What do you think about the extra chunk of change parents get back from taxes, and will be getting back from this new tax refund?

I know there is a key difference in whose paying - companies or insurance vs. the government.

But Brandi (sorry to call you out girlie, hope you don't mind) had pointed out that if the government paid for maternity leave, she wouldn't agree with that either because it's similar to welfare. (If I'm paraphrasing incorrectly, please let me know so I can fix it!)

That made me wonder, how many people who don't agree with paid maternity leave think it's cool that the government taxes parents less? How many think it's unfair for people without children to pay more taxes?

Me personally, I'm happy to get any amount back, but at the same time, I see having children as a personal choice, and I don't really understand why the government needs to bolster your income if you make plenty already? In the big picture, I don't see how it's fair to make someone without children pay more taxes then someone who makes the exact same amount, but has kids. And when you consider all the tax money that goes to programs for children, well to me, that makes it seem even more backwards.

That's not to say I disagree with it, I just don't understand it. So for those who disagree with paid maternity leave since it's not anyone's business but the parents' that they had a kid, I'd like to hear what you think about the government cutting the same parents a tax break.

Pardon my typo in the title... grr I hate when I do that.

Honestly, I don't EXPECT the extra tax money. Sure, it's nice when we get it, but I certainly don't expect it and don't even necessarily think it's fair. I don't understand why we get more at tax time, other than the fact that parents (generally speaking, I think) usually put WAY more taxes into the government's pocket for crap through out the year. I don't expect it though, by any means.

Honestly, I don't EXPECT the extra tax money. Sure, it's nice when we get it, but I certainly don't expect it and don't even necessarily think it's fair. I don't understand why we get more at tax time, other than the fact that parents (generally speaking, I think) usually put WAY more taxes into the government's pocket for crap through out the year. I don't expect it though, by any means.

Coming from a clueless person with no kids, I don't know what you mean by the bolded part. Not trying to sound snotty, but I really don't know how parents put more taxes into the government's pocket. Do you mean through things like sales tax because you have to buy more stuff?

I've never understood how you can get more taxes back than you put in. I'm tax dense.

Coming from a clueless person with no kids, I don't know what you mean by the bolded part. Not trying to sound snotty, but I really don't know how parents put more taxes into the government's pocket. Do you mean through things like sales tax because you have to buy more stuff?

Yeah, that's essentially what I meant. I think people without kids generally have more savings and probably do not spend as much through out the year, just totally in general. I honestly have no idea, but that's the only justification I can see for why they government would do it. Otherwise, I don't have a clue :dunno

Yeah, that's essentially what I meant. I think people without kids generally have more savings and probably do not spend as much through out the year, just totally in general. I honestly have no idea, but that's the only justification I can see for why they government would do it. Otherwise, I don't have a clue :dunno

That makes sense, that as a parent you have to spend more money and therefore pay more sales tax - but isn't that all going to the state? :confused

I personally think it is rediculous that we don't get MORE for mat leave here in the states. New mothers in Canada get a YEAR off, paid. And whatever the mother doesn't use the father is welcome to use. I think it is SAD that I have to return to work after just 16 weeks, which is 10 weeks longer than most women get.

As for tax rebates and such. Generally speaking, I think people with children put more money out, which is why they get more money back. I don't disagree with it at all.

but sales tax funds the state, not on a federal level. And unless you claim single on your w-4 you usually pay less tax throughout the year from your pay.
And I beg to differ on those without kids not spending as much. I have childless friends and they actually spend more then we do because their other expense are less. ( food, clothes, school supplies)

As for tax rebates and such. Generally speaking, I think people with children put more money out, which is why they get more money back. I don't disagree with it at all.

But don't you sometimes get more than you paid in? I don't get that part.

but sales tax funds the state, not on a federal level. And unless you claim single on your w-4 you usually pay less tax throughout the year from your pay.
And I beg to differ on those without kids not spending as much. I have childless friends and they actually spend more then we do because their other expense are less. ( food, clothes, school supplies)

It was just a guess :lol I wasn't claiming to "know" anything. I was just taking a guess at why things are set up the way they are and that's the only guess I had. I also never said "everyone", it was just a "in general" guess and I do think that people with kids do TEND to spend more USUALLY, because they HAVE to.

