It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House Expands Child Tax Credit à la Republican Style

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2004 @ 10:22 PM
link   
The headline in the newspaper was ‘House Bill Expands Child Tax Credit. I was somewhat puzzled because one would not expect legislation like this from a Republican controlled House. It’s usually “Bend over and take your punishment.’ from these folks.

As I delved into the report I was taken aback to learn the measure was offered and pushed by the Republican leadership of the House. Only as I read further did it make sense: “The new House bill would offer the full tax credit to families with incomes of up to $250,000, and it would offer a partial tax credit to families with incomes as high as $309,000.” But families with AGI’s of $10,500 (or incomes in the $18-25k) would not qualify. One can only guess the reasons for that anomaly. (Poverty is God’s curse on the lazy and sinful.)

How could anyone be against an expansion of the Child Care Credit to help struggling families, one might ask? Golly knows most families never got a square deal with the Bush tax cuts. And their effective weekly wage has declined almost 10% under Bush policies. However to now redefine the struggling middle class to include folks making up to $309,000 annually and eliminate those making < $25 k is beyond belief.

I am shocked at the shameful piggishness of the Republicans but not surprised. Their behaviors are outrageous and not in keeping with American values of generosity and fairness. Do they think we all are stupid and not paying attention?

I ask: Can America really afford another 4 years of these folks at the helm?


www.nytimes.com...



[Edited on 24-5-2004 by John bull 1]




posted on May, 24 2004 @ 02:45 AM
link   


Can America really afford another 4 years of these folks at the helm?


I say nope, but since I'm not an American Citizen my voice doesnt count i guess....another 4 years of bush means another 4 years of incompetance and curruption.

Another 4 years means setting back US Relations with just about every country in the world another 4 years(or worse...) It's time for the American People to stand up show us all what we all know you can be. But another 4 years of Bush means the true American Voice will continue to get squelched in the Mainstream Media.

One can only hope a smoking gun of evidance comes out about Bush directly involving him in criminal activity but that probably is not gonna happen.



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by gmcnulty

families with AGI’s of $10,500 (or incomes in the $18-25k) would not qualify. One can only guess the reasons for that anomaly. (Poverty is God’s curse on the lazy and sinful.)


While I have not looked into this beyond your post my first thought is there must be some information missing here as I don't believe anyone would intentionally punish the poor. I suspect it's more like those in the lower income range you mention cannot get the credit that's being offered because their not paying whatever tax it is that those in the higher income range are getting credit for. How can you get a credit for something you didn't pay in the fist place?


How could anyone be against an expansion of the Child Care Credit to help struggling families, one might ask?


If the Credit is a credit to lower their tax burden I'm all for it and I'm sure most good people are. If your talking about taking money from higher income tax payers & writing checks to lower income folks, then we already have a program for that and it's called welfare. I believe in welfare for permanently disabled folks & those going through a temporary rough time, but not as a way of life.

I think we all pay too much taxes and I wonder how anyone who pays taxes can disagree with me (except the filthy rich whom it matters not). I'm all for tax cuts at all income ranges, in fact I think folks making under $50k shouldn't have to pay any taxes, but that current level is somewhere around $12k. Had that level been indexed properly I suspect it would be about $50k by now.



Do they think we all are stupid and not paying attention?


Yes, they think were all stupid and most Americans are not paying attention that's a fact.


I ask: Can America really afford another 4 years of these folks at the helm?


Does it really make any difference which regime we put at the helm of the criminals anymore? I see little difference between our choices today. Instead of wasting our time criticizing parties, we need to find a way to get the wealthy elite out of controling the game regardless of the party at the head.



[Edited on 24-5-2004 by outsider]



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Sardon

The question was rhetorical but thanks for your reply.

You may not be able to vote in the US but you opinion is important and valued.

SW Florida seems to be a favorite wintering ground for many Canadians it seems. So I have had met a few playing golf. And one couple sings in our church choir during the winter season – fine people. I have always admired Canadians for their easy going-ness, generosity, and broad acceptance of others.

I was a especially touched at the caring many of your countrymen extended to us after the tragedy of 9/11.

