GOP: Rich Kids Are Worth More Than Poor Kids

[bendog]

Nobody should be getting a child tax credit period.

hey, we need breeders. (-: And it is pretty despicable to think higher earners should get a bigger tax credit for a kid than others.

 

[Slyhunter]

Nobody should be getting a child tax credit period.

hey, we need breeders. (-: And it is pretty despicable to think higher earners should get a bigger tax credit for a kid than others.

Actually we don't. If they collect government assistant why should they get to write them off as dependants when they are dependants of the US government not their parents?

 

[Rikurzhen]

Nobody should be getting a child tax credit period.

hey, we need breeders. (-: And it is pretty despicable to think higher earners should get a bigger tax credit for a kid than others.

Society doesn't really need breeders, what it really needs is more net tax contributors.

Pumping out kids who become net tax consumers just weakens the welfare state.

Rich people do a far, far better job of producing kids who also become high earners, and consequently pay more in taxes than they consume in benefits. That needs to be encouraged.

Secondly, for all of the liberals peeved by wealth inequality, those rich people estates which get passed down to only child CONCENTRATE wealth across generations. Meanwhile poor families with 4 children DIVIDE the pittance of wealth that the parents accumulate in their estate. This dynamic should be flipped 180 degrees.

 

[OnePercenter]

The OP should try reading the complete article:

A spokesman for Jenkins explains that the reason the bill ends up extending the child tax credit to wealthier Americans is that it gets rid of the marriage penalty, which treats a married couple's total income differently than the sum of two separate incomes. The way the child tax credit is currently structured, a single person making up to $75,000 is eligible for a full credit. But for a married couple filing jointly, full credit eligibility cuts off at $110,000 instead of at $150,000, the couple's combined total income. Jenkins' bill moves the full credit cut-off to $150,000. (As income increases above these thresholds, the child tax credit phases out slowly. Under Jenkins' bill, for instance, a couple with two kids could still get the credit if they make up to $205,000.)

Jenkins' office adds that the reason that the legislation does not extend the low-income child tax credit increase is that this provision doesn't expire until the end of 2017, and future legislation can address it....


The low income tax credit doesn't expire until 2017, so this law does nothing to hurt The Poor. What it does do is get rid of the marriage penalty associated with the credits.

In major metro areas, a couple making $75K each (for a total of $150K), are hardly rich, and can barely afford to buy a home.

Why do you Hate The Children of such working couples?

The mortgage on a $1 million dollar house is 46k yr. How would a couple making $150k yr gross not be able to afford that? After mortgage, taxes, utilities, they'll have $75k/yr to buy food.

Lets put that into prospective. The cost of their mortgage is more than the average gross income (44k) of workers in the US. How are they NOT rich?

 

[OnePercenter]

Nobody should be getting a child tax credit period.

hey, we need breeders. (-: And it is pretty despicable to think higher earners should get a bigger tax credit for a kid than others.

Society doesn't really need breeders, what it really needs is more net tax contributors.

Pumping out kids who become net tax consumers just weakens the welfare state.

Rich people do a far, far better job of producing kids who also become high earners, and consequently pay more in taxes than they consume in benefits. That needs to be encouraged.

Secondly, for all of the liberals peeved by wealth inequality, those rich people estates which get passed down to only child CONCENTRATE wealth across generations. Meanwhile poor families with 4 children DIVIDE the pittance of wealth that the parents accumulate in their estate. This dynamic should be flipped 180 degrees.

I've never seen you at the club, so you must be a breeder.

Why are you so down on one of your own?

 

[g5000]

The same principles are in play with inducing women to have children. A poor woman can be induced with an offer of $1,000 per year but a high earning career women can bypass $1,000. To get her to have children the inducement has to be higher.

"To get her to have children"?!!?

I am stunned by this belief system which thinks human beings will stop procreating without being paid to do so. I really am.

"If we don't pay them, the human race will die out!"

Jesus H. Christ.

