trying to grok

Try to grok the bigger picture, and take it from the 3rd richest man in the world:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/art icle1996735.ece

Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

q -- Congrats on missing the point of my post entirely and twisting it so you could make your own point.

If I missed the point in your two-sentence treatise, then yes I do deserve a commendation. I assumed you were on the topic of lower tax levels for families with kids versus families without. My point was maybe, as Warren Buffett testifies, the whole tax system is to be questioned. If that's a major twist for you, maybe you should see a back doctor.

You already do pay proportionally more taxes for the two of you than a married couple with children, because of the deductions for children. Anything other than that is ridiculous.

Let me amend: anything other than that, that is specifically aimed at giving other people more money to raise their children, is ridiculous.

q -- My point was about taking personal responsibility for raising your own children without stealing money from others to do so. I do agree the tax system is broken, but that's another point entirely.

The personal responsibility dogma, ala the Ayndroids. Seems like quite a dodge. Does the idea of people with less disposable income paying less taxes than those with more really constitute stealing to you? How far do you carry that argument -- aren't all taxes stealing, then? Seems more likely you are on a roll of posting on a cranky lark. Maybe it's time to go back to knitting tales.

q -- Look, did you even click on the link? It didn't say anything about rich people. It asked whether "dual income zero kids" folks should have to pay higher taxes. My brother-in-law and his wife fall in that category, and together they bring home about $3000 per month. What on earth makes it OK for them to have to pay more taxes than their peers with kids? They should not be punished for choosing not to start a family. This article's question doesn't rule out the fact that my brother-in-law might be expected to pay more taxes than someone who makes MORE money than him, simply because that person has kids and he doesn't. That's absurd. If you choose to have kids, you choose to provide for them. Why do you get to demand that others should contribute to your childrearing?

What a silly idea! Please! We have 2 short of a hockey team, and I choose to stay home. The funny thing? We have MORE disposable income and a more comfortable life now than we did when we had three kids and a dual income family!

I submit the idea that part of the problem is our collective horrible money management skills - and we have no one to blame for that but ourselves. God knows hubby and I have had to be smacked a few times with the debt stick to finally figure it out.

But never ONCE did I think anyone owed me anything. Heaven forbid!

S, I agree with you -- basically neither family should be paying high taxes. But by participating in this rather artificial dog-eat-dog discussion you are pitting these types of families against each other, when the real culprit is the history of tax cuts for the rich. Hence my first "twisted" post.

q,

I'm trying to figure out what you're saying. Do you think that:

- if tax cuts were minimized or eliminated

- and the rich paid what you consider to be their fair share of taxes

- then neither family would be paying high taxes?