As far as state vs fed taxes, ya'll are right about that, so I dunno. :dunno

I'm just going to say the government needs to seriously reconsider the way taxes are taken out all together. Personally, I think that you should be able to keep all the money you earn. None of it should go to the government. I think the government should get money in other ways, like taxing food, clothes, or say taxing entertainers (movie stars, musicians) Many of them somehow slip through the cracks and manage to not be taxed anything. Honestly, I think the whole american government has gone to crap in their money making decisions and their twisted taxes. That's my opinion.

I'm just going to say the government needs to seriously reconsider the way taxes are taken out all together. Personally, I think that you should be able to keep all the money you earn. None of it should go to the government. I think the government should get money in other ways, like taxing food, clothes, or say taxing entertainers (movie stars, musicians) Many of them somehow slip through the cracks and manage to not be taxed anything. Honestly, I think the whole american government has gone to crap in their money making decisions and their twisted taxes. That's my opinion.

I think our tax system is absolutely CRAP also. I don't think you should be taxed on how much you earn, I think you should be taxed on how much you buy. Period.

Yes, you can get more than you paid in. There are plenty who get money back who pay taxes, through tax credits - i.e. EIC, etc.
I think that is a lot of what is wrong with the current tax system. So many new credits get added on everytime the tax code is re-done. I can understand many of them - credits for incentives to businesses, etc. But I think we need to start over with another system, especially if something like Universal Health Care gets passed. I don't know if Mike Huckabee's answer with the Flat Tax is it, I haven't seen his plan, but the answer is probably out there.
As far as the rebate for the kids, we aren't really being given a choice are we? LOL....I'll take it because that check will be in the mail cut that way based on the 2007 taxes we filed.

But don't you sometimes get more than you paid in? I don't get that part.

Maybe, since we are military, but if we were civilians I would say no. If I had to pay taxes for daycare that would be hundreds on its own. Then comes taxes for utilities, which you use more of with kids. Taxes for food, gas, clothes etc. All of which we need MORE of when we have kids.

I think our tax system is absolutely CRAP also. I don't think you should be taxed on how much you earn, I think you should be taxed on how much you buy. Period.

Oh, National Sales tax? I guess that everything would be priced with a National Sales tax on it and the state and local sales taxes on it? I wonder how they could phase something like that in?

Oh, National Sales tax? I guess that everything would be priced with a National Sales tax on it and the state and local sales taxes on it? I wonder how they could phase something like that in?

Yeah, I don't have an answer as to what would work best, but I don't like our current tax system and I think I'd like to see a national sales tax of some sort. I think our tax system now is unfair with a lot of flaws, and it's also too complicated and with too many loop holes. KWIM? I think it would be more beneficial to us if we were not taxed out of our paychecks, but had an increased tax for what we purchase.

Maybe, since we are military, but if we were civilians I would say no. If I had to pay taxes for daycare that would be hundreds on its own. Then comes taxes for utilities, which you use more of with kids. Taxes for food, gas, clothes etc. All of which we need MORE of when we have kids.
you don't have to pay taxes on daycare as civilians, same for utilities other than the tax that is added into your monthly bill. I totally disagree with a flat national sales tax due to the fact that things will wind up costing more. And things that weren't previously taxed would probably not be exempt from the "federal sales tax".

I agree it's a big mess. Such a big mess that it's impossible to wrap my head around even the basics! :giggle

Brandi, thanks for being such a good sport about me pinpointing your opinion specifically. :hugs

FTC, I get all your points, but it still goes back to the fact that you chose to have children, so why is it the government's responsibility to cut you slack for that choice? I can choose to spend all my money too, children or not, and it doesn't mean the government should help me out more than someone frugal who doesn't spend all their money.

I agree it's a big mess. Such a big mess that it's impossible to wrap my head around even the basics! :giggle

Brandi, thanks for being such a good sport about me pinpointing your opinion specifically. :hugs

FTC, I get all your points, but it still goes back to the fact that you chose to have children, so why is it the government's responsibility to cut you slack for that choice? I can choose to spend all my money too, children or not, and it doesn't mean the government should help me out more than someone frugal who doesn't spend all their money.

There are people who think people should be taxed for having children, because of the mess that overpopulation is causing our ecosystem.

And please, no one think I'm a child hater! :lmao I want a baby bad! :D

It really bugs me that there are so many ways to evade taxes for those who make enough that it's worth it to spend money on a *professional*. If those kinds of resources were available to everyone, nobody would be paying anything!

