 little rugrats scurrying afoot.

Posted by: RoyalOil at November 14, 2013 06:36 AM (VjL9S)

110 Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 14, 2013 10:34 AM (kdS6q)

That is some funny shit.....

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 14, 2013 06:37 AM (oJ5Fd)

111 use=us FYI


Posted by: dananjcon at November 14, 2013 06:37 AM (wmU4G)

112 86, but "large cohesive family" doesn't mean that the patient him/herself had a lot of kids, or had kids at all. Large sibling groups could fit that bill. If I recall, one of the best predictors of good health in old age is religious observance. I wonder what outcomes would like if we compared elderly religious patients with kids to nonreligious elderly patients with kids?

Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at November 14, 2013 06:37 AM (GmTxn)

113 Henry George was right - the only good tax is a land tax. US goes to land tax...finds receipts lower than expected...checks into land use...realizes how much land is either Federally owned or rendered unproductive by regulations. Hilarity ensues.

Posted by: Brother Cavil, somewhere at November 14, 2013 06:37 AM (naUcP)

114 This was supposed to be "Post in Latin Day." Did you not get the memo?

Posted by: Harrison Bergeron at November 14, 2013 06:38 AM (JQuNB)

115 If the left wants to have the argument OgabeFo vs Parents and that is the only argument I'll argue that point but I agree Tax Policy should not be social cudgel.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 14, 2013 06:38 AM (9jfyN)

116 Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 14, 2013 10:34 AM (kdS6q Eh, I'm opposed to the mortgage deduction, but I admit, I am not so principled that I'm going to shoot myself in the foot to make a point that no one is listening. I'm also a proponent of higher deductible health plans. But given the choices I have in that arena it'd be more expensive for me to choose that option than to choose another. I'm principled, not an idiot.

Posted by: tsrblke PhD(c) (No Really!) at November 14, 2013 06:38 AM (GaqMa)

117 Same deal with the mortgage interest deduction. The government likes home owners more than renters? All coercive social engineering should end.

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at November 14, 2013 10:33 AM (A0sHn)

 

I'm sure its for different reasons but I like homeowners better than renters.  As with everything though,  there are exceptions.

Posted by: polynikes at November 14, 2013 06:38 AM (m2CN7)

118 Land use, our beloved Secretary of Interior wants to add more........Can we survive another 4 years of this shit?

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at November 14, 2013 06:38 AM (HVff2)

119 113 Brother Cavil, somewhere at November 14, 2013 10:37 AM (naUcP)

Amen Lez Warren's "1%" horsefuckery?

Congress is soaking in it.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 14, 2013 06:39 AM (9jfyN)

120 Posted by: RoyalOil at November 14, 2013 10:36 AM (VjL9S)

Trust me....kids cost more to maintain than the deduction puts back into your wallet.

The little fuckers have to eat every single day, they chew up clothing like gerbils chew cardboard (and smell worse), they get sick and need to see an idiot pediatrician who looks like he is 12, and then they crash your car and go to college -- and expect you to pay for it.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 14, 2013 06:39 AM (oJ5Fd)

121 obama to allow you to keep your 'cancelled" plans? How the fuck is he gonna do that? Hey can I keep my cellphone bill from 5 years ago?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 14, 2013 06:40 AM (t3UFN)

122 Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at November 14, 2013 10:37 AM (GmTxn) The problem with siblings is that when you're old and sick, they're usually old and sick too (for the most part.) As I said, the data is weak. Reality is messy, I'm not sure it's right, but I didn't just pull a theory out of my ass.

Posted by: tsrblke PhD(c) (No Really!) at November 14, 2013 06:40 AM (GaqMa)

123 Honestly, I hate sales taxes. I'd rather eliminate them and go with a flat income tax.

Posted by: Y-not (@MoxieMom) at November 14, 2013 06:40 AM (zDsvJ)

124 TFG announces he'll speak at 11:35 and promised website would be fixed on 11-30

Does anyone really believe he'll be on time for either anymore?

**


Bet ya he's never late for a Tee-time or a visit from Reggie.

Posted by: dananjcon at November 14, 2013 06:40 AM (wmU4G)

125 Must agree with you CDB, whenever we had a child, I never thought YIPPEE another deduction......You also forgot to mention premature gray hair and ulcers, just sayin.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at November 14, 2013 06:40 AM (HVff2)

126

Here's a wacky thought:   let's decrease the size of government so    it doesn't take so much money to run it.          Then everyone's tax bills can go down, and they'll have more money in their pockets, and VOOM! goes teh economy.

