BTW, why does every response from you contain snark?
I feed you snark because that is what I see you dish, not just in posts to me but to virtually everyone with whom you disagree. You quite apparently didn't read my post for what it said but for how you see the world. Indeed, you are pulling the classic leftist stunt here of equating a tax-reduction to an entitlement expense and apparently see the entire question of increasing population as increasing demand for entitlements. It's not true.
Children of tax-PAYERS are more likely to be future tax-PAYERS, producers, not a demand for entitlements. For example, my kids were educated at home. They never used a dime of taxpayer money until they went to college, where they earn their way as tutors (and pay taxes). My wife and I are tax PAYERS, and would have had more kids if we could have afforded it. Instead, we have paid hundreds of thousands of tax dollars for parasites that breed, and believe me, given that my wife has been caring for newborn babies for thirty years, we have seen more than our share of drugged-out welfare moms pumping out babies. Hell, in California, MediCal is even paying for infertility treatment!!!
This proposal of Santorum's is about which kind of children we want: children of payers v. children of users. Will you or nil you, there will come a time when you depend upon the next generation for your survival, whether you are paying for it or not. Without future tax payers there won't be a future nation upon which you depend for its continuity alone; there won't be an economy, a national defense, or the infrastructure that houses, clothes, treats, and feeds retirees; they will be numerically overwhelmed by users.
This isn't about us anyway, but about what kind of nation we leave behind. Santorum is right for wanting to make things easier on middle class income tax-PAYING parents.
Bull.
My first posts to you both today and last week contained no snark. You were the one who initiated the snark simply because I disagreed with you. Last week I ignored it. This week I didn't.
Perhaps you think I'm trying to post a gotcha just because I disagree with you. Don't think that. Try to have a normal conversation when somebody disagrees with you.
Indeed, you are pulling the classic leftist stunt here of equating a tax-reduction to an entitlement expense and apparently see the entire question of increasing population as increasing demand for entitlements. It's not true.
You can't help yourself can you. Your remark is both snide and false. I never said that a tax reduction was an entitlement expense.
and apparently see the entire question of increasing population as increasing demand for entitlements. It's not true.
The way social security and medicare is set up right, a majority of the people take out or are scheduled to take out more than they put in.
This proposal of Santorum's is about which kind of children we want: children of payers v. children of users. Will you or nil you, there will come a time when you depend upon the next generation for your survival, whether you are paying for it or not.
One should never have to depend upon a larger number of people in the next generation to pay for ones social security and medicare. If that is what you are saying, then I disagree with it.
Beyond that, across the board tax cuts work best. Government shouldn't be using the tax code to encourage or discourage the number of children people have or to encourage or discourage anything except the funding of legitimate constitutional functions.
“Children of tax-PAYERS are more likely to be future tax-PAYERS, producers, not a demand for entitlements.”
You seem to have a logical contradiction here. By tripling tax deductions for children or, heaven forbid, tripling the child tax credits, Santorum would turn tax-PAYERS into tax-FREELOADERS.
Tripling the exemption would mean a family with 4 children would pay no income tax on the first $66,000 of income not even counting any of their other deductions. A family like Santorum’s own, with 7 kids, would have to earn over $100,000 before they owed a dime in federal income tax.
Children raised by parents who never owed taxes are unlikely to support smaller government when they expect to duck out of paying for big government by shifting their tax burden just like their parents did.
Funny, that's exactly the logic Santorum used to object to Newt's social security reform. He called Newt creating private social security accounts a "new entitlement" ("in his post-debate interview with Hannity, he called Gingrich's Social Security privatization plan a new entitlement program because it would entitle people to keep money they would otherwise pay to the government"). And that very social security reform would largely reduce the burden on "future generations" to pay for older people's social security. The current model is an unsustainable and inequitable Ponzi scheme. The solution to it is reform based on private accounts, not on trying to find new people to enter into the bottom of the pyramid scheme.
“This proposal of Santorum’s is about which kind of children we want: children of payers v. children of users.”
Santorum is right for wanting to make things easier on middle class income tax-PAYING parents.
“Which kind of Children.” That is discrimination.
Make ALL Children - Children of Taxpayers is how you make it easier on the middle class. Put the Freeloading parents to work through welfare reform.
How exactly do you think Santorum can give something to the taxpayers but not to the Freeloaders.
Apparently, you found this unsatisfactory. You want to increase the subsidy so that you can pay millions instead of paltry hundreds of thousands....