What would you think if you were single and your company gave a 10% cost reduction

for individual and a 50% cost reduction for family coverage on health insurance?

My childless friend pays a good chunk of taxes for the elementary and high school. The same as I do, and I have three kids in school.
Not really fair is it?

along with the police who serve everyone, roads you may or may not personally use, etc...

Why am I responding to such a reactionary post on DU? *sigh*

various public efforts (roads, police, schools, local government, etc...). Don't be an ass.

But if I choose not to spawn, I think there should at least be some tax credits.

and of course it has never occurred to you that the better educated they are, they more money they will pay to keep social security solvent?

How about you be excused from school taxes and in turn they get their social security tax reduced? Fair trade?

I'd hate to think anyone else's spawns have to fund your social security and medicare.

Your friend does not benefit from the fact that children are educated? Your friend does not have a physician? an accountant? a mechanic? He benefits from public education just like everyone else. Far better for him we live in a society where education is expected.

I really hate this argument when people make it. My folks died before collecting Social Security, as their heir, I want the money back. I am not a farmer, I do not irrigate crops. It is not fair that I pay for the construction of reservoirs and their upkeep. I have a four wheel drive vehicle, why should I pay taxes for the snowplow. I can drive just fine in the snow, I have studded tires too. IT'S JUST NOT FAIR!

Come on! We are a SOCIETY! WE ALL DEPEND ON EACHOTHER!

Our culture says that if you do not have children you are somehow just a little bit less of an American than everybody else.

It's not a liberal-conservative issue either. It's just the way things are.

living their lives.

the amounts are much higher for a family than they are for a single person.

but it's NOT the same percent.

I don't have any. My child does.

Don't make me work any harder than that... ;-)

I have no insurance either.

move to Oregon. This is how I see it...

I own property in California. I pay taxes on that property every year so that the children of all my old friends are educated. The forest is kept safe by fire fighters who help keep the residents and our forest land safe. The highway that runs to the top of Ebbett's Pass, I help pay for that so people from all over the country can experience its beauty. I don't mind paying for those things. Not at all.

On the other side of the coin. I live in Oregon. I pay no taxes. I live in an apartment. My son is insured through the KidConnect health insurance program. He attends Oregon schools. Do I feel like a freeloader? No.

I think it all works out in the end. Don't you? :shrug:

live in? Really? Wow.

That's why this state used to issue Renter's Refund Checks.

But, either way you look at it... it still evens out. That's my only point.

insurance premiums to people with children.

and I said I wasn't up to doing the math without the premium info. And, I'm still not up to it. B-)

ETA: You chose to create this sub-thread, and I responded.

but that doesn't really matter. Today we have choices: celibacy, birth control, abortion, and adoption. And no, birth control doesn't always work, trust me I know that, and celibacy is not always within our control, however that still leaves two options. Bottom line, if you really don't want to be a parent and raise a child, you do not have to do so.

I'm single and I get upset with the breaks those who are married with children get, but I also know that family medical coverage premiums are often astronomically higher than coverage for a single person.

is run by Mormons or fundies.

Not the least of which is the $10,000+ per year per child's public school education. And of course there's also the various tax credits.

I believe in public education. It's not a subsidy to the families with children. To do otherwise is called PRIVATE education.

But if only those with children paid into the fund for public schools, they would still be public schools -- they would still be paid for through progressive taxation of families and available to all children. Anyway, I don't what that. But from the outside looking in it can be a little bit frustrating as a single person staring at the myriad tax breaks and the like.

By state and federal law, mind you, at least from a legal perspective. I understand :)

Who said that I must not be paying any taxes because he's read and heard Rush Limbaugh say that most people don't pay taxes. I laughed and said I wanted to show him my IRS 1040. If you're working full time doing darn near anything and single, you're not gonna have zero income tax! There just really aren't any tax breaks for singles and the ones that do exist phase out at extremely low levels. For instance, there is no EITC for singles who make over $13,450 a year (roughly minimum wage) yet if you have one kid, that limit jumps to $35,535.