 

Yeah, yeah.  I know.   Pipe dream.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/i][/u][/s][/b] at November 14, 2013 06:41 AM (4df7R)

127 I don't mind paying taxes for education for children I don't have.   I mind the education that is being bought with my tax dollars. 

Posted by: polynikes at November 14, 2013 06:41 AM (m2CN7)

128 People are taxed at different rates in America. End that and we'll talk. Until then, engineer for our values, not theirs.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 14, 2013 06:41 AM (uhAkr)

129 Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 14, 2013 10:39 AM (oJ5Fd) Heh, so the argument goes that a child based tax deduction actually increases total revenue? There may actually be something there.

Posted by: tsrblke PhD(c) (No Really!) at November 14, 2013 06:41 AM (GaqMa)

130 The little fuckers have to eat every single day, they chew up clothing like gerbils chew cardboard (and smell worse), they get sick and need to see an idiot pediatrician who looks like he is 12, and then they crash your car and go to college -- and expect you to pay for it.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 14, 2013 10:39 AM (oJ5Fd)



And then when they move out, you dance in the street.


Sans pants.



Posted by: EC at November 14, 2013 06:41 AM (GQ8sn)

131 Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at November 14, 2013 10:40 AM (HVff2) You people are not making me comfortable with recent life choices...........

Posted by: tsrblke PhD(c) (No Really!) at November 14, 2013 06:42 AM (GaqMa)

132

And then when they move out, you dance in the street.
Sans pants.-EC

 

Until they start coming back every so often, unexpectedly,  for some food or laundry privileges.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at November 14, 2013 06:43 AM (HVff2)

133 Allen G said it best: Burn it to the ground, Scatter the stones, Salt the Earth were it stood. Where the hell has he been btw?

Posted by: Cajun Caret at November 14, 2013 06:43 AM (UZQM8)

134 This thread is a great example of why our tax code is jacked up. We're pitted against each other because the tax code pits us against each other. I'm not convinced of the basic premise that a tax deduction for one is a tax increase for someone else: the real issue is what the government spends money on and how much, not the way in which it gets that money. Even if we had a flat tax single childless workers will still be paying to educate other people's children.

Posted by: gwelf at November 14, 2013 06:43 AM (+7Usq)

135 Eh...what about a tax break for those of use without
kids? Do I really need to pay for your rug-rats indoctrination into the
zombie tribe? Cut me a fricken break here.




Posted by: dananjcon

You would enjoy the day when the property tax increase to pay for other people's kids and the private school tuition increase notices for your kids arrive on the same day.

Posted by: Jean at November 14, 2013 10:36 AM (CMlD4)


**


My seething rage would cause a rift in the time space continuum.  


Posted by: dananjcon at November 14, 2013 06:43 AM (wmU4G)

136 I have no idea, NGU. Can't wait to see how he garbles his way through his "instructions" to the Insurance companies. What the hell are the companies going to do? Insurance policies are contracts, they can't just be resurrected wholesale. Millions of individuals are involved. The resulting chaos should be even more fuel for the full repeal movement.

Posted by: Lincolntf at November 14, 2013 06:43 AM (ZshNr)

137 So any "Fix" obama proposes is essentially an admission he lied or is a stupid fuck. Or both

Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 14, 2013 06:43 AM (t3UFN)

138

Posted by: tsrblke PhD(c) (No Really!) at November 14, 2013 10:42 AM (GaqMa)

 

All kidding aside tsrblke PhD(c) I wouldn't trade any one of my daughters for anything. But it was a challenge.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at November 14, 2013 06:44 AM (HVff2)

139 I'm pretty certain that as a single, childless, employed, homeowner, I'm already heavily subsidizing 'families'. Here's a proposal: Pay for your own fucking kids for a change.
Posted by: mugiwara at November 14, 2013 10:21 AM (W7ffl)
Hey, I'm a single, childless, employed, non-homeowner. I have no deductions other than the standard. Oh, wait, no, now I have student loan interest deduction which is utter bullshit but I'm taking it. I'm paying for everyone's everything. \
Posted by: alexthechick - Commence drinking now. at November 14, 2013 10:26 AM (VtjlW)


You know, I've always been against the social engineering schemes, but ever since my office was relocated into the welfare building, I've grown especially weary of this shit. Walking into that lobby everyday, seeing the endless line of losers with their little, screeching, fatherless 'family tax credits' in tow (not to mention WIC, SNAP, Food Stamp, etc., sweeteners) has especially inured me to the 'yay family!' conservative social engineers.


