For those with children, $48k and less

[Care4all]

Social security has always been pay as you go.

Social security WAS pay as you go, until 1983, when Reagan, via the advice of Greenspan, gave us a 100% tax increase on our Social Security tax....it was only 3+% for us and the same for our employer, which was paying for all of the retirements of the seniors....(pay as you go)

When this tax was doubled, (so that the government could collect surplus social security taxes from us, to pay for ourselves, to pay for our own retirement, as well to pay for our parents and grandparents....we were told there would NOT be enough people to support us and our retirement by the time we retired at the very tail end of the Boomers...)it no longer was a "Pay as you go" tax, but sadly... became a cash cow for congress...

It is still pay as you go. The social security trust fund has been raided since day 1 of its creation. Functionally its the same as if it never existed.

No, it was NOT raided from its inception Tuba....it did not even have any substantial surplus until after Reagan signed this doubling of our tax rate, in to law....

And Social security was separate from the general revenue fund in the budget, until Johnson added SS in to the general fund/the budget...in the mid 1960's to mask the percentage of his budget that was going in to paying for the VietNam War....

at that time under Johnson, there was no surplus...other than a normal year's slight excess after the retirements were paid....it WAS Pay as you go still.

Under Reagan, SS taxes were doubled, so that there would be an intentional SS surplus to help pay for the future Boomers....about $4 trillion in surplus SS taxes have been collected from us since then...as we speak....

we can't have $4 trillion in SS surplus money, IF IT WAS STILL PAY AS YOU GO...???

 

[PatekPhilippe]

EVERY day, at least 10 times a day, an ad has been running on tv, for people making less than $48k a year to please remember to file for the Earned Income Credit....

the hubby and i have no children and earn literally nothing so i thought i would see if we, for a change, would qualify for a tax credit of any sort...i mean, we brought in less than half of that $48k one can make and still get an EIC credit if they have a child?

BUTTTTTTTTT, don't qualify for the credit if a childless couple makes more than $20, 500...the couple with a child can get a tax break while income is $48k, the couple without $20.5k is the cutoff????????? IS that really fair?

does it really cost each couple with a child, $28, 000 A YEAR more than the couple without a child?

anyway....you lucky dogs with children, don't forget to see if you qualify for this credit!

Have you priced baby formula, Huggies, clothes and skin care products? Raising children is NOT cheap.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Social security has always been pay as you go.

Social security WAS pay as you go, until 1983, when Reagan, via the advice of Greenspan, gave us a 100% tax increase on our Social Security tax....it was only 3+% for us and the same for our employer, which was paying for all of the retirements of the seniors....(pay as you go)

When this tax was doubled, (so that the government could collect surplus social security taxes from us, to pay for ourselves, to pay for our own retirement, as well to pay for our parents and grandparents....we were told there would NOT be enough people to support us and our retirement by the time we retired at the very tail end of the Boomers...)it no longer was a "Pay as you go" tax, but sadly... became a cash cow for congress...

It is still pay as you go. The social security trust fund has been raided since day 1 of its creation. Functionally its the same as if it never existed.

Wrong. Social Security was NOT raided until the mid 60's when LBJ added all government trust funds to the budget to disguise the true cost of the Viet Nam war. Since that day any money paid into Social Security was first used to pay out all existing beneficiaries and then whatever was left over was put into the general fund and spent. In place of that money a bond was issued to the SSA for the amount borrowed. When Reagan doubled the SS tax it was to pay for MORE government spending i.e. Star Wars, more entitlement programs, welfare etc. etc.

 

[uscitizen]

Yes, children are very expensive but, why should childless couples be required to subsidize someone else's desire to procreate?

If you don't think the human race should go on, then by all means....

So not giving a tax break for children and ending subsidized education would end the species?
If so the species would have ended in prehistoric times.

 

[uscitizen]

It has not been quite raided since day one, I think it was at least 6 months.
Seriously, check your history. It did not make it very long till it was raided.

 

[Care4all]

EVERY day, at least 10 times a day, an ad has been running on tv, for people making less than $48k a year to please remember to file for the Earned Income Credit....

the hubby and i have no children and earn literally nothing so i thought i would see if we, for a change, would qualify for a tax credit of any sort...i mean, we brought in less than half of that $48k one can make and still get an EIC credit if they have a child?

