Many Recipients of Government Funds Don't Know they Receive Government Funds

[Quantum Windbag]

I'd argue that tax breaks aren't government benefits, but there is certainly enough on this list to show that a significant number of recipients of government funds don't know they receive government funds.

"Keep your government hands off my Medicare," said a citizen attending a town hall meeting in Simpsonville, S.C., in 2009. Many Americans like him -- who benefit from federal largesse but don't realize it -- favor deep cuts to government programs.

Cornell Chronicle: Recipients of federal aid say they're not

We are definitely seeing that here in Florida, where current Governor Rick Scott is polling at all time lows of 29%. Yet Scott is doing exactly what he said he'd do and nothing more.

Just a note

If tax credits are fully refundable, past the point of zero and still refundable, then yes

If tax credits take tax liability to zero but not lower and not refundable- then no


Did you know that even the Earned Income Credit has a limit.
The IRS will compute against your payroll taxes (SS, Medicare) and can not be more than those totals.

In effect, the worse the Gov't can do then is have a zero cash flow with an individual on their taxes.

I think you need to reform your definition of tax credits.

If you get back more than you pay it is a credit. The Earned Income Credit is a credit. SS and Medicare only impact the EIC in your head. You can get up to $5,666 with an income of only $12,550 (3 or more children) which is 45% of your income. I could be way off base here, but I am pretty sure that payroll, SS, and Medicare do not add up to 45% of anyone's income.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's pretty funny.

But how are tax breaks not government bennies? People that own their homes can pay less in taxes than people that don't.

Do you deduct your state income and sales tax from your federal taxes? Do you really think you should have to pay taxes on taxes?

 

[uscitizen]

SS should not be on the chart until you have drawn more than you paid in.

 

[Neotrotsky]

I'd argue that tax breaks aren't government benefits, but there is certainly enough on this list to show that a significant number of recipients of government funds don't know they receive government funds.

Cornell Chronicle: Recipients of federal aid say they're not

We are definitely seeing that here in Florida, where current Governor Rick Scott is polling at all time lows of 29%. Yet Scott is doing exactly what he said he'd do and nothing more.

Just a note

If tax credits are fully refundable, past the point of zero and still refundable, then yes

If tax credits take tax liability to zero but not lower and not refundable- then no


Did you know that even the Earned Income Credit has a limit.
The IRS will compute against your payroll taxes (SS, Medicare) and can not be more than those totals.

In effect, the worse the Gov't can do then is have a zero cash flow with an individual on their taxes.

I think you need to reform your definition of tax credits.

If you get back more than you pay it is a credit. The Earned Income Credit is a credit. SS and Medicare only impact the EIC in your head. You can get up to $5,666 with an income of only $12,550 (3 or more children) which is 45% of your income. I could be way off base here, but I am pretty sure that payroll, SS, and Medicare do not add up to 45% of anyone's income.

You are correct
I was thinking of the additional child tax credit to make it fully refundable

But the definition of credits is still correct as it concerns fully refundable or not

 

[Richard-H]

One of the most ridiculous things that I keep hearing is that people 'earn' their money.

Nonsense. Nobody ever got wealthy working for a living.

In our economy, most of the money goes to 'ownership' in the form of profits. It doesn't go to the people that do the work.

All worker, right up to management level, live in an environment where they live beyond their means. So where does the wealth go? It gets funneled up to the wealthiest who only 'own' but do not produce.

Did the black Americans of the early 19th century and before 'earn' nothing thru their labors? They earned plenty, but all the money went to the 'owners'. The same is true, to a lesser extent, today. The people that do the productive work recieve a pittance while ownership recieves the lions share.

 

[Polk]

That's pretty funny.

But how are tax breaks not government bennies? People that own their homes can pay less in taxes than people that don't.

Unless one assumes that all money belongs to the gov't,

Keeping more of your OWN money from the gov't that you earned on your own is not a subsidy.

Getting money from the gov't that was never earned by you is a true subsidy

It's absolutely a subsidy. I have to pay higher taxes to finance your choice to own a particular class of investment. How is that not a subsidy?

 

[Neotrotsky]

That's pretty funny.

But how are tax breaks not government bennies? People that own their homes can pay less in taxes than people that don't.

