Regardless, while I agree that another giveaway to people who pay no taxes is a problem, at least that number is is closer to 20% than 50%.
Posted on 12/16/2017 8:03:59 AM PST by Governor Dinwiddie
On the heels of its horrific failures to repeal Obamacare, the troublesome Senate has finally gotten its act together enough to pass a $1.6 trillion tax cut. If it passes as expected, Americans can finally get the tax cut for Christmas that they elected a Republican Congress for, following years of Obama-era tax harvestings and stagnation. But it was a close call.
One name stands out as a stinker here, and it still stands out as a stinker even though he's now voting yes: Senator Marco Rubio. The supposed conservative from Florida was willing to derail the whole thing for all of us and cost the Senate its majority if he didn't get the tax refund credit he wanted.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Thanks for sharing the link. It says...
“The final version keeps a provision that requires filers using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) to provide Social Security numbers for each child in order to qualify for the credit. ITINs are mostly issued to undocumented immigrants. In 2013, 4.4 million ITIN filers claimed child tax credits worth $6 billion, according to the Government Accountability Office. The latest change will affect about one million undocumented children, CBPP calculates.”
That’s an improvement, but they should require proof of citizenship in order to pay negative taxes, as a minimum. Otherwise, we still may be paying for illegal aliens to live here.
Still, I support the child tax credit provision.
Regardless, while I agree that another giveaway to people who pay no taxes is a problem, at least that number is is closer to 20% than 50%.
They aren’t including payroll tax, just income tax.
"If the House GOP tax plan becomes law, nearly 81 million Americans — 47.5 percent of all tax filers — would pay nothing in federal income taxes next year"
So my point stands that you get ~80% of people still paying federal taxes (payroll and/or income).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/09/nearly-81-million-americans-would-pay-0-under-the-gop-tax-plan/
Payroll taxes are deductions for SS, Medicare and unemployment insurance
Presumably they are returned to the payee in the form of future benefits
They are NOT federal income tax - that funds the federal govt
Only about 50% of us pay taxes that fund the federal govt
Not only do about 50% NOT help fund the federal govt- they are eaters
They collect federal tax money in faux “ refunds” aka “ earned income credits” aka federal welfare checks
Please
That yellow stuff rolling down our legs is not rain
Sorry, that’s the democrat propaganda you swallowed whole right there. Payroll tax is an income tax that goes to the general fund just like the regular income tax. The democrats propagate the lie to make it harder to change. Not to mention that it is half hidden by the employer “contribution”. So bottom line is that 80% are paying income tax to fund the federal govt.
I do not think it is productive to criticize Rubio at this point. After the vote is a different story, but I’ll keep quiet for now.
Another nice diatribe.
I did not ask you for a review of the US Income tax code. I ask a simple question that kind that boggles the liberal, I want special treatment. mind.
You still have not answered the question. I didn’t not ask what are the taxes we pay given the current tax code. Are you saying that unless I give in all of the politically correct proscribed ways I should pay more taxes than someone who does? The emphasis here is on SHOULD.
You believe you should be paid for rendering an essential function to society. Well so does every welfare queen in the US. Have babies get money.
You say you should pay less taxes then try to claim you actually pay more. Sounds like a little guilt creeping in since you probably know that most Freepers and conservatives would hold to the principal of equal taxation.
Should you pay any taxes at all? If you have no income do you feel justified in receiving a check for having kids? Maybe the gov could just give you your tax credit on a debit card you know your own EBT for the EICTC. No need to file just give you the card to present at a grocery store.
If you are eligible for any part of this welfare payment then I can assure you that I pay far more taxes than you do. Hint: Do the EITC phase out math.
“Another nice diatribe.”
If you don’t like hearing tough answers, cease asking tough questions. If you want to discuss the moral and ethical reasons behind what is right and fair when it comes to taxation, be prepared to put on your thinking cap. Don’t just complain that you don’t like something or feel it is unfair.
“You believe you should be paid for rendering an essential function to society.”
That’s incorrect. That’s like saying that coupons are paying people to buy a product. Reducing the tax burden of those CURRENTLY raising children, is not PAYING them to do so. The net cost far exceeds any tax breaks parents receive. People still have children for many other reasons. It is generally NOT in order to grow one’s wealth. That has not been the case since we quit being an agrarian society.
Granted, there are the “welfare queens” you mentioned. But that is due to means-tested welfare, not income tax credits and deductions.
“You still have not answered the question. I didn’t not ask what are the taxes we pay given the current tax code. Are you saying that unless I give in all of the politically correct proscribed ways I should pay more taxes than someone who does?”
Families are a basic unit of society. Nothing “politically correct” about advocating for the priority and importance of family.