BUTTTTTTTTT, don't qualify for the credit if a childless couple makes more than $20, 500...the couple with a child can get a tax break while income is $48k, the couple without $20.5k is the cutoff????????? IS that really fair?

does it really cost each couple with a child, $28, 000 A YEAR more than the couple without a child?

anyway....you lucky dogs with children, don't forget to see if you qualify for this credit!

Have you priced baby formula, Huggies, clothes and skin care products? Raising children is NOT cheap.

so what? Are we suppose to help you pay for those things for your children?

apparently yes, all of you blessed with offspring, think it is my husband and my job, (who were not blessed with children together) and all other single people or couples without children, to subsidize the expense you incur for your children...even if you are a republican or conservative....all of you with children, believe the childless citizens should pay more in taxes than you all do, with comparable salaries....so it seems?

and honestly, I have no problem with helping with the subsidizing of your kids...but I just wanted to point out, that IT IS HAPPENING and those out there who believe in instituting a flat tax or consumption tax to replace the income tax, will no longer have the benefit of these favored tax breaks for adults with children....

 

[uscitizen]

EVERY day, at least 10 times a day, an ad has been running on tv, for people making less than $48k a year to please remember to file for the Earned Income Credit....

the hubby and i have no children and earn literally nothing so i thought i would see if we, for a change, would qualify for a tax credit of any sort...i mean, we brought in less than half of that $48k one can make and still get an EIC credit if they have a child?

BUTTTTTTTTT, don't qualify for the credit if a childless couple makes more than $20, 500...the couple with a child can get a tax break while income is $48k, the couple without $20.5k is the cutoff????????? IS that really fair?

does it really cost each couple with a child, $28, 000 A YEAR more than the couple without a child?

anyway....you lucky dogs with children, don't forget to see if you qualify for this credit!

Have you priced baby formula, Huggies, clothes and skin care products? Raising children is NOT cheap.

so what? Are we suppose to help you pay for those things for your children?

apparently yes, all of you blessed with offspring, think it is my husband and my job, (who were not blessed with children together) and all other single people or couples without children, to subsidize the expense you incur for your children...even if you are a republican or conservative....all of you with children, believe the childless citizens should pay more in taxes than you all do, with comparable salaries....so it seems?

and honestly, I have no problem with helping with the subsidizing of your kids...but I just wanted to point out, that IT IS HAPPENING and those out there who believe in instituting a flat tax or consumption tax to replace the income tax, will no longer have the benefit of these favored tax breaks for adults with children....

correct. Imagine the outpouring of personal responsibility from the right and especially libertarians in support of a flat tax when they realize this?

 

[Care4all]

It has not been quite raided since day one, I think it was at least 6 months.
Seriously, check your history. It did not make it very long till it was raided.

how can something 'pay as you go'' be raided?

IT CAN'T be US cit....

it WOULD NOT be pay as you go.... pay as you go means you collect in taxes, what you pay out...not more, and not less.

there is no surplus, and there is no shortage...you 'pay as you go'.

at least that is the definition of 'pay as you go'' that i was taught.

maybe we don't have the same definition of 'pay as u go'?

 

[uscitizen]

It has not been quite raided since day one, I think it was at least 6 months.
Seriously, check your history. It did not make it very long till it was raided.

how can something 'pay as you go'' be raided?

IT CAN'T be US cit....

it WOULD NOT be pay as you go.... pay as you go means you collect in taxes, what you pay out...not more, and not less.

there is no surplus, and there is no shortage...you 'pay as you go'.

at least that is the definition of 'pay as you go'' that i was taught.

maybe we don't have the same definition of 'pay as u go'?

I was speaking of the SS surplus.

 

[Jon]

and honestly, I have no problem with helping with the subsidizing of your kids...but I just wanted to point out, that IT IS HAPPENING and those out there who believe in instituting a flat tax or consumption tax to replace the income tax, will no longer have the benefit of these favored tax breaks for adults with children....

Blow it out your ass. Stop trying to play the noble person who doesn't mind giving (unwillingly) to others. You're pissed, and you want something done about it. Yet, it's the people YOU elect into office that create these programs.

 

[Vel]

EVERY day, at least 10 times a day, an ad has been running on tv, for people making less than $48k a year to please remember to file for the Earned Income Credit....

the hubby and i have no children and earn literally nothing so i thought i would see if we, for a change, would qualify for a tax credit of any sort...i mean, we brought in less than half of that $48k one can make and still get an EIC credit if they have a child?

BUTTTTTTTTT, don't qualify for the credit if a childless couple makes more than $20, 500...the couple with a child can get a tax break while income is $48k, the couple without $20.5k is the cutoff????????? IS that really fair?

does it really cost each couple with a child, $28, 000 A YEAR more than the couple without a child?

anyway....you lucky dogs with children, don't forget to see if you qualify for this credit!

Have you priced baby formula, Huggies, clothes and skin care products? Raising children is NOT cheap.

so what? Are we suppose to help you pay for those things for your children?

apparently yes, all of you blessed with offspring, think it is my husband and my job, (who were not blessed with children together) and all other single people or couples without children, to subsidize the expense you incur for your children...even if you are a republican or conservative....all of you with children, believe the childless citizens should pay more in taxes than you all do, with comparable salaries....so it seems?

and honestly, I have no problem with helping with the subsidizing of your kids...but I just wanted to point out, that IT IS HAPPENING and those out there who believe in instituting a flat tax or consumption tax to replace the income tax, will no longer have the benefit of these favored tax breaks for adults with children....

Wow, Care4All and I are on the same side of an issue. That's different. As a parent, I recognize that our tax code is not equitable between those that have children and those that don't. Although the system has worked to my advantage at times, if we truly are interested in ever establishing a fair tax system, then people need to be able to recognize where the current system fails in that. While it's easy to understand why a taxpayer should be allowed a personal deduction for each person that is supported by an income, it's harder to find a legitimate reason ( other than wealth redistibution ) that there is, in addition to the EIC tax credit, a $1,000.00 tax credit given per child. If it's found that you owe no taxes when you file, those "credits" are counted as tax payments and refunded to individuals that never paid them. It's pure redistribution and conservatives should take issue with it.

 

[Care4all]

It has not been quite raided since day one, I think it was at least 6 months.
Seriously, check your history. It did not make it very long till it was raided.

how can something 'pay as you go'' be raided?

IT CAN'T be US cit....

it WOULD NOT be pay as you go.... pay as you go means you collect in taxes, what you pay out...not more, and not less.

there is no surplus, and there is no shortage...you 'pay as you go'.

at least that is the definition of 'pay as you go'' that i was taught.

maybe we don't have the same definition of 'pay as u go'?

I was speaking of the SS surplus.

so was I....

and we did not start pulling in excessive surplus SS taxes until AFTER 1983....when SS taxes went up to 6%+ for us/6% for employer from the 3% that they were at, when they were collecting in taxes... ONLY what they had to pay out for senior's retirement...pay as you go.

pay=collect in taxes,

as you go=the amount required to pay the seniors in retirement that year.

SS began in the 1950's....there was NO SS SURPLUS for congress to use(some say steal) in their budget until the mid to late 1980's other than change......from my understanding?

so, i still disagree with the comment that congress has been taking the SS money from its inception, for other uses that income taxes should have funded....this started in the 80's not the 50's?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

we can't have $4 trillion in SS surplus money, IF IT WAS STILL PAY AS YOU GO...???

The so-called SS surplus is actually just a bunch of IOU's written by the U.S. Treasury. Since the U.S. Treasury and Social Security are both parts of the same entity - the U.S. Government - that's functionally equivalent to the IOU's - and the surplus - not existing.

Since the extra money the government is collecting is just being borrowed and spent in the general budget, the SS tax increase was effectively a regressive income tax for the general budget.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Wrong. Social Security was NOT raided until the mid 60's when LBJ added all government trust funds to the budget to disguise the true cost of the Viet Nam war.
Since that day any money paid into Social Security was first used to pay out all existing beneficiaries and then whatever was left over was put into the general fund and spent.

You are mistaken. The effect of the change was accounting in nature only - two measures of government financial activity were replaced with one. It "hides" the debt on paper - because any SS surpluses offset general government debt - but it didn't change anything functionally.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

It has not been quite raided since day one, I think it was at least 6 months.
Seriously, check your history. It did not make it very long till it was raided.

