Tax the poor!

[Loren Pechtel]

Senate GOP Agenda Would Hike Taxes on Poorest 40% by Average of $1,000 | Common Dreams

By contrast, the plan unveiled by Republican Sen. Rick Scott would not increase taxes on the top 1% by a single penny.

www.commondreams.org

At least that's what the Republicans want to do.

I actually agree with the concept of everyone having some skin in the game, but it should be a low percentage tax, not a fixed amount. However, they're obviously after gutting the EITC in the name of having everyone have skin in the game. This is pure evil.

 

[Derec]

Those who qualify for negative effective tax rates on account of EITC and child tax credit are not necessarily "poor". They just have a very favorable tax situation because they have (many) children.
Somebody making as little as $25k with no kids will have a positive federal tax burden. Somebody making twice that with 2 kids will likely have negative effective taxes.

 

[TV and credit cards]

So, what’s the up side here? How does this one particular aspect of Rick Scott’s 11 point plan benefit anyone or society as a whole?

Piece of Shit’s 11 Point Plan.
It’s all crap. Just so much political sputum to get people riled up.

This benefits no one. It does harm many. It will mean more children going to school focused on their hunger rather than their studies which will exacerbate poverty and weaken the nation.

Oh, I know. People will finally get it through their thick skulls to stop having babies they can’t afford. That will be the final outcome here.

And the children already here that are not fed on a regular basis? Well, let their empty bellies be a valuable lesson for them as they mature into adulthood so they they don’t end up like their irresponsible drunken fathers or loose immoral mothers.

What does this ultra conservative utopia look like where women are forced to carry all pregnancies to term and hungry children have to fend for themselves? Are there workhouses? Is this how we fulfill another of Rick Scott’s 11 point plan and make all things in the good old USA without raising costs? Do we put them to work in the fields once another of the 11 point plan is fulfilled: The Great Trump Wall?

One thing’s for sure; in all this, we won’t be focusing on where the real money is.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Can't we all just get rich like Scott did by defrauding Medicare?

 

[laughing dog]

Senate GOP Agenda Would Hike Taxes on Poorest 40% by Average of $1,000 | Common Dreams

By contrast, the plan unveiled by Republican Sen. Rick Scott would not increase taxes on the top 1% by a single penny.

www.commondreams.org

At least that's what the Republicans want to do.

I actually agree with the concept of everyone having some skin in the game, but it should be a low percentage tax, not a fixed amount. However, they're obviously after gutting the EITC in the name of having everyone have skin in the game. This is pure evil.

You don't understand. Mr. Scott is proposing to take advantage of economies of scale because there are lots more low income people than the "1%".

The "skin in the game" argument is crapola. Anyone is an employee pays social security taxes which are federal taxes based on income and which go to fund current federal operations.
A long time ago, my wife and I filed out out federal taxes, and the IRS corrected them for the EITC. We still ended up paying more in social security taxes than we received in return.

Finally, the really poor have no skin to put in the game.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Skin in the game. What game? What game are the poor also playing that the wealthy are playing.

 

[marc]

Skin in the game. What game? What game are the poor also playing that the wealthy are playing.

Considering that poor people's ability to even survive is affected by political 'games', yea, they have always had skin in the game. Just no way to actually affect it in any meaningful way. The wealthy have 'skin' in the game equivalent to a minor scrape. Even if they loose a lot, it wouldn't significantly affect their lifestyle.

 

[Rhea]

Thi

They just have a very favorable tax situation because they have (many) children.

This is so interesting, this willingness to punish all in case there are a few guilty. The acceptance that yes, some people will be unfairly harmed, but it is worth it in order to catch the criminals. In particular that it is okay to harm the children so you can punish the irresponsible breeders.

If we all advocated HARD for universally available and free-to-user long acting reversible contraceptives, it’s probably true that the number of people who need social help just because they have more children would be decreased.


And yet, the choice is instead to punish the children with hunger.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Those who qualify for negative effective tax rates on account of EITC and child tax credit are not necessarily "poor". They just have a very favorable tax situation because they have (many) children.

Those who qualify for negative effective tax rates on account of EITC and child tax credit are not necessarily "poor". They just have a very favorable tax situation because they have (many) children.
Somebody making as little as $25k with no kids will have a positive federal tax burden. Somebody making twice that with 2 kids will likely have negative effective taxes.

