Negative Income Tax Rate

[corplinx]

The greedy republicans are at it again. Not only have they removed 10 million from paying any federal income taxes, but they are now trying to establish a negative income tax rate.

Between the EITC and the new child exemptions, many at the low end of the income scale will not only not pay any income tax but will get back an overage.

How could the republicans make such an oversight? It seems pretty simple that on a tax form it would have a sub item that goes like this:

A. Total Taxes Paid:
B. Total Deductions:

If amount A is less than amount B, then item A is your max deduction amount.


Its that simple, there should be no way on an income tax form to get an overage.

I keep hearing this, "yes but they pay other taxes". However, it is not the duty of the IRS to offset your FICA or local taxes.

[jayrev]

Originally posted by corplinx
The greedy republicans are at it again. Not only have they removed 10 million from paying any federal income taxes, but they are now trying to establish a negative income tax rate.


The negative rate already exists. There are already earned income credits available to low income people that give them a negative tax rate. What the Republicans are trying to do is increase it.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by jayrev


The negative rate already exists. There are already earned income credits available to low income people that give them a negative tax rate. What the Republicans are trying to do is increase it.

Yes, the "earned income tax credit" is what you are referring to. Its basically income redistribution (welfare). I am not saying thats a bad thing, but I'm not sure the IRS should be used for that purpose.

[jayrev]

Originally posted by corplinx


Yes, the "earned income tax credit" is what you are referring to. Its basically income redistribution (welfare). I am not saying thats a bad thing, but I'm not sure the IRS should be used for that purpose.

I say it is a bad thing, and I am sure that the IRS should not be used for that purpose.

[corplinx]

I call them the "Kentucky Fried Tax Credits". Minimum wage families are myth than reality, except in appalachia where they are a norm in some areas. Most minimum wage jobs are held by teenagers in school (who wont get eitc or child tax credits).

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by corplinx


Yes, the "earned income tax credit" is what you are referring to. Its basically income redistribution (welfare). I am not saying thats a bad thing, but I'm not sure the IRS should be used for that purpose. Why not? It seems like an efficient way to do it. Assuming we're going to distribute money to people who don't earn enough, wouldn't this be as good a mechanism as any?

And, while it is true (I think) that most minimum wage earners are not heads of households, many heads of households do earn below poverty wages. Minimum wage is only about $10,300 a year. A worker earning twice minimum, supporting a few kids and a wife, is still living in poverty. These credits don't go just to people earning right at minimum.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by corplinx
The greedy republicans are at it again. Not only have they removed 10 million from paying any federal income taxes, but they are now trying to establish a negative income tax rate.

Between the EITC and the new child exemptions, many at the low end of the income scale will not only not pay any income tax but will get back an overage.

How could the republicans make such an oversight? It seems pretty simple that on a tax form it would have a sub item that goes like this:

A. Total Taxes Paid:
B. Total Deductions:

If amount A is less than amount B, then item A is your max deduction amount.

Its that simple, there should be no way on an income tax form to get an overage.

I keep hearing this, "yes but they pay other taxes". However, it is not the duty of the IRS to offset your FICA or local taxes.


This really pisses me off. I mean the whole child credit thing, not just the low income part. If your getting any kind of child tax break you really need to shut yer mouth. Since when are these parents entitled to a big tax break? I dont have kids so Im not getting a rebate. Wheres the fairness debate about that?????

The nerve of these people to complain about the low income tax break. Thats like bitching about how their unjust tax break is better than my unjust tax break. I'd like to smack the whole lot of them.

[jayrev]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Why not? It seems like an efficient way to do it. Assuming we're going to distribute money to people who don't earn enough, wouldn't this be as good a mechanism as any?

And, while it is true (I think) that most minimum wage earners are not heads of households, many heads of households do earn below poverty wages. Minimum wage is only about $10,300 a year. A worker earning twice minimum, supporting a few kids and a wife, is still living in poverty. These credits don't go just to people earning right at minimum.

This is not an acceptable means to redistribute wealth, because it is based on income, not the ability to provide for your family.