In an agrarian society, there would be no need to offer tax deductions or credits for children. In agrarian societies, more children means more wealth. At least that’s the case if you own land.
But it costs more to raise children in an industrial or information economy. (It’s about a quarter of a million to raise them in the USA. And you usually need to continue supporting them for part of their adult life also.) And a free market economy thrives on an increasing population due to the law of supply and demand. Socialism is optimized for a declining population in which wealth can be syphoned off the dying to redistribute to the living. It is based on death rather than productivity.
Would you prefer to import third-world laborers to keep up the demand? Or would you prefer depreciating assets such as real property by having a negative population growth?
Your ability to grow wealth depends on a family-centric economic policy.
Would you prefer for children to become the property of the state and we all become comrades?
Hillary and her ilk claim it takes a village to raise a child. I would argue that it takes strong families to build strong nations.
It’s not a matter of whether you should pay more, but that families should pay less. Large families should carry less burden of taxation.
You must think of this in terms of natural law. We have a government by the consent of the people whereby we collectively yield some of our natural rights to the government in order to provide for the common welfare (e.g. national defense). If you were born into this world where there were no other people but your own family, you could do whatever you wanted. There would be no government to tax you. But we derive an economic benefit by sharing our land with others to form a nation. There is specialization of labor and economies of scale, etc. Part of the benefit we derive is from families having more children. Those children are the customers who buy whatever good or service you provide to earn income.
Having children and properly raising them represents the greatest contribution people make to the society of which they are a part. This is more fundamental than work or taxation. Without children being born and raised, society would collapse. Civilization would collapse.
It is the responsibility of children to look out and care for their parents in their old age. Do you think other people’s children should look out for you and care for you in your old age? Why?
Be thankful that there will be someone to look out for you in your old age. Somebody has to do the work of having and raising those children.
Should you pay more or the same income tax?
I believe that income taxes should be replaced with something more productive. There are several alternatives.
“so does every welfare queen in the US. Have babies get money.”
Welfare is means tested. And that makes it destructive. It motivates people to be and remain poor in order to receive the incentive. Child tax credits or deductions do not give a negative incentive to keep people unproductive. If anything, having children encourages being more productive to earn more to take care of the ones you have.
Child tax credits and deductions are open to all tax payers. So if you feel this is such an incredible deal, then by all means avail yourself of them. Don’t sit on the sidelines missing out. Go get you some children. Can’t have your own? Adopt some. God knows we need more conservatives raising children today. If you don’t want to take on this responsibility, then stop complaining about the tax advantages parents receive while raising children. They’re benefitting society and you.
If you want to argue against means-tested welfare or billions of dollars being spent on compulsory public education with no parental choice, you won’t hear any argument from me. But, given that income tax is the primary way our federal government raises revenues to operate, a modest child tax credit that offsets a small part of the cost to raise a child is good policy. I’d rather change our overall way of taxation, but that is not on the table right now.
I would apply the credit on one condition, they must be married. If we want nuclear families, we need a tax policy that actually encourages it.
Another good rant. You consider having children to be a public sevice for which you should be compensated above another taxpayer of the same income. The EITC is means tested because it is only available below a certain income it is not available to all tax payers. The rest of your post is an interet diversion from the central point that each taxpayer should receive equal treatment. That means no special carve outs for socially superior actions. Those carve outs are simply vote buying schemes. In yours and Rubio’s case it seems to work.
I have a friend who is an impoverished charity worker. He is literally doing God’s work and it is more valuable than having kids. How much should he get via the tax code? Actually farmers are more valuable than kids how much should they get?
“The EITC is means tested because it is only available below a certain income it is not available to all tax payers.”
I stand corrected. Personally, I can not claim any EITC. And I just confirmed what you said. I oppose means-testing principally.
“You consider having children to be a public sevice for which you should be compensated above another taxpayer of the same income.”
Having and raising children is not merely public service. It is a basic, essential function of civilization. Without this, civilization does not exist.
That being said, there is a big difference between reducing a tax liability and actually paying someone. I do not believe that a child tax credit alone (i.e. apart from welfare, etc.) covers the cost of raising a child for ANYONE.
There is a vast difference between a tax credit for some miscellaneous activity or non-activity, such as cutting your grass or abstaining from smoking, versus raising children.
To reduce raising children to just some random activity is like trying to drink a cup of water, only without any water in the cup. Arguing against the family unit and the basic function of the family unit, which is to raise children, is to argue against the value and benefit of having a civilization. You should consider adopting that position. Just advocate no government, no infrastructure at all, just everyone does whatever he or she wants to do.