Unless one assumes that all money belongs to the gov't,

Keeping more of your OWN money from the gov't that you earned on your own is not a subsidy.

Getting money from the gov't that was never earned by you is a true subsidy

It's absolutely a subsidy. I have to pay higher taxes to finance your choice to own a particular class of investment. How is that not a subsidy?

Not at all, you have the same ability to choose the same investment options.
Plus, your money is going to the gov't to finance their needs and uses.
Since the gov't can not create wealth, you are subsidizing them.

If you are saying the tax burden is unfairly and unevenly spread across the tax groups
then I am with you.

 

[whitehall]

What's the point? Social Security? There is no Social Security fund. Politicians spend every dime of FICA funds. The point is that democrats told us that Fannie Mae was doing well when it was at the point of collapse. Politicians can't even run a post office without stealing stamps. If it wasn't for the Tea Party we wouldn't even be having an argument about entitlements or federal spending. Democrats would be riding along on borrowed stolen taxpayer money and lying to Americans about how well they are doing until we started to see traffic signs written in Chinese.

 

[Polk]

Unless one assumes that all money belongs to the gov't,

Keeping more of your OWN money from the gov't that you earned on your own is not a subsidy.

Getting money from the gov't that was never earned by you is a true subsidy

It's absolutely a subsidy. I have to pay higher taxes to finance your choice to own a particular class of investment. How is that not a subsidy?

Not at all, you have the same ability to choose the same investment options.

You're missing the point.

 

[dblack]

Not at all, you have the same ability to choose the same investment options.
Plus, your money is going to the gov't to finance their needs and uses. Since the gov't can not create wealth, you are subsidizing them.

If you are saying the tax burden is unfairly and unevenly spread across the tax groups
then I am with you.

Tax 'incentives' are more properly compared to mandates. You do what you're told or you pay a penalty. It's just a way for the state to do an end run around constitutional constraints. Again, it's bullshit.

 

[uscitizen]

Republicans did nothing about Fannie and Freddie. it benefitted their lobbyists to do nothing.

 

[Neotrotsky]

It's absolutely a subsidy. I have to pay higher taxes to finance your choice to own a particular class of investment. How is that not a subsidy?

Not at all, you have the same ability to choose the same investment options.

You're missing the point.

Not at all. You are confusing the fact that you are subsiding the gov't- they create no wealth.

Let us just say we agree to disagree

 

[bripat9643]

So a renter's money belongs to the government but a homeowner's money doesn't?

None of it belongs to the government, turd.

Any income you receive that comes from your employer, clients or customers is not government money. Even a special education graduate should understand that.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Republicans did nothing about Fannie and Freddie. it benefitted their lobbyists to do nothing.

Did they try?

 

[bripat9643]

I mean, seriously, getting a mortgage deduction is also a type of government subsidized housing.

No it isn't, dipstick.

You're immune to facts and logic.

 

[dblack]

I mean, seriously, getting a mortgage deduction is also a type of government subsidized housing.

No it isn't, dipstick.

You're immune to facts and logic.

It's more like subsidizing debt. Which seems to be the point of most state policy.

 

[bripat9643]

Republicans did nothing about Fannie and Freddie. it benefitted their lobbyists to do nothing.

Did they try?

The dimwit seems to be forgetting that the Democrats were in charge of Congress when Fannie and Freddie imploded.

 

[Polk]

I mean, seriously, getting a mortgage deduction is also a type of government subsidized housing.

No it isn't, dipstick.

You're immune to facts and logic.

What if, instead of a mortgage interest deduction, the government collected taxes as written, then made an annual payment to homeowners. Would that be a government subsidy? If not, why not?

 

[rdean]

‪The Obama Stash of Stimulus Cash -- Dolla Dolla Bills, Y'all!!‬‏ - YouTube

‪Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!!‬‏ - YouTube

Not any worse than seeing all those dumb ass teabirthers walking around with signs that say, "Keep government hands off my Medicare".

 

[Patrick2]

So the home mortgage interest deduction, ie, KEEPING SOME OF THE MONEY YOU, NOT THE GOVERNMENT EARNED, is a "social program"? Only a statist mentality could come up with such a half-assed perspective.