I agree it's a big mess. Such a big mess that it's impossible to wrap my head around even the basics! :giggle

Brandi, thanks for being such a good sport about me pinpointing your opinion specifically. :hugs

FTC, I get all your points, but it still goes back to the fact that you chose to have children, so why is it the government's responsibility to cut you slack for that choice? I can choose to spend all my money too, children or not, and it doesn't mean the government should help me out more than someone frugal who doesn't spend all their money.

I would think they do it because they want families and the children within them to thrive. To have a better chance for a good education and a good future, because the children are our future.

I think our tax system is absolutely CRAP also. I don't think you should be taxed on how much you earn, I think you should be taxed on how much you buy. Period.

exactly... ok, you worded that so much better...lol... i took it a really long way around to say pretty much the same thing

you don't have to pay taxes on daycare as civilians, same for utilities other than the tax that is added into your monthly bill. I totally disagree with a flat national sales tax due to the fact that things will wind up costing more. And things that weren't previously taxed would probably not be exempt from the "federal sales tax".

All of those things have taxes inbedded in their costs. Therefore, if your bill is higher, your taxes within it are higher.

:edit I don't know much about this flat tax, but I think it is a horrible idea.

I agree it's a big mess. Such a big mess that it's impossible to wrap my head around even the basics! :giggle

Brandi, thanks for being such a good sport about me pinpointing your opinion specifically. :hugs

FTC, I get all your points, but it still goes back to the fact that you chose to have children, so why is it the government's responsibility to cut you slack for that choice? I can choose to spend all my money too, children or not, and it doesn't mean the government should help me out more than someone frugal who doesn't spend all their money.

I don't mind, truly :hugs When I debate or put my opinion out there, I do so with intent to answer questions or clarify if need be. I get really upset when people feel like I'm attacking them just because I need clarity or have questions, so I try to always be open to being "Called Out" :giggle

I honestly don't have an answer for you though, as far as WHY the deductions exist. Of course I love them, just as I would love the maternity leave if I got it while working, but that doesn't mean that I feel like I'm entitled to either of them, KWIM? If I get them, I will enjoy them, but I don't feel that it's the government's responsibility to give them to me. I tried googling to see if there was anything about WHY the government gives extra deductions for children, but I couldn't come up with anything on it... I just mostly got how much the credits are and who qualifies.

I would think they do it because they want families and the children within them to thrive. To have a better chance for a good education and a good future, because the children are our future.


I think you are right about this... sounds like something that would be said on the campaign trail, and turned into reality to make good on it and strengthen approval ratings.

I don't mind, truly :hugs When I debate or put my opinion out there, I do so with intent to answer questions or clarify if need be. I get really upset when people feel like I'm attacking them just because I need clarity or have questions, so I try to always be open to being "Called Out" :giggle

I honestly don't have an answer for you though, as far as WHY the deductions exist. Of course I love them, just as I would love the maternity leave if I got it while working, but that doesn't mean that I feel like I'm entitled to either of them, KWIM? If I get them, I will enjoy them, but I don't feel that it's the government's responsibility to give them to me. I tried googling to see if there was anything about WHY the government gives extra deductions for children, but I couldn't come up with anything on it... I just mostly got how much the credits are and who qualifies.

I get what you're saying, and I totally agree, especially with the bolded part. I don't agree with the tax rebate, but I'm going to enjoy it since they're giving it out! I wish they weren't giving it out, but I'm not crazy enough to send it back. :P

I also have no clue about the whole tax system either considering at one point only the wealthy paid income tax ( kinda like look i make soo much money i pay income tax, i'm richer then you type of thing) but it has slowly evolved into the rich paying a pittance if anything at all on what they make ( since they can afford tax attorneys who know the loopholes.) After all the time taxes have been around it was just a few years ago that they made it beneficial to file married jointly. The whole system needs to be scrapped and something new take it's place that is for sure.

We are civilains and Im all confused on how you think that they pay more taxes for things FTC? So if a military person lives out in town and uses utilites and daycare they unhide those taxes for them? No. If you ever think about things, we never used to buy our things like shampoo and such on base cause it was cheaper at target. I thnk places like the exchange are the ones that bury taxes on things.

But I didnt even get paid maternity leave. It would have been nice if I did.