Somebody making as little as $25k with no kids will have a positive federal tax burden. Somebody making twice that with 2 kids will likely have negative effective taxes.

The trouble with "poor" only assistance is that assistance only to the "poor" makes getting unpoor a difficult maneuver, as one would go from assistance to no-assistance. These programs transition the aid to help assist people to get less poor.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Skin in the game. What game? What game are the poor also playing that the wealthy are playing.

Considering that poor people's ability to even survive is affected by political 'games', yea, they have always had skin in the game. Just no way to actually affect it in any meaningful way. The wealthy have 'skin' in the game equivalent to a minor scrape. Even if they loose a lot, it wouldn't significantly affect their lifestyle.

The point is that so much spending and costs to Government benefit the wealthy. We toss scraps to the poor and all of a sudden others get all uppity. OMF, a family making $50k with two children got $800 in EITC! That is an outrage!!! Meanwhile we give hundreds of millions in "aid" to other countries to buy our weapons.

 

[laughing dog]

Thi

They just have a very favorable tax situation because they have (many) children.

This is so interesting, this willingness to punish all in case there are a few guilty. The acceptance that yes, some people will be unfairly harmed, but it is worth it in order to catch the criminals. In particular that it is okay to harm the children so you can punish the irresponsible breeders.

If we all advocated HARD for universally available and free-to-user long acting reversible contraceptives, it’s probably true that the number of people who need social help just because they have more children would be decreased.


And yet, the choice is instead to punish the children with hunger.

Especially since there are not that many "irresponsible breeders". And we know that hunger over sustained periods of time means less physical and mental development over time. But hey, only the "deserving" poor merit alms.

Moreover, the definition of "many" children is pretty low: the maximum income eligibility is the same for 3 or more children. Despite the overall population growth in the world, the US birth rate is below the replacement rate. If there is no change in the longer run, that translates into either higher per-capital tax burdens or. more immigration!!!

 

[Elixir]

The trouble with "poor" only assistance is that assistance only to the "poor" makes getting unpoor a difficult maneuver, as one would go from assistance to no-assistance.

That’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
We can all thank our free market capitalists for the great prosperity we “all” enjoy thanks to our burgeoning numbers of poor! May they remain so forever!

 

[Toni]

Those who qualify for negative effective tax rates on account of EITC and child tax credit are not necessarily "poor". They just have a very favorable tax situation because they have (many) children.
Somebody making as little as $25k with no kids will have a positive federal tax burden. Somebody making twice that with 2 kids will likely have negative effective taxes.

Two children isn't 'many.'

Somebody making $50K and supporting themselves, presumably a partner and 2 children is potentially more economically strained compared with a single person earning about $25K.

Do I think someone earning $25K/year should have a (significant for THEM) tax burden? No. I really don't. That's a low income with very little wiggle room for any kind of extra cost such as a moderate car repair for the cast off family vehicle they are driving. For a family of 4 people, $50K is really not much these days but if only one parent is working and the other providing child care, it's doable if you are not in a large expensive city but in a smaller town in the midwest. For a single parent with 2 children (i.e. 3 person household), it goes a lot less far as there must be childcare expenses which are astronomical.

 

[Gospel]

"Dumb Americans (like myself) want fewer words explaining how this affects us. The easiest way is to plop a calculator on a website kna-mean? With that, we can see the numbers ourselves nice and easy like. An Android or iPhone APP would be even better since it's only a click away from Candy Crush. Ain't nobody trying to read some booty munching article written by some wordy do-nothing."

Fo Real Fo Real: Gospel

Should I send that complaint to my Governor's office.? I'm certain he will do the right thing and make such a calculator available to all us Floridians.

 

[Derec]

Two children isn't 'many.'

I did not say it was. But even with 2 children, there is a definite tax benefit, and it increases with the number of children. The result is that poorer child-free people are subsidizing those with children. In the case of Biden's expanded child tax credit, poorer child-free people are even subsidizing people making six figures, because the income limit is $150k for a married couple.

Somebody making $50K and supporting themselves, presumably a partner and 2 children is potentially more economically strained compared with a single person earning about $25K.

Doubtful. There are economies of scale and most things do not scale linearly with household size. A larger three bedroom apartment that accommodates 4 people is less than twice the rent for a one bedroom. Even food is more cost-effective shopping and cooking for four vs. for one.

Do I think someone earning $25K/year should have a (significant for THEM) tax burden? No. I really don't.

