A modest proposal to help negate the damage of Biden’s expanded child support

[Winston]

But it’s that family’s decision to have more kids than they can afford. If we keep paying people per kid, they will keep having kids they can’t support.

And I’d be OK with a phase-out, but total cut-off at $75,000. No way should retirees paying taxes on their modest $40,000 incomes have to pitch in to cover the costs of a Dad earning $95,000 while Mom stays home with the 2-year-old.

You must be a boomer, like in your example of the retirees paying for children. You sometimes hear the same argument about property taxes, how retirees should not be held responsible for funding the education of the children that live in their community. I mean those retirees have no damn problem with current workers funding their Social Security checks. They got no damn problem with current workers funding their Health care through Medicare. Hell, they bitch and moan about the copay on their prescription drug plan, also funded by current workers.

Those boomers were born before 1965, which means before Medicare. Their grandparents didn't suck off current workers to pay for their healthcare. And when those Boomers were in school. well they collected at least three times the percentage of government spending on themselves that current children are allocated, mostly because those self-absorbed boomers are collecting most of the government spending. I mean these are the same assholes that marched to Woodstock smoking dope and screaming about not going to war, mostly because they didn't want to go. Now, they don't give two shits what the younger generation pays in blood and treasure as long as they get their government check every month.

 

[Lisa558]

lol. Sorry Lisa I was a bit rude before the edit. Badlands is in the Flame Zone where I normally lurk. But a chap with six kids should be allowed to keep money HE HAS EARNED for his OWN family. It's HIS MONEY. If someone is on $40000 then I advise them to upskill and get a better job. And if it means working extra shifts/second job and studying hard in your own time and exhausting yourself doing it BUT ACHIEVING IT IN THE END...then welcome to the story of a lot of folk earning $150000 pa. Remember; he is still paying 75% of the $40000 pa person wages!!

Greg

Thanks for the clarification.

My argument was that a chap earning $150,000 with six kids shouldn’t gain from the expanded child tax credit at the expense of someone with an income of $40,000 who doesn’t get a credit at all.

As far as someone earning $40,000 who needs to upskill, definitely. I have no sympathy for unskilled workers crying that they need other people’s money to help pay their bills when we Americans are providing Pell Grants so they can increase their value to an employer.

I was thinking more of retirees, who after a lifetime of paying taxes on middle-income salaries are now getting $25,000 in social security and withdrawing perhaps another $25,000 from their IRA, for a total of $50,000 (half of which is from savings), and then having to pay full tax - no child credit - to offset the tax bill of six-figure earners.

 

[Lisa558]

Why? the rules for Politics demands links also to note you are blabbering opinions and not any facts that you can confirm via a stat or a link.

Huh? I said right in the OP that I was suggesting a proposal. You mean conservatives can’t give their opinions? I have to first find someone ELSE who published that opinion, and mimic it?

Progressives sure are a bunch of sheep.

 

[Lisa558]

You must be a boomer, like in your example of the retirees paying for children. You sometimes hear the same argument about property taxes, how retirees should not be held responsible for funding the education of the children that live in their community. I mean those retirees have no damn problem with current workers funding their Social Security checks. They got no damn problem with current workers funding their Health care through Medicare. Hell, they bitch and moan about the copay on their prescription drug plan, also funded by current workers.

Those boomers were born before 1965, which means before Medicare. Their grandparents didn't suck off current workers to pay for their healthcare. And when those Boomers were in school. well they collected at least three times the percentage of government spending on themselves that current children are allocated, mostly because those self-absorbed boomers are collecting most of the government spending. I mean these are the same assholes that marched to Woodstock smoking dope and screaming about not going to war, mostly because they didn't want to go. Now, they don't give two shits what the younger generation pays in blood and treasure as long as they get their government check every month.

OMG. What we have above is a young progressive who feels entitled to Granny on Social Security, to which she was FORCED* to contribute her entire life, to help pay the groceries for a family earning $150,000.

Back when I was growing up, parents had to pay for their kids’ own lunches and breakfasts, didn’t get “workforce” housing if they werent earning enough to rent their own nice place, had major medical for hospitals and paid doctor‘s bill in cash, and didn’t feel ENTITLED to other people giving them money to raise the children they decided to have.

The young, entitled generation of progressives - envious, resentful, hateful - is killing this country.

*I would have done better using my SS contributions to instead fund my own investment portfolio. I was forced to pay into SS because people are too irresponsible, for the most part, to save for their old age, and they would have ended up with nothing.

 

[gtopa1]

Thanks for the clarification.

My argument was that a chap earning $150,000 with six kids shouldn’t gain from the expanded child tax credit at the expense of someone with an income of $40,000 who doesn’t get a credit at all.

As far as someone earning $40,000 who needs to upskill, definitely. I have no sympathy for unskilled workers crying that they need other people’s money to help pay their bills when we Americans are providing Pell Grants so they can increase their value to an employer.