Suppose I choose to take a year off of work and live off of $500,000 of savings that was earned in previous years. I made less than $10,000 in interest, my only income for the year. Should I get tax credits?

I'm not suggesting that this happens often, but it is a flaw in using the IRS to redistribute wealth.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tmy



This really pisses me off. I mean the whole child credit thing, not just the low income part. If your getting any kind of child tax break you really need to shut yer mouth. Since when are these parents entitled to a big tax break? I dont have kids so Im not getting a rebate. Wheres the fairness debate about that?????


Because you refuse to be a good hetero and propagate your species, your punishment is to pay more income tax to cover the cost of government services for your catholic neighbor with 5 kids all going to public school. Shame on you!

You know, it is the government's business after all if you have kids. That statue of justice with the blindfold was originally made with a cheathole in the blind. They later spackled it in.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by jayrev


This is not an acceptable means to redistribute wealth, because it is based on income, not the ability to provide for your family.

Suppose I choose to take a year off of work and live off of $500,000 of savings that was earned in previous years. I made less than $10,000 in interest, my only income for the year. Should I get tax credits?

I'm not suggesting that this happens often, but it is a flaw in using the IRS to redistribute wealth.

I was reading a report where they are considering correcting this by looking at ten year blocks on income to determine taxes, etc. Overall though they decided that its very complex and may not be worth the extra hassle.

[Malachi151]

The child tax credits have merit in terms of economics, but there are drawbacks too. I don't think there should be any child tax credit at all, but in order to do that taxes would have to be reduced on all poor and middle income people overall. Mainly I'm against child tax credits because it we are already over populated anyway, no need to encourage more. I want a tax credit for havig your tubes tied :D

Also, last I read this whole thread is without merit anyway, becuase last I read the child tax creidt was changed when it was implimented so that you can't claim the full deduction unless you make a certian amount and you don't get a "negative" tax credit at all.

Anyone claiming that the POOR are getting too many advantages needs to have their head checked. The are poor, I'm sure they would rather have higher paying jobs and not be poor and pay more taxes.

My sister has kids and lives in poverty and its not easy at all and she is struggling against the system all the time. She doe snot have enough money to buy a car, she had a car, but her insurance lapsed, she got pulled over for her license plate being out of date, then got a ticket for not having her 5 year old in a car seat and not having insurance, ended up with over a thousands dollars in fines becuase she missed a court date due to it being resheduled, got a warrent for her arrest for failure to show, couldn't pay the fines cause she only makes like $6,000 a year, and has to pay for childcare sometimes too, had to go to jail, lost her job because of that, I had to bail her out and pay $500 of the fines, my mom paid like $800, and her boyfreind paid like $700, and she still had to do jail time and community service.

WTF!!!

If she had money in teh first place she would have first of all had insurance, and even if not she would have paid a small fine and been on her way.

Trust me, the poor are not out there living it up on you tax dollars having a ball. They are getting their ass kicked on a daily basis.

She did have public housing where she lived for free, but she lost that due to going to jail, which was over something stupid. Its very difficult to climb out of the hole of poverty when you have kids.

[jayrev]

Originally posted by Malachi151

She doe snot have enough money to buy a car, she had a car, but her insurance lapsed, she got pulled over for her license plate being out of date, then got a ticket for not having her 5 year old in a car seat and not having insurance, ended up with over a thousands dollars in fines becuase she missed a court date due to it being resheduled, got a warrent for her arrest for failure to show, couldn't pay the fines cause she only makes like $6,000 a year, and has to pay for childcare sometimes too, had to go to jail, lost her job because of that, I had to bail her out and pay $500 of the fines, my mom paid like $800, and her boyfreind paid like $700, and she still had to do jail time and community service.



Looks to me like she broke the law 4 times, endangering her child and endangering the property of others by driving without insurance. So you think the laws shouldn't apply to the poor?

[jj]

Originally posted by Tmy

I mean the whole child credit thing, not just the low income part. If your getting any kind of child tax break you really need to shut yer mouth. Since when are these parents entitled to a big tax break? I dont have kids so Im not getting a rebate. Wheres the fairness debate about that?????


