GOP Tax Cut Doesn't Pay Cost of Living Rise; Shutdown Exposes Complete GOP Disarray!

[mascale]

The mistake that people unable to speak English make is that a totally refundable $2000 per child tax credit has to be in place. It is Not. Only 1400 per child is refundable, so the taxpayer in the example has liability Taking the total credit, not refundable, only means that the taxpayer has zero liability, but nothing back from the credit.
Here is the wrong explanation, posted.
____________________________________
The non-refundable portion is used first, but only to get the liability to zero, no lower.
In this example, the non-refundable portion adds up to $1200.
That reduces the liability to $2,025.
Now the refundable portion can be used, $2800 for 2 children.
This makes the liability a negative $775.
______________________________

The current per tax child tax credit is like the $2000 in the stinky new plan. Currently, the refundable tax credit is entirely different, called "The Additional Tax Credit."
In the new stinky plan, likely IRS will show that there is a $2000 per child tax credit against your taxes. But if your tax bill is low, you take an "Additional Tax Credit" instead of the $2000. You can apply $1400 per child, and maybe get a refund from the credit.

People who foolishly failed to take the ACA credit, instead paid income tax of about 905., shown, instead of putting the ACA payments on the 1040--probably a TurboTax thing(?). That would deprive the marketplace of even more spending money: Helping to bring about a Great Recession, again!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken Not Stirred!"
(The $2800 for 2 children cannot be taken if the taxpayer has already elected for the $2000 per child credit--once the IRS rules are published, most likely. Of the Taxpayer has elected to take the $2800, then the taxpayer chose to forgo the full $2000 per child credit!)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The mistake that people unable to speak English make is that a totally refundable $2000 per child tax credit has to be in place. It is Not. Only 1400 per child is refundable, so the taxpayer in the example has liability Taking the total credit, not refundable, only means that the taxpayer has zero liability, but nothing back from the credit.
Here is the wrong explanation, posted.
____________________________________
The non-refundable portion is used first, but only to get the liability to zero, no lower.
In this example, the non-refundable portion adds up to $1200.
That reduces the liability to $2,025.
Now the refundable portion can be used, $2800 for 2 children.
This makes the liability a negative $775.
______________________________

The current per tax child tax credit is like the $2000 in the stinky new plan. Currently, the refundable tax credit is entirely different, called "The Additional Tax Credit."
In the new stinky plan, likely IRS will show that there is a $2000 per child tax credit against your taxes. But if your tax bill is low, you take an "Additional Tax Credit" instead of the $2000. You can apply $1400 per child, and maybe get a refund from the credit.

People who foolishly failed to take the ACA credit, instead paid income tax of about 905., shown, instead of putting the ACA payments on the 1040--probably a TurboTax thing(?). That would deprive the marketplace of even more spending money: Helping to bring about a Great Recession, again!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken Not Stirred!"
(The $2800 for 2 children cannot be taken if the taxpayer has already elected for the $2000 per child credit--once the IRS rules are published, most likely. Of the Taxpayer has elected to take the $2800, then the taxpayer chose to forgo the full $2000 per child credit!)

a totally refundable $2000 per child tax credit has to be in place.

Nope.

The current per tax child tax credit is like the $2000 in the stinky new plan.

The current credit is $1000.
Don't worry, even morons like you can benefit from the new, larger, child tax credit.

The $2800 for 2 children cannot be taken if the taxpayer has already elected for the $2000 per child credit--once the IRS rules are published,

I bet you're wrong.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Famously a family of four at $60,000 per year gets $1182.00 savings in taxes this year, less than the recent 2% inflation of last year. That was $1200.00, just last year. This year the House GOP needed Democrats to keep the Federal government open. Famously, the Senate Republicans split on the issue of keeping the Federal government open.

The "Corrupt Deal" in the White House is actually far worse for progress than Jello. It has already cost the typical US household, even a cost-of-living increase!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, No Stirred!"
(2% does likely compute the time that US President has spent playing golf since taking office! It is either that or get some sleep, (and cutting back on the uppers)!)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Famously a family of four at $60,000 per year gets $1182.00 savings in taxes this year, less than the recent 2% inflation of last year. That was $1200.00, just last year. This year the House GOP needed Democrats to keep the Federal government open. Famously, the Senate Republicans split on the issue of keeping the Federal government open.

The "Corrupt Deal" in the White House is actually far worse for progress than Jello. It has already cost the typical US household, even a cost-of-living increase!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, No Stirred!"
(2% does likely compute the time that US President has spent playing golf since taking office! It is either that or get some sleep, (and cutting back on the uppers)!)