 

[Rikurzhen]

The same principles are in play with inducing women to have children. A poor woman can be induced with an offer of $1,000 per year but a high earning career women can bypass $1,000. To get her to have children the inducement has to be higher.

"To get her to have children"?!!?

I am stunned by this belief system which thinks human beings will stop procreating without being paid to do so. I really am.

"If we don't pay them, the human race will die out!"

Jesus H. Christ.

Thanks for sharing that you're stunned. I'm glad to help in broadening your horizons.

 

[g5000]

The same principles are in play with inducing women to have children. A poor woman can be induced with an offer of $1,000 per year but a high earning career women can bypass $1,000. To get her to have children the inducement has to be higher.

"To get her to have children"?!!?

I am stunned by this belief system which thinks human beings will stop procreating without being paid to do so. I really am.

"If we don't pay them, the human race will die out!"

Jesus H. Christ.

Thanks for sharing that you're stunned. I'm glad to help in broadening your horizons.

Gosh, how did we populate the planet after leaving the Garden of Eden without tax credits?

It's a real stumper.

I can just hear all those legs slamming shut if tax credits for breeding went away.

 

[g5000]

Hey, man. If you want me to hump my wife, I am going to need some GOVERNMENT GIFTS!

GIMME GIMME GIMME!

 

[Rikurzhen]

"To get her to have children"?!!?

I am stunned by this belief system which thinks human beings will stop procreating without being paid to do so. I really am.

"If we don't pay them, the human race will die out!"

Jesus H. Christ.

Thanks for sharing that you're stunned. I'm glad to help in broadening your horizons.

Gosh, how did we populate the planet after leaving the Garden of Eden without tax credits?

It's a real stumper.

I can just hear all those legs slamming shut if tax credits for breeding went away.

Plenty of nations have sub-replacement fertility rates. Germany is at 1.36 (which includes high fertility Muslims) and America is at 1.89 (includes high fertility Hispanics) and Canada is at 1.63.

Just to stay even we need 2.1.

 

[Stephanie]

good ole Mother Jones

JUST make up anything to feed the rabid idiots out there

that's just outright lying propaganda...to bad someone doesn't sue them for slander

these left wingers are becoming more hateful every damn day they don't get their way, or you disagree with them then they make up shit titles like this one

 

[OnePercenter]

Hey, man. If you want me to hump my wife, I am going to need some GOVERNMENT GIFTS!

GIMME GIMME GIMME!

Who do you think you are, Walmart?

 

[OnePercenter]

good ole Mother Jones

JUST make up anything to feed the rabid idiots out there

that's just outright lying propaganda...to bad someone doesn't sue them for slander

these left wingers are becoming more hateful every damn they don't get their way or you disagree with them

And yet you can't point out their flaws.

 

[g5000]

Thanks for sharing that you're stunned. I'm glad to help in broadening your horizons.

Gosh, how did we populate the planet after leaving the Garden of Eden without tax credits?

It's a real stumper.

I can just hear all those legs slamming shut if tax credits for breeding went away.

Plenty of nations have sub-replacement fertility rates. Germany is at 1.36 (which includes high fertility Muslims) and America is at 1.89 (includes high fertility Hispanics) and Canada is at 1.63.

Just to stay even we need 2.1.

Thanks for admitting that government gifts do nothing to keep birth rates at a sustainable level. Do you seriously know anyone whose decision to have kids is determined by government gifts?

The blazingly obvious facts are that prosperous nations have lower birth rates than poor nations, and the same is true for families. Poor people have higher birth rates than rich people.

Since that is the case, how is giving people MORE MONEY going to raise birth rates?

It won't.

We can easily maintain population growth through immigration, if need be. Our nation thrives on fresh blood.

 

[Stephanie]

the media in this country used to have some ethics

but that flew out their butts along with honesty

that title is offensive and they care so much they should sell that rag and donate all the monies

 

[g5000]

I hope you folks can see now that I am not joking when I say that even alleged right wingers scream like welfare queens when you go after their government gifts.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Gosh, how did we populate the planet after leaving the Garden of Eden without tax credits?