Ok, dude, who is going to support you when you're old and infirm?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Malachi151

Anyone claiming that the POOR are getting too many advantages needs to have their head checked. The are poor, I'm sure they would rather have higher paying jobs and not be poor and pay more taxes.


Noone claimed that. What we claimed is:

A. the IRS and the income tax code is not the way to provide social services

B. Someone with kids does not deserve a tax break over someone without.

I have a brother living in poverty way down in a half size trailer in nesbit mississippi. Yes, its hard to fight your way out of poverty. However, cold-hearted me sees many _decisions_ he makes keep him in poverty.

And of course, to make it even easier to get out of poverty he had a kid.

Yes, we all have sympathy for the poor. But sometimes what they need isn't more government money to spend on lotto tickets and beer.

I for one have stopped giving him money and I hate the government subsidizing his poverty mentality.

[thaiboxerken]

Strange, that this negative tax rate isn't one of the big points that the democrats use in their outcry against the tax-cut.

Oh well, as long as I'm still wealthy, i'm ok with the poor being treated unfairly well.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by jayrev


I say it is a bad thing, and I am sure that the IRS should not be used for that purpose.

Absolutely. I have had clients that received such "welfare" and it irked me to learn of it in action. I call it "Stealth Welfare."

AS

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by jayrev


Looks to me like she broke the law 4 times, endangering her child and endangering the property of others by driving without insurance. So you think the laws shouldn't apply to the poor?

Oh give me a break, her 5 year old was in the back seat with seatbelt on, her other child was in a car seat.

Drivign w/o insurance is not endangering people.

The point is that all of that happened becuase he was poor, and the punishment only served to make her more poor.

If she had money in the first place she would have paid her insurance and tags, even if not, she would have just paid the fine and moved on. This is just an example a situation that would be easy to deal with for a middle class person who has money, but due to being poor these issues that seem small to people like me, become huge ordeals, that just dig people deeper and deeper in to a hole.

[jayrev]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Oh give me a break, her 5 year old was in the back seat with seatbelt on, her other child was in a car seat.


If the child was safe under those conditions, why is it illegal?


Drivign w/o insurance is not endangering people.


I didn't say it was endangering people, I said it was endangering their property. Liability insurance is required so that if you cause an accident that damages someone else's vehicle they are compensated. If she had been at fault in an accident without insurance then she would likely have been sued, either by the other person's insurance company if they had uninsured motorist protection, or by the other person themselves. But you probably say that wouldn't have been her fault either.


The point is that all of that happened becuase he was poor, and the punishment only served to make her more poor.


No, it didn't all happen because she was poor, it all happened because she acted irresponsibly. Did she not show up for court because she is poor? If this is typical behavior for your sister then I would suspect that similar decisions have put her in that condition. I realize that some people are poor due to situations beyond their control, but I believe that most are victims of their own poor decision making.


If she had money in the first place she would have paid her insurance and tags, even if not, she would have just paid the fine and moved on. This is just an example a situation that would be easy to deal with for a middle class person who has money, but due to being poor these issues that seem small to people like me, become huge ordeals, that just dig people deeper and deeper in to a hole.

What do you think should have happened? Should she not have been cited for breaking the law because of her circumstance? It appears that the worst of her troubles came from failure to show in court. That's a much more serious offense than the traffic violations. I would certainly have taken it seriously if I were in that situation.

Look, I'm not a heartless b*stard. I have compassion for people who are down on their luck, and I believe that there should be help for people who need it. I just don't consider every poor person to be a victim of the system. More often than not they are victims of themselves.

[thaiboxerken]

I agree Jayrev.

It seems to me that many of the "poor" people are poor, not because of circumstance, but because of their own faults. Often, the "poor" people don't have a problem with income, but with their ability to budget and spend wisely.

I wonder if this "victim" driver here is driving a financed car. She's driving without insurance, which tells me that she arrogantly thinks that she'll never get in a car accident AND that rules/laws shouldn't apply to her. What other patterns of uncritical thinking does this person possess and do they contribute to her chronic poverty?