...in a discussion on helping the middle class...?
Hillary Clinton whispering in Obama's ear much?
Printable View
...in a discussion on helping the middle class...?
Hillary Clinton whispering in Obama's ear much?
I haven't heard that. Can I see a source?
You have a problem with increasing the child tax credit?
I was just reading about this on MSNBC.
So that's a plan to reduce taxes for people with children? Sounds good to me.
Yes, I do lolli. Do you not have a problem with our government throwing money away?
It might be good for Europe, Hazir.. but adding incentives for people to have children isn't a middle class tax credit and it isn't useful for our economy. It adds to the deficit while adding mouths to feed when we have over 17% unemployment. How much sense does this make? Oh, and it tops off at about $85,000 per household. That's a little over 42.5K per parent, assuming two. That's lower-middle-class.
It's disappointing that Obama's people are still pushing crappy ideas with some not-so-bad ideas and hoping we'll swallow.
Probably only for people who make less than a certain threshold. Damn middle class, they get all the perks in life. :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
You're mixing long term and short term. And I'd be surprised if there's any middle class folks out there rushing to get knocked up because of the wonderful new tax credit they'll get. Give me a break. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
Same old tired argument from you!Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
So just throw away the long term implications like it doesn't matter?
It's bad in the short term too. When you get a subsidy for nothing (just having kids), you will be less likely to work, and this will drain the deficit.. these tax credits do not increase the size of the middle class, which is what this latest Obama proposal is about.
So we just hand out cash to those for having kids they can not afford???Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Taxes, theoretically are to adjust behavior...how is this doing that?
That's like saying that people are going to go out and buy another house because of a homebuyer tax credit.
Taxes used to adjust behavior is a stupid idea. The entire tax code should be cleaned out to give us a moderately progressive tax like we have now.
Nice of you to sidestep reality. That must be a requirement to be conservative these days. Again, NOBODY is rushing out to get pregnant just to get a bigger tax credit. The very basis of your argument isn't just false, its stupid. Therefore everything that flows from it, long or short term is just as false. A per child tax credit isn't there to increase the middle class, its there to lower the tax burden on people who already have a significant expense - their kids - as opposed to their childless peers who don't have that particular burden.Quote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
No, that's not what its about. Times have gotten very tough for people so those that have serious repsonsibility and expenses they can't get rid of, such as raising the next generation, are getting a little help. And no, taxes are not to adjust behavior, they are to raise revenue so that civilization can function. Some economists like to use sin taxes to push people away from bad behavior, like drinking and smoking, but that's not the PURPOSE of taxes. It's an experiment in social engineering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
My god man, how big a credit you think they're giving out. It's just help those people (yes with children) who are struggling, to get out of some of there debt. This in turn would allow them to begin accumulating more. Kids are unbelievably expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
1. I'll direct you again to post 8.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
2. Yet, if you see Obama talking on the podium there, what does it say in huge white letters? It says something like "middle class task group", not "let's give handouts to people with gobs of children so we can get their votes next election" task group.
I doubt that anybody in the middle class would consider having a child for no other reason than a tax-incentive. Lowering the tax-burden for parents should typically make their task of raising their children (which is an interest of society) a little bit easier. Which I consider a good thing, anywhere.
Brandy pays in no federal tax, yet still gets ~$6000 back from the IRS every year. I wonder exactly how much more support the government thinks she needs.
Looks like I'll be the one claiming Scarlett this year. Over the years I've gotten my return to work out where I owe or am owed barely nothing. So Scarlett is straight money in the bank.
Is that why you had her? And are you planning to have another so you can fleece the system some more? :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Ah, yes, post 8:Quote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
So you think of the cost and responsibility of raising a family, especially when the economy is in turmoil, as, well, as nothing :| . And your argument is per-child tax credits encourages middle class parents not to work. :| Yeah. And that Obama's purpose for increasing this credit is to increase the size of the middle class. :| If you're going to be voluntarily stupid in your arguments, I'm going to talk to someone else.Quote:
It's bad in the short term too. When you get a subsidy for nothing (just having kids), you will be less likely to work, and this will drain the deficit.. these tax credits do not increase the size of the middle class, which is what this latest Obama proposal is about.
And regarding the banners and whatever on the podium, <sigh> <shakes head>. If you think much, those types of things, the one liners, the simplton ads, arn't meant for you. You really need to think about what a policy is meant to do rather than raise a fit about what the banner on the podium says. Most policy is at some level about votes, but if you really think this is only about getting votes... whatever, dude.
Re-read what he wrote.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
His missus pays NOTHING in federal taxes and still gets $6K in a tax credit.
Where do you think that money comes from?
Me. And I hope he uses it to take good care of his daughter. She's our future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
no and no, but tax time and my dad's health did play a part in when we wanted Scarlett to be born.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
I simply don't see the point of this tax credit. We are far from middle class, but surely don't need such a heavy handout. I think this has more to do with trying to win votes with the people disillusioned into thinking they are part of the middle class. Helping the children because the parents are morons and/or living above their means.
