Tax the poor!

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Firstly, you used the word subsidize which was trying to make it sound more impressive than it is. Next, the bill is about the same, tax wise.

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.

It isn't really a 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.

Says the guy without a family.

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

Never heard of hand-me-downs?

Gonna argue the sky isn't blue when it is cloudy too?

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.

It still costs money! Your expenses aren't higher if we compare it per capita. Seriously, WTF?!

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.

And the counterpoint is the cost to you to pay for these tax benefits is nothing compared to the subsidization of schools. So you should start railing on about that.

 

[Toni]

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, the very best ways to encourage poor people who ‘can’t afford’ to have more children to limit their family size is to provide both excellent access to excellent education and job and career training and excellent access to comprehensive health care, including birth control.

People who see opportunities for themselves and any children they might already have tend to limit their family size. If you have a baby or two and have a chance to get more education and job training or gasp! an actual career, you are motivated to work for that future. If such a future seems completely out of reach, why change anything you do?

That means: access to education and job/career training—and coaching

Access to high quality affordable ( or free!) childcare

Access to reliable transportation

Safe and affordable housing

Access to affordable, good, nutritious food.

And—whether we like it or not: access to internet connected computers and cell phones. I know those seem like luxuries but increasingly, job applications, rent applications and education all require a computer with internet and also a phone number.

You will always find people who abuse any system that can be established. That includes systems that are used to control abdcmanage poor people and systems designed to benefit the rich—as most systems do.

Don’t let the quest for perfection be the enemy of the good.

BTW: I have 4 children. I’m well educated as is their father (Ph.D.). My former neighbors had 12 children. Both hold Ph.D.s. I can think of two other families very quickly off the top of my head who had more than 8 children, all of whom grew up to be good, hard working, well educated people, holding a variety of degrees in many different fields, including engineering, MD’s, Ph.D’s, multiple masters degrees, and more.

You know what those families all gave in common? A good strong network of people that helped them achieve their goals.

All of us, every single one of us, at some time or another has needed a helping hand or a safety net. At one point in my life, having access to an interest free loan of $120 literally kept me from being homeless because I had the misfortune to get fairly sick with mono and could not work for about 10 days. Even at that time, $120 just was not that much money.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

An anecdote is not analysis.

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.

You think the EITC gives people financial incentives to have children? I do not of any academic studies that provide such evidence. Do you?

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.

I do not subscribe to your "morality". Moreover, the children of these "undeserving" poor did nothing to place themselves in their situation.

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!

I am taking about the EITC.

I have raised 4 children. I know people who are raising children. Children are not a financial bonanza: they are a financial drain.

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!

We hit idiocracy along time ago - Trump's election and the Jan. 6 riot are prove we are there right now.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I'd like to go a bit farther. A hard cap on the marginal tax rate, say at 50%. One final tax credit at the bottom of the 1040: You're free to pick any value $X that's $Y lower than your actual income, recompute all taxes and benefits for that value, if that value is more than $Y/2 less you get a tax credit of the difference. Instead of trying to ensure there are no hard cliffs make the tax code automatically smooth any cliff that arises. (And if it's a benefit that's lost you can forego the tax credit and claim the benefit instead.)

 

[skepticalbip]

Tax the poor!​

I thought that was the purpose of state lotteries. But then it is a voluntary tax.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

If this WERE to pass, then the next Black Lives Matter riots would not be riots. They would be outright revolution, and the reign of terror that followed would be a truly amazing shit show.

 

[Elixir]

“… you can buy in bulk”

Obviously Derec has never been poor.

 

[southernhybrid]

I don't understand Deres's opposition to women having many children, even if they need some help supporting them. The current birthrate in the US is extremely low. We need more children, so we can either open the gates to allow a lot more immigrants in or give incentives for people to have more children.

I worked with poorly paid women for the last 18 years of my career where I did part time contract work. There were two who had more than a few children. Most had one or two children. There was one with 8 children who had a wonderful supportive family that helped her out. I don't know what happened to the one with 10 children. She really was in over her head, but she was one person out of probably 100 who I worked with over those years. The turnover of staff was huge because it's hard to get by on a job that pays about 8 dollars an hour without any benefits, other than 6 paid days a year, 3 of which are holidays. If employers paid a much higher wage, these women wouldn't have needed any governmental help. A lot of government programs are really welfare for business because without these programs, people wouldn't be able to survive in these shitty but very necessary jobs.

Something that some people don't seem to understand is that sometimes poor people have children because that is the only thing in life that gives them purpose and joy. Most of my former coworkers were wonderful mothers. Some had partners, but if the fathers of these children didn't help out financially as well as spending time with their children, why blame the mothers? The fathers are just as responsible for those children as their mothers are. And why blame the children? They didn't ask to be born. Shouldn't a civilized, decent society feel a duty to protect its children by seeing that they have adequate housing, food and an education?

 

[Eldarion Lathria]

Don't tax the poor, they don't have the money. TAX THE CHURCHES!

Eldarion Lathria

 

[Elixir]

We need more children

WHO needs more children, and for what?

so we can either open the gates to allow a lot more immigrants in or give incentives for people to have more children.

Assuming that there's a real and forward-looking answer to the first premise question, I'll take door #1, Alex.
Is there a downside to that?

 

[southernhybrid]

We need more children

WHO needs more children, and for what?

so we can either open the gates to allow a lot more immigrants in or give incentives for people to have more children.

Assuming that there's a real and forward-looking answer to the first premise question, I'll take door #1, Alex.
Is there a downside to that?

Well for one thing, we need them to help pay our SS benefits! Duh! Plus who will fill all those nursing and other medical positions when we old farts overwhelm the system, not to mention all the other jobs that will need to be filled if we have a very low birthrate! For selfish reasons, we need more young people and kids.