But that ends up happening when the tax code is heavily subsidizing parents. Having children is a choice and parents should be the ones carrying lion share of the financial burden, not people uninvolved with that choice.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Two children isn't 'many.'

I did not say it was. But even with 2 children, there is a definite tax benefit, and it increases with the number of children. The result is that poorer child-free people are subsidizing those with children.

Barely to the extent bringing it up is laughable. A single person making $30k is barely paying any Federal Income Tax. They aren't subsidizing anything.

Somebody making $50K and supporting themselves, presumably a partner and 2 children is potentially more economically strained compared with a single person earning about $25K.

Doubtful. There are economies of scale and most things do not scale linearly with household size. A larger three bedroom apartment that accommodates 4 people is less than twice the rent for a one bedroom. Even food is more cost-effective shopping and cooking for four vs. for one.

For food, that is not remotely true. For two people, possibly. But for four? No. And of course, clothing isn't scaling at all, and housing, while per square foot might be a bit cheaper... it still costs actually more, as would utilities.

Do I think someone earning $25K/year should have a (significant for THEM) tax burden? No. I really don't.

But that ends up happening when the tax code is heavily subsidizing parents. Having children is a choice and parents should be the ones carrying lion share of the financial burden, not people uninvolved with that choice.

I keep forgetting how raising children is merely a line-item in an accounting ledger.

 

[Derec]

Especially since there are not that many "irresponsible breeders".

How many is "not that many"? I just read an article about a woman on death row for murdering her daughter. She had fourteen (14) children. She was pregnant with last two at the time of murder.

And we know that hunger over sustained periods of time means less physical and mental development over time.

So we need to discourage people who can't afford to have children from having them, not give them a financial incentive to keep spitting out more and more babies.

But hey, only the "deserving" poor merit alms.

I think there is a difference whether someone is poor due to circumstances beyond their control, and those who are poor because they have been making poor decisions for the last 20 years. Like popping out another child every 18 months.

Moreover, the definition of "many" children is pretty low: the maximum income eligibility is the same for 3 or more children.

Which program are you talking about? There are myriad programs subsidizing those with children. I think you are right about Biden's expanded child tax credit, although that income limit is very high - $150k. The benefit itself is linear $300-$360 per child with no limit on number of children. Someone with 10 children under 18 could make at least $30k off child tax credit alone!

Despite the overall population growth in the world, the US birth rate is below the replacement rate. If there is no change in the longer run, that translates into either higher per-capital tax burdens or. more immigration!!!

The problem is that the stupidest people end up having the most children. Idiocracy, here we come!

 

[Derec]

Barely to the extent bringing it up is laughable. A single person making $30k is barely paying any Federal Income Tax. They aren't subsidizing anything.

A single person making $30k is paying a lot more federal income tax than a person with children making $50k due to all the subsidies. If you have three children, at $50k you are still eligible for EITC. If you are single and have no kids? The income limit is $20k. That makes EITC yet another child tax credit in disguise.

For food, that is not remotely true. For two people, possibly. But for four? No.

Of course it is true. You can buy in bulk, shop at Costco. Cooking a larger pot of food is more time and cost-effective than cooking for one.

And of course, clothing isn't scaling at all,

Never heard of hand-me-downs?

and housing, while per square foot might be a bit cheaper... it still costs actually more, as would utilities.

Per person housing costs way less the more people you have. As does transportation. A family of 4 could get by with one car, same as a single person. Even if they get a second car, that's still half the number of cars per capita.

I keep forgetting how raising children is merely a line-item in an accounting ledger.

The point is, if you choose to have children, you should be the one paying for them. Not I.

 

[Derec]

OMF, a family making $50k with two children got $800 in EITC! That is an outrage!!!

Don't forget the Biden's expanded child tax credit. For 2021 tax year, having two children will get you another $7,200, and even more for younger children. That's at least $8,000 in total subsidies.

 

[Derec]

The trouble with "poor" only assistance is that assistance only to the "poor" makes getting unpoor a difficult maneuver, as one would go from assistance to no-assistance. These programs transition the aid to help assist people to get less poor.

Yes, I get that. Any public benefit should phase out instead of having a hard cliff.

My problem is that the taxpayers are too focused on heavily subsidizing people with children, including those (like those making $100-150k) who have no real need for it, and forgetting that child-free can struggle financially too.