Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Penalizing large families

Comments

Return To Article
  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Feb. 22, 2014 12:21 a.m.

    Yeah, but if we do the math we get in trouble real fast. There can't always be 2 or 3 25 year olds supporting one 70 year old. In one generation three 25 year olds are now 70, and they need 9 25 year olds to support them. Next generation is much worse. Growth necessary to sustain the elderly component of the population becomes unsustainable real fast. We've got to consider how many of us are sustainable, throughout our lives. Without simply adding another layer to the ponzi scheme.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 22, 2014 1:57 a.m.

    "she is saying the State only has interest in educating two children per family."

    Exactly the opposite is true. The goal is to ensure the education of _all_ children by funding schools by fairly collecting revenue from families proportionately with their use of public schools.

    What the writer is really defending is her own interest in have taxpayers pay to educate all her children while she pays no taxes towards their education because she receives so many tax deductions.

    You have the freedom to have large families. That does not mean you are entitled to be free from paying your family's fair share of their costs to public infrastructure.

    Fair is fair.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Feb. 22, 2014 8:38 a.m.

    Yea, let's just have every human re-produce themselves 2 to 3 times over. That out to work out just fine for the human race over the next 100 years.

    Did you ever study exponentials in school?

  • Crusader Layton, UT
    Feb. 22, 2014 9:35 a.m.

    I take issue with the title of this letter. How can making large families pay their fair share be considered a penalty?

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 22, 2014 10:16 a.m.

    "large school registration fees"

    Is that a Utah specific thing? I've never heard of such a thing before but also didn't go through grade school in this state.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Feb. 22, 2014 10:20 a.m.

    How is it a penalty when those with many kids will see the most benefit?

    Having you folks pay your fair share will improve education. You're not being penalized here. Large families will benefit from smaller class sizes, more individual attention, better materials, and teachers who aren't already overwhelmed.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    Feb. 22, 2014 10:22 a.m.

    Ever think that those with large families penalize those with small families. They get the tax breaks & small families pay for their kids. Doesn't sound like "conservative values".

  • Owl Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 22, 2014 10:40 a.m.

    This is a strange and mean spirited bill, indeed. Realizing that an educated populace is beneficial to all of society, we have made school attendance mandatory. Now we want to impose a user fee? Should those who have had less than 2 children pay a higher tax since they have never gone to the effort and expense to raise children who will support all of us with their taxes? The ACA has done away with prior conditions and illness severity criteria (Read: analogous to more than two children) realizing that a certain level of health care is necessary regardless of economic circumstances. This bill is a most illiberal penalty to those with larger families. Education benefits all society, not just those with small families. If we value education as fundamental to our democracy, let us all pay.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Feb. 22, 2014 10:40 a.m.

    Limiting exemptions strengthens our educational system and benefits children and our society. It's the responsible, conservative thing to do.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Feb. 22, 2014 11:02 a.m.

    If your decision to have children is based on tax credits, then maybe you should reconsider having children.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 22, 2014 11:09 a.m.

    So the writer thinks people will have fewer children if they have to pay their fair share for education? Somehow, I doubt it.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 22, 2014 11:09 a.m.

    Getting a little frustrated with the argument that we need large families to help support the elderly in the future. When does this cycle of increasing a younger population end? When our planet is overrun and resources depleted? Of course that is long after you are gone, so who cares? ZPG or a slight decline in population will not be disastrous. What will be is overpopulation and scarce resources. Here in the Southwest it will be not having enough of a fairly essential resources (sarcasm), water.

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    Feb. 22, 2014 11:14 a.m.

    DeLoa said:

    "Rep. Jones should look to other countries and cultures where her mindset is prominent — now they have an aging population without a young population to help support them."

    Very true!

    This is amplified when you take into account we abort over 1 million precious babies annually in our nation.

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    Feb. 22, 2014 11:34 a.m.

    pragmatistferlife said:

    "Yea, let's just have every human re-produce themselves 2 to 3 times over. That out to work out just fine for the human race over the next 100 years."