OG, you're not every person. You're an annecdote. Just because you don't need it doesn't mean many others don't legititmately need it. If your credit is too much, then send some of it back. The IRS won't refuse it. Or give it to charity so someone who needs the money can benefit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
The money is actually for her first two. Scarlett will go on my return.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
I paid 2,330.12 in taxes last year, made just shy of 30 thousand, and now expect to get it all back, at least.
When you're middle class and up, you don't legititmately need government hand outs like this. You need to fix your lifestyle. Cable, multiple SUVs, TIVO, Netflix...those aren't needs. The government shouldn't help you maintain a comfortable lifestyle because you popped one to many out.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
This!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
OG has got it right (and we don't agree very often).
I don't have kids, where is my tax CUT (tax credit is just another word for welfare) for NOT burdening the system?
Jesus Choobs. There is no guarantee that those that do WILL use it for their kids.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
It's vote buying, pure and simple.
You shouldn't be paying income tax at all, IMHO. That's the net effect but it seems inefficient to take that money out of your check just to send it back to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
It depends. First, I'm not agreeing that this vague picture your painting is necessarily accurate. However, the government might be looking at this like a kind of stimulus. Most of our economy is founded on consumption, like the stuff your talking about. If middle class folks feeling the pinch tighten up like you recommend, it has the effect of prolonging the recession. Now, obviously the next question becomes 'should our economy be based on consumption and the need for growth and blah blah blah' and then we're in deep water. Those long term questions and arguably this isn't the time to discuss them. No time is, unfortunately, because its the kind of discussion that loses elections.Quote:
When you're middle class and up, you don't legititmately need government hand outs like this. You need to fix your lifestyle. Cable, multiple SUVs, TIVO, Netflix...those aren't needs. The government shouldn't help you maintain a comfortable lifestyle because you popped one to many out.
Obviously, hence the fact that my pervious tax returns have balanced out. Niether I or the government was able to predict more than 13 months ago I would be claiming a dependant.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
You're confusing the status of middle class, as well as what defines it. Middle class has disposable income. If you're having to tighten up to the effect of "prolonging the recession" you aren't or never were middle class. You were likely living in a fantasy world.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Next, hasn't research shown that childless adults are far better better consumers than those that have children? Thats one of the strongest arguments used in supporting homosexual relationships.
So why reward the ones who couldn't keep it in their pants?
Because thats the base you have to bribe.
There are far better ways to help the children. Rewarding parents directly, because you're claiming to help the ones that have already shown to be financial fuck ups, its not high on that list of "help that makes sense".
Not much to add but that I think that Eyekhan is absolutely right; a fair system of taxation takes into account that people who have children are contributing to society and thus can expect to have a smaller portion of their income go to the coffers of the state. Even if that in the silly system we have that means they are getting tax-credits. (It's not much different in the NL than in the US and in principle I agree with the special treatment of people with children).
Where is the limit? Parents have always gotten a tax credit for children. Hence the title here talking about "increasing" that credit. As I already pointed out, Brandy's ~$6,000 for a lower income household seems to be more than enough. Is the middleclass expecting the same or better?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Why? So they can still live under the false idea of being middle class?
No guarantees, so lets do nothing. Well, you're going to have a guarantee with that policy for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Not necessarily. A lot of income is based on bonus' and commission. Others on overtime. A lot of people have gotten their hours cut from 40 to 35 or even 30. And a lot of people have lost their jobs. There's lots of reasons why someone may have less income that doesn't relate to debt spending.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I've never heard anything like that. I know I buy a lot of stuff for my kids... a hell of a lot more crap gets bought than when I was childless.Quote:
Next, hasn't research shown that childless adults are far better better consumers than those that have children? Thats one of the strongest arguments used in supporting homosexual relationships.
Um, that's an interesting take. But note that this is a nation of people and the children are the future of the nation. I'm not sure I'd classify them a liablity because some reckless moron couldn't abstain from sex. :|Quote:
So why reward the ones who couldn't keep it in their pants?
Again, I think your premise isn't reflecting reality: All, or even a majorit, of parents who are feeling a pinch due to the recession are fuck ups. :|Quote:
There are far better ways to help the children. Rewarding parents directly, because you're claiming to help the ones that have already shown to be financial fuck ups, its not high on that list of "help that makes sense".
The whole class angle is utterly irrelevant to me. It probably means less for people who are in the middle class than for somebody in the lower socio economic strata anyway, but that doesn't take away from the fact that a child put into this world potentially will at some day pay back all society invested in it and more.
Less income means you have to have less debt spending. Which means cutting out the tell tale signs of middle class life.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Less income does not mean the government needs to step in to prop up the lifestyle you couldn't afford and plan long term to begin with.