We are civilains and Im all confused on how you think that they pay more taxes for things FTC? So if a military person lives out in town and uses utilites and daycare they unhide those taxes for them? No. If you ever think about things, we never used to buy our things like shampoo and such on base cause it was cheaper at target. I thnk places like the exchange are the ones that bury taxes on things.

But I didnt even get paid maternity leave. It would have been nice if I did.

I was simply saying that if you shop on base you don't pay tax. And if you live on base then you don't pay utilities (except I guess for the ones that have implemented shared cost utilities).

But yes, if a military family lives offbase then they would have those same imbedded taxes. I wasn't saying that they "hide" them because they are civilians but they most certainly are there, civilian or not. I was just saying I don't get those bills because I live on base, and mostly shop on base.

I was simply saying that if you shop on base you don't pay tax. And if you live on base then you don't pay utilities (except I guess for the ones that have implemented shared cost utilities).

But yes, if a military family lives offbase then they would have those same imbedded taxes. I wasn't saying that they "hide" them because they are civilians but they most certainly are there, civilian or not. I was just saying I don't get those bills because I live on base, and mostly shop on base.

You should price compare for things you can buy at the exchange to other places. Movies, toiletries and such seem to be cheaper out in town even with taxes.

You should price compare for things you can buy at the exchange to other places. Movies, toiletries and such seem to be cheaper out in town even with taxes.

yes but you can price match at the exchange sans tax, ( which i used to do often) so buying on base at times can be cheaper.

You should price compare for things you can buy at the exchange to other places. Movies, toiletries and such seem to be cheaper out in town even with taxes.

I agree that they generally are cheaper for some things, but the base is less than 5 minutes where Target is about 15 :D

:giggle

i will have paid over 15k (yea, you read that right) in childcare this year... so the child care and child tax credits to me, are very fair....

you don't HAVE to be taxed less... EVERYONE can CHOOSE to have more $$ per paycheck and less at the end of the year by using their exemptions (wisely). some people who are married with kids claim single 0 or married 0 and are taxed more. some people with kids claim married 2 or married 4 or whatever it may be.... in doing that, you do run the risk of owing at the end of the year, so it's always a risk... but as a parent, you don't automatically "get" to pay less for taxes, kwim?

yes but you can price match at the exchange sans tax, ( which i used to do often) so buying on base at times can be cheaper.

I didn't know they price matched :wow Guess what I am going to do today now :lol

Honestly I think it's just another idea on how to stimulate the economy. When people have kids they are spending more (on doctors, education, household goods, gas etc.) and really they are getting back a lot less in the taxes than they are putting in to the economy otherwise. Also, the more kids people have, the more people there are to be paying in SS and other taxes in the future. Just an idea... not sure though

oh and with the rebate - kids SHOULD count for something. it's not like you're being punished if you're single or without children... it's simply an acknowledgement that kids cost money. lol

:giggle

i will have paid over 15k (yea, you read that right) in childcare this year... so the child care and child tax credits to me, are very fair....
you don't HAVE to be taxed less... EVERYONE can CHOOSE to have more $$ per paycheck and less at the end of the year by using their exemptions (wisely). some people who are married with kids claim single 0 or married 0 and are taxed more. some people with kids claim married 2 or married 4 or whatever it may be.... in doing that, you do run the risk of owing at the end of the year, so it's always a risk... but as a parent, you don't automatically "get" to pay less for taxes, kwim?

:yes Exactly!

:giggle

i will have paid over 15k (yea, you read that right) in childcare this year... so the child care and child tax credits to me, are very fair....

you don't HAVE to be taxed less... EVERYONE can CHOOSE to have more $$ per paycheck and less at the end of the year by using their exemptions (wisely). some people who are married with kids claim single 0 or married 0 and are taxed more. some people with kids claim married 2 or married 4 or whatever it may be.... in doing that, you do run the risk of owing at the end of the year, so it's always a risk... but as a parent, you don't automatically "get" to pay less for taxes, kwim?

I don't see it that way. Regardless of whether you pay more or less per check, or if you get a refund or owe at the end of the year, you are going to pay the same amount of tax for the year as a whole. The use of your exemptions doesn't change your tax owed for the year, it just changes how you pay that tax over the course of the year.