That most people like HIM don't pay taxes.... taxes are for suckers.

They don't own real estate though, and they appreciate the benefits of an educated society.

It's all an inter-generational "bargain".. or at least it used to be before obsessive greed set in..

NEED competent doctors, nurses to attend them. Firefighters and police to call upon. EMT's who will come to their door and pick them up and/or recesitate (sp?) them when they've fallen or suffered a stroke/heart attack.

THAT's why, even though you are childless, you would want to give some extra benefit to those that do slog thru having children. Those "children" will be of benefit to you, childless one, who doesn't have anyone else to call on. geez.

We are ALL connected. We are all one community. And people who don't understand that are very myopic.

I didn't and don't disagree with anything you said.

It's safe to stop breeding.

gets all craziefied. :eyes:

"We've got enough doctors in the school system now"

YEAH!!!

Oh wait, they didn't come from singles/childless couples now, did they?

Don't pretend making me pay for something is doing me a favor.

that they don't need 'subsidizing' for people that see it as 'slogging through having children'.

*IF* there were an issue with population growth then we might need incentives for people to have more kids, as well as good public education which really addresses the point of not having doctors etc. There is the separate issue of having a well educated population which is really IMO divorced from the issue of having kids or being single, either you want to live in a society where people are educated, opportunity, economic growth, etc or you want to let them have few choices and probably end up committing crimes/etc.

People with kids have more connections, the possibility that their kids won't be creeps and actually help take care of them in their old age. Childless people will have to pay for people to care for them or 'hope' that their are some nice people willing to volunteer or donate to systems that help take care of them absent government assistance. There is the trade off have kids you have a larger family, more people related to you with higher chances of getting assistance from them and having meaningful relationships that often are stronger than friendships BUT there are costs involved in bringing up caring for a family. Being childless has the benefit of not having to spend the money or time raising children BUT you don't have all those connections, unless through siblings etc, so you are 'removed' from that direct tie.

It isn't necessarily that the idea is "do it on your own" but is it fair to put a higher burden on some people when there MIGHT not be a need to do so OR those getting the benefit MIGHT not need it. A family making 180k a year MIGHT not need a 50% discount on their health insurance for 2 adults and one child, a single person making 25K MIGHT need more than 10% off their insurance if they even had it offered at that job/could afford it. Just as a family making 70k might actually need 50% off their insurance for two adults and 4 kids and the single person making 120k might not really need 10% off their insurance.

I saw the op's issue being about fairness and in the example given it isn't fair, it could be fair in certain situations but not all as with most things it truly depends on the details.

Without knowing that, it's impossible to tell whether this is fair.

I propose this.

no kids: pays X%.
1-3 kids: pays X + 5%.
4+ kids: pays X +15%.

So there's an incentive to have a reasonable number of kids or have no kids at all.

Where am I going wrong with this thinking?

btw, You and slackmaster should really hook up - if you aren't one and the same already.

I think that the only people who should be permitted to vote on matters pertaining to the levy and rate of property taxes are property owners.

Only one half of my property tax assessment is designated to benefit the school district. Among other things, the remainder of my property taxes are used to pay damages awarded or assessed against the city/county. Every citizen ought to share in those damages. Same thing with respect to providing for some services (e.g., health, EMS, library, parks) which are funded by my property taxes.

Still a hell of a bargain if you have 10 kids and a house with a similar value to mine.
My county is building schools like they're going out of style. If I could sell the place, I'd move somewhere else because they taxes are too high. If I had kids, I'd see a lot more value in the schools part of the assessment.

general services that benefit all citizens? People who do not own property and pay property taxes do not experience the direct negative impact of increases in the property tax rates. The only impact they feel is through some indirect voodoo economic trickle down effect where maybe some of the increase is passed on to them or somebody around them. But it seems they sure as hell benefit more often than not at the expense of the property owners they outnumber.

