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 no longer a credit against taxes owed. The beneficiaries of this largesse do not have to owe taxes at all, or even have any earned income. It is a straight giveaway to families earning as much as $150,000 a year, funded by taxpayers earning as little as $35,000 or $40,000. Some questions for discussion:
1) Is it right for taxpayers with no children to provide as much or more than $1,000 a month to people with children, on top of funding their education through grade 12?!
2) Is it fair for a taxpayer without children who is earning a modest salary to pitch in to offset the costs of childcare for families earning $150,000?
3) Finally, does this giveaway extend to single mothers already on multiple welfare programs - subsidized housing, food stamps, free medical, etc. - so that one with three children, for example, will get an extra $900 in spending money every month?
This is no longer a credit against taxes owed. The beneficiaries of this largesse do not have to owe taxes at all, or even have any earned income. It is a straight giveaway to families earning as much as $150,000 a year, funded by taxpayers earning as little as $35,000 or $40,000. Some questions for discussion:
1) Is it right for taxpayers with no children to provide as much or more than $1,000 a month to people with children, on top of funding their education through grade 12?!
2) Is it fair for a taxpayer without children who is earning a modest salary to pitch in to offset the costs of childcare for families earning $150,000?
3) Finally, does this giveaway extend to single mothers already on multiple welfare programs - subsidized housing, food stamps, free medical, etc. - so that one with three children, for example, will get an extra $900 in spending money every month?
1) If no one has kids there'd be a huge problem. They'll be the healthcare workers and carers that look after you in your old age. Sometimes even having children has to be incentivized, especially in a country with a dwindling birth rate.
2) I believe one of the most common phrases you'll hear from Republicans is that "life isn't fair", if you want to talk about what isn't fair, by all means, lets work together for a more fair society. Lets start with equal access to healthcare and voting rights.
3) Yes.
I find your opening paragraph a little misleading. Those taxpayers with children who earn as little as $35,000 - $40,000 are also getting the credit. I agree that those earning $150,000 could probably do without, but I guess you have a to draw a line somewhere. I'd have it at $80,000, but some people in areas with extremely high cost of living might find it tough going.
1) If no one has kids there'd be a huge problem. They'll be the healthcare workers and carers that look after you in your old age. Sometimes even having children has to be incentivized, especially in a country with a dwindling birth rate.
2) I believe one of the most common phrases you'll hear from Republicans is that "life isn't fair", if you want to talk about what isn't fair, by all means, lets work together for a more fair society. Lets start with equal access to healthcare and voting rights.
3) Yes.
I find your opening paragraph a little misleading. Those taxpayers with children who earn as little as $35,000 - $40,000 are also getting the credit. I agree that those earning $150,000 could probably do without, but I guess you have a to draw a line somewhere. I'd have it at $80,000, but some people in areas with extremely high cost of living might find it tough going.
My opening paragraph isn’t misleading. I made it clear that I am speaking of childless people now having to absorb even more of the expenses of other people with children.
I’m alarmed that the answer to #3 is yes. That means that the women without jobs living in the subsidized townhouse community near me, many with four or five children, are getting:
1) Townhouses to rent at a fraction of the cost
2) Food Stamps
3) EBT cards
4) Free medical care
5j Free education
6) Reduced utility bills
7) Free bus transportation
....and now, and extra $1200 to $1500 in spending money every month.
It’s been estimated that welfare recipients receive benefits equivalent to a $29,000 salary. Now add in the $20,000 or so they’ll get in “child handouts” - and they’re practically at a $50,000 salary.
My opening paragraph isn’t misleading. I made it clear that I am speaking of childless people now having to absorb even more of the expenses of other people with children.
I’m alarmed that the answer to #3 is yes. That means that the women without jobs living in the subsidized townhouse community near me, many with four or five children, are getting:
1) Townhouses to rent at a fraction of the cost
2) Food Stamps
3) EBT cards
4) Free medical care
5j Free education
6) Reduced utility bills
7) Free bus transportation
....and now, and extra $1200 to $1500 in spending money every month.
