How to turn your kids into lifelong tax cutters
3 November
My former White House colleague Tevi Troy suggested the following method for turning children into lifelong tax cutters.
- Make each of your kids spread his or her Halloween candy out on the kitchen table.
- Take one-third of it.
- Say, “That’s called TAXES.”
- Repeat each Halloween.
I figure it will take maybe two years of this to turn them into lifelong tax cutters.
For most kids, this is probably the first income they have earned through their own labor. Maybe it’s better they learn about taxes now, rather than 10-15 years from now when they first ask “Who the h*** is FICA?”
You might see a cheating dynamic in future years, in which your Halloween taxpayers try to hide some of their income from the taxman.
If anyone actually tries this:
- You are an evil parent.
- Please report your kids’ reactions so we can all learn from them.
Tevi promises he has not done this to his kids.
(photo credit: Halloween Candy by aus_chick)
Related Posts
(best matches are listed first)- Health insurance for poor kids
- Senate floor #009: Middle class tax increases
- Senator Kerry’s tax on health insurers
- Breaking the no middle class tax increase pledge (again)
- Major tax increases in the Reid health care bill
- Understanding the President’s international tax proposal
- The total tax battle
- A penalty tax inequity in the Reid bill
Do we trust government to feed grandma or do we trust family and friends to feed grandma?
Keep in mind, that whatever the government "gives", the same government has the authority to "take"
it back anytime in the future.
Big O says that there is $500 Billion in waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare. That means the government just
ate the 3 Baby Ruth bars that could have gone to granny and the public gets ZERO benefit from that.
…..and we are supposed to trust the government to clean up that waste, fraud and abuse ONLY after passing PelosiCare?
Why not clean it up NOW? – Because it is the governments JOB to waste, fraud and abuse your money.
YOUR MONEY.
YOU DECIDE.
Some good Points by StevenCH. The thinking is that Government can efficiently distribute the taxed money, which is false. For Brooks the better analogy to giving grandma candy would be this: Spread all said candy on table taxman (dad) takes 30% for grandma. Grandma expecting 30% but gets 10% candy because taxman used 20% for operational cost and inefficiency. Ultimately, both the tax payer and grandma get screwed. the only one not screwed is the taxman. He got money for a job that is not needed or pointless.
Beyond that the idea that government has a right to tax for anything other than operation cost and defense is very debatable.
All taxes have unseen consequences and should be used with caution and only for the most important things.
Read: http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html#frugality_l...
and then little johnny, after 'The Taxman' has taken 10 pieces of YOUR candy, it manufacures out of thing air another FIVE pieces of candy and spreads your 10 and this "created" other 5, for a total of 15 to some of the other kids in the neighborhood who didnt feel like going trick or treating. they were playing video games and watching tv so they didnt go and dont have any candy. isnt it cool! when you see the whole thing!!! how the story ends.
My daughter wants a pony. This is how I explained government taxation to her. "Mommy and Daddy got you a pony because you have proven that you are responsible and dependable. You earn your allowance every day and you are ready to take care of a pony. Here comes the government! They tell you, not ask you, to turn over your pony on Xday and Yday to Gov't. Stables so that the 'poor children' will have 'social justice'. You do not have a choice, but you are told it is for the 'common good'. Be happy that something you worked very hard for and love is being used by people you do not know and you cannot stop them. Be happy!!!!" The look on my daughter's face was priceless – and her exact words??? THAT'S NOT FAIR!!!!
Well, let's see about Grandma. Since she probably bought candy to give out, she probably still has some or she bought her own secret stash. That's what I do. Most likely, though, the kids will OFFER Grandma some candy; probably those nasty peanut butter kisses, raisins and the licorice, yech! Yes, I believe the kids will happily share. My brothers, my sister and I used to put all the candy we didn't want into a big bowl so that anybody who wanted it could have it. We also traded and shared with each other and with other kids.
So Brooks insults a past president with whom he disagrees with, lays out his own little argument and then insults those that don't support him as well as those that are having a little fun with "grandma".
What is it about liberals that they cannot have a civil debate without insulting everything that stands in their way?
What is it about liberals and their inability to grasp humor?