When I say parents "get" to pay less for taxes, I'm not talking about the exemptions for tax deduction for your paycheck. I'm talking about the tax deductions you get for them, along the lines of the standard deduction you get for yourself. How does that not make the tax of parents less than the tax of non-parents for the same salary?

oh and with the rebate - kids SHOULD count for something. it's not like you're being punished if you're single or without children... it's simply an acknowledgement that kids cost money. lol

I get it with the rebate. I don't like the idea of the rebate in it's entirety, but if the point of the rebate is to get you to spend money, then I get why they give more money per person.

umm... i pay into uncle sam per year for my kiddos (daycare) just like someone gets a credit for points paid on a mortgage or morgage interest... or that students get a credit for being in school and paying for their educations...

by saying that it's unfair for parents, you're kinda therefore saying it's unfair for those who aren't in school and don't own a home either.

umm... i pay into uncle sam per year for my kiddos (daycare) just like someone gets a credit for points paid on a mortgage or morgage interest... or that students get a credit for being in school and paying for their educations...

by saying that it's unfair for parents, you're kinda therefore saying it's unfair for those who aren't in school and don't own a home either.

ohhh good point.

umm... i pay into uncle sam per year for my kiddos (daycare) just like someone gets a credit for points paid on a mortgage or morgage interest... or that students get a credit for being in school and paying for their educations...

by saying that it's unfair for parents, you're kinda therefore saying it's unfair for those who aren't in school and don't own a home either.


I see that. And I don't think they are fair either. But I do understand their purpose - to stimulate and sustain the economy through the housing market and to level the playing field in access to education.

Unlike those examples, I don't see the purpose in taxing people differently for having children or not, and I don't understand why the government sees it that way.

umm... i pay into uncle sam per year for my kiddos (daycare) just like someone gets a credit for points paid on a mortgage or morgage interest... or that students get a credit for being in school and paying for their educations...

by saying that it's unfair for parents, you're kinda therefore saying it's unfair for those who aren't in school and don't own a home either.

Oh I think that is a point well made Bex!

umm... i pay into uncle sam per year for my kiddos (daycare) just like someone gets a credit for points paid on a mortgage or morgage interest... or that students get a credit for being in school and paying for their educations...

by saying that it's unfair for parents, you're kinda therefore saying it's unfair for those who aren't in school and don't own a home either.

I thought you did agree with paid maternity leave though? :confused I was really interested to see who didn't agree with paid maternity leave, but did think the gov't should have these tax programs.

So far, I don't think anyone fit into that category... but that was what I was trying to understand.

I get it with the rebate. I don't like the idea of the rebate in it's entirety, but if the point of the rebate is to get you to spend money, then I get why they give more money per person.


I'm back peddling... I was thinking that I didn't care who got what with the rebate since I disagreed with the thing in it's entirety.

But the more I think about it, the more I realize that's not true.

We all paid our taxes all year long at the rates the government decide are *fair*. Maybe the rebates should be by the tax rate then, or should be a blanket for each tax paying individual. But to give more to people with kids out of the budget that we all paid into, I think that's crap.

I see that. And I don't think they are fair either. But I do understand their purpose - to stimulate and sustain the economy through the housing market and to level the playing field in access to education.

Unlike those examples, I don't see the purpose in taxing people differently for having children or not, and I don't understand why the government sees it that way.

I honestly think those of us with children are putting more money out to the economy with buying more food, diapers, clothes, medical bills...
although I have already said I think we should be taxed on what we spend, not what we earn!
Is it not also a "choice" to buy a house?
If more people "chose" not to have children, don't you think there would be major problems for companies such as pampers or gerber who are mainly sold for children?

Ok, so i am lost i think. :confused Could someone point me in the direction of why some don't think there should be paid maternity leave?

I would really like to know?

Thanks :D

i PAID into my maternity leave. ;) i have been paying SDI for the last 8 yrs that i've worked (state disability ins) and that funded all 12 weeks of my leave ;) :D

i'm all for that. i never once said a company should HAVE to pay for maternity leave. if they want to, that's really on them.... who am i to have say in whether or not a company thinks they have the funds and the desire to pay for their employees to take leave... that's on them.

but i deserved my maternity leave. $$ comes out of my check every month in disability insurance and state disability is taken from my paycheck, like taxes. every month i pay a ton of money into the system by paying for my children to be in school. it's a credit.

i thnk you'd feel differently if you had kids and paid $$ per month for them to be in school/daycare or paid uncle sam for their various things... or if you were in school... or owned a home....

it always seems that these things seem unfair when you're on the other side of the (non receiving) fence... kwim?

