From: h on

"Napoleon" <anarch(a)666yes.net> wrote in message
news:agqef5hbkq37u8fk30dqi801ch26meatb2(a)4ax.com...
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:17:59 -0500, Ohioguy <none(a)none.net> wrote:
>
>
>> The child tax credit is designed to encourage people to have kids.
>>Although kids do take up resources in the short term, they also become
>>tomorrow's taxpayers.
>
> Hey OGuy, I thought you were against govt interference in your life?
> You know, socialized medicine and all that. But you're willing to suck
> at the teat of the govt for the tax credit? Seems a little
> hypocritical.
>
> No matter, the crappy health bill passed the house. Let's hope it's SO
> BAD, that we can get real socialized medicine here someday. It
> certainly would be more useful than a child tax credit. At least
> socialized medicine BENEFITS EVERYONE, not just those who have kids.

OhioGuy seems to have the mentality typical of the flyover states. He wants
the gubmint completely out of his life UNLESS it's shoving money into his
pockets. He says he believes in "personal responsibility" and then gloats
about the taxpayers funding his lifestyle choices.


From: SoCalMike on
Ohioguy wrote:
>> Oh for god's sake! When will people realize that they should be TAXED
>> for having children, NOT receiving tax CREDITS for producing more
>> resource suckers. DISGUSTING!! PLONK.
>
> I guess it really depends on how you raise them. I'm going to raise
> mine believing in minimal government and maximum personal freedom and
> responsibility.

so youre moving to canada?
From: Ohioguy on
>But that cost will be passed on in the price of goods.

Likely in the cost of goods we don't consume or buy. :-) Even if we
do end up buying or consuming them, I often get things at yard sales,
thrift stores, or when they have been marked down 40% or more at retail.

We try to keep our consumption of goods rather low, and as such, this
will help, not hurt us. If we consumed more than our fair share, it
might hurt us in the long run.
From: Ohioguy on
>At least socialized medicine BENEFITS EVERYONE, not just those who have kids.

As I explained before, the tax credit benefits families with kids in
the short run, and then those kids turn into taxpayers in the long run.
It is a short term investment, with a long term return on investment.
Sort of like how people put money down up front to start a business,
then get a return on their investment.

Also, socialized medicine does not benefit those who are healthy, and
would otherwise have no need to visit a doctor or take pills. It
typically benefits the very old, at the expense of the young.


> OhioGuy seems to have the mentality typical of the flyover states.

Wow, is that how you wackos (I don't like the term liberal - it seems
too dignified for the range of ideas you espouse) refer to most of the
US these days?


> the gubmint completely out of his life UNLESS it's shoving money into his

I want the government to perform basic duties. I would prefer that
they don't hand out money. However, in this case, we were already
buying a house that is going to be eligible, and I'm pretty well
convinced that we can make better use of it than some bureaucrats. They
would probably build a bridge to nowhere, or fund a scientific study
that everyone with some common sense already knows the answer to.


>But you're willing to suck at the teat of the govt for the tax credit?

Your inference would be correct, if this was a recurring thing such
as welfare, medicare, or social security. "sucking at the teat"
generally means making someone dependent upon regular "feedings".
However, I believe this program is a 1 time tax credit that is made
available to what is likely to be a rather small portion of the
population. I also don't think that the primary goals of welfare,
medicare or social security are to help stimulate the economy.

This is essentially a tax credit - similar in some ways to a
deduction. Of course, I would much prefer that we have a flat tax, or
ideally a "fair tax". Either one of those would get rid of deductions
and exemptions. Everyone would pay a fair share of taxes, depending on
their consumption. The overall "hidden" taxes we pay on everything
would disappear, and the economy would benefit like crazy.
From: Rod Speed on
Ohioguy wrote

>> At least socialized medicine BENEFITS EVERYONE, not just those who have kids.

> As I explained before, the tax credit benefits families with kids in the short run, and then those kids turn into
> taxpayers in the long run.

Its very arguable whether indigenous kids are better value than immigrants as taxpayers.

> It is a short term investment, with a long term return on investment.

Not necessarily, particularly with the kids of welfare queens
etc. So many of them end up dependant on welfare too and
end up in jail, and are VERY expensive to keep in there.

> Sort of like how people put money down up front to start a business, then get a return on their investment.

Nothing like in fact.

> Also, socialized medicine does not benefit those who are healthy,
> and would otherwise have no need to visit a doctor or take pills.

Yes it does. It completely eliminates any possibility of being
bankrupted by a serious medical problem or accident etc
and eliminates any need to insure against those risks.

> It typically benefits the very old, at the expense of the young.

It also benefit those with kids, because they have substantial
health care costs. In spades with premature kids etc etc etc.

And the vast bulk of the young end up old eventually too.

>> OhioGuy seems to have the mentality typical of the flyover states.

> Wow, is that how you wackos (I don't like the term liberal - it seems too dignified for the range of ideas you
> espouse)

You and your ilk in spades.

> refer to most of the US these days?

>> the gubmint completely out of his life UNLESS it's shoving money into his pockets.

> I want the government to perform basic duties.

Doesnt matter what you want, there arent enough to want what you want to matter.

> I would prefer that they don't hand out money. However, in this case, we were already buying a house that is going to
> be eligible, and I'm pretty well convinced that we can make better use of it than some bureaucrats.

It never ends up in their pockets.

> They would probably build a bridge to nowhere,

Have fun listing all of those.

> or fund a scientific study that everyone with some common sense already knows the answer to.

Or fund the CDC which does nothing like that.

>> But you're willing to suck at the teat of the govt for the tax credit?

> Your inference would be correct, if this was a recurring thing such as welfare, medicare, or social security.

Its just as true of one offs.

> "sucking at the teat" generally means making someone dependent upon regular "feedings".

Nope, they can be irregular too.

> However, I believe this program is a 1 time tax credit that is made
> available to what is likely to be a rather small portion of the population.

Still sucking on the welfare teat.

> I also don't think that the primary goals of welfare, medicare or social security are to help stimulate the economy.

It obviously does that anyway.

> This is essentially a tax credit - similar in some ways to a deduction. Of course, I would much prefer that we have a
> flat tax, or ideally a "fair tax".

More fool you.

> Either one of those would get rid of deductions and exemptions.

Like hell the last one does. Have a look at the prebate sometime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Tax#Monthly_tax_rebate

> Everyone would pay a fair share of taxes, depending on their consumption.

Another lie. Those on the lowest incomes would pay a grossly unfair share of taxes without the prebate.

> The overall "hidden" taxes we pay on everything would disappear,

Yes.

> and the economy would benefit like crazy.

Another pig ignorant lie.


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: Definitions of Frugality
Next: Cat gets sick with swine flu