Such a terrible way to live ones life. Who wants to be grumpy and mean 24/7? Seriously, what kind of a pathetic and sad life is that to live?
Hurricane,
I think you and a lot of other people here are misreading Brooks pretty dramatically. I've gone back and forth with him in a lot of discussions and he is, first and foremost, a believer in a sane and sustainable fiscal policy. He further believes that getting there politically will require both revenue increases and spending decreases and that this can only happen if they are done together. You can certainly disagree with that argument but it's not a wrongheaded one nor is saying taxes are evil a response to a very difficult challenge. As you can see, I favor a different solution but nowhere did he argue for killing Grandma or the other things of which he has been accused.
Thanks for pointing out those distinctions to folks here. I think most people on echo chamber blogs of left or right want to see everything and everyone in terms of black or white, good or bad, "us" or "them". So they reflexively see a "liberal" whose "last name is Obama" when I say that cutting taxes would only make sense if sufficiently aligned with spending levels that are (1) politically plausible (which I say is not the case, meaning that cutting taxes makes our long-term fiscal imbalance much worse and thus will cause much greater eventual pain, including higher taxes) and (2) that advocates themselves would actually consider desirable if well-informed on the impact, and if I point out that most economists and other budget experts seem to reject strong version of "starve the beast"/"Don't feed the beast" ("strong version" meaning equating a full dollar of incremental spending with a dollar of incremental revenues).
And yes, discussion/debate of the degree to which spending responds to levels of revenues is relevant, legitimate and important, as is negotiation strategy and approach to implementation. My overall conclusion is that refusing to consider any tax increases (let alone insisting on tax cuts) — even as part of a "Grand Compromise" (including cuts in projected spending) of any sort — represents an irresponsible game of "chicken", with a bad risk/reward ratio even with "reward" defined by the vast majority of "conservatives" in terms of ultimate impact on spending (and spending allocation — e.g., social vs. Defense), taxation, debt-to-GDP, GDP itself, etc. But that's a discussion/debate I'm glad to have, and you and I have had some good dialogue on that topic over at EconomistMom.
Thanks everyone for the comments. This is supposed to be a happy-fun post, so let's try to keep the comments constructive?
There are plenty of opportunities for us all to take ourselves too seriously. This shouldn't be one of them, right?
Make sure it's the really good candy too! Take Snickers, Almond Joy, Peanut Butter Cups – none of the cheap kind.
Kids might not get it because if they are raised right like mine were they might very well not mind sharing with their parents and/or grandparents so the lesson would be lost. What we did was this: We had some friends in church whho lived in a different neighborhood to pair up with. They came to our house and collected the tax from our kids and we went to their house and collected from their kids. Then we never let the kids see the candy collected as "taxes". THAT drove the lesson home. By the way, the other parents and us exchanged back the candy and we over time put it back in their candy stashes a little at a time so they did not notice the additions. We told them the candy was for some kids that had been bad and as punishment were not allowed to go out trick or treating so they learned about wasteful spending as well as taxes being theft. That way nothing was really stolen from them but they got the lesson and all 6 kids no are solid fiscal conservatives. (also social but that is more due to their faith)
It's a lot more of a learning experience for the kids to simply dress up like Barack, take 30% of the kids candy when they come to the door and tell them they have to "share their wealth" with me. You do get some wide eye looks!
Brooks is making their argument look sillier and sillier, but did accidentally touch on a salient point; namely, that those who fall on hard times usually do so for one of three most common reasons:
A) Personal failure of individual responsibility
B) Injustice (either exploitative individuals or simply poor environment)
C) Unexpected circumstances (deaths, illnesses, house fires, identity theft, downsizing, etc)
Those on the right tend to focus on A, but we need to remind ourselves that not everyone on hard times is there by their own fault. One can have insurance and savings built up, and still not have enough to cover some unexpected circumstance.
Those on the left tend to focus on B, but need to remind themselves that not everyone on hard times is a victim. Sometimes it really *is* their fault.