After all the time taxes have been around it was just a few years ago that they made it beneficial to file married jointly. The whole system needs to be scrapped and something new take it's place that is for sure.

Actually - it use to be beneficial to be married and file joint. When Clinton came to office he changed that so more people were living together so they could file non-married single. I believe Bush changed it back. (providing my memory is serving me correctly but that was a huge issue when Clinton was in office with the Rep/conservatives).

I personally think the gov't could manage our money better. For example - I'm not necessarily against stem cell research but I don't think the gov't should be funding that. Let the private companies and those rich people who have the money and want the research done fund it. That's just one example. I think there are other things we could move to privately funded vs. gov't funded and same ourselves some money. I also believe states should do more for themselves, paid for by the people living in that state, instead of the federal gov't always stepping in to take over (and paying for stuff).

I think I'm for a flat tax. I'm not positive though. I think though I'd rather see X amount taxed no matter who makes what. It seems most fair. Then the upper, middle and lower classes are all paying the same so to speak. 10% is 10% of whatever. However if a flat tax goes away then the itemized deductions go away - giving to charity for example wouldn't be any benefit monetarially speaking so would the "rich" start pulling back on the donations that so many non-profit groups benefit from??

I also think though the flat tax would be high - maybe as high as 17-20% to start. I would also be concerned that when the gov't decides they need to pay for something they'd just pass a law (without our being able to stop it) to raise the "flat tax". I'm not so sure I'm ready to see 25, 30, 35% (or more) of DH's paycheck go to the gov't. See when I start thinking it through, I'm just not sure I want to go there. It's one of those things that sounds good and looks good on paper but....not so sure it's really the best thing. ;)

Actually - it use to be beneficial to be married and file joint. When Clinton came to office he changed that so more people were living together so they could file non-married single. I believe Bush changed it back. (providing my memory is serving me correctly but that was a huge issue when Clinton was in office with the Rep/conservatives).

I personally think the gov't could manage our money better. For example - I'm not necessarily against stem cell research but I don't think the gov't should be funding that. Let the private companies and those rich people who have the money and want the research done fund it. That's just one example. I think there are other things we could move to privately funded vs. gov't funded and same ourselves some money. I also believe states should do more for themselves, paid for by the people living in that state, instead of the federal gov't always stepping in to take over (and paying for stuff).

I think I'm for a flat tax. I'm not positive though. I think though I'd rather see X amount taxed no matter who makes what. It seems most fair. Then the upper, middle and lower classes are all paying the same so to speak. 10% is 10% of whatever. However if a flat tax goes away then the itemized deductions go away - giving to charity for example wouldn't be any benefit monetarially speaking so would the "rich" start pulling back on the donations that so many non-profit groups benefit from??

I also think though the flat tax would be high - maybe as high as 17-20% to start. I would also be concerned that when the gov't decides they need to pay for something they'd just pass a law (without our being able to stop it) to raise the "flat tax". I'm not so sure I'm ready to see 25, 30, 35% (or more) of DH's paycheck go to the gov't. See when I start thinking it through, I'm just not sure I want to go there. It's one of those things that sounds good and looks good on paper but....not so sure it's really the best thing. ;)


giving to charity doesn't really help much anyway, cuz unless you're donating more than the standard deduction (which i believe is $10,700), you really don't benefit.

I'm back peddling... I was thinking that I didn't care who got what with the rebate since I disagreed with the thing in it's entirety.

But the more I think about it, the more I realize that's not true.

We all paid our taxes all year long at the rates the government decide are *fair*. Maybe the rebates should be by the tax rate then, or should be a blanket for each tax paying individual. But to give more to people with kids out of the budget that we all paid into, I think that's crap.

Honestly though, if taxes in general were based on how much you spent and what things you bought, and the rebates were donw the same way, don't you think people with kids would probably still get back more do to how much they spent throughout the year raising the child?:dunno

I see that. And I don't think they are fair either. But I do understand their purpose - to stimulate and sustain the economy through the housing market and to level the playing field in access to education.

Unlike those examples, I don't see the purpose in taxing people differently for having children or not, and I don't understand why the government sees it that way.


