Screwed up tax laws.............

[Marvinteck]

I filed my income taxes on Friday and should have them back in 2-3 weeks. I am getting $XXX amount of dollars back for a refund. I found out if I could claim one dependent (child) on my taxes I would get $3800 (2389.48 GBP) more back than I am now. If I claimed two dependents on my taxes I would be getting $7000 (4401.68 GBP) more back than I am now.

Long story short The USA government will send you a fat check at tax time if you are single and have kids. I find it appalling as an single bachelor with no kids that the government is paying these people more than they pay into the system all year long. No wonder why our country is so far into debt. GGGGRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!:mad:

Paid in $2000
Refund $xxx
Refund w/1 kid +$3800:eek:
Refund w/2 kids +$7000:mad:

[marshlander]

Nothing to do with hosing money into a corrupt banking system or pursuing illegal foreign adventures then?

I take it you don't consider yourself part of a society?

[Marvinteck]

Nothing to do with hosing money into a corrupt banking system or pursuing illegal foreign adventures then?

I take it you don't consider yourself part of a society?

The USA's government is in debt to the tune of fourteen trillion dollars. We are currently fighting two wars. Not to mention the nationwide health care that is being pushed on us by Obama. The government is pissing away money like there is no tomorrow. We elect these clowns into Washington and they go crazy by spending even more money that the country doesnt have. I consider myself part of American society however I have no control over how the federal government manages it's money.

US govt debt hits record high - world - business | Stuff.co.nz

[TimmyThink]

i guess that just the way things are, procreate and get rewarded.
In Canada here we got a thing called Baby Bonus, i forget how it actually works but i think like every 3 or 6 months people get a wade of cash for having kids.

As a fellow bachelor I do sympathize, on the other hand kids are expensive little bastards.

[marshlander]

Maybe we are speaking at cross purposes? In the UK we also have a debt problem caused, in part, by the very same reasons I mentioned above (i.e. greedy bankers and illegal foreign military adventures). Today we have had to listen to our (unelected) Prime Minister rabbiting on about the proposed changes to the health service (and education) here too.

I am happy to see my taxes used for providing good basic health care, education and social support, all marks in my view of a civilised society. I cannot get my head round the health system you seem to have. My son, who lives in Colorado, has to pay thousands in medical insurances and has to hope that none of his kids suffer, for example, mental health problems, because he can't afford to have all possible eventualities included in his plan. I guess it is down to what we are used to, but I don't see private health care (or private pensions, for that matter) providing as good a service for all as a decent properly funded state service paid for out of taxes. On the other hand, those who can afford to pay extra get to jump the queues for treatment. I guess I'm one of millions of Europeans who hear the fuss being stirred up by the prospect of health reform in the USA and are at a total loss as to why people are apparently so selfish as to not care what happens to others. As to the lies being told about our National Health Service by those opposed to Obama's proposals, let's not go there :mad:

I daresay I don't understand the issues, but it just seems weird that my son and his colleagues at his dental surgery only manage to see the people most in need of treatment on the special days they have when they work for free. :confused::confused::confused:

You don't say whether the tax system rewards each additional child or whether the tax advantages stop at two kids? I don't see a problem with that. I would want to know that there is an upcoming generation that can keep the country running when I'm too old to be useful. In these days, when deciding how to have a sustainable population is an important issue, I might wonder at the wisdom of unfettered tax relief for those families with thirteen kids ... but giving support for limited number seems reasonable ... surely?

I just think it is all a much more complicated picture than simply complaining about the amount of tax we pay. Sometimes I wish I had some understanding of economics so all this stuff made sense.

[fredv3b]

Marshy, sorry to disagree but....

In the UK we do not have a debt problem, we have a deficit problem. The total debt of HMG as it stands at present including all the money we had to borrow to buy stakes in the banks is quite manageable. The deficit, the amount that HMG needs to keep borrowing each year, is the problem.

The bail-out of the banks may in time turn out to be profitable depending on what HMG manages to sell its stakes for. Certainly, they will get back the great majority of the money they spent. The problem with the bankers was not greed as such, but excessive risk taking and bonus structures which encouraged risk taking. The Defence budget is only about 6% of the total budget.

[marshlander]

Thanks, Fred. I knew you'd know the answers!

[Cardiganwearer]

If you really want to view your tax situation as a personal profit and loss account (and it really isn't like that) consider this. Those kids growing up today are being fed and nurtured by their parents so that they can grow up to usefull, productive....taxpayers.