It's a real stumper.

I can just hear all those legs slamming shut if tax credits for breeding went away.

Plenty of nations have sub-replacement fertility rates. Germany is at 1.36 (which includes high fertility Muslims) and America is at 1.89 (includes high fertility Hispanics) and Canada is at 1.63.

Just to stay even we need 2.1.

Thanks for admitting that government gifts do nothing to keep birth rates at a sustainable level. Do you seriously know anyone whose decision to have kids is determined by government gifts?

Prosperous nations have lower birth rates than poor nations.

The same is true for families. Poor people have more kids than rich people, in the aggregate.

We can easily maintain population growth through immigration, if need be.

Consistent with my earlier point, the tax credits are insufficient. The system we have now privatizes the costs of child care onto the parent and socializes the gains (if they occur) to society. A family which raises a child to adulthood doesn't gain much economically when that child becomes a net tax contributor.

This is what you get when you focus on maintaining population growth through immigration. It simply doesn't work to replace a high income white physician who is retiring with a high school drop out Hispanic gardener:

Gallego’s comments were fair though, and occurred in response to the predictions of the State Demographer, Steve Murdoch, as cited in the San Antonio Express-News. Murdoch’s forecasts indicate, in short, that within 25 years Texas will likely consist of an aging “Anglo”* population, educated but retired and dependent upon state social services and thus a net drain on the economy, juxtaposed with a majority Hispanic population, young and largely uneducated, and thus unable to contribute much to the economy.

By 2030, 16 to 20% of the state’s population will be over 65 and most of these will be Anglo. Hispanics could represent as much as 53% of the population, with Anglos declining to only 30% –an overwhelming and sudden demographic change primarily driven by immigration, most of which has been illegal. In 1980, by contrast, Anglos were 66% of the population, while Hispanics were only 21%, with many Hispanics having roots in the state going back several generations and being as well assimilated as any other ethnic group. . .

In 2000, most of Texas’ adult Hispanic population consisted of high school dropouts and fewer than 20% had attended college. Only 10% had completed a college degree. It was the implications of these numbers that prompted Gallego to declare that Texas was well on its way to being a Third World economy by 2025. “I have a son who will be 21 in 2025,” Gallego added “and that’s just not the kind of Texas I want to turn over to him.”

But why anyone expected that the state could replace its native population, wholesale and in a single generation, with the population of a Third World Country and somehow avoid becoming a Third World Country is a little beyond me. Perhaps they thought that America’s success was in the drinking water and did not need to be transmitted from one generation to the next in the form of a common culture, language and history as it has been for the last two centuries?​

Is the goal to preserve the United States as a unique society or is it to preserve the United States as a political entity no matter if in the future it's unrecognizable by present standards?

 

[cutter]

A single mother of 2 making $14500 a year would pay $0 in taxes anyway. I'm tired of people who pay nothing demanding a larger refund. If you can't support your kids, don't have them and don't ask me to support them.

I bet you are clueless about the history of the earned income credit. Let me help you out some.

The Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit: History, Purpose, Goals, and Effectiveness | Economic Policy Institute

As I've said many times, Ronald Reagan would not be supported by most of today's conservatives, because he just wasn't batshit crazy enough.

I read the article and can't say I afree with it. We have a 17 trillion debt nobody wants to talk about and have no plan on how to pay off. Our days of the generous savior of the poor need to end. The government doesn't need to pay the poor to encourage them to work, hunger will do that. When we have a balanced budget and are paying down the debt then we can talk about being generous with our extra tax revenue.

 

[g5000]

Consistent with my earlier point, the tax credits are insufficient.

Ah! You want MORE government gifts!

Welfare queen mentality.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I hope you folks can see now that I am not joking when I say that even alleged right wingers scream like welfare queens when you go after their government gifts.

Only a leftist would conceive of the rather batty notion of "keeping more of what you earn" as a government gift.

Heck of a job there Brownie.