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.
So the government should have it then? Because there's rarely fraud in government, right?
Government should have what ? This is money the government is paying out, money they are LOSING.
One instance involved 2 women at the same address where they collected IRS refunds of over $60,000.00 and there were ZERO children living there and they were "undocumented Americans".
It's gotten so bad that illegals are scamming the government for money.
I would be happy not to have the $1000 child tax break.
As long as all I could count the money I spend on my children as THEIR income instead of mine. Then I can deduct it from my taxes and they can pay taxes at the lower income rate. Hell, they probably wouldn't even earn enough to pay income taxes on any of that money. It would save me a lot more than the lousy $1000 bucks.
Government should have what ? This is money the government is paying out, money they are LOSING.
One instance involved 2 women at the same address where they collected IRS refunds of over $60,000.00 and there were ZERO children living there and they were "undocumented Americans".
It's gotten so bad that illegals are scamming the government for money.
So taking away the credit from legitimate people is the answer? As if those that are scamming the government won't do something else.
Giving someone a $1000 break in taxes takes $1000 + (plus the cost of administration) from someone else. That is an economic loss. The person who received the break may spend it. The person who lost the $1000 can't.
Do the math. One person's gain is another's loss. There really is no economic difference except that a parent may spend it on diapers while the other person would have spend it on something else. Why is Congress choosing one over the other?
What happens when they spend it? They pay taxes on what they purchase, the company that sells them the product gets income (and is taxed), has the ability to pay their employees (who then pay income tax) which in turn, allows these employees to purchase other goods and services (which are taxed). The company(s) stay in business and employment rates increase. Wins for all.
What happens when they spend it? They pay taxes on what they purchase, the company that sells them the product gets income (and is taxed), has the ability to pay their employees (who then pay income tax) which in turn, allows these employees to purchase other goods and services (which are taxed). The company(s) stay in business and employment rates increase. Wins for all.
At what cost to the government though ?
You people are not looking at both sides here..there is a cost associated with it.
That FICA break for 2 years cost $120 billion. What did we get back in return via economic stimulus..$12 billion. Is that a "win for all" here ? The Fed borrowed $120 billion to get back $12 billion.
So how much does this "credit" cost in terms of borrowed money the Fed needs to cover that credit ?
What happens when they spend it? They pay taxes on what they purchase, the company that sells them the product gets income (and is taxed), has the ability to pay their employees (who then pay income tax) which in turn, allows these employees to purchase other goods and services (which are taxed). The company(s) stay in business and employment rates increase. Wins for all.
The taxpayer that' stuck paying for this tax break for other taxpayers with kids doesn't WIN>
If the employee works for Walmart and pays NO income taxes, then that money does not go back to the gov't. This is another example of government redistribution of income, pure and simple. Take from the workers and give to the takers.
[quote=chielgirl;27601103]Yes, it wasn't just your position - it was your comments that were dishonest - when you get a special tax credit, others pay for that.
You have what, 2 or 3 kids, that $18k per kid minimum. That's $36-48k you get on the backs of other taxpayers.
I'm supposed to be getting 18,000 a kid?? I got one but SHYT I didn't know I was being short changed!! Yea, I'm about to talk to the IRS right now!! A disgruntled citizen is not a productive citizen. I'm printing this out, can I have your name and number and stuff, you must be part of the IRS to know this stuff.
"Nice to have" is a poor reason for the government creating tax credits and deductions.
I'd like a pay raise. But my employer isn't ready to give me one.
I wanna I wanna I wanna. Taxpayer's mantra.
Of course "I wanna" is the taxpayer's mantra. If I pay for something/pay into something, I have a right to want, do I not? You 'want' an end to the tax credits. That's your prerogative.
As for the 'government creating tax credits and deductions', these tax credits and deductions (in various incarnations) have been around for many years. The child deduction isn't something that was recently created.
How about this. Since you are so against these deductions, you have the right to not use them. No one is forcing you to. Leave your full income on the line and itemize nothing. Your right, your choice.
You people are not looking at both sides here..there is a cost associated with it.
That FICA break for 2 years cost $120 billion. What did we get back in return via economic stimulus..$12 billion. Is that a "win for all" here ? The Fed borrowed $120 billion to get back $12 billion.
So how much does this "credit" cost in terms of borrowed money the Fed needs to cover that credit ?
How much was the cost associated with this childcare credit?
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.