Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> Nate Duehr wrote:
> 
>> On Mar 7, 2008, at 12:09 PM, James Newton wrote:
>>> That argument always bothers me. Even DINKs will live in the society and
>>> economy of the future. Poorly educated kids will build a poor society
>>> and poor economy for everyone; themselves AND the aging DINKs.
>> Agreed.  Right up until the point where I pay MORE taxes than those  
>> who claim dependent children and get refunds for those taxes.
> 
> Don't those who raise kids invest in the infrastructure that will keep you
> alive when you're old? How do you factor this in? 

That's a reason I should pay more for such infrastructure today even as 
I continue to pay taxes into my retirement years?   (They don't stop, 
you know.)

Not following your logic there.

Not following what infrastructure their kids are building for me, in my 
old age either... really.  Or why I need it?

Maybe you could explain.

> In the earlier days, when there was little or no public infrastructure, it
> was your kids that kept you alive when you were old. Now, it's the
> infrastructure (I mean this in a very wide sense: human and material,
> public and private) that does this -- but this infrastructure is maintained
> (when you're old) by the kids of the ones who are raising them now. You
> just get to freeload and use the infrastructure anyway, even if you don't
> have raised any of the kids that will providing you with it. 

Actually if you do it right, you live off your own money, and use very 
little "public" infrastructure.  People want government to do it 
instead, I guess... not me.

Without bringing up the Social Security problems we have here in the 
States too heavily, since the topic was education reform...  I'm not 
planning on seeing any money from that program in my aged years.

Most of my generation isn't.  The boomer generation that never saved any 
money and is now saying, "I can't save enough to make it to the end of 
my life" will finish bankrupting it long before then.

Politicians will "save" the program, but at a high debt-load for the 
entire country -- which will cause further reduction in the monetary 
value, bankrupt a whole bunch more of us, and generally is a stupid way 
to "fix" it... when the boomers were the ones who didn't save.

(By the way, both of my parents DID SAVE and are of course, from the 
Boomer generation... both retired early from modest jobs, and neither 
has a college degree.  Both calculate that they can live on their 
existing incomes through their late 90's.  YOU CAN do it... you just 
have to give up buying the electronic crap, the flashy cars, and 
whatever else the "American Debt Consumer" buys these days.)

But... a few wise investments in high-end nursing homes for the boomers 
should have at least a few of us directly behind the boomers sitting 
pretty in our retirement years.

(GRIN... that or the more traditional forms of investment and growth of 
wealth.)

> There are of course different ways to "factor this in". Paying higher taxes
> while you are paying (income) taxes may be an approach with relatively
> little hardship on the ones without kids. Paying an assumed "shortage rate"
> on everything when they're old would be potentially much harder. (The
> "assumed shortage rate" is the rate a service would cost assuming that
> there are no or very very few people around anymore to do it :) 


What "infrastructure" are you claiming that my taxes in my old age won't 
cover?  I'll still be paying property taxes, sales taxes, tax on any 
Social Security or other income received... (Remember, most income from 
retirement plans that are tax-deferred today are still taxed, albeit at 
a lower rate, later... I'll still be paying PLENTY of taxes in my 
retirement years!)... it's not like the taxation stops all of a sudden 
somewhere, and I become a "burden on society".

Right now, the way I figure it:  I pay far more than my "fair" share 
throughout my entire adult life (unless I adopt a child -- which is 
certainly a noble cause, but we're talking about taxation rules here, 
and education reform, not about my personal choices to have or not have 
children), continue to pay just like everyone else into retirement, have 
the added expense of MAKING SURE I've saved enough money for my wife and 
I to be taken care of by professionals someday (no kids around to take 
care of the arrangements for us either) and then... I'm somehow a 
"burden" to the people getting the discounts?

I don't get it.  Enlighten me.

The reality, in my view is, "dependant" discounts on taxes were meant to 
help the poor.  I fully agree that a few hundred extra dollars back a 
year can literally make life-changes for working families below the 
poverty line.  I also understand that while I think it's STUPID for 
really poor people to have children... it's going to happen, and as a 
member of society, I'll pay for their education, etc.

But... what I don't get is the middle-class and up getting "dependent" 
discounts on their taxes.  Those folks are educated enough to know how 
expensive having kids is... they know the math... and they get a tax 
BREAK for every little ankle-biter that dad and mom pop out?

It's only there because of politics.  It makes ZERO economic sense, and 
is a motivator to poor people to behave the wrong way, even.

Of course, if you want a REAL flame-fest...

You can have your tax refunds for up to TWO kids.  As soon as you've 
finished "replacing yourself" you are tax PENALIZED.

(That'll start a round of crazy responses for sure... lots of "moral" 
issues there... and the religious folks would NEVER let the politicians 
go against "family values"... follow the money... eight kids means a 
much bigger take at the church collection plate in a very short number 
of years... LOTS of churches highly recommend reproduction at higher 
rates than just replacing the parents in society...)

Nate
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist