Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a stupid argument, my wife and I made 70k last year and got 1200 in refunds with 0 kids. So that makes me a non contributor? The whole argument is flawed because if I didn't pay income tax on my earnings I still paid far more in payroll tax. If you aren't getting a refund you either don't know how the tax system works, or you make a whole lot of money. My brother and his wife make close to 100k and have one kid and still get a refund, so maybe you just need to educate yourself.
Let's see, the EIC was enacted by a Republican President (Ford, 1975) and expanded by a Republican President (Reagan, 1986 - with help from a Republican Senate), by another Republican President (GHW Bush, 1990), a Democratic President (Clinton, 1993), and finally by a Republican House, Senate and Republican President in 2001 (GW Bush). Looks pretty bi-partisan to me. But then, unlike you I actually know what I'm talking about.
And now, back to your regularly scheduled sniveling about liberals ...
I wasn't refering to law or policy. I was referring to principle. Liberals cry and moan about the rich "not paying their fair share" while huge segment of the non-rich PAY NOTHING.
That's you folks' version of "fair" and you're unapologetic about it. That was the point.
I wasn't refering to law or policy. I was referring to principle. Liberals cry and moan about the rich "not paying their fair share" while huge segment of the non-rich PAY NOTHING.
That's you folks' version of "fair" and you're unapologetic about it. That was the point.
EITC was created to help parents who work for low wages and to promote work over welfare. That's why it was created with bipartisan support.
Over time, liberals started seeing EITC as needing more "fairness" - why weren't childless adults eligible (they were added)...why were the maximum income limits so low (limits were increased), why does the credit max out at two children (a new, higher limit was created for parents with three or more xhildren).
It was a good idea at the beginning ands then it grew like Topsy.
Yes, millions of americans receive an income tax "refund" even though they pay no income taxes.
It's how Congress acknowledged that payroll taxes are regressive and how they rebate payroll taxes to those who work for low earnings. Then liberals expanded it several times.
Would you purposely earn so little as to qualify for that kind of welfare? Would anybody here do that? I know I wouldn't.
Has that not be discussed to death here? I read quickly through the responses and saw the usual replies so I don't think this thread is adding anything new.
Yes I know someone that earns that little on purpose.
So she can continue to get Food Stamps, free daycare, free medical, help with housing etc. She claims she earns more by working less and avoids having to pay for all of the above.
It's how Congress acknowledged that payroll taxes are regressive and how they rebate payroll taxes to those who work for low earnings. Then liberals expanded it several times.
Individuals like myself get THOUSANDS a year back from the government despite paying ZERO taxes through the year. I pay NO payroll taxes either, and the credit has absolutely nothing to do with payroll taxes.
Individuals like myself get THOUSANDS a year back from the government despite paying ZERO taxes through the year. I pay NO payroll taxes either, and the credit has absolutely nothing to do with payroll taxes.
I'm describing initial conditions before liberals expanded it several times into the monstrosity it is today. Every time a forum thread motivates me to look it up (that's been some years) it's bigger and less like the original program. Last time I looked it up the upper income limit was something like $34K for two or more children, another $10K (approx) and additional child have been added.
Maybe if his capitalist pig of a boss would pay him a living wage you wouldn't have to keep subsidizing his family.
But keep hating unions and what they stand for by all means. Break the union and then I'll just live off you.
Unions have ruined this country enough. I will never support a union and I will never support you! Go make your own way in this world and actually do the work you are paid for. I will make sure people like you do not feed off of the people actually working to make their living by voting for the right people.
Unions have ruined this country enough. I will never support a union and I will never support you! Go make your own way in this world and actually do the work you are paid for. I will make sure people like you do not feed off of the people actually working to make their living by voting for the right people.
Let's say you worked for a living at a dead-end menial minimum wage job and your employer was very profitable.
Would you support a union then?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