I'm quoting myself because I agree it's a choice and therefore unfair at the root of it. I said I understood their purpose from a government standpoint, on how it improves and stabilizes the economy for people to buy houses, so it makes sense to me.

I guess if you look at children as a boost to the economy, then I can see how the same thought process would apply. I just don't think of them that way.

I don't really see why the government should give tax breaks for kids to encourage more people choosing to have kids to help keep kid oriented businesses going though. I think that's a stretch. :dunno

I honestly think those of us with children are putting more money out to the economy with buying more food, diapers, clothes, medical bills...

Definately!
With 3 teenagers getting ready to leave the nest in the next year to 5 years our spending is going to drastically go down.... groceries, clothing, gas for vehicles (not having to run teens around is going to drastically change my gas bill :P)....
Of course when they go out on their own they'll be responsible then for groceries, clothing, gas, etc... so $$ will still be going into the economy but it'll be out of their pocket not ours and we'll not longer get all the tax breaks we get now.

i PAID into my maternity leave. ;) i have been paying SDI for the last 8 yrs that i've worked (state disability ins) and that funded all 12 weeks of my leave ;) :D

i'm all for that. i never once said a company should HAVE to pay for maternity leave. if they want to, that's really on them.... who am i to have say in whether or not a company thinks they have the funds and the desire to pay for their employees to take leave... that's on them.

but i deserved my maternity leave. $$ comes out of my check every month in disability insurance and state disability is taken from my paycheck, like taxes. every month i pay a ton of money into the system by paying for my children to be in school. it's a credit.

i thnk you'd feel differently if you had kids and paid $$ per month for them to be in school/daycare or paid uncle sam for their various things... or if you were in school... or owned a home....

it always seems that these things seem unfair when you're on the other side of the (non receiving) fence... kwim?


Nope, that's not true. I might not be paying for child-associated costs yet, but I am trying my hardest to get pregnant, and have been for years. I did get my Bachelor's, and pay student loans. I've started my Masters, and pay student loans. And I own my own house. My second one to be exact.

giving to charity doesn't really help much anyway, cuz unless you're donating more than the standard deduction (which i believe is $10,700), you really don't benefit.


Between church, Goodwill drop offs and a few other non-profit groups we like to give to each year it makes a BIG difference on our tax returns. We probably give apprx. $4000 each year between them all. We get most of it back in our income tax returns yearly.

ETA: my statement regarding the non-profit groups really was wrapped in the flat tax. If I were "rich" - let's say like Bill Gates rich and I had a handful of non-profit groups (ie charities) that I gave to each year...if the gov't decided to tax me a flat rate then the question would be why should I bother donating to charity organizations if I'm not going to get anything back for doing so (like they do now). I realize a person should give, to be giving and kind and a good person but let's face it - most "rich" give to get back from the gov't at the end of the year.

It is an outrage that waiters, waitresses, and other service-sector employees have to pay taxes on the tips they earn. The IRS makes an estimate of how much service-sector workers will make in tips, and taxes them on it even if the taxpayer did not actually earn as much as the IRS' estimate!

Tips provide a substantial portion of the income of many service-sector employees, many of whom are young people just trying to make a few extra dollars to get through school, or single parents often balancing two jobs while trying to make enough to raise a family. This tax amounts to nothing more than the federal government punishing these employees for working hard and doing their jobs well.



Not saying who said this... but what do you all think about this quote??

Nope, that's not true. I might not be paying for child-associated costs yet, but I am trying my hardest to get pregnant, and have been for years. I did get my Bachelor's, and pay student loans. I've started my Masters, and pay student loans. And I own my own house. My second one to be exact.


so do you think getting your credits for those when you do your taxes is unfair? just curious.

Between church, Goodwill drop offs and a few other non-profit groups we like to give to each year it makes a BIG difference on our tax returns. We probably give apprx. $4000 each year between them all. We get most of it back in our income tax returns yearly.

ETA: my statement regarding the non-profit groups really was wrapped in the flat tax. If I were "rich" - let's say like Bill Gates rich and I had a handful of non-profit groups (ie charities) that I gave to each year...if the gov't decided to tax me a flat rate then the question would be why should I bother donating to charity organizations if I'm not going to get anything back for doing so (like they do now). I realize a person should give, to be giving and kind and a good person but let's face it - most "rich" give to get back from the gov't at the end of the year.

do you have other itemizations, because if it's less than the standards, i wouldn't see how that would help?

