Never understood this and taxes. — Brooklynian

Never understood this and taxes.

Why should people have a tax break if they have kids, in fact it should be the opposite, you should be tax more for having kids, they are drain on resources. Just make no economic sense at all. Damn you and your no sense making taxes!

Comments

  • Good thing you live in the city - most people that live in the suburbs pay EXORBITANT property taxes - of which, more than 65% are for education. So, if you live in Armonk county and pay roughly $18,000/year in taxes, more than $11,700 is for the education of some rug rats. If you don't have kids, you are screwed. Then the parents of said rug rats get the deductions for the crumb munchers. Shoot the brats and the teachers!

  • If you are poor, and want your kids to be educated, rent the cheapest apartment in the wealthiest school district.

    If you don't have kids, live in the city, whether you are rich or poor.

  • Someone has to pay my social security when I get old.

  • SS won't be around in it's current form.

    Start saving for retirement now.

  • or plan your suicide

  • Who's going to wipe your ass when you're 95 and mooching off your relatives.

  • I wish I knew.

    ...but I know that if I save for their salary and continue to get old, they will come for my money.

  • I don't know about penalizing kids, but I agree that tax breaks for them and any other behavior is bogus. If u buy a home or are a real estate developer that is buddy buddy w/Bloomberg u don't deserve a check either. The tax system is so silly

  • It's really not that complicated.

    When you have children, your expenses go up. You are given tax breaks to so that you can use this money towards these expenses to further stimulate the economy.

  • Some taxes are complcated.

    Bread = not taxed.

    Sliced bread = not taxed.

    Bagel = not taxed.

    Sliced bagel = TAXED!

    But the child exemption is no different from personal or spouse exemptions, is it?

  • BrooklynBoyyee said:

    It's really not that complicated.

    When you have children, your expenses go up. You are given tax breaks to so that you can use this money towards these expenses to further stimulate the economy.

    Yea but that's a choice you made. By that logic, anytime we do or buy anything that will raise our expenses or stimulate the economy, we should get a tax break. But if I buy a car or a house I get slapped with new taxes. Everything + everyone should be on equal footing, as is the tax system makes no sense.

  • yes the tax system should treat everyone the same, so if you had 20 kids should be treated the same as someone who had zero. same goes for stupid rich folks who has all those loopholes to take adventage of. should be treat the same as the guy who earns 10 dollars a hour.

    they should simplified and stop all loopholes and tax breaks etc..

    by your logic murders and rapist and all other criminals stimulate the economy more than anyone. murder kills a person. that person would need coffin, grave, all sorts of services that came along. and a new person to take his job etc... :p.

  • Cool The Kid said:

    But if I buy a car or a house I get slapped with new taxes. Everything + everyone should be on equal footing, as is the tax system makes no sense.

    Actually, when you buy a house, you start to get some of the best tax breaks on the books.

  • Democracy is often behind such tax breaks. Lots of people want them, and then vote for people who will pander to them.

    Bastards

  • ntfool said:

    Actually, when you buy a house, you start to get some of the best tax breaks on the books.

    At the onset. But interest deductions fade away. Property tax is for life. The gov't offers all these perks to keep the housing shell game going. It's BS

  • Without interest and real estate tax deductions, many home buyers would be unable to afford to pay their mortgages, heating bills, etc.

    If home ownership is considered a good thing for society... whether as a way to get people to take responsibility for the upkeep of housing stock or otherwise... then those deductions are important.

  • While homeownership has the benefits Booklaw mentions, it also ties labor to specific geographic areas. This negative effect skews the labor market and outweigh the gains from stability.

    People can't move to where better jobs are because they are bound to a home they can not sell for what they owe on it.

    Renting sometimes make sense. Why should people who rent not get the same breaks?

  • agree you don't want to be tied down especially if you're younger, cause who knows where the next cool/good paying job might be located, if you're older and settle with family, might want to buy a home unless your kids and family like the nomadic lifestyle of the young.

  • The mortgage deduction also creates an incentive to always have a mortgage.

    The biggest beneficiaries may be the banks.

  • Home ownership has been cited as both economic benefit and also drag. Not sure there is a clear answer. Certainly, when homes don't readily sell, they are an anchor keeping you tied to a local area. However, they are also an asset to borrow against if you are taking on a risky venture (loan guarantees for small business ventures), and even a stable asset which protects against eviction or rent increases.

    Interest rate deductions, meant to keep housing affordable, actually work to increase the value of homes. For (a simplified) example, when you buy a home, and have $2,000 per year in interest charges on your mortgage, if you save an average of $560 per year for those deductions, then that tax shield is worth about $8,600 independent of the home (assumes a 30 year mortgage, 5% discount, and a constant savings of $560 per year for 30 years). That amount would rationally be added onto the price of the house.

    A better way to buy a house is to: 1) determine if you really want to remain in a given area, 2) figure out what rent you can afford to pay, and 3) use that to figure out what house you can afford. For example, if you can afford no more than a $3,000 per month apartment, that should correspond to a home worth no more than $500,000, because it's at that point where the cash flows break even. For example, if you invested in an apartment to rent to others, to make a decent return, you should buy that apartment for no more than $500,000 (assuming you could rent it for $3K per month). If the apartment sells for more, then you should rent. Unfortunately, most people don't think this way, and they treat the "flip" price as the price that matters (as if this were a given). But sale prices should be based on income (again, most people don't think about this). Just my two cents.

  • I understand all the benefits of home ownership for the owner and the surrounding community. I just don't think it makes sense for the gov't to subsidize it. Like someone said the only party benefiting from this shell game is the bank.

    The govt is doing a lot of shit to prop up the housing market. The mortgage interest deduction is just the tip of the iceberg. They need to let the chips fall as they should so we can settle into a reality based equilibrium.

  • no deductions should given to anyone, just waste of tax payers dollars, people would use the money for better things, government sucks ass when it comes to allocation of money.

  • Cool The Kid said:

    The govt is doing a lot of shit to prop up the housing market. The mortgage interest deduction is just the tip of the iceberg. They need to let the chips fall as they should so we can settle into a reality based equilibrium.

    Tell it to the banking lobbyists who throw gobs of money at congressfolks to ensure that these interest deductions stay in place.

  • Water Ice said:

    Unfortunately, most people don't think this way, and they treat the "flip" price as the price that matters (as if this were a given).

    Gotta say, I don't understand this either. When I brought my house, my thought was, "What could I afford to pay if I lost my current job and had to scrape together money each month to cover my mortgage?" Now I'll admit that this is probably a strange way of looking at things, but when I was out of work for a year, I managed to survive and never missed a mortgage payment. Don't know why more people don't think this way.

  • Don't forget the silliness portrayed on HGTV and DIY:

    Every renovation is a good one

    Your home will always increase in value

    There will always be a buyer for your home

    If you install a jacuzzi and granite countertops, your buyers will be willing to pay for it, despite living in a middle class neighborhood with only average schools.

    Um, those assumptions are rarely true.

    What happen to a home just being a place to live in, and something that was within your means?

    Using our homes to try to achieve status has caused us much trouble

  • Landlords try the same silly shit with apartments. A granite countertop & stainless steel microwave won't make up for the fact that the living room and bedroom add up to <300 sq ft. For $2K a month. And people take em! But that's another thread

    Chasing status might be America's biggest problem. Or I should say, entitlement. Its an underlying theme in damn near every major problem we face. But I don't want to start that discussion again.

This discussion has been closed.