We as Americans could learn a lot from you Canadians. (And many of us Americans could be much nicer to you then we have been of late but then….. we all have our crosses to bear, you know.)




posted on May, 24 2004 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Outsider- thank you for your thoughtful reply:

The numbers cited were taken from the news report (cited in original post). I did now wish to take the time to look for the bill and wade through all the gobble-dee-gook to verify the accuracy of the report. These provisions will most likely be different in a Senate bill and finally have to be resolved in conference, if that ever happens.

This all may just be an election year charade by the Republicans to court their base.

The concept of Child Tax Credit (although a misnomer) is to provide assistance to income challenged working families raising children. It is a tax law form of an entitlement program and not to be confused with an accounting concept. A true credit it is not therefore the idea of ‘having to have paid in’ to get back is not operant. Such a credit would then be in the form of a refund/payment to the tax unit family.

One can argue the merits of such a program pro or con but that’s not at issue here. I accept it because it is a lawfully accepted and approved national program. I take issue with the new income levels of just who needs the help.

I can not read minds. Nor do I have inside information on why/how the lower income level was determined. I can only guess it was political decision. And a short-sighted and/or cold hearted one if I might judge.

For me, I believe it does make a difference what party is at the helm of government. I am sorry you feel that most politicians are ‘criminals’ and therefore it is of no matter. I believe it does make a difference.

You seem to be expressing a sense of hopelessness which then becomes a self fulfilling prophecy; and if change were to occur……….how would you know? By your own definition it can not happen “until we get rid of the wealthy elite.” And you know that will not happen.

I ask you if change can not occur until we get rid of the ‘wealthy elite’ are you suggesting we be governed by the ‘ignorant poor’? I think not. Rich or poor we need to select our leaders from the intelligent folks of good heart who can be fair and ethical.

As Shakespeare said many centuries ago, “The problem is not in our stars dear Brutus but in us.” …….. And it is only in us that change can be made. I encourage you to rethink your position/attitude.



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 04:52 PM
link   
I didn't mean to imply all politicians are criminals (although many of them are), I'm just a little fed up with the corruption of the system as a whole and I don't see a way out at this time.

No doubt I'd rather have successful people running things than folks who are not and are often poor. When I refered to the wealthy elite I'm talking about too much influence in decisions that are not always in the publics best interest.

Hopeless nah, I don't think it's time for revolution yet, but I do think our government has become bloated and nobody is interested in cutting the fat. I fear the day when more people work for the government than not.



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 05:36 PM
link   
So much of communication is lost in this type of venue. (And for me, an accurate and clear representation of the idea to be communicated) Meaning is clouded by the loss of the non-verbal and vocal tone.

I read into your reply none of what you have cited; nor was I judging anything you were saying. But what I was doing was challenging your thought process and word selection. However we do seem to share a similar frustration in the state of politics today. But not so frustrated I am on my way out to buy a gun and head for the hills.

If you read my posts you will find my interests are more directed the process of political debate and the strategies use to change public opinion. I look at the use of propaganda, logic of argument and honesty of an argument.

My life has taken me to the extremes of both left and right. And after much experience and examination I find both lacking. I also have come to the monumental insight that any human endeavor we undertake will never be perfect. And the best one can reasonably expect from such an endeavor, as government, is it does more good than bad.

The success of our form of government I believe finds its foundations on the balance of powers; the need for compromise to get anything done; and that social/governmental change is moderated and limited ; AND if folks do not work together¡K¡K¡K¡KNO ONE GETS ANYTHING and nothing gets done.

It is a system that forces folks to work together and to ¡¥go along (to some degree) to get along.

So much for my musing¡K¡K¡K..

Thanks for your reply and keep the faith and don¡¦t let the turkeys get you down. Give them hell and vote¡K¡K¡K¡K¡K¡K¡K early and often ƒº



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by gmcnulty
But families with AGI’s of $10,500 (or incomes in the $18-25k) would not qualify. One can only guess the reasons for that anomaly. (Poverty is God’s curse on the lazy and sinful.)
[Edited on 24-5-2004 by John bull 1]


Your post concerned me, so I checked it out. People who file as single or head of household who have an AGI of $11,000 or less pay no federal income tax. Married couples who make less than $16,150 also pay no tax. No tax - no child tax credit. However, they do get an earned income credit.



For 2003, to claim the EIC, your earned income and adjusted gross income (AGI) must be less than $11,230 ($12,230 if married filing a joint return) if you have no qualifying children, $29,666 ($30,666 if married filing a joint return) if you have one qualifying child, or $33,692 ($34,692 if married filing a joint return) if you have two or more qualifying children.