My exemptions are the mortgage interest and local taxes paid. I'd be more than happy to give them up in exchange for taking away children 'tax credits'. I'll even be magnanimous and allow the per child deduction to stand, but don't be expecting a 'credit' because you're too irresponsible to take care of your own damn kids.

Posted by: mugiwara at November 14, 2013 06:44 AM (W7ffl)

140 Even if we had a flat tax single childless workers will still be paying to educate other people's children. Posted by: gwelf

Tuition.  School Fees.  No more teachers unions.  No more Department of Education.  No more Common Core.  Hmmm, I think I see a solution in there somewhere.

Posted by: Jean at November 14, 2013 06:45 AM (CMlD4)

141 "Of course you say they don't understand it because they including me don't agree with it. " Disagreeing with it is fine. Different people have different views. What I was talking about is people who have never actually read the plan, or who skimmed a few articles and have misconceptions of what it is. In any discussion of the Fair Tax plan, it becomes evident that a lot of people on the right either don't understand the concept or, for some reason, need to twist the plan into something it isn't in order to find fault with it.

Posted by: jwest at November 14, 2013 06:45 AM (u2a4R)

142 Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 14, 2013 10:39 AM (oJ5Fd) You forgot the teenage snorting, rolling of eyes and comments such as, "Dad (or Mom) PLEASE!! when you embarrassed them merely for existing. ;^)

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at November 14, 2013 06:45 AM (23Kgq)

143 Until they start coming back every so often, unexpectedly, for some food or laundry privileges.


Home Depot has a sale on deadbolts.


*holds up receipts*

Posted by: EC at November 14, 2013 06:45 AM (GQ8sn)

144 Even if we had a flat tax single childless workers will still be paying to educate other people's children. And those children will be paying for the childless workers of today in their dotage.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 14, 2013 06:45 AM (uhAkr)

145 Until they start coming back every so often, unexpectedly, for some food or laundry privileges.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at November 14, 2013 10:43 AM (HVff2)

And they bring their friends!

[there are three of them in my house right now...blowing through every bit of food, hot water, etc]

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 14, 2013 06:45 AM (oJ5Fd)

146 CBD, you do know that I consider breeder to be the equal to the c word, right?

Posted by: alexthechick - Commence drinking now. at November 14, 2013 06:45 AM (VtjlW)

147 Where the hell has he been btw? Posted by: Cajun Caret at November 14, 2013 10:43 AM (UZQM I think he is just taking a break.

Posted by: RWC at November 14, 2013 06:46 AM (fWAjv)

148 Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 14, 2013 10:45 AM (oJ5Fd) You were supposed to change the locks.

Posted by: Cajun Caret at November 14, 2013 06:46 AM (UZQM8)

149 So any "Fix" obama proposes is essentially an admission he lied or is a stupid fuck. Or both

Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 14, 2013 10:43 AM (t3UFN)

 

 

Yep.   The question then becomes,  how will the MFM spin it to make it sound like    whatever    he   says     is akin to Moses   holding aloft the     Ten Commandments?        

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/i][/u][/s][/b] at November 14, 2013 06:46 AM (4df7R)

150 Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at November 14, 2013 10:44 AM (HVff2) Slightly more comforting. And to be fair, I have a nicer washer and dryer than my parents, I'm going back to visit my dad after his kidney scope/stone removal today . (uhh and to return an ipad I borrowed for a video interview. Although to be fair, I own a tablet, it didn't support the software.)

Posted by: tsrblke PhD(c) (No Really!) at November 14, 2013 06:46 AM (GaqMa)

151 Allen G said it best: Burn it to the ground, Scatter the stones, Salt the Earth were it stood. Where the hell has he been btw? Posted by: Cajun Caret at November 14, 2013 10:43 AM (UZQM He's got a new job.

Posted by: [/i][/b][/u][/s] Tami at November 14, 2013 06:47 AM (bCEmE)

152 I wouldn't trade any one of my daughters for anything.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at November 14, 2013 10:44 AM (HVff2)

Are they good looking? How old?

What about cash?

Posted by: Roman Polanski at November 14, 2013 06:47 AM (oJ5Fd)

153 Honestly, I hate sales taxes. I'd rather eliminate them and go with a flat income tax.

Posted by: Y-not (@MoxieMom) at November 14, 2013 10:40 AM (zDsvJ)



----


Oh .... you have a flat income tax.