My property tax includes an assessment for city parks - and there is a city park about a quarter mile from my house. I'm frickin lucky if the city manages to mow the grass once a month. The city says they don't have the money to open the pool so they haven't for several years now. They do manage however to open the same five city pools every summer - none in neighborhoods that are remotely convenient to my neighborhod. Why the hell am I funding city parks? Seems to me that that is an expense that all citizens should share - and a service that should benefit all citizens equally.

I don't particularly object to my property tax being used to fund the public K-12 school district provided (1) the only folks permitted to vote to determine that tax rate are the property owners who bear the consequences of those decisions and (2) only property owners are permitted to elect the school board members responsible for directing the activities of the school funded by those tax dollars. Perhaps those who do not own property but want to have a vote in such matters should be afforded the opportunity to buy the right to vote in those elections - with the cost of doing so representative of the amount the median area homeowner pays in taxes and subject to increases directly proportional to changes in the property tax rates.

I do object to my property taxes being used to fund community colleges and technical schools. High schools ought to be responsible for fundiing and operating their own vo-tech programs. The community colleges and technical schools accept students from outside the county (and from outside the state) that assesses the taxes and they receive state funding. Why the hell should my property taxes be used to subsidize the education of an adult student from another state?

If I'm paying $5,000 a year in property taxes and could move somewhere where the property taxes are only $2,000 a year and have a reasonable expectation that I'm going to stay there for at least five years without expecting a significant increase in my property taxes then I can sell my house for $15,000 below market value and still break even. I'd just might make that deal in a heartbeat. The poor sap who buys this place at a discount can assume the liability of paying property taxes that may not benefit him and which may be imposed by largely non-property owner voters. It's a great deal.

For example.
I do believe a portion of our income taxes should go into a fund that covers the public college tuition of anyone wanting to go. Can you believe that I just said that?
Well in order to do that, you'd have to regulate the costs of the universities, much like you'd have to regulate medical costs in a modern universal healthcare system. Right now, that isn't being done to a satisfactory level. There's no incentive because people that want to go to college just go get a loan or pay out of pocket. It's relatively fair but it's very difficult for someone who doesn't make a lot of money and doesn't have enough saved up to go further their education.

But unlike property taxes which is a flat tax based on the value of the home, income tax is taxed at a rate based on your income. Theoretically, the more you make, the more you would pay.

I believe that when it comes to owning property, there needs to be a basic level of security so that if you own a home, you can never be kicked out for not being able to come up with the thousands of dollars it costs to live in even a modest home. A lot of that has to do with our for-profit housing system. That's a discussion for another day. In the mean time there needs to be a more fair way to assess property tax. Your average 3rd grader could come up with some practical solutions in a matter of minutes, I'm sure, as one of the first things they usually teach you in grade school is the concept of fairness.

As a member of my HOA, I know that a lot of owners have similar complaints to yours about the dues paying for ammenities that they don't use. I don't quite agree with that fact that people shouldn't be taxed for things like parks that they may or may not use, but they need to be able to opt for a lower millage rate based on the value of a home, provided there was a significant variance in values (which there usually isn't) or the rate was based on income.

is assessed based on the taxable value of the property. That taxable value is less than or equal to the fair market value of the property. It is entirely possible that one could own a home with a fair market value of $500,000 and a taxable value of $500,000 while the neighbor down the street owns a home with a fair market value of $500,000 and a taxable value of only $400,000. Some red state genius came up with that scam.

I've got no problem with making property taxes progressive such that all property owners pay a minimum rate of property tax which may then be adjusted upward based on earnings. Here property owners over age 65 can claim a double homestead exemption as can those with a household income below $20,000. Certainly there should be some basic level of security for homeowners.