So really this proposal isn't taking anything away from low income earners.



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 09:25 PM
link   
I am sorry if you think I was saying the Republican proposal would take something away from low income earners. And if I did so in anyway I apologize. But what it did for low income folks is NOTHING.

I am interested that you are 'concerned' and you seem concerned that the low income earners not loss what they may have now. Well, you are right; they have lost NOTHING and still have NOTHING.

If we have the funds to extend the child care credit to the 'needy' middle class making up to $309,000 per year do you see that as a fair and equitable use for the funds? I don't. And that was my point.

Across the nation, parents struggle to pay for child care. For families at all income levels with children between the ages of three and five, child care is the second or third biggest item in their household budget. The burden is especially heavy for working families; child-care costs typically consume a quarter of their income.

Tax Credits in concept are given to support a desirable national interest and should be applied with due deliberation and equity.

This venture into equity taken by the Republicans is grossly lacking and merits popular contempt.



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 09:44 PM
link   
These people do have something, which is why I mentioned the Earned income credit.

Instead of getting a couple hundred of dollars under the child tax credit they get an EIC credit of up to $4,200. You do the math, the EIC is a much better program.

You also mentioned day care expenses, there is another tax credit for that.

Your reaching to find an inequity here that doesn't exist.



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Calling folks who make $309,000 a year middle class in need of a tax break is an abomination. I'm sorry you can not see the inequity in that and find it insulting.

Let’s be clear here. By most measures, folks call me rich – Comfortable, fersure. Never have to worry about money ever again as long as I live. And as some at the "Club" quip, "I am spending my kids’ inheritance." I pay more taxes then 2 average families do and I am proud to do so; and I am willing to pay more if it could be used to ease or better the lives of my fellow Americans.

It was not always that way. I remember hocking my ‘treasures’ and selling my jeweler for scrap metal to buy penicillin for our sick kids. Raising a family is a tough job and folks struggling to do so need and deserve our help.

I am sorry you might see it otherwise.



posted on May, 25 2004 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by gmcnulty
Calling folks who make $309,000 a year middle class in need of a tax break is an abomination.

Well I have to partially dissagree with you there my friend. While $309,00 is certainly upper middle class, it is not at all rich. Though I have to agree that tax credit for these people is so measly it's just really a joke, so you are correct it is nothing, but a facade.

Let's see if your income is $309k, then after taxes depending on where you live say Hawaii for example your left with about half your income of about $150,000 before any property, sales, fuel, use, communication, license, permits, fees & taxes are paid by you and those you do business with who must add that invisible tax to the cost of their product you buy, so in essence much more than half your income is going to support the government. That $150,000 has the spending power of about 30k in 1970 dollars. Yes, it's a comfortable living and no they don't need any credit or help, but you also have to look at the inequity of what these people are paying in taxes. Are they getting more for their $150k worth of taxes then they guy paying 20k a year. I'm afraid I'm just not a socialist who believes in redistributing the wealth to those who don't contribute as much to society. If you take the incentive for being successful away why would anyone bother to try harder.

30 years ago I remember a guy used a hundred dollar bill to buy his family a meal at McDonalds (a bit later the Mcdonalds TV ad was spend a dollar for a meal & still get change back), and I remember the cashiers excitement of seeing her first hundred dollar bill. She held it up and showed all the workers and it was certainly exciting and the man was an instant celebrity. Today a hundred dollar bill in your wallet has less spending power than a 20 dollar bill did back then. Gas was 29 cents a gallon, a nice house was 20-30k a mansion over $100k, a candy bar was a nickle, a new corvette was 6k and a millioinaire was someone who had over a million dollars in assets. Today an gas is $2.31 a gallon (cheap really), a nice modest house is $300-500k a mansion several million, a candy bar is smaller and cost 65 cents, a new corvette is 65k +and a millionaire is someone who has millions to spend and a guy with a million in assets is middle class with a home and a vacation home, but still has to work 40 hours a week.

Once you have money, you have to learn to manage it in order to maintain it's spending power, otherwise the government siphons it away. It's funny how some folks call money managment techniques loopholes for the rich, but in reality their only trying to maintain what they've earned. Then when you die and want to leave something for your loved ones, that 50% tax you already paid is just not enough & they want to tax you another 50%, so you leave the family farm or business to your kids, but they have to sell it because they can't afford the tax burden of keeping it.

