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.
If someone "can't make it" on 58k a year, then they are living way too excessively, or are living in an extremely high cost-of-living area.
There are a lot of high cost areas out there, I live in one of them. The median income here is around 100K. There are lots of dual income families. 58K would be very hard for a family of four to live off of.
My screaming fits come from the fact that a child is only eligible for the child tax credit if they're under that age of 17 at the end of the tax year in question. You are legally responsible for supporting your child until they're 18. What if your child turns 17 in Nov. of the previous year. It makes me crazy. If you are supporting your child you should be able to claim them for a child tax credit. I also agree with the folks out there who are making sacrifices to raise their children in single-income households. They are busting their butts to live frugally....where are the tax cuts for them? Seems unfair.
116K - 12K childcare tax credit that they won't get = 94K
94K - increase in tax to pay for credit = not much more than the 84K (that gets full credit)
It's called leveling
I get that but if they are going to do this then the cap needs to be somewhere. I don't agree that tax dollars should be subsidizing childcare for families who make over $100K per year. If a family making that much money can't cover their childcare costs then they need to seriously rethink their budget. I actually think the current proposal of $85K is too high. Overall this seems like a really bad idea and I hope that it does not happen.
I get that but if they are going to do this then the cap needs to be somewhere. I don't agree that tax dollars should be subsidizing childcare for families who make over $100K per year. If a family making that much money can't cover their childcare costs then they need to seriously rethink their budget. I actually think the current proposal of $85K is too high. Overall this seems like a really bad idea and I hope that it does not happen.
Although an income of $85k or $100k is a HUGE income in some parts of the country, and not very much in other parts of the country. Maybe the credit is a way to try to compensate for that? A family in New York or San Francisco, for example, making $100k can cover their childcare costs, but they're probably still going to be living a modest lifestyle compared to those making far less in other locations.
Although an income of $85k or $100k is a HUGE income in some parts of the country, and not very much in other parts of the country. Maybe the credit is a way to try to compensate for that? A family in New York or San Francisco, for example, making $100k can cover their childcare costs, but they're probably still going to be living a modest lifestyle compared to those making far less in other locations.
I agree that $100K could equal a modest lifestyle for a family in NYC or San Francisco. According to cost of living calculators, $100K in NYC would equal about $68K in a place like Denver (which is just above the nationwide average). Maybe this should not be a federal thing since COL varies so much from place to place. People will be making out like bandits in places like Buffalo, NY and Flint, MI.
I still don't think that we should be subsidizing daycare expenses (my exception would be for qualifying low income families). It's just too specific and exclusive. If the goal is truly to help parents then it should be in the form of increasing the child tax credit for all families, not just for those with children in daycare.
Obama announces initiatives for middle class | General News | Comcast.net (http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20100125/US.Obama.Jobs/ - broken link)
"Among the initiatives: a doubling of the child care tax credit for families earning under $85,000; a $1.6 billion increase in federal funding for child care programs"
What burns me up about this, is that the government will dump all this money into giving tax credits to people who put their kids in daycare centers, but not to families who have one parent either leave work or work part-time to stay home to care for their children themselves. Why is it that actually raising your children yourself is discouraged and frowned upon these days?
Wow. So working parents don't rasie thier childrem themselvs.
I agree that $100K could equal a modest lifestyle for a family in NYC or San Francisco. According to cost of living calculators, $100K in NYC would equal about $68K in a place like Denver (which is just above the nationwide average). Maybe this should not be a federal thing since COL varies so much from place to place. People will be making out like bandits in places like Buffalo, NY and Flint, MI.
I still don't think that we should be subsidizing daycare expenses (my exception would be for qualifying low income families). It's just too specific and exclusive. If the goal is truly to help parents then it should be in the form of increasing the child tax credit for all families, not just for those with children in daycare.
Agreed! Just because you no longer have children in daycare, it doesn't mean the you don't have expenses. What makes me crazy, as I said before is the cutoff age for the tax credit. If your child is currently living at home and attending college, you should be receiving the child tax credit. You are still feeding them, housing them, etc. The government wants you to encourage your children to go to college, so that they will (theoretically) be higher wage earners, (hence, pay more in taxes), and yet they pull the child tax credit if they're over the age of 16!
My screaming fits come from the fact that a child is only eligible for the child tax credit if they're under that age of 17 at the end of the tax year in question. You are legally responsible for supporting your child until they're 18. What if your child turns 17 in Nov. of the previous year. .
I just found this out YESTERDAY from TurboTax, lol. I was wondering why I lost one He just turned 17 in December. Oh well.
I just found this out YESTERDAY from TurboTax, lol. I was wondering why I lost one He just turned 17 in December. Oh well.
Isn't that just crazy!? Where is the justification in that? Seriously, I mean, if their reasoning included only being able to claim that credit until you are no longer "legally responsible" for them, that would be one thing. I wouldn't agree....because if you're supporting them, you're supporting them....but "under the age of 17"? That's a crock. Sorry you lost him from your turn...believe me, I sympathize.
We have 2 over the age of 18 who are living at home and attending college full time....makes me crazy that you can't declare them. They eat a LOT!...dirty a lot of clothes, shower every day....etc. They're our "dependants" but not CTC.
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.
He just turned 17 in December. Oh well.
