Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who wanted to SAH and arranged my life in such a way to do that, I definitely don’t want to pay higher taxes to pay for other women to have free childcare and year long paid maternity leaves! Yes SAH is my choice, but why does my family have to pay another family’s daycare and long maternity leave?

I would argue it's the same consideration as public schools - plenty of people pay property taxes that go towards paying for the schooling of other people's children. We decided that an educated population is a public good.

Education is primarily funded at the local level giving citizens the ability to choose form a variety of taxing schemes and funding mechanisms. That you can move to Texas or Wyoming where tax policy is more aligned with your personal views is an important societal outlet. That’s not what people are pushing here.

Where and how childcare is funded is a tangential discussion. All states have compulsory schooling requirements paid by taxes. I am sure something similar in terms of fundingcan be put in place for childcare. I agree that it should be implemented at the local level rather than federal.

Its not tangential if 90% of it is being funded by the federal government. Whereas with schools, the local tax base determines both the cost and quality of the schools.

Again, the discussion is whether we as a society should provide certain social benefits, not how.

The how predicates the answer. No I do not want to fund extraneous social benefits that raise my federal taxes and provide no further benefits to myself or my family - just takes money for our pocket.

Police, fire, roads, health insurance, military are a common good. Susan sitting at home making formula at 3PM is not.

F*** you, I've got mine!

Because most people are completely indoctrinated bought into the nonsense that suits conglomerates, corporate greed that is.
In fact, they are so eager to promote and vote against their interest. This is not just GOP, Dems are complicit in the biggest lie as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.”

- Thomas Sowell

Most of the people pushing for higher taxes don't even have jobs in the first place. So they don't care. Doesn't effect them and if it does - the outlay of being given $3,000+ a year per child with no restrictions for 18 years is a far more lucrative prospect than the increase in taxes they'll have to pay to put into the pot.

The rest of us aren't interested in paying for the family they decided to have.

This. Takers gonna take.

Bullshit. We have an HHI of $250k and I would be fine with paying a bit more if it helps others who need it - and accordingly, anyone with a higher HHI than myself can DEFINITELY afford to pay more.

You can always cut a few extra checks to Charities or churches.

She can even donate right to the Feds on her tax forms. Nothing is stopping her from paying more right now.

Lots of temporarily embarassed millionaires on this thread who have no idea how badly they’re getting screwed over.

The OP is a moron. It has to do with motivation. It is very simple and if you understood basic human behavior, you’d get it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who wanted to SAH and arranged my life in such a way to do that, I definitely don’t want to pay higher taxes to pay for other women to have free childcare and year long paid maternity leaves! Yes SAH is my choice, but why does my family have to pay another family’s daycare and long maternity leave?

I would argue it's the same consideration as public schools - plenty of people pay property taxes that go towards paying for the schooling of other people's children. We decided that an educated population is a public good.

Education is primarily funded at the local level giving citizens the ability to choose form a variety of taxing schemes and funding mechanisms. That you can move to Texas or Wyoming where tax policy is more aligned with your personal views is an important societal outlet. That’s not what people are pushing here.

Where and how childcare is funded is a tangential discussion. All states have compulsory schooling requirements paid by taxes. I am sure something similar in terms of fundingcan be put in place for childcare. I agree that it should be implemented at the local level rather than federal.

Its not tangential if 90% of it is being funded by the federal government. Whereas with schools, the local tax base determines both the cost and quality of the schools.

Again, the discussion is whether we as a society should provide certain social benefits, not how.

The how predicates the answer. No I do not want to fund extraneous social benefits that raise my federal taxes and provide no further benefits to myself or my family - just takes money for our pocket.

Police, fire, roads, health insurance, military are a common good. Susan sitting at home making formula at 3PM is not.

Because less than half of us pay for all the “free” stuff you want. When every single person pays a flat % or a minimum amount for those who can, but don’t, work then I can get behind the entitlement society. In the meantime, I pay enough toward government waste.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.”

- Thomas Sowell

Most of the people pushing for higher taxes don't even have jobs in the first place. So they don't care. Doesn't effect them and if it does - the outlay of being given $3,000+ a year per child with no restrictions for 18 years is a far more lucrative prospect than the increase in taxes they'll have to pay to put into the pot.

The rest of us aren't interested in paying for the family they decided to have.

This. Takers gonna take.

Bullshit. We have an HHI of $250k and I would be fine with paying a bit more if it helps others who need it - and accordingly, anyone with a higher HHI than myself can DEFINITELY afford to pay more.