I've seen old folks lose their homes long ago paid off, because the property taxes are serveral times higher then their original house payments and they did not foresee that expense.


It was not always that way. I remember hocking my ‘treasures’ and selling my jeweler for scrap metal to buy penicillin for our sick kids. Raising a family is a tough job and folks struggling to do so need and deserve our help.

Ah, but wasn't the struggle worth it? You seem to have done well despite that struggle and I suspect you have become the person you are because of it. I'm sure your thinking it would be nice to have kept those treasures, but what you traded for them was worth much much more.


I am willing to pay more if it could be used to ease or better the lives of my fellow Americans.


Then by all means do so, but don't expect everyone else to pay more when many of us feel we already pay too much. I admire you for feeling that way, but remember it's your choice - taking that choice away sort of loses the value of having made that choice.

The biggest lies today are the middle class are the rich and how much taxes we actually pay.

Cheers!

[Edited on 25-5-2004 by outsider]



posted on May, 25 2004 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Outsider I will not argue with your myths presented as facts. I have done so in the past with folks from your point of view and its just a waste of time. I'll let you live in the juices that stew you.

The only observations I'll make is I bet you're the type who does not believe you're your brothers keeper. One of man's first questions to God about the relationship we share with our brother. God did not answer. But then I could be wrong..........

I also believe there is no free lunch and in paying my own way. The idea of leave my bills for my grandkids to pay doesn't work for me.

And I would suggest you do believe in income redisribution; it's just the direction you seem to question. And I would point out every time in American history the redistribution goes the way you we wish; we have a monster depression.

I hope you get what you wish for, if for no other reason, they you might add the word 'compassion' to your lexicon.

Have a nice life.



posted on May, 25 2004 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by gmcnulty
Outsider I will not argue with your myths presented as facts. I have done so in the past with folks from your point of view and its just a waste of time. I'll let you live in the juices that stew you.



HA, outsider, don't be bugged by the likes of this guy. He certainly sounds like a Grade A crybaby.

This bill is a good thing. It does not address poor people (otherwise known as people who don't pay income tax) because it is not for them. This is an income tax bill which applies to those who pay.

As for making 250,000. That is upper middle class my friend. Although that would be a small fortune in Pig's Knuckle, Ohio, it is not so much in most metro areas.

They certainly are not what I would call wealthy.

Are we our brother's keeper? The answer is somewhat. Would you say it was better to force all to pay into huge and bloated federal programs, or encourage something called "Community".

I would prefer that people build communities which help eachother. Churches are tax exempt for a reason, they help people.

The problem here, is you seem to be the kind of person (maybe you aren't, but you seem like it) who is looking for people to not tell people how to live their lives with respect to abortion, gay rights, and the like, yet you seem all ready to commit people who do not want to buy into those federal programs to those because you think it's the "right thing to do".

# that.



posted on May, 25 2004 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by gmcnulty

I ask: Can America really afford another 4 years of these folks at the helm?


www.nytimes.com...



[Edited on 24-5-2004 by John bull 1]


No way in hell. KING GEORGE AND HIS RICH BUDDIES HAVE TO GO BEFORE THEY ENSLAVE, KILL, OR IMPRISON US ALL!!!



posted on May, 25 2004 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I’m far from a crybaby as you seem to think. I would remind you to search your own mind remembering the principals of transference/displacement as you do.

I agree $250-309 k per year does not make one “rich”. But I argue it does not qualify one for a child care credit. Now this discussion is academic because it’s never going to happen. And the proponents of this sham know it. If they were interested in the well being of their constituents they would have address a real middle class need – supporting expanding College aide. As it stands now, the Republicans have redefined the eligibility for College aide which has frozen out the middle class while offering it to folks in an income level who are unlikely to use it.

In 1980 middle class families could count on 40% of their children’s college education cost being supported in one fashion or another. Today that figure is 5%. Another thing you can credit the Republicans for.

As for myself, I belong to a community called the United States of America and I hold to the Constitutional responsibilities of government to provide for the health, safety and well-being of its citizens. To think a Church can address the social problems we face is and infantile thought.