When you're sixty five they'll be paying for your medicare and they'll be paying more tax if they've got good jobs and an education. Consider the money you pay now as savings for your future.

Tax is the price we pay to live in a civil society under the rule of law and if you don't pay an elected government to maintain that, you'll be paying someone else for sure.

If you have problems with the notion of government and taxation in general let me commend Somalia to you, they in effect have neither and the weather's nice.

[Marvinteck]

I guess it is down to what we are used to, but I don't see private health care (or private pensions, for that matter) providing as good a service for all as a decent properly funded state service paid for out of taxes. On the other hand, those who can afford to pay extra get to jump the queues for treatment. I guess I'm one of millions of Europeans who hear the fuss being stirred up by the prospect of health reform in the USA and are at a total loss as to why people are apparently so selfish as to not care what happens to others.

The health care system in the USA is weighted to benefit the wealthy and the cost of health care is extremely expensive here in the states. The cost of health insurance is outrageous and paying doctor bills out of pocket are almost equally outrageous. President Obamas health care reforms do have some good points as well as bad points. The main reason I am opposed to the current reform law is because it mandates every citizen be covered by health insurance. If you arent insured by 2013 the government is planning on fining people $700 per year that they arent covered by insurance. I currently dont have health insurance for two reason. Reason number one its to expensive and I cant afford to buy coverage right now. Reason number two is because I am still young and fairly healthy so I dont need health insurance. I shouldnt be forced by the government to buy coverage or else get fined. Under the current reforms I am going to start getting punished for not being able to afford health insurance and for being healthy. As citizens we should have a choice if we have insurance or not. I am not being selfish by not wanting insurance forced on me. If the government wants to provide health coverage to the citizens then so be it but leave me out of it. The other reason I am opposed to the reforms are the waiting list for treatment you mention. If I have some thing wrong with me I want it fixed asap.

Currently the public pension system here in the USA called social security is joke. They definitely dont give you enough to survive on and by the time I am old enough to retire the system is going to be bankrupt. If social security isnt reformed in this country I wont have a pension to look foward to when I retire. As it stands now I dont have make enough money to save up for a private pension of my own.

You don't say whether the tax system rewards each additional child or whether the tax advantages stop at two kids? I don't see a problem with that. I would want to know that there is an upcoming generation that can keep the country running when I'm too old to be useful. In these days, when deciding how to have a sustainable population is an important issue, I might wonder at the wisdom of unfettered tax relief for those families with thirteen kids ... but giving support for limited number seems reasonable ... surely.

To answer your question the tax advantage drops of sharply after two kids. There will be a next generation whether or not the government hands out big fat checks or not to parents. Simply put people like to fool around in the bedroom and as a result the next generation is produced. The parents that get these big fat checks arent spending the money on taking care of the kids. They go out and spend it stupid stuff like big screen tv's, stereos, computers, furniture and cars. I see it as very fiscally unsound paying these parents more money than they pay in taxes just because they have kids. We shouldnt be paying people more money than they contribute into the system during the year. A reform of the current tax laws would be one way of reigning spending by the government and bringing down the national debt. As I said before if the government stopped handing these checks out people would still have kids regardless and the nation would still have future taxpayers to screw over..

If you really want to view your tax situation as a personal profit and loss account (and it really isn't like that) consider this. Those kids growing up today are being fed and nurtured by their parents so that they can grow up to usefull, productive....taxpayers.

When you're sixty five they'll be paying for your medicare and they'll be paying more tax if they've got good jobs and an education. Consider the money you pay now as savings for your future.

Tax is the price we pay to live in a civil society under the rule of law and if you don't pay an elected government to maintain that, you'll be paying someone else for sure.

If you have problems with the notion of government and taxation in general let me commend Somalia to you, they in effect have neither and the weather's nice.

Social security will be bankrupt by the time I am of age to retire. There is two things guaranteed in life, they are death and taxes. I am not against taxes or government. I just grow angry and concerned when said government is reckless with tax dollars furthering the tax burden on tax payers. One more thing that ticks me off to no end is when they dont listen to the people who elected them into office. They are more concerned about taking care of fat cat lobbyist and looking out for there best interest like who gave them the most money for there election campaign. I agree I couldve been born into a third world country and been worst off than I am now. On the same note though things could be a whole lot better here in the states if the government would get its head out of its ass and started listening to the electorate instead of looking out for its best interest.

[fredv3b]

What happens if you go to the ER and can't/don't pay?