It’s been estimated that welfare recipients receive benefits equivalent to a $29,000 salary. Now add in the $20,000 or so they’ll get in “child handouts” - and they’re practically at a $50,000 salary.
Where would you like single mothers to live? Given that they can work likely one job, if they're lucky, as the cost of childcare is prohibitively expensive and are often in this situation through circumstances through which they had no control?
Coming from the same side of the aisle that wants to restrict abortions. You want all the babies to be born and then live in abject poverty with a mother they don't see because she's working three jobs?
We live in a society, the strong in that society should feel gratitude and a willingness to be able to help those less fortunate and instead what we see is a savagely individualistic disdain for those in difficult situations and a desperation to cling onto every penny while the gap between the rich and poor grows ever larger.
This is no longer a credit against taxes owed. The beneficiaries of this largesse do not have to owe taxes at all, or even have any earned income. It is a straight giveaway to families earning as much as $150,000 a year, funded by taxpayers earning as little as $35,000 or $40,000. Some questions for discussion:
1) Is it right for taxpayers with no children to provide as much or more than $1,000 a month to people with children, on top of funding their education through grade 12?!
2) Is it fair for a taxpayer without children who is earning a modest salary to pitch in to offset the costs of childcare for families earning $150,000?
3) Finally, does this giveaway extend to single mothers already on multiple welfare programs - subsidized housing, food stamps, free medical, etc. - so that one with three children, for example, will get an extra $900 in spending money every month?
So you would have children go without food or clothing? You are not an advocate for the children, are you?
This is no longer a credit against taxes owed. The beneficiaries of this largesse do not have to owe taxes at all, or even have any earned income. It is a straight giveaway to families earning as much as $150,000 a year, funded by taxpayers earning as little as $35,000 or $40,000. Some questions for discussion:
1) Is it right for taxpayers with no children to provide as much or more than $1,000 a month to people with children, on top of funding their education through grade 12?!
2) Is it fair for a taxpayer without children who is earning a modest salary to pitch in to offset the costs of childcare for families earning $150,000?
3) Finally, does this giveaway extend to single mothers already on multiple welfare programs - subsidized housing, food stamps, free medical, etc. - so that one with three children, for example, will get an extra $900 in spending money every month?
Nope. It isn't fair. But that's how Dems roll. Better vote Democrat if you want the handouts to continue.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,593 posts, read 12,535,636 times
Reputation: 10477
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn
So you would have children go without food or clothing? You are not an advocate for the children, are you?
There are many in this country who are childless who have an income that is less than $150,000 and less than $80,000 that are struggling because of the lockdowns and rising prices. For some, like the disabled and elderly, it could be difficult, if not impossible, to get a job to supplement their income. If the government is going to hand out "stimulus" money then they should hand it out to all of the low income people and not just those with children. Why would you want the disabled and elderly to go without food or clothing, or heat, or homes?
Where would you like single mothers to live? Given that they can work likely one job, if they're lucky, as the cost of childcare is prohibitively expensive and are often in this situation through circumstances through which they had no control?
Coming from the same side of the aisle that wants to restrict abortions. You want all the babies to be born and then live in abject poverty with a mother they don't see because she's working three jobs?
We live in a society, the strong in that society should feel gratitude and a willingness to be able to help those less fortunate and instead what we see is a savagely individualistic disdain for those in difficult situations and a desperation to cling onto every penny while the gap between the rich and poor grows ever larger.
Why would you assume I’m opposed to abortion?
And cling onto every penny? Dang but you liberals are so sanctimonious. Don’t you see that giving single mothers the equivalent of $50,000 in benefits keeps them from ever taking a job - and actually puts them in a better place than the average worker making $40,000?
It seems leftist Marxists won’t be happy until nonproductive people live as well, or better, than productive members of society.
So you would have children go without food or clothing? You are not an advocate for the children, are you?
No, they already are getting benefits that provide for food and clothing. Handing out yet another $1000 a month, no strings attached, to mothers too irresponsible to provide for their own children is just asking for trouble.
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.
