Just because people have children, doesn't mean they deserve to pay less taxes. If gov can considder giving credits, extra deductions, refunds, and whatnot - they are TAKING TOO MUCH! The gov at all levels drastically needs to reduce spending. Gov keeps getting bigger n bigger due to this pet project or that social program, so they *cough* need to increase the buget.

A much more equitable tax system is needed.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Well if that is the case then something is wrong or people in the executive branch need to get in touch with the IRS. </font>

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
I agree Night Stalker, but I think we are just discussing the most recent tax cut and not what in theory "should" be done [img]smile.gif[/img] I am completely against any form of income tax at all...the only taxes that ought to exist are fair use taxes...guess those are called VAT's...at least then, you can decide which items you wish to contribute to. </font>

Who pays for the military?

I agree there should be no taxes what so ever. For each paved road or bridge that is built set up a troll booth to force people to pay to move onto the next road. For your military they should just send you a bill each month to pay for the cost. etc. etc. etc.

I think after awhile you will see that some taxes are necessary. :D

Based on what? Reagan's tax cuts of the 80's? Because Bush's tax cuts haven't done a damn thing but help the rich get richer so far... They certainly haven't stimulated the economy as is attested by the 6% unemployment rate.

But I do like how it has increased my business as a tax accountant. I get a lot of my clients are all calling me about what this will do for them = billable hours. I tell them that they're (despite 19% of americans thinking so) not in the top 1%, virtually the only ones this tax cut will materially help.

I explain to them that just because they're making good money doesn't mean this tax cut will help. This tax cut is aimed primarily at the wealthy, not the high-earners.

The real benifits go to those that have millions of dollars invested in the stock market.

Now, my retirees argue with me: Then they say, but my SEP-IRA/Keogh... Which I reply "are all ready tax free while in the retirement trust" and are "ordinary income" when withdrawn. So, that doesn't help you at all.

Now, when my very rich clients call, they are very happy. That's another 30K+ (or more) income they won't pay taxes on... Not that they'll actually spend it, mind you. It all goes back into the stock market via DRIPs and creates paper wealth.


See, the difference between the rhetoric spewed and the reality of the law. I deal with this rhetoric all the time. But when the returns are prepared and i tell people the impact, I tell them the truth:

Unless you're a multi-millionaire heavily invested in dividend paying stocks, you won't materially benifit from this. Further, it is unlikely it will stimulate the economy (sorry about that luxury service providers) as advertised because most dividends are reinvested.

This assumes that the only purpose for the tax code is collecting money. Any rudimentary course in the tax code will teach you that the next biggest purpose is influencing public policy. It's all over the code.

* Families are good. Thus, there is a child deduction credit. This credit is to take account of the fact that families with children spend money supporting the kids.

* There is also a child care credit. This allows you to take a credit for the money you spend on daycare. It is to encourage the working parent to get a babysitter. Money increases under this credit cut off after 2 kids, for 2 reasons. (1) It costs less per child to babysit for more kids. YOu needn't pay 4X as much to babysit 4 kids as you do 1, as a babysitter will likely do it for 2X the amount. (2) While families are good, overpopulation is bad. This is one of the few instances in the code we see Congress encouraging *smaller* families.

* Accelerated depreciation on vehicles and office equipment has no basis in reality. Rather, it is to encourage businesses to buy stuff.

* Charities being tax-exempt is one thing, but allowing you to deduct the money or property you donate to charity is totally based on the public policy need to encourage charities.

In general, the tax code is rife with instances of public policy "encouragement," and Congress just can't get enough of it.

Another point I want to make now:
<h2> Sunset Provisions: </h2>

The new changes sunset, or end, in 2006. There has never been a sunset provision in the tax code before. Thus, if Congress does not reauthorize these changes in 2006, the tax code reverts to how it read day before yesterday.

Wonderful wonderful post Draconis Rex. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] I'm glad someone in the trenches can confirm what is widely suspected.

I have a question: I know a pensioner who argues that the dividend cut will benefit them greatly, as they get monthly dividend checks and the % rate will drop. True or False?? Thanks for any reply.

[edit]
Other things lauded as helping middle income earners are:
1. Marriage penalty reduction
2. 2% decrease in payroll taxes
3. The already-discussed $400/child credit increase

What about these?

Sorry to be so detailed, but if I can get an expert on the hook to edu-ma-cate me, I will. :D

[ 05-30-2003, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Ahhh yes, the perversion of tax mentality - that it is not only to provide revenue for public services, but also to affect society. It was not always thus.

People with disposable income spend it. Those with children spend it on child rearing. Those that don't have children spend it on other things. The economy is not affected more by people with children vs people without.

No, I haven't studied law, but I am well versed in logic - and these types of arguements have failings in them. Also I do not recall the political writings of the Founders mentioning that taxes were for social reform (again I must defer to your expertise).

Populations need many different parts to survive: producers, consumers, providers, and reproducers (to name some). Not every member needs for fit every catagory for the population to be successful. Nor to those that fit certain categories contribute any more than others - all are needed.

Not unless spending is cut. I'm not for returning one red penny to taxpayers unless it represents one less penny of government <s>waste</s> spending. Wouldn't you agree? Irresponsible use of credit will get anyone into trouble. </font>[/QUOTE]Perhaps, but I will take my own irresponsible expenditure of *my* own money over the government doing the same with it, any day of the week.
This article was interesting. The moaning now is about people making under 20,000 per year not getting a refund check back. So lets all get honest here, these people pay little to no tax to begin with. If a family does not pay any tax, why then would they be "entitled" to a tax refund? That makes no sense at all! This isnt a welfare bill its a tax reduction bill. If one doesnt pay taxes in the first place, they do no apply to a tax reduction!