You will flat out pay me.

Posted by: THE I.R.S. at November 14, 2013 06:47 AM (nELVU)

154 Allen G said it best: Burn it to the ground, Scatter the stones, Salt the Earth were it stood. Where the hell has he been btw? New job.

Posted by: rickb223 at November 14, 2013 06:47 AM (ix+5k)

155 141 jwest at November 14, 2013 10:45 AM (u2a4R)

Flat Tax not "fair tax"

Posted by: sven10077 at November 14, 2013 06:47 AM (9jfyN)

156 New one

Posted by: [/i][/b][/u][/s] Tami at November 14, 2013 06:47 AM (bCEmE)

157 Posted by: gwelf at November 14, 2013 10:43 AM (+7Usq) Good comments.

Posted by: Y-not (@MoxieMom) at November 14, 2013 06:47 AM (zDsvJ)

158

The ob-gyn said our child #2 would be born around New Year's.  I was pulling hard  for the under.

 

She was born 12:34 am on 12/25.  I smiled broadly the next April as I took an entire year's  dependency  exemption  for 7 days of her.  Best Christmas Present Ever!

Posted by: Count de Monet at November 14, 2013 06:47 AM (BAS5M)

159 And then when they move out, you dance in the street. Sans pants. Posted by: EC at November 14, 2013 10:41 AM (GQ8sn) You say that like it's a bad thing.

Posted by: Sean Bannion[/i][/i][/u][/s] at November 14, 2013 06:48 AM (sbV1u)

160 Based on what evidence? What criteria? est opus diaboli reditus tributum

Posted by: toby928© at November 14, 2013 06:48 AM (QupBk)

161 122 Well, large families often have a 15-20 year span between oldest and youngest siblings. And, even if we're talking about grown children caring for their own parents, it's usually the sibling with no children or fewer children who takes on elder care. So, yeah, a person who has 5 kids and got a tax cut might cost Medicare a little less...but of those 5 kids the one who actually brings about the savings is often the one denied a tax break. I know it's just a hypothesis, but man, it got me thinking about just how twisted the whole thing can get.

Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at November 14, 2013 06:48 AM (GmTxn)

162 So any "Fix" obama proposes is essentially an admission he lied or is a stupid fuck. Or both
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 14, 2013 10:43 AM (t3UFN)


Yep. The question then becomes, how will the MFM spin it to make it sound like whatever he says is akin to Moses holding aloft the Ten Commandments? Posted by: MWR,

Do you think any of those clowns will ask him why he didn't do it in October and decided to shut down the Government for two weeks?

Posted by: Jean at November 14, 2013 06:48 AM (CMlD4)

163 crap, poor formatting

Posted by: toby928© at November 14, 2013 06:48 AM (QupBk)

164 He's got a new job. Posted by: Tami at November 14, 2013 10:47 AM (bCEmE) Well that sucks

Posted by: RWC at November 14, 2013 06:49 AM (fWAjv)

165 146 alexthechick - Commence drinking now. at November 14, 2013 10:45 AM (VtjlW)

No C word ever called me breeder...

well not true exactly my ex called me breeder which is funny her child is 3 years older than mine.

Ah Bis what can't they do?

Posted by: sven10077 at November 14, 2013 06:49 AM (9jfyN)

166 opus diaboli reditus tributum est there, that's better

Posted by: toby928© at November 14, 2013 06:49 AM (QupBk)

167 CBD, you do know that I consider breeder to be the equal to the c word, right?

Posted by: alexthechick - Commence drinking now. at November 14, 2013 10:45 AM (VtjlW)

No....but I'm not surprised.

It is perhaps the fundamental inequity in our society -- the privilege inherent in producing offspring.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 14, 2013 06:50 AM (oJ5Fd)

168 I am the reason the President can get the insurance companies to do whatever he wishes. Resurrecting plans might cost a fortune but who cares? The insurance companies can't lose.

Posted by: Built in bailout in ACA at November 14, 2013 06:50 AM (ugAvG)

169 The question then becomes, how will the MFM spin it to make it sound like whatever he says is akin to Moses holding aloft the Ten Commandments?

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at November 14, 2013 10:46 AM (4df7R)


----


"You clingy wingers never supported this.  You opposed it and sabotaged it every step of the way.  This is YOUR fault.  Now, because YOU eff'd it all up we all have to take steps to fix it because "middle class".  If you would have just supported it from the beginning, this wouldnt be necessary."