I’m retired and each day I could care less for the direction this country is going economically. I can weather the storm to come quite well and in the process buy your property at foreclosure. I am just constantly flabbergasted at how ignorant folks are thinking the Bush et al’s of this world are doing their bidding. All I can say is stay bent over as you all get screwed.

Have a nice life and remember who told you first



posted on May, 25 2004 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by gmcnulty
Calling folks who make $309,000 a year middle class in need of a tax break is an abomination. I'm sorry you can not see the inequity in that and find it insulting.


I didn't call them middle class, but since you mentioned it, they are taxed at a rate of 39%. Lower incomes are taxed at 28%, 15% or not at all.

I also didn't say they deserved the child credit. The original point of your post was that they were getting something that lower income taxpayers were not. Your statement is not true, lower income taxpayers get more, up to 25% of their income in tax credits.

If you hate the administration's policys great, then just say so, but find something, like the war, or better yet, Corporate Welfare, to complain about. No one is losing anything if the child credit is expanded.



posted on May, 25 2004 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Bleys:

Thank you for you replies.

Maybe we can get closer to understanding----

Well, what’s bothering you son/gal? Something crawl into your craw? You’re getting (sounding at least) a tad defensive, it would seem? How could that? Or do I misread you?

I never said you called the folks ‘middle class’, yes that is correct. If you wish to reread the link then you will see it is a measure in the House Bill that redefines the ‘middle class to $250,000 per year and extends the benefit to those of the $309,000 scale.

Although you did not directly say ‘they deserved the child care credit I bet you sure fooled lots of readers into thinking that was the case. For me, I could care less. I posed a question of equity and sound use of our tax dollars. My concerns are economic not political or patrician.

You say:

“Your statement is not true, lower income taxpayers get more, up to 25% of their income in tax credits.”

I say: Prove it.

And stop that circular argument about me “Hating the administrations policies.” I wouldn’t waste the energy in such a sinfully unproductive way.

And you further say:

Find something, like the war, or better yet, Corporate Welfare, to complain about.

I do. I have, and I continue to do so. But I try to stick to one issue and subject at a time when I post a string.

It’s just a funny habit I have. I’m just a slave to a style which strives for directness and clarity. Sorry if it bothers you.

And you’re correct
No one is losing anything if the child credit is expanded.

But nothing is/will be gained by this cheap political trick other then to pull the wool over the eyes of those who voted for those clowns.

Rather sad I’d say!



posted on May, 25 2004 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by gmcnulty
Although you did not directly say ‘they deserved the child care credit I bet you sure fooled lots of readers into thinking that was the case.


And if you'll note, I still have made no judgement as to whether or not the credit should be expanded.

My replies are simply to correct your erroneous assumptions. You made the statement that families with AGIs of 10,500 would not qualify for the credit and then somehow concluded from that, that it was a punishment for being "sinful and lazy".

The only reason they don't get the credit is because they pay no tax and there is nothing to refund. This is a very simple concept to understand.



“Your statement (regarding EIC) is not true, lower income taxpayers get more, up to 25% of their income in tax credits.”

I say: Prove it.


In my earlier post, I listed the AGIs and earned income credit the government provides to taxpayer earning less than 35,000 a year. For example a married couple earning between 11,000 and 14,750 receives an EIC of $4200 in EIC.

Just so you know I'm not pulling these figures out of the air, here's the link to the IRS website so you can verify it for yourself.

Link

Hope this helps.



posted on May, 25 2004 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by gmcnulty
Now this discussion is academic because it’s never going to happen. And the proponents of this sham know it. If they were interested in the well being of their constituents they would have address a real middle class need – supporting expanding College aide.


Ah, see now that's the real meat of this topic. Perhaps this is not the proper thing to do. In fact, I'd rather they hadn't done it.

The real need is not additional programs or credits, but rather reform on a scale never seen before. A cleansing if you will.

Cut cut cut. I am one who believes that the federal government can do nothing but create bloated and ineffective social or spending programs. This we need to defer to the state (at the very least, if not lower) because they would be better suited to assess the needs of their residents. This would alleviate a good portion of misappropriations and save money/lower taxes.

If taxes are the problem, then address the spending as opposed to nitpicking the nuances of taxation.

Anyway, I highly doubt that you'd ever be able to buy my house in foreclosure. I make enough money for two families doing just that... Real Estate.

By the way, I hate Bush.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join