Reply #123: because it is not progressive for people making $40,000 to pay

[hfojvt]

the same rate as people making $10,000. Progressive implies that taxes go up when income goes up. What some people propose, like Wesley Clark, eliminating income taxes for families making less than $75,000 a year provides a much bigger benefit to people making $70,000 than it does to people making $30,000, and that is a change, like the child tax credit, which is not progressive. The math is simple to me. A plan that gives benefits to families making over $30,000 but not to families making less than $30,000 is not progressive. As expensive as raising kids is, some of those families making less than $30,000 have kids too, but did not get any benefit when the child tax credit was increased.

Some of the costs you listed are voluntary, and some I am already paying as a single guy. For example, I own two computers and two laptops. Surplus computers which could be toys for my kids, if I had kids. Same with the dogs. I happen to own a good library of kids books too, but that's more of a fluke from the fact that I once owned a bookstore. I also own some kid-friendly DVDs or videos, like Wall-E, Iron Giant, The Sound of Music, Short Circuit, The Neverending Story II, The Sound of Music, Peter Pan, Shrek, Black Beauty and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and more so up the age range.

I believe I said
a) they would not add to many of my current expenses, such as housing, phone, electric, water and gas bills. Especially since so many utility bills are based on minimum charges, like my $93 gas bill that includes a service charge of $12.25 to start and a franchise fee of $4.38 which may not be based on usage
b) children also add value to a household by doing some of the work, and
c) they can provide their own transportation. In fact, the real trick is trying to stop the little buggers.