Just a hunch.

Posted by: fixerupper at November 14, 2013 06:50 AM (nELVU)

170 167 CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 14, 2013 10:50 AM (oJ5Fd)

I just can't get this notion that there has to be kids to be a culture in 75 years out of my head...

Posted by: sven10077 at November 14, 2013 06:50 AM (9jfyN)

171 Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at November 14, 2013 10:48 AM (GmTxn) I'm thinking we may have different definitions of large. Of course I don't remember the study's numbers, but remember "average" is now less than two IIRC, so "4" may suffice. But yes it's complicated.

Posted by: tsrblke PhD(c) (No Really!) at November 14, 2013 06:51 AM (GaqMa)

172 169 fixerupper at November 14, 2013 10:50 AM (nELVU)

President Tinkerbell...

Posted by: sven10077 at November 14, 2013 06:51 AM (9jfyN)

173

And they bring their friends!

[there are three of them in my house right now...blowing through every bit of food, hot water, etc]

 

Booze admission fee.  Or backyard labour for room and board.

Posted by: Lurking Canuck at November 14, 2013 06:52 AM (BrQrN)

174 What happened to OsamaCare being the law of the land?  He can just edict any changes in the "law" that he wants to?   Of course the GOP won't challenge his illegal dictatoring on this because they  are afraid of being spun as the ones taking away health care plans now.  Fine place we find ourselves now.  Obama, Holder, Jarrett, et all cannot be held to laws because doing so would be racist.  Talk about a license to steal...

Posted by: Havedash at November 14, 2013 06:52 AM (BRhGr)

175 "Flat Tax not "fair tax"" This is what I meant by saying it's sad conservatives accept the concept of an income tax. What an income tax is is the government saying: "Once a year, you will come to me and report what it is you do for a living and how much you make." This makes you subservient to the government. With the Fair Tax plan, you are a free person, able to make your living and maintain your privacy and dignity.

Posted by: jwest at November 14, 2013 06:53 AM (u2a4R)

176 159 Sean Bannion at November 14, 2013 10:48 AM (sbV1u)

We call it the empty nest happy dance, oddly enough the Insane Asylum calls it early onset dementia

Posted by: sven10077 at November 14, 2013 06:53 AM (9jfyN)

177 IMHO, there have been no conservative tax laws, in decades.
When Glass Stegal can be repealed, by the votes of both parties and a law that allows Romney and others of the .oo1% to make 100 million tax free and then give it; tax free,  to his children there hasn't been/isn't a conservative in Congress.

Google, FB, tweet, GE, Buffet, Kerry, McShame, etc etc etc... don't pay taxes, by law, on billions.

I pay taxes every year on my wages. Any money I leave/give my children has been taxed at least one time.

How much money is enough for these .001% people?

Posted by: Tortuga at November 14, 2013 06:53 AM (FmyWU)

178
OAB: population explosions, ZPG and mass starvation
TNH: subsidizing births, importing warm replacement bodies

Social fads/scares seem to run ~25-30 year cycles before they reverse. 

Posted by: Purp[/i][/b][/s] at November 14, 2013 06:53 AM (Xlbr8)

179 Posted by: Purp at November 14, 2013 10:53 AM (Xlbr I'm not sure it wasn't ever just extremists with the whole ZPG growth thing. well extremists and losers who were angry they couldn't find someone to have kids with.

Posted by: tsrblke PhD(c) (No Really!) at November 14, 2013 06:55 AM (GaqMa)

180 it is not pro family anyways. It is pro single mother. That there is not conservative.

Posted by: astonerii at November 14, 2013 06:55 AM (0xFeB)

181 Social fads/scares seem to run ~25-30 year cycles before they reverse.
Posted by: Purp

I think they are linked to the 60y climate cycle.  An interpretation of the ants vs grasshopper parable writ large in society.

Posted by: Jean at November 14, 2013 06:55 AM (CMlD4)

182 well extremists and losers who were angry they couldn't find someone to have kids with. But you repeat yourself...

Posted by: Sean Bannion[/i][/i][/u][/s] at November 14, 2013 06:55 AM (sbV1u)

183 "Flat Tax not "fair tax""
This is what I meant by saying it's sad conservatives accept the concept of an income tax.
What an income tax is is the government saying: "Once a year, you will come to me and report what it is you do for a living and how much you make."
This makes you subservient to the government.
With the Fair Tax plan, you are a free person, able to make your living and maintain your privacy and dignity.
Posted by: jwest at November 14, 2013 10:53 AM (u2a4R)



Well yeah, except for businesses which will continue to get the rectal exam, but now turned up to eleventy. But fuck those greedy 1%ers anyway, right commie troll?