Andy,
I think there's a very different point here. Please remember all that the bulk on spending in this country has nothing to do with redistributing wealth to the "needy". To the contrary, welfare is a very small percentage of spending as is Medicaid (at least at the Federal level). As it relates to SS and Medicare (which are huge), I would assert (I've not seen data) that more than half of recipients would not pass a means test on wealth as to why they should get that money. When looked at that way, it's not about helping those who fall on or walk into hard times, it's about giving Peter's money to Paul, not because Paul is worse off but because Paul is a farmer, a senior citizen, a female athlete (Title IX), a young child (Head Start) or any of a host of other reasons. If government only robbed Peter to help Pauls who were destitute, I for one would have much less of an issue with it.
Andy,
I'm glad to see someone here (in addition to Steve) acknowledging that real life is more complex than the the crude, grossly oversimplified, ideologically-convenient notions upon which apparently many here fixate (as is typical of ideological/hyperpartisan echo chamber blogs, although unlike most of them, the host is much more thoughtful, realistic, and rational, and generally accounts for various angles, including those that limit or legitimately challenge his preference/point/argument in some way). I haven't bothered to respond anymore to most of the comments here because they sound like their coming from a bunch of suburban high school kids with no real world experience who just came from some conservative youth group meeting and can't think beyond ideological talking points (same thing I encounter from hyperpartisans on the left on liberal echo chamber economics blogs — really, the two groups are like separated-at-birth twins).
That said, as I've mentioned before, my point was broader than one pertaining to just transfer payments, for the needy or otherwise, or for any particular type of spending. As I wrote in my earlier comment:
I was simply making the point that advocating lower taxes only makes sense and is only arguably responsible if (1) one knows and appreciates the level and nature of spending cuts that would be necessary to avoid levels of debt that he wishes to avoid while also cutting taxes (or not raising them at all), and (2) one is willing to make those cuts. And I'll add a third and very important requirement, (3) that it be politically plausible and sufficiently politically likely to achieve and maintain for pursuit of a spending-side-only solution to the long-term fiscal imbalance we already face, and then some to offset even lower revenues and incremental debt accumulated in the meantime before spending is supposedly massively reduced. I can tell you that condition #3 doesn't exist. It's an invalid premise. And that alone means that tax cuts, at least for the most part, would be irresponsible.
Of course, if we completely eliminated Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security we wouldn't have the problem of the federal long-term fiscal imbalance, but that's obviously politically unrealistic, and even if it occurred, the effects of doing so are another can of worms involving questions and balancing of considerations such as relative efficiency (for various types of "efficiency"), the "free rider" problem vs. individual liberty, etc., etc. And I rather doubt most folks who clamor for tax cuts have thought through any of that stuff realistically and rationally to any reasonable extent. Oh well, I'm sure it feels better to a lot of people to live in an oversimplified, ideologically-pure imaginary world.
Keith, Steven Crowder did a good video illustrating just this idea with Obama and Halloween.
Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI08582Ubbk
I have actually (jokingly) told my daughters that the 'daddy tax' entitles me to take whatever I want from their trick or treating haul. They have responded quite reasonably.
My oldest takes the lead. She says if I want candy I should get my own. She says that she will be happy to share a few pieces with me, but if I get too aggressive, she won't let me have any.
This is approximately my stand toward Uncle Sam.
Nice site you have a very nice blog you have discovered a new am your follower: D
with a partial h/t to Bob in an earlier comment….I see a downside risk to this exercise. After a couple years, the kids could be brainwashed into thinking this confiscation exercise is somehow out of their control, non-negotiable, and therefore should be accepted as normal. Worse, they may just become happy with the 2/3 they are "allowed" to keep, and thank me and my wife for our kindness at that. How healthy is any conversation that goes along the lines of "sure we tax 45%, but look at how much we allow them to keep?"
After we take our third, we take an additional 20% of the remainder. We tell them in exchange that when they are 70 years old we will give them one piece of candy a day for the rest of their life. The repeatedly point out that we will be dead and that the promise is not worth very much…….I can hardly wait until they get their first job and they ask the FICA question so we can tie it all together, but with the teen unemployment rate upwards of 35%, I don’t think they will get a chance to find a job.
very nice..
thanks
That's what the candy trick is teaching your kids on a visceral level. The notion that taxes aren't necessarily a "patriotic duty" is something which too few people seem to be aware of. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many eager to volunteer other people's labor to pay for their entitlements