It had to do something with the volume, value and quantity of purchases. Childless adults are more likely to spend big and on fewer imported goods (without it even being a concern) than adults with children. More expensive purchases also meant higher profits for local businesses. More of a childless adult's income went to profit, when the parent's income went towards products with slim profits because it was mostly overseas manufacturing and importing costs.Quote:
I've never heard anything like that. I know I buy a lot of stuff for my kids... a hell of a lot more crap gets bought than when I was childless.
Its like comparing leasing a new cadillac to purchasing a years worth of chinese made school supplies. Comparing buying imported Ramen to shopping at Whole Foods.
Never said a majority, or all of parents.Quote:
Um, that's an interesting take. But note that this is a nation of people and the children are the future of the nation. I'm not sure I'd classify them a liablity because some reckless moron couldn't abstain from sex. :|
Again, I think your premise isn't reflecting reality: All, or even a majorit, of parents who are feeling a pinch due to the recession are fuck ups. :|
What I am saying is that this is a bribe to everyone, using the fuck ups as an excuse that its what the children need. Being in a "pinch" does not require government assistance, especially if you consider yourself middle class.
There are far better and more efficient ways to invest in our children then to give extra tax credits to the parents.
Know what we're using our tax credit on?
4 night bahama cruise via Disney, yes with the children. Which isn't all bad, the government does get $500 of the money back in passport fees.
Where did I say let's do nothing?Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
And nice dodge on the vote buying.
<sigh> your lack of empathy, while certainly not unAmerican, is certainly disappointing. Take this as an example: My brother is an electrician. He runs his own electrical shop. He has two children and a wife that works part time. Because the economy has tanked, construction electrical work has tanked. So has residential, because people are either doing it themselves or just not doing it if they can. So, his business is way down, unprecedentedly down as the economy hasn't done anything like this in his life-time, and with it his income is down too. Now, his family health care costs have not dropped. His mortgage has not dropped. His property taxes have not dropped. His food costs have not dropped. Nor has his car payment. His shop rental. His union dues. If he gets a bigger income tax refund this year, because he has two children, that might, just might get him through this unprecedented dry spell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Now note, he is middle class but he's not having financial woes because he's a lazy hyper consuming dumb fuck that can't stop spending money. Nor is it reasonable for him to sell his house and car, stop renting his electrical shop, and put his kids up for adoption because his finances are temporarily - presumably - down due to an unprecedented recession. Life is a LOT more complicated than: "You having financial troubles? Well it's your own damn fault and don't look to the Nanny State to help your dumb ass out!" Jesus. When did you start thinking as dumb as conservatives?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
You said:
I assume by that first statement you meant because there is no guarantee this money will be "used for the kids" whatever the fuck that means, then this credit should not be given. Did you mean something else?Quote:
Jesus Choobs. There is no guarantee that those that do WILL use it for their kids.
It's vote buying, pure and simple.
I'm not sure what I'm dodging on the vote buying issue. If a senator's constituents are suffering financial woes due to a recession and he helps pass some kind of financial relief, the cynics are always going to say he's buying votes. Same thing with the capital gains tax cut. Conservatives buying votes. Both have actual underlying policy considerations too, don't they. :rolleyes:
I'm just cutting to this, since you ignored every other point I made. Your brother is no longer middle class. This is something he must come to terms with. Expenses can be cut, especially on the grocery bill on a middle class household. I'd also bring up being under water on the mortgage, but I'm sure you're dying to jump all over that. Maybe I should bring up how all those high school financial classes taught to save up for "temporarily" drops in income.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
But even in your example, having kids has absofuckinglutely nothing to do with the position your brother has placed himself in. Your brother extended himself past his means, and is now going to use his children to stay afloat. No way in hell is his tax credit going completely towards his children. Therefore this is an inefficient way to invest in our children, and just another way to reward those that don't need rewarded.
So why shaft those without kids, there are just as many textbook examples like the one you just gave me where children aren't involved.
I like this juxtaposition of champagne socialist vs reformed crack addict :D
Extended beyond his means. :| Yeah, so your solution to everyone in financial trouble due to the worst recession since the 1930s is they should have been ready for it and since they weren't its their own damn fault so fuck them. After all, who didn't see this coming, right? Please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
And no, he's not going to try and use his children to stay afloat. (Jesus, I can't believe how you are slurring this shit around to put the most negative spin on people you can. :? ) He's receiving a targeted tax credit to help him get through the recession without having to dump his busines and assets. Why target people with kids? Because maybe someone has made a value judgement that helping adults with children is more urgent than helping adults wtihout children. Do you have more responsibility now that you have kids? Do you think losing your house is a bigger deal now that you have kids than it would be before you had them? Come on! This is getting ridiculous! Is that the key to being conservative? Hate people? Blame them for their own problems? Resent them for the help they get? Assume the worst out of people? Fuck. :down: