Tax break for Olympic medalists? 1 guy votes no - what do you think?

You're so deep ...

 

America: If you can dream it, we can tax it.

 

I largely agree with this post. However, as it pertains to the GOP candidate, we are seeing that he is using his "charitable" foundation - and likely other means - to skirt the tax laws and commit fraud on his way to paying no taxes.

And I think for most of us, it's hard to fathom finding enough legal deductions to reduce our tax rate to $0.

 

That's not what she said.

 

It's how we provide incentive for behavior that we want to encourage and disincentive for behavior we want to discourage. Having and caring for children benefits society, but is expensive. A tax break mitigates against the cost. Same with charity. This was also true about home ownership, though I can imagine someone wanting to revisit that decision.
I agree that there are real inefficiencies in the system, but we know why it exists. And without it, we would need a replacement.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this part.

 

In some cases, the government should not be in the business of encouraging or sanctioning behaviors once deemed beneficial in an outdated mindset.

Monogamy and children are prime examples. These are two distinct elements and covered distinctly as possible tax relief.

However, the model and notion of state-sanctioned monogamy is outdated. There is no overt benefit to citizens as a whole for the government to promote state-sanctioned monogamy. The issue is not one of heterosexual and homosexual inclusiveness; it is an issue of getting the government out of the business of sanctioning marital unions.

State-sanctioned monogamy is further outdated because state-sanctioned coupling does necessarily result in offspring, once considered a benefit to the citizenry. There is no equation in which marriage = children. Further, their are tax benefits available for children. Offering monetary benefits to monogamous unions AND bearing children is double dipping.

Lastly, have we not hit a population level at which child rearing is no longer an automatic benefit to the citizenry as a whole? Are we not currently at population level that will sustain a naturally occurring productive citizen replacement without the need for financial incentive?

 

Congrats, folks. You just gave Ryan Lochte a tax break.

 

Jeah!

 

Can he write off any fines he pays to Brazil?

 

You're quibbling with their choices, not making a case for them to get out of the business.