Posted on 12/14/2017 6:03:51 PM PST by familyop
Dems have removed language about churches
https://mobile.twitter.com/kenvogel/status/941493417212817408
You think its bad now? Wait until the Democrats take control of both houses of congress after 2018. Can you say impeachment and conviction?
“Why should people without kids subsidize people who have them?”
Because a free market economy thrives on appreciation caused by ever increasing demand. This increase is correlated with a growing population.
Unless you prefer that growth to come from importing disease-ridden, third-world immigrants, then we need to offset the costs of raising kids in this non-agrarian society.
Yah, and Lee and McMullen have the right to wear the same underwear.
Lee is a total fraud. A phony tea party candidate much like Kelly Ayotte.
Because a free market economy thrives on appreciation caused by ever increasing demand. This increase is correlated with a growing population.
No, that's social engineering through the tax code. Conservatives know that's a bad thing. As with the SALT deductions, anything one tax payer holds back from the Federal Government that another cannot is s subsidy from the latter to the former. That's the new paradigm as defined by the GOP.
Marching orders from Soros. Stopthis tax plan or I will expose your past.. Most of these guys like Rubio are being blackmailed
Considering the SIZE of families in UTAH; this is a SURE re-election bonus for him!
(How about NON-working families?)
“No, that’s social engineering through the tax code. Conservatives know that’s a bad thing.”
Policies that are pro-family are conservative.
It’s ludicrous to call this “social engineering.” That’s no more than a knee-jerk reaction that could be applied to anything and everything, since every action taken by the government will affect the social order in some way or another.
Not offsetting the added financial burden on families of raising children, who contribute MORE to society, financially and in productivity and economic growth, could just as easily be considered “social engineering.”
Again, stagnant or declining population size has a direct impact on the economy and everyone’s pocketbook. In a free market, a growing population means increasing demand for goods and services, as well as appreciation in the value or real property and other tangible assets.
Socialism is often propped up artificially through the intentional reduction in population and confiscation of wealth to redistribute, in theory (though NEVER in reality), “equitably.”
Regional and national populations can be grown through families having more children than what is lost through attrition, or by importing more people.
Rather than labeling anything you don’t like as “social engineering” you should reserve such terms for where the actual harm is done, such as public education and attempts to redefine social norms like marriage.
Without major overhauls of fundamental policies on how people are taxed (such as shifting to a flat tax or national sales tax or an intellectual property tax), or public education, or “welfare” programs, tax credits for children are simply common sense.
What is not common sense is giving them to illegal aliens who are not actually paying into the system and are simply syphoning off money from the Treasury. That’s the social engineering that should concern us.
Rubio wants it at $3000. Where was he when they agreed on $2000?
I agree. But mormons have a special duty to look out for the best interests of their church and its members. Nothing particularly wrong with that idea but it is naive to think otherwise.
“Policies that are pro-family are conservative.”
It is ludicrous to conflate the two.
There are most certainly “policies” that are pro-family and are nowhere near conservative.
I cite the Earned Income Tax Credit as just one example. There are myriad others.
“It is ludicrous to conflate the two [pro-family & conservative]”
Welcome to Free Republic!
Conservatives for God, Family, Country!
Est. 1996
(From the header of the home page of the site you are posting on.)
It currently costs parents about a quarter-of-a-million dollars on average to raise a child in the USA today.
https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2017/01/13/cost-raising-child
The appreciation of real estate, growing demand for goods and services, and access to a talented workforce requires a growing, educated population.
The child tax credit does not cover the cost of raising a child. It just offsets it.
You can get it too. You just need to have children. Or you can contribute by adopting children, as there is a huge need. Also, they need to be raised in conservative homes.
The Conservatives I know don’t expect other people to pay to raise their kids.
“The Conservatives I know don’t expect other people to pay to raise their kids.”
Conservatives I know don’t believe people should be punished for having children.
I’ll also bet you don’t know a single one who turns down a child tax credit for which they qualify.
If you do, you should start a conservative group that includes parents and singles, and the parents should voluntarily give a portion of their child tax credit money to the singles in order to make it fair. That way you will not need to rely on the government to right this wrong against you.
But, in reality, when parents pay net taxes, no one is paying to raise their kids due to the parents receiving child tax credits.
It’s funny how the liberal news media plays class envy games to stir up the public against “the rich” getting tax breaks. It is ironic to see someone claiming it is conservative to oppose one class (non-parents) not getting a tax break that another class (parents) does get.
We no longer live in an agrarian society, where having children increases the net income of families. Consequently, there is a strong economic pressure to have fewer children. And this is why the globalists are always discussing how economic progress will “help” reduce “overpopulation.”
Of course, their model of population growth reduction is based on the lies of limited resources and economic socialism.
How do people have fewer children in wealthier economies? Is it abstinence?
Mostly birth control and abortion.
If you are not pro-family, you will ultimately come down on the side of demanding people use birth control or have abortions. That’s not conservative.
People do not have a choice of being born into this non-agrarian society. Helping to slightly offset the financial burden on parents helps society as a whole. And it is well within the Constitutional purview of Congress to make tax laws that take such factors into consideration.
What conservatives should be focusing on is the immoral child tax credits being given to illegal aliens who pay negative taxes (i.e. get paid for being here illegally).
“But, in reality, when parents pay net taxes, no one is paying to raise their kids due to the parents receiving child tax credits.”
That is the only pearl of wisdom in your rant.
“When parent pay net taxes”, I don’t think anyone resent the Child Tax Credit.
But when it’s extended, via the EITC, every conservative with a mind is offended and opposed.
When it’s extended to illegals, it’s a crime. Especially when millions of Americans will see their taxes go up in this bill.
“Conservatives I know don’t believe people should be punished for having children.”
One of the dumbest posts ever on FR. Denying the Child Tax Credit would not be “punishment”. Already everyone gets a deduction for dependents of any sort. The fact they would not get a credit against taxes due being a punishment is ludicrous.
However, that said, there is value to crediting taxes up to the point of zero dollars owed (not beyond) for child rearing.
But nobody should believe for a minute it’s not a direct payment from the treasury and somebody else is paying for it.
Directly.
“However, that said, there is value to crediting taxes up to the point of zero dollars owed (not beyond) for child rearing.”
I agree with you on this. Another way to do this would be to allow a higher standard deduction for each dependent.
But it is necessary to be pragmatic. What should be done and what can be done are vastly different. I would much rather see less means-tested subsidies than things that are at least available to everyone equally, like the child tax credit.
And the thing that no Republican should be opposing is requiring a (legitimate) Social Security number in order to qualify for the child tax credit. It’s unthinkable that we are paying people to be here illegally, and giving them and their children free food, medical care, and primary education.
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.