Famously a family of four at $60,000 per year gets $1182.00 savings in taxes this year, less than the recent 2% inflation of last year.

The family in this example actually saves $1682.50 compared to 2017.

GOP Tax Cut Doesn't Pay Cost of Living Rise; Shutdown Exposes Complete GOP Disarray!

 

[mascale]

So now that there is noted a $905.00 tax saving without the ObamaCare payments in tax year 2018, as opposed to 2017: Then the OP is supported in that the 1.5% of $60,000 that represents does not keep up with the 2.2% inflation of last year, expected for this year.

All the money kept by the businesses and upper income investors has no place to go expect into market kinds of paper. The shrinking middle and lower incomes--this year and seven more years after that: Do not create a viable business expansion climate.

The Republicans have their record certain! Bush Tax Cuts for the rich didn't work, and the Iraq War spending was inadequate. Even Osama bin laden spent the War in Pakistan.

The outcome was the Great Recession. The arithmetic follows Matthew 25:14-30, even to the example of the massive foreclosure crisis in famous Las Vegas.

Obama had put in place another Refundable Credit-'"Make Work Pay." The Republicans raised the taxes on the Middle and Lower Incomes even then. They took that away in 2011.

This time they even cut back on the indexing that is even in the tax code, this year.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!'
(Many White Eyes claim their "Manifest Destiny" was to steal from the Indians. Now they have become at least more inclusive about that!)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So now that there is noted a $905.00 tax saving without the ObamaCare payments in tax year 2018, as opposed to 2017: Then the OP is supported in that the 1.5% of $60,000 that represents does not keep up with the 2.2% inflation of last year, expected for this year.

All the money kept by the businesses and upper income investors has no place to go expect into market kinds of paper. The shrinking middle and lower incomes--this year and seven more years after that: Do no create a viable business expansion climate.

The Republicans have their record certain! Bush Tax Cuts for the rich didn't work, and the Iraq War spending was inadequate. Even Osama bin laden spent the War in Pakistan.

The outcome was the Great Recession. The arithmetic follows Matthew 25:14-30, even to the example of the massive foreclosure crisis in famous Las Vegas.

Obama had put in place another Refundable Credit-'"Make Work Pay." The Republicans raised the taxes on the Middle and Lower Incomes even then. They took that away in 2011.

This time they even cut back on the indexing that is even in the tax code, this year.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!'
(Many White Eyes claim their "Manifest Destiny" was to steal from the Indians. Now they have become at least more inclusive about that!)

Bush Tax Cuts for the rich didn't work,

Bush cut taxes for everyone.

Fed U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013 | Tax Bracket | Dollar

 

[mascale]

Schedule 8812 examples currently show that if a taxpayer takes the $1000.00 child tax credit, then the additional child tax credit amount is $0.00. So in the new rules, then if you take a $2000.00 child tax credit, then the additional tax credit amount is likely also $0.00. The contention that the new tax plan allows a $600.00 per child tax credit, plus a $1400 refundable portion: Effectively make the entire per child tax credit refundable.

The claim that the refundable credit creates an add-on $1400.00 likely does not state the intent of the act. Like is current, the credit is either or, not both.

IRS shows that maybe you can only use $500 of the credit to bring your tax liability to zero: It recommends taking the entire Additional Tax Credit instead. You do not take $500, expecting an additional $500, or an additional $1000.000

That kind of interpretation will likely continue in the new rules. If you do better with the refundable credit, then you take that in its entirety: $1400. If you do better with the $2000.00 credit, then you take that in its entirety: $2000.

Anyone recalls that the Congress was limited regarding how much money it could even piss away. The fact that the tax plan could come up for a vote is further support of the either/or interpretation. There appears to have been a way to limit the credit, in the total computing.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(The operating principle comes from Deuteronomy 23: 19-20: "Screw 'Em!")

 

[mascale]

Half the people victims of the Bush Tax cuts got zero tax cuts, having no federal income tax liability. They only worked for the rich. No economic stimulus happened.

It was good of clearly ignorant and stupid, Toddsterpatriot poster to bring up the sordid past of that administration. The anti-neighbor bias is available in history!


"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!
(Operating principle remains Deuteronomy 23:19-20, of the Prince of Denigrating Egypt--like in showing the Bush tax tables.)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Schedule 8812 examples currently show that if a taxpayer takes the $1000.00 child tax credit, then the additional child tax credit amount is $0.00. So in the new rules, then if you take a $2000.00 child tax credit, then the additional tax credit amount is likely also $0.00. The contention that the new tax plan allows a $600.00 per child tax credit, plus a $1400 refundable portion: Effectively make the entire per child tax credit refundable.