But you bring up people with the “same income” paying different amounts of taxes, or different rates. Consider that business income is calculated not merely by revenues but by profit. There are certain expenses that you can deduct as an employee as well which are reflected in your “adjusted” income. Someone raising children has expenses that someone not raising children does not. Those children are sovereign citizens. They are not the personal property of the parents. They are not merely luxuries that people choose to spend their money on. They are unable to provide for themselves. And they are civilization. It is reasonable that a portion of the operating costs to run a family and raise children is offset by, at the very least, not taxing the additional income required to support these children.
There are undoubtedly better ways to raise revenues for the federal government. But within the framework of how tax revenues are currently raised, the overwhelming costs of raising children should result in some type of offset to the amount of income that is taxed.
I certainly support laws that encourage raising children in married (not pseudo-marriage) two-parent (preferably biological) homes. I certainly support laws and policies that foster work, education, and innovation. I do not support laws or policies that encourage people to simply live off of the government, or being a burden on society in general.
“How much should [an impoverished charity worker] get via the tax code?”
He should only pay taxes on his income and be able to deduct his expenses like everyone can. And, if he is raising children, he should have some of this expense offset by less tax liability.
“how much should [farmers] get?”
Farmers need to be supported to protect our nation from dependency on imported food. I’m doubtful that special tax credits for farming would serve this purpose. But it would be a prudent national security measure for our federal government to buy excess crops for stockpiling longterm reserves.
“The EITC is means tested because it is only available below a certain income it is not available to all tax payers.”
I stand corrected. Personally, I can not claim any EITC. And I just confirmed what you said. I oppose means-testing principally.
“You consider having children to be a public sevice for which you should be compensated above another taxpayer of the same income.”
Having and raising children is not merely public service. It is a basic, essential function of civilization. Without this, civilization does not exist.
That being said, there is a big difference between reducing a tax liability and actually paying someone. I do not believe that a child tax credit alone (i.e. apart from welfare, etc.) covers the cost of raising a child for ANYONE.
There is a vast difference between a tax credit for some miscellaneous activity or non-activity, such as cutting your grass or abstaining from smoking, versus raising children.
To reduce raising children to just some random activity is like trying to drink a cup of water, only without any water in the cup. Arguing against the family unit and the basic function of the family unit, which is to raise children, is to argue against the value and benefit of having a civilization. You should consider adopting that position. Just advocate no government, no infrastructure at all, just everyone does whatever he or she wants to do.
But you bring up people with the “same income” paying different amounts of taxes, or different rates. Consider that business income is calculated not merely by revenues but by profit. There are certain expenses that you can deduct as an employee as well which are reflected in your “adjusted” income. Someone raising children has expenses that someone not raising children does not. Those children are sovereign citizens. They are not the personal property of the parents. They are not merely luxuries that people choose to spend their money on. They are unable to provide for themselves. And they are civilization. It is reasonable that a portion of the operating costs to run a family and raise children is offset by, at the very least, not taxing the additional income required to support these children.
There are undoubtedly better ways to raise revenues for the federal government. But within the framework of how tax revenues are currently raised, the overwhelming costs of raising children should result in some type of offset to the amount of income that is taxed.
I certainly support laws that encourage raising children in married (not pseudo-marriage) two-parent (preferably biological) homes. I certainly support laws and policies that foster work, education, and innovation. I do not support laws or policies that encourage people to simply live off of the government, or being a burden on society in general.
“How much should [an impoverished charity worker] get via the tax code?”
He should only pay taxes on his income and be able to deduct his expenses like everyone can. And, if he is raising children, he should have some of this expense offset by less tax liability.
“how much should [farmers] get?”
Farmers need to be supported to protect our nation from dependency on imported food. I’m doubtful that special tax credits for farming would serve this purpose. But it would be a prudent national security measure for our federal government to buy excess crops for stockpiling longterm reserves.
Agreed.
Why do we have “refundable credits” in the first place? OH -— that’s right, it’s a way of the government redistributing wealth... It’s how you get people who pay little or no federal income tax great big “refund” checks...
Which is why your suggestion (though absolutely the RIGHT thing to do) will NEVER happen...
Tax credits for children - thats’ all well and good, unless those credits more than just offset some of your taxes PAID - but instead result in you getting a check (”refund”) of money you never paid in. Tax credits should never be “refundable” - If we are going to have them, they should simply offset taxes owed/paid in. EXAMPLE:
Lets say your total taxable income for the year results in a tax paid or owed of $11,000
You have 3 dependent children - at now $1400 per child = $4200. So deduct that 4200 from 11000 = $6200 for your tax bill. If you already paid in more than the 6200, then great - you should have the difference refunded.
Lets say you are “low income” and your taxable income results in a tax owed or paid of $500. Tax credit for 3 children is 4200. That should wipe out the 500 tax owed (or paid) and therefore result in a total tax burden of $0.
I agree. It’s important that everyone have some skin in the game.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.