Posted by: mugiwara at November 14, 2013 06:57 AM (W7ffl)

184
The time for true small government conservatism is dead and gone.

The GOP has been de facto Democrat Lite for so many years that that's just the way things are and will forever be. The GOP's reaction to Obama's 2012 campaign and reelection has only cemented it.

Sure, we've got some believers like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, but they're just a flash in the pan. The GOP has already determined their expiration dates. Until then nothing matters as the average high school chess club has more members than there are conservative Republicans in Congress.

The GOP is more than happy to send out their star players like McQueeg  and Graham, along with various "gangs" to throw the Dems all sorts of lifelines.

By January 1, 20014 this will be a bipartisan clusterfuck.

Posted by: Ed Anger at November 14, 2013 06:57 AM (tOkJB)

185 Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 14, 2013 10:55 AM (sbV1u) Eh, they're totally overlapping Zen diagrams. But not all B in this case are A .

Posted by: tsrblke PhD(c) (No Really!) at November 14, 2013 06:57 AM (GaqMa)

186 How much money is enough for these .001% people?
Posted by: Tortuga

Which definition of Conservative are you using, Mike Huckabee's?

Posted by: Jean at November 14, 2013 06:57 AM (CMlD4)

187 Breeder is such a nasty, nasty word. I've seen it used primarily by (nasty) leftist gay guys, but no doubt there are entirely self righteous straight people without children who use it too, as if you're automatically a better human being because you chose not to have kids. It relates to an article I saw today from TIME with a headline saying, "When having it all means not having kids" with a picture of a smiling rested yuppie couple of the beach. People do or do not have kids for a variety of reasons-the choices themselves are not intrinsically good or bad. My sister does not have kids. he always thought she would be terrible as a mother, but she's a good person and I can't imagine her calling people with children "breeders" Some people cannot have kids or don't want to bes a single parent. I understand people who don't want kids. I didn't for years and as snarky as I can be I didn't berate people for having them.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at November 14, 2013 06:58 AM (23Kgq)

188 183 mugiwara at November 14, 2013 10:57 AM (W7ffl)

Pretty much, but if Ogabe governing by Krugatons and blowing ~100 bill a month into WallStreet is sustainable as Bukkake's QEleventy I am not sure why anyone has to pay taxes anymore...

evidently we've discovered Zero Point Economic Energy right?

//must I?

Posted by: sven10077 at November 14, 2013 06:59 AM (9jfyN)

189 And I hated the term "Breeder" even before I had kids or wanted any.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at November 14, 2013 06:59 AM (23Kgq)

190

It's not just a case of preferred classes. A conservative (small-government) should never advocate for laws that require constant attention from the government to keep them "fair" or "up-to-date". If it requires constant monitoring from the government, then it encourages meddling and demagoguery. And that never has a good end for the republic.

 

Posted by: GWB at November 14, 2013 06:59 AM (Yv2t4)

191 Breeder is such a nasty, nasty word. I've seen it used primarily by (nasty) leftist gay guys

If it weren't for breeders, they'd go extinct

Posted by: Purp[/i][/b][/s] at November 14, 2013 07:01 AM (Xlbr8)

192 "Well yeah, except for businesses which will continue to get the rectal exam, but now turned up to eleventy. But fuck those greedy 1%ers anyway, right commie troll?" Oh, I didn't think about that. You're right. Business doesn't get any rectal exams now, but with the Fair Tax plan, they will. It's much better if everyone is subjected to the government invading our privacy. It's fairer that way.

Posted by: jwest at November 14, 2013 07:01 AM (u2a4R)

193 "133 Allen G said it best: Burn it to the ground, Scatter the stones, Salt the Earth were it stood." I'm an environmentalist. I'm all in on burning it down and scattering the stones, but salting the earth would be bad for the spotted delta smelt.

Posted by: whoever at November 14, 2013 07:04 AM (yUY1h)

194 HAHA Tepid says Ogabe is gonna go straight to scapegoating the insurers...

awesome...

The GOP can run against the insurers who got into bed with Obama too and point out SCOAMF's built in bailouts as a long con.

