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.
Not angry.
Concerned like most govt dallies to assist the family unit. The adult is under no obligation to use it for the minor.
The entire child support system is a burden to the one paying it and a money tree for the *cough*, ahem. Single parent milking the system. If only the funds really impacted the wellness of the minor.
I thought I read that it was an advancement on the credit system that is already on the tax form claims.
Nope, it’s been changed. It is now a direct handout, and not limited to a refund of taxes owed. People who owe no taxes, because they earn none or moderate income, will get the full amount. Someone I know told me, excitedly, that the amount she gets will cover her entire mortgage payment. It’s like found money to her.
I wonder how many low- or no-income single women under the age of 35 would agree to government-paid permanent sterilization (tubal ligation) after they had at least one child IF they were paid $50,000? (For men, it would be a vasectomy and they would be paid $10,000 -- the difference being that women are much more likely to be raise out-of-wedlock children than men.)
I think it would be MUCH less expensive than taxpayers continuing to support children who parents cannot afford to do so -- and this way, it would not be a question of forcing anyone to be sterilized.
Last edited by katharsis; 05-21-2021 at 05:34 PM..
I wonder how many low- or no-income single women under the age of 35 if they would agree to government-paid permanent sterilization (tubal ligation) after they had at least one child if they were paid $50,000? (For men, it would be a vasectomy and they would be paid $10,000 -- the difference being that women are much more likely to be raise out-of-wedlock children than men.)
I think it would be MUCH less expensive than taxpayers continuing to support children who parents cannot afford to do so -- and this way, it would not be a question of forcing anyone to be sterilized.
Definitely cheaper. I know a young woman with three children under 6, and she will be getting $12,000 a year until the last one turns 18. And that’s assuming she doesn’t have any more.
Nope, it’s been changed. It is now a direct handout, and not limited to a refund of taxes owed. People who owe no taxes, because they earn none or moderate income, will get the full amount. Someone I know told me, excitedly, that the amount she gets will cover her entire mortgage payment. It’s like found money to her.
Yes, it IS an advancement (although it is also an increase, to be fair) of the child tax credit that is usually filed/paid out with your taxes. Tax CREDITS are not limited to refunds of taxes owed… thats why they are called credits, and not refunds or deductions. The Child Tax Credit has always worked this way. Biden is just stretching out the lump sum across 6 months, believing that parents need that money NOW, and not just around April 15.
From Wikipedia…
Quote:
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), with efforts led by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Ivanka Trump, made three major changes to the CTC: It (1) doubled the amount per qualifying child, rising from $1,000 to $2,000; (2) made up to $1,400 of the credit refundable; and (3) increased income thresholds to make the CTC available to more families.[4]
The child tax credit is available to taxpayers who have a "qualifying child." A person is a "qualifying child" if he or she has not attained the age of 17 by the end of the taxable year and meets the requirements of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 152(c). In general, a qualifying child is any individual for whom the taxpayer can claim a dependency exemption and who is the taxpayer's son or daughter (or descendant of either), stepson or stepdaughter (or descendant of either), or eligible foster child. For unmarried couples or married couples filing separately, a qualifying child will be treated as such for the purpose of the CTC for the taxpayer who is the child's parent, or if not a parent, the taxpayer with the highest adjusted gross income (AGI) for the taxable year in accordance with 26 U.S.C. Sec. 152(c)(4)(A).
Since 2018, the CTC is $2,000 per qualifying child. When first introduced in 1998, the per-child amount was originally capped at $400, and then at $500 in 1999, by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) would have gradually increased the cap from $600 in 2001 to $1,000 in 2010, before reverting to $500.[5] However, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) increased the amount to $1,000 for 2003 and 2004. The Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 extended this amount through 2010.[5] The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 extended this $1,000 cap through the end of 2012.[6] The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 made the $1,000 cap permanent.[7]
The CTC is refundable for those who meet certain income requirements and whose credit values exceed their tax liabilities. When a taxpayer credit value exceeds his or her tax liability, the taxpayer is eligible for the additional child tax credit (ACTC), which is calculated as 15% of the taxpayer's AGI in excess of $2,500, with the refund value capped at $1,400.
Prior to 2018, the full CTC was only available to single parents making less than $75,000 and families making less than $110,000 per year. The TCJA dramatically increased these income thresholds to $200,000 for single parents and $400,000 for married couples filing jointly. Above these limits, the CTC is phased out at the rate of $50 for each additional $1,000 (or portion of $1,000) earned.[8]
So ueah, if you’re mad that families making $400,000 are geting child tax credits, blame Trump.
People should be just as outraged about billionaires who pay almost no income taxes, corporations that pay no income taxes - they are on welfare more than a struggling family.
Among those that paid no income taxes:
Archer Daniels Midland, FedEx, Nike, Dish Network...over 50 paid no income taxes - that's welfare.
Yes, it IS an advancement (although it is also an increase, to be fair) of the child tax credit that is usually filed/paid out with your taxes. Tax CREDITS are not limited to refunds of taxes owed… thats why they are called credits, and not refunds or deductions. The Child Tax Credit has always worked this way. Biden is just stretching out the lump sum across 6 months, believing that parents need that money NOW, and not just around April 15.
From Wikipedia…
So ueah, if you’re mad that families making $400,000 are geting child tax credits, blame Trump.
Not true. The woman I know who will be getting $12,000 a year for "child expenses" (or whatever) owes nowhere near that in taxes. She is getting the FULL $12,000, whereas before it was limited to a certain amount.
Also, taxpayers should not be handing out so much to people with children that they are effectively buying houses for them. (The person I know told me her new windfall will cover her P&I completely.)
Not true. The woman I know who will be getting $12,000 a year for "child expenses" (or whatever) owes nowhere near that in taxes. She is getting the FULL $12,000, whereas before it was limited to a certain amount.
Also, taxpayers should not be handing out so much to people with children that they are effectively buying houses for them. (The person I know told me her new windfall will cover her P&I completely.)
Bummer, it's difficult to admit, yet the former poster corrected the child credit. your erroneous post is moot. . Re-read it. Post#164. It's factual.
Not true. The woman I know who will be getting $12,000 a year for "child expenses" (or whatever) owes nowhere near that in taxes. She is getting the FULL $12,000, whereas before it was limited to a certain amount.
Also, taxpayers should not be handing out so much to people with children that they are effectively buying houses for them. (The person I know told me her new windfall will cover her P&I completely.)
Not true. The woman I know who will be getting $12,000 a year for "child expenses" (or whatever) owes nowhere near that in taxes. She is getting the FULL $12,000, whereas before it was limited to a certain amount.
Also, taxpayers should not be handing out so much to people with children that they are effectively buying houses for them. (The person I know told me her new windfall will cover her P&I completely.)
Bingo
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.