:roll eyes:

The SS Trust fund is a sham to begin with.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

EVERY day, at least 10 times a day, an ad has been running on tv, for people making less than $48k a year to please remember to file for the Earned Income Credit....

the hubby and i have no children and earn literally nothing so i thought i would see if we, for a change, would qualify for a tax credit of any sort...i mean, we brought in less than half of that $48k one can make and still get an EIC credit if they have a child?

BUTTTTTTTTT, don't qualify for the credit if a childless couple makes more than $20, 500...the couple with a child can get a tax break while income is $48k, the couple without $20.5k is the cutoff????????? IS that really fair?

does it really cost each couple with a child, $28, 000 A YEAR more than the couple without a child?

anyway....you lucky dogs with children, don't forget to see if you qualify for this credit!

Have you priced baby formula, Huggies, clothes and skin care products? Raising children is NOT cheap.

so what? Are we suppose to help you pay for those things for your children?

apparently yes, all of you blessed with offspring, think it is my husband and my job, (who were not blessed with children together) and all other single people or couples without children, to subsidize the expense you incur for your children...even if you are a republican or conservative....all of you with children, believe the childless citizens should pay more in taxes than you all do, with comparable salaries....so it seems?

and honestly, I have no problem with helping with the subsidizing of your kids...but I just wanted to point out, that IT IS HAPPENING and those out there who believe in instituting a flat tax or consumption tax to replace the income tax, will no longer have the benefit of these favored tax breaks for adults with children....

Hey....you can adopt. There are plenty of kids out there looking for a loving set of parents.

 

[uscitizen]

how can something 'pay as you go'' be raided?

IT CAN'T be US cit....

it WOULD NOT be pay as you go.... pay as you go means you collect in taxes, what you pay out...not more, and not less.

there is no surplus, and there is no shortage...you 'pay as you go'.

at least that is the definition of 'pay as you go'' that i was taught.

maybe we don't have the same definition of 'pay as u go'?

I was speaking of the SS surplus.

so was I....

and we did not start pulling in excessive surplus SS taxes until AFTER 1983....when SS taxes went up to 6%+ for us/6% for employer from the 3% that they were at, when they were collecting in taxes... ONLY what they had to pay out for senior's retirement...pay as you go.

pay=collect in taxes,

as you go=the amount required to pay the seniors in retirement that year.

SS began in the 1950's....there was NO SS SURPLUS for congress to use(some say steal) in their budget until the mid to late 1980's other than change......from my understanding?

so, i still disagree with the comment that congress has been taking the SS money from its inception, for other uses that income taxes should have funded....this started in the 80's not the 50's?

Ahh well on the old board some time ago I posted a link showing that we started raiding the SS surplus money almost right after it becuame a plan.
It could have been in error.

 

[MIPS]

It has not been quite raided since day one, I think it was at least 6 months.
Seriously, check your history. It did not make it very long till it was raided.

:roll eyes:

The SS Trust fund is a sham to begin with.

Why is that? because according to this poster

BY DEFINITION U.S. Treasuries are the safest place for U.S. dollars, as if Treasuries fail, so does the dollar.

and the SS trust fund is stuffed full of 'em........

 

[xsited1]

EVERY day, at least 10 times a day, an ad has been running on tv, for people making less than $48k a year to please remember to file for the Earned Income Credit....

the hubby and i have no children and earn literally nothing so i thought i would see if we, for a change, would qualify for a tax credit of any sort...i mean, we brought in less than half of that $48k one can make and still get an EIC credit if they have a child?

BUTTTTTTTTT, don't qualify for the credit if a childless couple makes more than $20, 500...the couple with a child can get a tax break while income is $48k, the couple without $20.5k is the cutoff????????? IS that really fair?

does it really cost each couple with a child, $28, 000 A YEAR more than the couple without a child?

anyway....you lucky dogs with children, don't forget to see if you qualify for this credit!

You've got to go with averages here. You can't just take $48k-20.5k and assume each kid costs $27,500/year. It'll be somewhere in the middle. Kids cost a lot of money. If you don't have any, it is simply impossible for you to understand.

Sooo, we should pay more in taxes so that you can pay less in taxes, because YOUR KIDS cost you more money? ok.

I didn't say that at all. I'm merely pointing out that your assumption is flawed and kids cost a lot of money. How the politicians choose to redistribute wealth is mostly out of my control.