Between church, Goodwill drop offs and a few other non-profit groups we like to give to each year it makes a BIG difference on our tax returns. We probably give apprx. $4000 each year between them all. We get most of it back in our income tax returns yearly.

OUr family only makes about $25,000 a year... how are we supposed to be able to GIVE $5000-10000 of that to charity and still be able to live? If we do itemized deduction and not standard, then we would OWE the government money!! That is crazy for lower-class working families to OWE the givernment money when they have paid taxes throughout the year on top of it.

I think that as long as our tax system is income based, then they should pay taxes on their income, whether it be tips, hourly wages, whatever.

so do you think getting your credits for those when you do your taxes is unfair? just curious.


In the big picture, yes. Definitely! As I said before, I'm not crazy enough to send the money back, like with the rebate, but I don't think this system of credits is fair at all, my credits included.

OUr family only makes about $25,000 a year... how are we supposed to be able to GIVE $5000-10000 of that to charity and still be able to live? If we do itemized deduction and not standard, then we would OWE the government money!! That is crazy for lower-class working families to OWE the givernment money when they have paid taxes throughout the year on top of it.

You don't have to. That's what we do.
We give 10% to church. The rest of it is small. Trust me, I'm not making any $1000 contributions to anyone ;)

At least there's an option of standarized or itemized ;)

You don't have to. That's what we do.
We give 10% to church. The rest of it is small. Trust me, I'm not making any $1000 contributions to anyone ;)

At least there's an option of standarized or itemized ;)

we do 10% to the church as well, and donate items to good will and such... but still there's no way it would even add up to more than the standardized... and if we didn't get the child tax credit this year, we wouldn't have gotten anything, because we lost money in the sale of our home, which we had to sale in order for hubby to join the Army because we took a HUGE paycut for him to join the Army.

we do 10% to the church as well, and donate items to good will and such... but still there's no way it would even add up to more than the standardized... and if we didn't get the child tax credit this year, we wouldn't have gotten anything, because we lost money in the sale of our home, which we had to sale in order for hubby to join the Army because we took a HUGE paycut for him to join the Army.

I am in awe at people who give 10%. I really think that takes a lot of committment and discipline. My grandfather is the only person I've ever known to do that faithfully, and I thought it was kind of an old-fashioned thing. But lately, I've met a few young couples who do it, and I think that is awesome.

I actually don't really mind it. And I have no kids, lol. I'm grateful that I don't have to spend a LARGE percentage of my money on stuff for kids to begin with, lol, so I don't mind getting less of a rebate or whatever on my taxes, because the smaller amount I do get back, I get to keep all to myself :D

(sorry in advance for this out burst)Coming from someone that has been in the 'basement' for living at times and hard to make the dollar strech at times and a mom of 3... the "extra tax money' at tax time if a god sent for us cause for most of the year we are trying to raise the kids and letting bills slip to make sure that they the children are cared for.

Bex, we did a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE donation to the Goodwill this year, more than 12 HUGE bags full of NICE clothes. I would estimate that the clothes were worth AT LEAST 3K and was under the impression that we could get to claim that as a deduction and get some back. Boy was I PISSSSSED when I realized that EVERYONE already gets this 10K "standard deduction" so my clothing donation was worth NOTHING. I didn't see a dime of it back and I really feel like I was mislead by the salvation army commercials that say the donations are tax deductible like you'll actually get the money back. We didn't get a dime for those clothes and I really wish I would have just hung on to them or ebayed them. :(

Bex, we did a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE donation to the Goodwill this year, more than 12 HUGE bags full of NICE clothes. I would estimate that the clothes were worth AT LEAST 3K and was under the impression that we could get to claim that as a deduction and get some back. Boy was I PISSSSSED when I realized that EVERYONE already gets this 10K "standard deduction" so my clothing donation was worth NOTHING. I didn't see a dime of it back and I really feel like I was mislead by the salvation army commercials that say the donations are tax deductible like you'll actually get the money back. We didn't get a dime for those clothes and I really wish I would have just hung on to them or ebayed them. :(


I was confused about this too. Over the last few years, our itemized were higher than the standard, so my contributions and donations were deductible. But this year, the standard was higher than our itemized, and I didn't realize it wouldn't be a deduction. I could have saved a lot of time typing out lists of donations and looking up their donation values.