He truly is a Stuttering ClusterFuck of a Miserable Failure

http://tinyurl.com/oooxfjq

Posted by: sven10077 at November 14, 2013 07:05 AM (9jfyN)

195 Yeah well the trouble with "breeders" is they don't have an "overlapping Zen diagram."




Posted by: Stringer Davis at November 14, 2013 07:06 AM (xq1UY)

196 Business doesn't get any rectal exams now

Miss a sales tax payment, or come up short of their expectations for you, and they padlock your doors in the blink of an eye.

Its obvious you don't know anyone who owns a brick/mortar store.

Posted by: Purp[/i][/b][/s] at November 14, 2013 07:07 AM (Xlbr8)

197 Its obvious you don't know anyone who owns a brick/mortar store. Posted by: Purp at November 14, 2013 11:07 AM (Xlbr Try reading those comments again and see if you can find a note of sarcasm. I've paid more in business taxes in a year than you will in a lifetime.

Posted by: jwest at November 14, 2013 07:11 AM (u2a4R)

198 Well yeah, except for businesses which will continue to get the rectal exam, but now turned up to eleventy. But fuck those greedy 1%ers anyway, right commie troll?"
Oh, I didn't think about that. You're right. Business doesn't get any rectal exams now, but with the Fair Tax plan, they will.
It's much better if everyone is subjected to the government invading our privacy. It's fairer that way.
Posted by: jwest at November 14, 2013 11:01 AM (u2a4R)


I was about to say that reading comprehension clearly isn't your strong suit, but then I thought, 'shit, maybe it is'.

Posted by: mugiwara at November 14, 2013 07:15 AM (W7ffl)

199 I think the tactically effective position would be to get 'our side' tax breaks that are the equal or better than 'their side', meaning people with good jobs, houses, with children should get relief as well as people with crappy jobs, low income, and poor coping skills in general.

I know the ideological position/argument - tax cuts for all, or for none.

BUT, working with the political truism that it's easy to give stuff to constituencies and hard to take anything away, having some skin in the game would incentivize productive members of society to fight to keep their carvouts, just as hard as other constituencies (min wage labor, welfare. SNAP, etc., etc. consumers) fight for all the goodies that they take advantage of.

Then you have a level playing field where if you cut services across the board, it actually affects everyone - and promotes a much fairer fight, and a more evenly balanced option matrix.



Posted by: West at November 14, 2013 07:19 AM (1Rgee)

200 Being in business is a choice. Conservatives have always recognized and accepted that if they choose to engage in business and rely on the government for infrastructure, protection and a legal system, that they will be subject to taxation. The concept that individual citizens should be subject to that scrutiny only came about in the early 20th century. It's sad that people who believe themselves to be hard core conservatives are perfectly fine with idea of bending over and taking their rectal exam every year without question. Fucking sheep.

Posted by: jwest at November 14, 2013 07:23 AM (u2a4R)

201
Land use, our beloved Secretary of Interior wants to add more........Can we survive another 4 years of this shit?

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at November 14, 2013 10:38 AM (HVff2)









It's instructive that the SoI is talking specifically about adding National Monuments......which can be declared by POTUS without the approval of Congress.

You can be sure that the vast majority of them will be declared adjacent to areas like the Keystone pipeline route and privately owned oil fields. It'll give them more ammunition to shut down as much oil production as they can get away with.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at November 14, 2013 07:26 AM (TIIx5)

202 Encouraging families and children is extremely conservative.  Any country that acts like having kids is just a personal hobby is doomed.

If you're really concerned about the size of government, you do it by reducing spending, not by making sure that working families are paying a big enough share of taxes.

Honestly, some of you sound like you never want to win an election ever again.  Married people with kids are the kind of people who vote GOP.  Sayin that giving them a tax break for the very expensive and very necessary work they do is some kind of liberalism sounds like an autistic libertarian position, not a conservative one.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at November 14, 2013 07:31 AM (ZMzpb)

203 Any society that financially and socially discourages family formation is a society destined to disappear and soon. Like Europe. Like Japan. Child tax credits might help us get to at least replacement level again. Reducing all taxes is a wonderful idea, but politics is the art of the possible, not an idyllic fantasy.

Posted by: theCork at November 14, 2013 07:36 AM (hbAdE)

204 Sayin that giving them a tax break for the very expensive and very necessary work they do is some kind of liberalism sounds like an autistic libertarian position, not a conservative one. Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at November 14, 2013 11:31 AM (ZMzpb) I am stealing that "autistic libertarian" phrase.