If my property taxes include funding for things like city park operations then my neighborhood park out to benefit from those funds. The city park system owns 15 pools around the city yet they have determined that they only have funding to operate 5 of those pools during the summer. That's been true for several years now. By the third year the pool in my neighborhood park ought to have been opened - or I should have had the park portion of my property taxes discounted. Your HOA analogy doesn't hold true here. I'm funding an ammenity that I would use but which has been allocated in such a manner that such use is grossly inconvenient. To use a city pool this summer I will have to travel over 15 miles through several areas of road construction - a commute of about an hour coming and going. And there is no readily available public transportation to make that city pool available to the teenagers in my neighborhod who might otherwise utilize that pool. I have never been a proponent of privitization however I would welcome a for-profit third party taking over our city pools and operating them. I suspect that is the only way that I - and others in my neighborhood - will have access to services that we are funding for other citizens in the city.

I've got no problem with property taxes being used to fund K-12 public education. But everyone ought to contribute to the costs of things like park operations, litigation and claim settlement, higher education and technical education, library services, and health and emergency services among others. Everyone benefits. A personal property tax assessment in addition to a real property tax assessment could insure that such costs are borne by all.

What do you say?

but family obligations preclude me from doing so at the moment.

I'm an only child caring for my aging and ill parents. Parents who cared for all four of their parents (my grandparents) and who have already buried two children (my siblings). One parent is an only child and the other was the baby of the family. There isn't anyone else to help care for them.

What precludes you from running for office and having one of those good paying political jobs?

wouldn't exactly give me a leg up in my area. }(
But I've thought about running. When I have complaints, I feel I have a duty to try to make things better. The first thing I'd do is propose a new construction moratorium on homes and warehouses until resale inventory is below a certain level.
It's bad enough we have this housing crises but these get-rich-quickers built these warehouses everywhere that sit empty. When a business wants a warehhouse, they build a new one. I guess I don't need to be elected to go before the board and propose these ideas.

a.) Everyone is going to get old, there's 100% chance of it. Therefore it's a service entitled to everyone.
b.) It's a miniscule amount compared to the schools part of the assessment.

You also gotta remember that presumably married couples share the cost of home ownership and if they're both employed, they are better positioned to handle spikes in property taxes. Single people making the same amount, have to pay those expenses all by themselves.

If you ever wonder why young people support privatized social security, take a look in the mirror. If you have no desire to support them while they are young, why should they support you when you are old?

If you want a freeper's dream of raw capitalism, breaking the bonds that link all elements of society is a good place to start.

Why is it that if you want to try to have a civilized discussion on here, you get insulted or accused of being a member of the other team.

Maybe you can help me understand but it seems that you think it's fair that such a large percentage of property tax is assessed equally regardless of one's ability to pay.
Because that's a lot like a flat tax that the nutbaggers have proposed. (two can play this game)

Until housing becomes proportionally cheaper for singles or people who have fewer people living there, then property tax that assesses every property at the same rate for schools is unfair.

find it easier to pay for the same piece of property than a single person? As far as I know, there is no corporation in America that has a graduated pay scale based how many kids you have. I am spending a lot of my money to raise my kids - my choice and I have no complaints. You will indirectly benefit from my investment as they grow up, get jobs and pay taxes. They will care about your welfare to the same degree you care about theirs.

education system, economic system, health system or enough jobs for all the children being produced.

I fail to see how society is going to benefit from people having kids than can be supported.

What I do see however, is that the more people that have kids, the more schools need to be built, the more my taxes go up. Once again, I ask; How is that fair?

I can see it being fair if some reasonable conditions are met. For starters, if there was housing that was proportionally cheaper based on the number of children that live there then this flat tax on property would be more fair. Or the other idea I have is progressive taxation for people based on their number of children. That levels the playing field. If you don't want to have the added expense of children (on average $250,000 in expenses per child until they turn 18), then the choice lies with the couple. Reasonable exceptions could be made for people that adopt children.