I'd prefer the immigrants as well, but I'll take whoever wants to help us out.

 

[Derec]

Obviously Derec has never been poor.

Not real poor, no, but I think most of them would be able to shop in bulk and save money with a little planning ahead and spending less on things of lesser priority for their lives.

But that is not even the point of the thread. The point, before we got sidetracked in the discussion about details of tax credit policy, is that it is not only the poor who pay zero or negative federal income taxes due to (refundable) tax credits that selectively help certain kinds of people, in particular parents. About half of adults pay zero or negative federal income taxes (it was 47% in 2012 when Romney made it a point in his campaign, but it is bound to be higher in tax year 2021 especially due to Biden's expanded tax credit) but less than 15% of people are in poverty. Even if you want to say that the poverty line is way too low and that twice as many people should count, that still leaves at least 20% who are not in poverty but nevertheless pay zero or negative federal income tax.

 

[Derec]

Well for one thing, we need them to help pay our SS benefits! Duh! Plus who will fill all those nursing and other medical positions when we old farts overwhelm the system, not to mention all the other jobs that will need to be filled if we have a very low birthrate! For selfish reasons, we need more young people and kids.

We need a certain number of children to be born to replace those who die, yes. That does not mean we need continual population growth. A constant percentage population growth is unsustainable anyway as it amounts to exponential growth.
And we certainly do not need to keep adding subsidies for having children, especially past a certain number. I think all tax credits and other subsidies should get phased out after 3rd child and be removed completely after the 5th.

I'd prefer the immigrants as well, but I'll take whoever wants to help us out.

May I ask why? Why exactly do you prefer immigrants to children of Americans?
I have noticed the polar opposite of xenophobia on the Left. It even goes beyond mere xenophilia as it involves hostility of one's own country , its people and its culture. The anti-Americanism on the American Left is strong, but this hostility to self also exists in Europe, particularly in Germany and Sweden where some far left politicians are vocally rejoicing at the prospect of an Islamic Europe.

 

[Derec]

Don't tax the poor, they don't have the money. TAX THE CHURCHES!

Would be a good idea, but Democrats are almost as servile to organized religion as Republicans. Do you really think good Catholic Joe Biden would want to tax Mother Church? LMAO!

 

[Derec]

I don't understand Deres's opposition to women having many children,

It is the stupidest who tend to have the most children. Result:

even if they need some help supporting them.

Support such as birth control.

The current birthrate in the US is extremely low. We need more children, so we can either open the gates to allow a lot more immigrants in or give incentives for people to have more children.

US birth rate is not "extremely low". We are not Italy. And US also has a very high immigration rate, both legal and illegal.

Something that some people don't seem to understand is that sometimes poor people have children because that is the only thing in life that gives them purpose and joy.

I do not see why I should be paying for their hobby.

 

[southernhybrid]

Well for one thing, we need them to help pay our SS benefits! Duh! Plus who will fill all those nursing and other medical positions when we old farts overwhelm the system, not to mention all the other jobs that will need to be filled if we have a very low birthrate! For selfish reasons, we need more young people and kids.

We need a certain number of children to be born to replace those who die, yes. That does not mean we need continual population growth. A constant percentage population growth is unsustainable anyway as it amounts to exponential growth.
And we certainly do not need to keep adding subsidies for having children, especially past a certain number. I think all tax credits and other subsidies should get phased out after 3rd child and be removed completely after the 5th.

I'd prefer the immigrants as well, but I'll take whoever wants to help us out.

May I ask why? Why exactly do you prefer immigrants to children of Americans?
I have noticed the polar opposite of xenophobia on the Left. It even goes beyond mere xenophilia as it involves hostility of one's own country , its people and its culture. The anti-Americanism on the American Left is strong, but this hostility to self also exists in Europe, particularly in Germany and Sweden where some far left politicians are vocally rejoicing at the prospect of an Islamic Europe.

I never said that how many children we need. I really don't know exactly what the replacement number would be. The current birthrate is lower than. usual. That could be a problem when it comes to filling jobs and paying taxes. That was my point.

I favor immigrants because there are so many desperate immigrants with children that would be assets to our country, which was once proud to claim to be a nation of immigrants. Just like your family, my family, going back to my great grandparents, were immigrants from several different European countries. My husband's grandparents came her from Syria and Lebanon. I grew up in a neighborhood made up of mostly Polish and Italian immigrants. Immigrants are what made our country strong and diverse. I happen to like living in a very diverse country. Since you asked, that's how I see it, regardless if you agree.

I have no problem with Americans who are already here having children if that is their preference. The statistics suggest that fewer Americans are interested in having children since the birth rate is so low. It seems that this would be a good time to bring more people into the country since they want to come here and we need them.

 

[southernhybrid]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/t...-not-just-because-of-the-pandemic/ar-BB1grj86

There you go Derec. The birthrate has been falling for the past 6 years. It's below the replacement rate. I'm having trouble with the site this morning so I can't quote from the link for some reason. Read it if you want to understand why we need more children in the US.

You've made some rather nasty comments about poor women having children. Although they aren't having nearly as many as you seem to think, I would think that all of us, including you, would want these children to grow up with decent food and housing and a chance to get enough education to be able to support themselves once they become adults. Why do you seem to think it's okay to punish the children of poor parents, just because you personally don't think they should have had children? I was poor when I had my son. He is now a very successful computer programmer/developer.

 

[Elixir]

Not real poor, no, but I think most of them would be able to shop in bulk

What a comfort to know you think they can buy in bulk.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not real poor, no, but I think most of them would be able to shop in bulk

What a comfort to know you think they can buy in bulk.

Everything will be fine honey, we have 15 gallons of mayonnaise.