    Actually, birthrates world wide are in decline. This is not a good thing.

  • Sal Provo, UT
    Feb. 22, 2014 11:38 a.m.

    Senator Jones reflects the liberal stance of not defending the unborn while penalizing those who would have more children. She doesn't understand that the 'earth is full and there is enough and to spare.' God didn't make a mistake in the number of beings this earth can sustain. We need to reward large families.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    Feb. 22, 2014 12:04 p.m.

    DeLoa Sharp, all children in this district, state and nation serve us all by being educated but in turn I would like you to spend extra for my two to catch up with your 6. Isn't this why the conservative moans so much about the tax system, fairness? I'm suppose to subsidize those who are not in need, such as building new a billion dollar prison so a few can have the real estate but point fingers and shame those who are in need by tossing lunches, cutting unemployment and SNAP. Something is amiss with our priorities.

  • wkb1005 Pleasant Grove, UT
    Feb. 22, 2014 2:28 p.m.

    There are already significant economic pressures on couples to limit the number of children that they have. People are marrying later and having fewer children due primarily to the cost of raising a child to adulthood. World-wide birthrates in developed countries are way down - in Shanghai, it has reached 0.68, thought to be the lowest in the world (Straight Times, Shanghai, Dec. 30, 2013). A birth rate of 1.5 is considered the minimum to maintain stability of the race, but that's simply a statistical calculation that does not take into affect adverse economic consequences and geo-political instability. Communist China is easing off on its one-child-per-couple penalty. Utah should not attempt to squeeze more revenue out of the population with a tax-code disincentive to have as many children as they want.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Feb. 22, 2014 5:43 p.m.

    @Sal. It is the parents choice to have a large family and they should be responsible for their children and the cost to raise them. We shouldn't penalize people with no kids or small families so we as a society can reward large families.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Feb. 23, 2014 6:34 a.m.

    This has nothing to do with "punishing" anyone. This persecution complex many feel they are under just cracks me up. If you have more kids, expect to have more expenses. It is just that simple. It is part of the responsibility and stewardship you take on when you start a family. Why in the world should that become someone else's responsibility to subsidize your family?

    We can't afford to heal the sick, to feed, cloth and shelter the poor, nor care for the elderly... but mention education.... oh my.... now we are punishing and persecuting people if we examine and suggest changes to funding there.

    Again, it seems to be pick your pet entitlement time...

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    Feb. 23, 2014 9:10 a.m.

    Actually, if the un-thinking persons among us could get over their self centeredness, you would easily realize that children are persons to. Even if they are dependent, they are not toys or possessions or objects. A family of 2 gets 2 deductions, if society chooses to allow deductions, and a family of 12 gets 12 deductions. Fair is fair, and if you self-centeredly decide to limit you family to 2 so that all your income is in the hands of only 2 people, then you get your just reward. Just as the family of 12, who shares their same income with 12 people.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Feb. 24, 2014 3:37 p.m.

    To "Blue" since the public infastructure now includes Social Security and Medicaid, what we have is a big problem. The retirement entitlement programs depend on large families being raised and those children paying taxes to cover their parent's generation. The problem arises when we complain about the cost to educate kids. That discourages some people from having large families. Without the large families, the retirement programs run out of money faster or else have to cut back on coverage.

    So, who is the bigger drain. The family with many kids that cost more to educate, or the family with few adult children paying taxes into the retirement entitlement accounts?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Feb. 24, 2014 9:27 p.m.

    "Just as the family of 12, who shares their same income with 12 people.".... except they don't want to share the expense of educating them. They actually want a discount in their taxes, because it is everyone else who has the responsibility to subsidize their families.

    Let me see... people with 2 children as "un-thinking" and "self-centered". Wow... we've raised the intellectual level of this discussion greatly. What other self aggrandizing comments can we add? If you have 4 kids... does that make you just ignorant...... or are you still self-centered?