Even in this right wing hell that I live in, socialism is totally ok as long as it's to do with schools and children. Hypocrisy alert! Hypocrisy alert!

are you also willing to forgo the same percentage of profit you make when you sell? As I understand your scheme, you would pay less in taxes for the same property yet realize the same profit when you sell. Talk about having your cake and eating it too!

You also need to check your demographics - school populations are shrinking in many places. Our birth rate is below the replacement rate. America also has a graying population - the median age has never been higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Median_age

Because I don't believe we should make money when we sell our homes.

I think everyone should be able to afford their own piece of america. I think people should get paid fair and reasonable salaries for building said pieces. But I don't think that homes should appreciate, nor should they be used as investments.

The rapidly appreciation of homes makes it so a lot of people are priced out of communities.

Excuse me for butting in, but your assumption "a" is false--we will not all "get old."

a substantially higher percentage than me, so I would have no problem with it.

In case it's necessary -> :sarcasm:

Married people with children and or just 'children' ARE more equal . . . I look at this as a single childless woman in a large wireless telecom. There ARE more benes at my company for marrieds and/or with kids. Ideas we've shared with our company to even things out - make it more 'Women Friendly' or so these craptastic magazines are always saying "It's so."

* Fair hours. Just because I'm a single/childless doesn't mean I don't have a family. Policy wise - this is getting much better. Personally?
Screw my co-workers. I have a mother that lives 450 miles away and she wants to see me at Christmas. When questioned by a 'family worker' this past holiday about "why for three years do you get this off?". I smugly said - I ask early. Singles should be putting in their Holiday time off in July/August and make sure you put it in writing. BTW - my response to the co-worker also included . . . Shouldn't matter to you - your family is sleeping the bedroom next door.

*Fair benes. I.E. Giving a 'grocery store' list of items to choose from. This was part of 2011's benes to some degree. So all of those perks and extras (since families take far more from the health insurance pool) - give us all a flat amount. If I choose to use mine at the Y for access to swimming and a local auto repair shop - then so be it. I also roll mine into our Elder Care insurance program. Basically I call it Daddy Day Care. If my father has another stroke - I have 'insurance' to cover in home visiting nurse service. It's kind of cool. Each worker gets one set amount of the 'perks money'. Love it.


In the outside/Team America world - I don't think it's the best policy to cheat our married and/or with children families out of education or TANF. That benefits us all.

But in our working environment - especially mine (technology) that is just everyone for themselves and fiercely competitive? Knock the other guy/gal out of the way and get yours and don't allow them to guilt you into letting them have their way.

If more single, never married, no kids realized their OWN worth and that they DO have a family it's just not the "Cookie Cutter Americana Version" - there will be a lot less of the bullshit they personally have to deal with.

Care and nurture of the young is a duty of the SPECIES
if the SPECIES is to survive.

Hopefully, your parents got a little help in the care
and feeding of YOU.

Scandinavian countries help out a lot MORE than the
US does.

In fact, MORE should be done to help with the costs
of raising the next generation.

Perhaps you all should have been left as infants on a mountainside
to starve.....

It's sensible for employers to try to keep a stable workforce.

Get rid of the marriage tax breaks. And dependent child tax breaks.

While us single, childless people don't get the luxury of leaving work early.

...so why does it merit any kind of special treatment at all?

This is coming from someone who is child-free, but also with a number of friends with kids of different ages.

The benefits provided to employees with kids or families are something different or better then what are provided to single people, but there is a reason for it. They are *benefits*. Plenty of larger campus like companies offer free gym access or things like that, is that discriminating against those that don't like to work out?
It is an extra perk for folks with kids, and speaking on behalf of quite a few people with kids, their overall medical bills are higher. The larger question that was brought up earlier in this thread was how much are premiums? Because even with a decent discount a family is still much more likely to have more of their paycheck go to medical costs then a single person. The bigger issue is if the rates are too high for the single people rather then are they too low for the family.