I was thinking more of retirees, who after a lifetime of paying taxes on middle-income salaries are now getting $25,000 in social security and withdrawing perhaps another $25,000 from their IRA, for a total of $50,000 (half of which is from savings), and then having to pay full tax - no child credit - to offset the tax bill of six-figure earners.

I say fix that up as a separate issue. It does sound ridiculous but I am not familiar with US retirement strategies. The six figure earners still pay a bucket load of tax though.

Greg

 

[ReinyDays]

First, can we all agree that parents earning six figures should not get government support (i.e., money from other people, earning far less) to pay for their children? As it stands, someone I know has a husband earning $150,000 and six children, lives in a $1.5 million house, and she is getting $1600 a month to cover expenses for her kids.

Second, since the Dems keep saying how Biden’s expanded welfare has lifted xxx number of children out of poverty, why not limit the welfare to just those families?

Third, the payments should really be per family, not per child, since it encourages people who otherwise couldn’t afford a third or fourth child to go ahead.

My proposal, which is a COMPROMISE:

1) Go back to the limited “refund” where people got no more than $1400 MORE than they owed in tax back, rather than the entire amount. We have people getting $15,000 and $20,000 “refunded” - including welfare recipients already in subsidized housing, getting free health care, and food stamps.

2) Stop calling it a refundable tax credit (against federal income tax owed), since half the people getting it pay no taxes at all. We should call it GSFLF - Government Support for Low-Income Families.

3) It should be limited to those with household incomes of $50,000, regardless of number of children. Others are not low-income and can pay their fair share.

I was going to start screaming "fake news" here ... but I checked ... son-of-a-bitch ...

See IRS Pub 972 ... this OP is all true ...

I agree with #3 ... anyone making $200/hr doesn't need financial help ...

 

[Lisa558]

I say fix that up as a separate issue. It does sound ridiculous but I am not familiar with US retirement strategies. The six figure earners still pay a bucket load of tax though.

Greg

You’re not American?

 

[Lisa558]

I was going to start screaming "fake news" here ... but I checked ... son-of-a-bitch ...

See IRS Pub 972 ... this OP is all true ...

I agree with #3 ... anyone making $200/hr doesn't need financial help ...

Thanks. And yup….it‘s really ridiculous! Right on page 4 of the IRS pub (is that why people were asking for a link….they didn’t know that upper-class earners were getting financial help?), it says….

Married filing jointing….up to $400,000

Part of the reason people don’t realize that retirees earning $40,000 and other childless adults with similar incomes are helping offset the costs of child expenses for WEALTHY families is because the Dems always say how “we moved xxxx number of children off poverty” with our program, omitting how they’re giving program benefits to rich people up to $400,000 as well.

That‘s why I said in my OP that if the program is helping move poor kids off poverty, fine and dandy.….but then limit the program to that income bracket. The only reason the devious Dems are including affluent families is to buy as many votes as they can.

 

[gtopa1]

You’re not American?

Nope; I'm Australian. We have a scheme called "superannuation" for retirees here which is non-taxable. Sounds like the US could use a dose of that idea. That would mean that the Retiree who takes $25000 out of their IRA would not be taxed on that component. That would leave them taxed on $25000.

$25k Salary Tax Calculation - Salary Deductions in 2022 What? Amount Minus Total Gross Annual Salary $25,000.00 Total Federal Income Tax Due $1,240.50 Total New Mexico Income Tax Due $452.80 Social Security Tax Due $1,550.00 Medicare Due $362.50 Salary After Tax and Deductions $21,394.20

© iCalculator: Read more at: Federal Tax: $25k Salary Example | US Tax Calculator 2022

So that would be a net tax rate of about 8%. The guy on $150000 with SIX KIDS would still be paying about 20%.

Greg

 

[Winston]

OMG. What we have above is a young progressive who feels entitled to Granny on Social Security, to which she was FORCED* to contribute her entire life, to help pay the groceries for a family earning $150,000.

The young, entitled generation of progressives - envious, resentful, hateful - is killing this country.

No, what you have is a boomer that stands ashamed of his generation. That understands the vast benefit that the government provided me when I was a child. That watched his grandparents struggle in poverty, and understand how much my own situation has been provided to me by previous generations. But more than anything, understands the importance of investing in children.

Denmark is consistently rated at the top of the innovation chart among high income countries. Perhaps more importantly, Denmark is ranked as the most social mobile country in the world. Denmark provides a quarterly check to every family with children, regardless of income. Seems like there is something to be learned there. The US ranks 27. It takes an average of five generations for a low income family to make it to a median income. In Denmark, it is two. The US obviously has a problem with social mobility, Denmark is providing us with a clear solution.

 

[Winston]

*I would have done better using my SS contributions to instead fund my own investment portfolio. I was forced to pay into SS because people are too irresponsible, for the most part, to save for their old age, and they would have ended up with nothing.

Horseshit. Let's get something straight, Social Security is not a self-funded retirement plan, never has been. You wouldn't have accumulated jackshit if you include the disability insurance and survivor benefits that Social Security provided to you. I mean it is complete ignorance to look back and claim you would have responsibility invested every one of those dollars and gotten a better return. What if you had became disabled? You would have gotten whatever you accumulated, no lifetime income. What if you had died when you had children, your children would have gotten what ever you had saved, no survivors benefit. What if you live to be 100, your savings would have evaporated long ago and yet with Social Security you are still getting a monthly check.