Posted by: theCork at November 14, 2013 07:38 AM (hbAdE)

205 200 jw See, that's a problem: you made some very interesting and cogent observations and suggestions, and then "f*ing sheep." Not really gonna win any converts....

Posted by: speedster1 on the iPad at November 14, 2013 07:39 AM (yeM7r)

206 Let's try setting a standard tax rate at 10% of so of income with no credits, deductions, or adjustmenst (Steve Forbes argued 13% flat was revenue neutral) and then leave it the f*%$ alone for awhile, say 100 years. I'll even give you an annual income level below which taxes are not levied or due for, you know, the poor and downtrodden (but it has to be really low) and kids.

Posted by: steve walsh at November 14, 2013 07:45 AM (qRZ5f)

207 "Not really gonna win any converts...." If you check, you'll find that I always start nicely, but within a few seconds I get slammed by a small group who think anyone with different views from their own are commie trolls. They are famous for reading every third word, then filling in the blanks with muddled bullshit from some deep recess of their minds. It's easier to unload on them to try to win them over.

Posted by: jwest at November 14, 2013 07:46 AM (u2a4R)

208 207 jwest at November 14, 2013 11:46 AM (u2a4R)

This is one of my serious topics.

Your case is not compelling.  If you can get donk-e to jettison the welfare state I'd be your biggest booster but uh "good luck"

Posted by: sven10077 at November 14, 2013 07:56 AM (9jfyN)

209 202 Encouraging families and children is extremely conservative. Any country that acts like having kids is just a personal hobby is doomed.
<
If you're really concerned about the size of government, you do it by reducing spending, not by making sure that working families are paying a big enough share of taxes.
< Honestly, some of you sound like you never want to win an election ever again. Married people with kids are the kind of people who vote GOP. Sayin that giving them a tax break for the very expensive and very necessary work they do is some kind of liberalism sounds like an autistic libertarian position, not a conservative one.
< Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at November 14, 2013 11:31 AM (ZMzpb)   THIS +1000.    We cannot be engaged in some academic exercise here.  It's about winning votes and protecting what is left of the social structure that made America great. 

Posted by: rockmom who wants to win in 2016 at November 14, 2013 07:59 AM (Q4elb)

210 Emperor of the ice cream puts it perfectly. You either get a tax code that subsidizes families or you get a a tax code that that every year makes America look more and more like the cast of girls. Families have been the backbone of conservatism since it emerged in the face of the wreckage of the French Revolution. Flat tax has been around for like thirty years you tell me which a true conservative would favor and defer to. You are either subsidized or subsidizing in the modern world and all the Neal boortz books in the world aren't going to change that. Take away the tax breaks for families and you are take away the only real subsidiary that the right gets other than farm subsidies I guess. I'm twenty five with no kids so sure I doesn't benefit me but guess what if only single people voted Dennis kuicinich would probably be speaker of the house. Ours is the first society in history where a childless dude at forty doesn't immediately set off the gay or impotent alarm. Those of you who don't have kids really have no right to complain about excessive immigration then right. I mean you are counting on all those Mormons to subsidize our population growth. The fact is governments have no choice but to pick winners and losers when one of the options is national sterility and population decline. Our posterity guys it's not just a clause in the preamble to the constitution.

Posted by: tennvols87 at November 14, 2013 08:00 AM (yFFC0)

211 "Your case is not compelling. If you can get donk-e to jettison the welfare state I'd be your biggest booster but uh "good luck"" The case could be compelling, but there are a hundred avenues to explore and each one with it's own narrative. It depends on the audience. One was the concept that the government has no right to know what a private individual does for a living or how much they make. The opposing view to that position is very basis for socialism and communism. Another aspect of taxation touches on immigration laws. With the status quo, it's important that the borders be secured and illegals deported. With the Fair Tax, we would want as many permanent resident aliens as possible living and working in the U.S. We're at a time of big social change with the government looking to take over the healthcare of everyone in the country. It's not too much of a stretch to believe there is an opening to change the way we collect taxes - especially if there are features that LIVs would interpret as being beneficial to them. We should look to do big things, not nibble around the edges.

Posted by: jwest at November 14, 2013 08:15 AM (u2a4R)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
203kb generated in CPU 0.0493, elapsed 0.2142 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.1823 seconds, 339 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Support





Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact

Change the At to "@" and the DOT to "."




Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Search Thingy



Archives

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 160120
  • Files: 1778
  • Bytes: 4.9G
  • CPU Time: 155:16
  • Queries: 4617342

Content

  • Posts: 22824
  • Comments: 5930392

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0