In article , "Kim"
writes:

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
igy.com...

"Kim" wrote in message
...

Yep. Why should a person's abilities determine what tax they pay? Is
there
a deduction right now for a lack of abilities? One thing I think ought
to
be done away with is elderly folks paying school taxes. It's
ridiculous.


Not at all. The elderly benefited in their youth from public schools and
in
their productive years from schools for their children. Do you honestly
think that in that limited time span that the percentage of the tax that
went to the schools was enough to cover their own education and that of
their children? My total annual property taxes are less than it would
take
to send one child to private school for one year. The public schools make
it up by spreading it over a taxpayer's lifetime. Or are you saying that
during their working years, a person's property taxes ought to be
increased?


Welp, whatever it takes, I suppose...I'm just not a supporter of as much
taxation as there is.

Nobody is - that's the easy part.

What services are you willing to give up in order to have less taxation? Less
road maintenance and construction? Less police and fire protection? How about
cutting the military budget? Education? Social Security? Medicare/Medicaid?

Your post reminds me of the scene in "Simple Life" where Paris Hilton and
Nicole Ritchie are at the checkout counter in the supermarket. The total is
almost $65 and they only have $50. They bat their eyelashes and ask "Can't we
just have it?" (I am not making this up).

And, I think Sr. Ctitizens shouldn't have to pay
taxes

Why not?

Many senior citizens have significant incomes, from both employment and
investment. Why should they be exempt? They already get an extra persoanl
exemption just for being over 65.

Tell ya what, Kim - find a senior citizen of "average income" in your area and
pay his/her taxes out of your own pocket.

and that if that needs to be accommodated, then the school taxes
should be increased during the years of some hereto-undertemined-age-limit
based timeframe. YMMV

So the people who are struggling to raise and educate their kids, pay for their
mortgages and their careers need even more of a tax burden?

Keep in mind that even if a person never has children, they still benefit
from the public education of the community as a whole.

Unless they grew up outside the USA, they also benefited from the school system
that was in existence when *they* were growing up. Even if they went to private
school, a public school system existed for them.

If they did not
pay
school taxes, they would end up paying increased taxes to support an
increased number of people on welfare. It's far cheaper to pay school
taxes
so people can be productive than to support them on welfare.

Exactly!

Hmmm, hadn't thought about the people not having kids. If they aren't going
to add to the burden of society (terrible way to put that...but) by having
kids, then they get the break, too.

If you think kids are a burden to society, why did you have so many?

And remember that educating children is an investment in their productive power
in the future.

Senior citizens can be "a burden to society" (your term, not mine) in the form
of Medicare, Social Security, etc. Yet you would give them tax breaks.

After all...it'd probably come up a
wash anyway; a trade for the tax-break they'd get on their annual income for
not having to pay school tax if they don't have kids.

More like not having to pay back for what they got as kids.

I like the idea of giving people who choose *NOT* to have kids breaks (on
local school taxes), as well as those who choose to have kids (on federal
income tax deductions).

You forget that the people who don't have kids had public education avaialble
to them when they were growing up.


Whatever the IRS considers as income...the total taxable income that is
reported on a W-2--and that's determined by IRS rules, which ultimately,
I
suppose are determined by we the People (yeah, right, but you get the
gist).


They keep changing the rules on that you know.



Yeah, but this is a democracy

No, it's a constitutional republic.

--we have a voice in that (pfffffft, right,
eh?).

Sure we do. Unless you don't vote.

73 de Jim, N2EY