You can always cut a few extra checks to Charities or churches.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those of you "happy to pay more taxes" should donate to charity. The rest of us are not "happy" to. We are stlll paying for aftercare, our own student loans, and saving for our own kids to go to college. Its not my responsibility to do that for other people too. But you are free to donate your money if you like!

You’re an idiot. You do realize that you wouldn’t have had to do any of this if there were higher taxes, correct?

We almost 60 years into the war on poverty. As Andrew Sullivan recently pointed out, we’ve spent 140 times on the Great Society programs as we spent on the Marshall Plan. At this point only someone actively denying the reality of the past 60 years could believe that more spending will fix societal ills.

You are not as well-off as you think you are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those of you "happy to pay more taxes" should donate to charity. The rest of us are not "happy" to. We are stlll paying for aftercare, our own student loans, and saving for our own kids to go to college. Its not my responsibility to do that for other people too. But you are free to donate your money if you like!

You’re an idiot. You do realize that you wouldn’t have had to do any of this if there were higher taxes, correct?

We almost 60 years into the war on poverty. As Andrew Sullivan recently pointed out, we’ve spent 140 times on the Great Society programs as we spent on the Marshall Plan. At this point only someone actively denying the reality of the past 60 years could believe that more spending will fix societal ills.

Anonymous wrote:Those of you "happy to pay more taxes" should donate to charity. The rest of us are not "happy" to. We are stlll paying for aftercare, our own student loans, and saving for our own kids to go to college. Its not my responsibility to do that for other people too. But you are free to donate your money if you like!

You’re an idiot. You do realize that you wouldn’t have had to do any of this if there were higher taxes, correct?

Those of you "happy to pay more taxes" should donate to charity. The rest of us are not "happy" to. We are stlll paying for aftercare, our own student loans, and saving for our own kids to go to college. Its not my responsibility to do that for other people too. But you are free to donate your money if you like!

Anonymous wrote:OP conflating student loan debt relief with free college is idiotic. I’m all for free state schools but the idea that taxpayers would foot the bill for unemployable gender studies majors rewards imbeciles who have made a long stream of bad decisions.

Not a whole lot different. I believe there currently are no restrictions on majors for Bright Futures recipients in Florida.

If anything, student loan forgiveness is useless unless it’s either in conjunction with the conception of free College (*tuition*, I don’t care where the student lives or eats during school), or new loans stop being issued.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who wanted to SAH and arranged my life in such a way to do that, I definitely don’t want to pay higher taxes to pay for other women to have free childcare and year long paid maternity leaves! Yes SAH is my choice, but why does my family have to pay another family’s daycare and long maternity leave?

I would argue it's the same consideration as public schools - plenty of people pay property taxes that go towards paying for the schooling of other people's children. We decided that an educated population is a public good.

Education is primarily funded at the local level giving citizens the ability to choose form a variety of taxing schemes and funding mechanisms. That you can move to Texas or Wyoming where tax policy is more aligned with your personal views is an important societal outlet. That’s not what people are pushing here.

Where and how childcare is funded is a tangential discussion. All states have compulsory schooling requirements paid by taxes. I am sure something similar in terms of fundingcan be put in place for childcare. I agree that it should be implemented at the local level rather than federal.

Its not tangential if 90% of it is being funded by the federal government. Whereas with schools, the local tax base determines both the cost and quality of the schools.

Again, the discussion is whether we as a society should provide certain social benefits, not how.

Anonymous wrote:Those who are fine with spending some of their HHI for other families are certainly free to do so, and many do. We donate quite a bit to local programs b/c I feel they do a better job than those run by the government.

I worked in a safety net program in Baltimore. It was related to healthcare for children( birth - teen), including mental health services. We had a committee that met routinely that included many such programs. Honestly, there were a tremendous amount of services many of them vying for the same population. Are use the term vying as they were grant funded.

I walked away from that program after four years coming to the realization that there is a lot of money, time and other resources spent for a fairly small population. And the results were alarmingly and depressingly poor. Throwing more money at the problem sadly is not the best answer.

Not necessarily. There is no common standard for charities. I have worked with a few and it's questionable how much end point service or resources they truly provide. A lot of money goes towards the building, staffing, and marketing efforts of the charities.

I would say, it's perhaps more efficient if neighbors helped neighbors. The assistance in those cases are direct targeted and highly efficient. But the urbanization of the US population have turned people cold to the idea of a community. The so called diversity and inclusion efforts are superficial preening for most who brag about living in cities. In practice, they just want to shrink into their personal space and not engage with anyone in their neighborhood. To me, this is one of the saddest development of the US culture within the past 50 years.