 

[Lisa558]

Nope; I'm Australian. We have a scheme called "superannuation" for retirees here which is non-taxable. Sounds like the US could use a dose of that idea. That would mean that the Retiree who takes $25000 out of their IRA would not be taxed on that component. That would leave them taxed on $25000.

$25k Salary Tax Calculation - Salary Deductions in 2022 What? Amount Minus Total Gross Annual Salary $25,000.00 Total Federal Income Tax Due $1,240.50 Total New Mexico Income Tax Due $452.80 Social Security Tax Due $1,550.00 Medicare Due $362.50 Salary After Tax and Deductions $21,394.20

© iCalculator: Read more at: Federal Tax: $25k Salary Example | US Tax Calculator 2022

So that would be a net tax rate of about 8%. The guy on $150000 with SIX KIDS would still be paying about 20%.

Greg

Yes, I’ve often thought that Social Security benefits shouldn’t be taxed. They weren’t originally, and then maybe 30 or 40 years ago, they came up with a formula that made some taxable, after you reached a comfortable “middle” income, but it’s never been pegged to inflation. So now retirees with very modest incomes are taxed.

That‘s what’s so infuriating about what the Dems have done with this tax credit refund. They are allowing couples up to $400,000 to be able to reduce their taxes while retirees on modest fixed incomes don‘t get a cent of benefit.

 

[Lisa558]

Horseshit. Let's get something straight, Social Security is not a self-funded retirement plan, never has been. You wouldn't have accumulated jackshit if you include the disability insurance and survivor benefits that Social Security provided to you. I mean it is complete ignorance to look back and claim you would have responsibility invested every one of those dollars and gotten a better return. What if you had became disabled? You would have gotten whatever you accumulated, no lifetime income. What if you had died when you had children, your children would have gotten what ever you had saved, no survivors benefit. What if you live to be 100, your savings would have evaporated long ago and yet with Social Security you are still getting a monthly check.

I stopped reading at “horseshit.” You Dems really need to stop starting out calling someone a liar if you expect to get a rebuttal. But that’s what you want, isn’t it? Jusr be rude and hostile, and then your opponent won’t engage.

 

[Winston]

I stopped reading at “horseshit.” You Dems really need to stop starting out calling someone a liar if you expect to get a rebuttal. But that’s what you want, isn’t it? Jusr be rude and hostile, and then your opponent won’t engage.

 

[Lisa558]

Do us all a favor and move to Denmark if you like socialism.

Not clicking on that, either. You nasty bullies really need to learn a new way to deal with people who disagree with you. You’re too arrogant to acknowledge it, but a big reason you are going to lose the midterms is because people are fed up with the censoring, bullying, intimidation, and nasty tantrums that progs utilize when facing someone who points out the error in their thinking.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I agree
We need to help those who need help.
But we need to pay more to a family supporting four kids than a family with one kid.
Also, I would say a diminished refund from $50,000 to $100,000

Or better yet, if you can't afford four kids don't have four kids.

 

[Winston]

Yes, I’ve often thought that Social Security benefits shouldn’t be taxed. They weren’t originally, and then maybe 30 or 40 years ago, they came up with a formula that made some taxable, after you reached a comfortable “middle” income, but it’s never been pegged to inflation. So now retirees with very modest incomes are taxed.

That‘s what’s so infuriating about what the Dems have done with this tax credit refund. They are allowing couples up to $400,000 to be able to reduce their taxes while retirees on modest fixed incomes don‘t get a cent of benefit.

The taxation of Social Security Benefits is on Ronald Reagan

The last major overhaul of Social Security occurred under Reagan's watch with the passage of the Amendments of 1983. The two biggest changes included the introduction of the taxation of benefits for those recipients earning over select income thresholds and, secondly, the gradual increase of the full retirement age from 65 to 67 between 1983 and 2022. These changes were designed to bring in additional revenue (up to half of a person's or couple's benefits were subject to federal income tax), as well as limit lifetime benefit payouts to future generations.

Every President's Biggest Social Security Contribution Since 1935 | The Motley Fool

Since Social Security's inception, 14 presidents have overseen this critical social program. Here's how each one has shaped it.

www.fool.com

 

[Winston]

Not clicking on that, either. You nasty bullies really need to learn a new way to deal with people who disagree with you. You’re too arrogant to acknowledge it, but a big reason you are going to lose the midterms is because people are fed up with the censoring, bullying, intimidation, and nasty tantrums that progs utilize when facing someone who points out the error in their thinking.

That is rich, I pointed out the error in your thinking concerning Social Security. You can't refute because you got your good pants on. LOL.

 

[rightwinger]

Or better yet, if you can't afford four kids don't have four kids.

Are you advocating abortion now?

 

[Winston]

Are you advocating abortion now?

Good point, most abortions are performed on women that already have children.