brinett9 0 Posted May 4, 2006 If I have 1 kid, what do I pay? 2 kids? And more importantly, do conjoined twin kids count as 1 or 2? What about if one of the conjoined twins is just like a parasitic extra head or something? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ilov80s 0 Posted May 4, 2006 I wouldn't want less money going to the schools. It would be the same total amount. Ahh...just not out of your pocket. Thanks for the help. I guess the idea that it takes a village to raise a child is well beyond you. If somebody doesn't drive a car, should they get money back from the Department of Transportation? If someone's house doesn't catch fire, should they not have to support the fire department? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patriotsfatboy1 1,432 Posted May 4, 2006 And more importantly, do conjoined twin kids count as 1 or 2? We already decided that they count as 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
torridjoe 48 Posted May 4, 2006 Yes, they do. I don't get your point. I'm saying that education is something everyone gets. It's a universal cost. Not everyone in their lifetimes will use the police, or fire, or even roads. But by law, everyone here gets a K-12 education. Since it's a universal requirement, it's a universal part of the tax code. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brinett9 0 Posted May 4, 2006 I'm saying that education is something everyone gets. It's a universal cost. Not everyone in their lifetimes will use the police, or fire, or even roads. But by law, everyone here gets a K-12 education. Since it's a universal requirement, it's a universal part of the tax code. That still doesn't resolve the issue of why a childless couple pays the same as a couple with 12 kids. Unless you're saying that the 12 kids will eventually pay for the education they already got, which means they'll pay for it forever, hence, 'a childless person pays for his own education forever'. I think the even distribution of school taxes among people regardless of whether they have kids or not can legitimately be regarded as unfair. I also think it's a good and necessary thing. It's a very important part of having a civilized, healthy society. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
torridjoe 48 Posted May 4, 2006 That still doesn't resolve the issue of why a childless couple pays the same as a couple with 12 kids. No, it doesn't. It only explains why we should all pay for it in general. I think the reason that we shouldn't pay for it on a kid-by-kid basis is that the tax code is already ridiculously complex. We need fewer, not more, different ways to assess and credit taxes in this country. I recommend Ron Wydens Fair Flat Tax, which I would be happy to present and discuss with anyone. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeff Garcia 8 Posted May 4, 2006 A parent without a kid... I just noticed that. No, it doesn't. It only explains why we should all pay for it in general. I think the reason that we shouldn't pay for it on a kid-by-kid basis is that the tax code is already ridiculously complex. We need fewer, not more, different ways to assess and credit taxes in this country. I recommend Ron Wydens Fair Flat Tax, which I would be happy to present and discuss with anyone. Wow, something I actually agree with you on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