The claim that the refundable credit creates an add-on $1400.00 likely does not state the intent of the act. Like is current, the credit is either or, not both.

IRS shows that maybe you can only use $500 of the credit to bring your tax liability to zero: It recommends taking the entire Additional Tax Credit instead. You do not take $500, expecting an additional $500, or an additional $1000.000

That kind of interpretation will likely continue in the new rules. If you do better with the refundable credit, then you take that in its entirety: $1400. If you do better with the $2000.00 credit, then you take that in its entirety: $2000.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(The operating principle comes from Deuteronomy 23: 19-20: "Screw 'Em!")

Schedule 8812 examples currently show that if a taxpayer takes the $1000.00 child tax credit, then the additional child tax credit amount is $0.00.

That was the case, for 2017 taxes.

So in the new rules, then if you take a $2000.00 child tax credit, then the additional tax credit amount is likely also $0.00.

If you take the $2000 credit, you've taken the full amount.

The contention that the new tax plan allows a $600.00 per child tax credit, plus a $1400 refundable portion:

Yes.

Effectively make the entire per child tax credit refundable.

Nope. Only $1400 is refundable.

The claim that the refundable credit creates an add-on $1400.00 likely does not state the intent of the act.

Likely? LOL!

If you do better with the refundable credit, then you take that in its entirety: $1400.

Let's assume you have one child for your 2018 return.

If your liability is $2100, the tax credit drops your liability to $100.
If your liability is $2000, the tax credit drops your liability to $0.
If your liability is $1900, the tax credit drops your liability to -$100.
If your liability is $1800, the tax credit drops your liability to -$200.
If your liability is $1700, the tax credit drops your liability to -$300.
If your liability is $1600, the tax credit drops your liability to -$400.
If your liability is $1500, the tax credit drops your liability to -$500.

If your liability is $1400, the tax credit drops your liability to -$600.
If your liability is $1300, the tax credit drops your liability to -$700.
If your liability is $1200, the tax credit drops your liability to -$800.
If your liability is $1100, the tax credit drops your liability to -$900.
If your liability is $1000, the tax credit drops your liability to -$1000.
If your liability is $900, the tax credit drops your liability to -$1100.
If your liability is $800, the tax credit drops your liability to -$1200.
If your liability is $700, the tax credit drops your liability to -$1300.
If your liability is $600, the tax credit drops your liability to -$1400.
If your liability is $500, the tax credit drops your liability to -$1400.
If your liability is $400, the tax credit drops your liability to -$1400.
If your liability is $300, the tax credit drops your liability to -$1400.
If your liability is $200, the tax credit drops your liability to -$1400.
If your liability is $100, the tax credit drops your liability to -$1400.
If your liability is $0, the tax credit drops your liability to -$1400.​

Clear?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Half the people victims of the Bush Tax cuts got zero tax cuts, having no federal income tax liability. They only worked for the rich. No economic stimulus happened.

It was good of clearly ignorant and stupid, Toddsterpatriot poster to bring up the sordid past of that administration. The anti-neighbor bias is available in history!


"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!
(Operating principle remains Deuteronomy 23:19-20, of the Prince of Denigrating Egypt--like in showing the Bush tax tables.)

Half the people victims of the Bush Tax cuts got zero tax cuts, having no federal income tax liability.

OMG!
People who don't pay taxes don't benefit from a rate cut.
You know who else doesn't benefit? People with no income.
You know who else doesn't benefit? Dead people.

 

[mascale]

Still unable to speak the English language, Toddsterposter tries to equate negative liability with refundable liability. That is not the case and easily would create fines or jail for anyone so contending. Anyone takes the Refundable credit per child tax credit, then there is $1400 refundable if there is zero liability Anyone takes the refundable tax credit of $1400, owing $5000.00: Then that person is as easily stupid as is Toddsterposter. They still owe $3,600. Anyone could take the $2000 non-refundable tax credit and only owe $3000.00; Except for Toddsterpatriot poster, who prefers to pay the larger amount(?).
________________________________________
People who don't pay taxes don't benefit from a rate cut. (True: They have no liability to pay!)
You know who else doesn't benefit? People with no income. (True: They have no liability to pay!)
You know who else doesn't benefit? Dead people. (False: Some of them may owe a lot, at $7.0 tril. net worth! Toddsterpatriot poster is really that very stupid!)

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!:
(Maybe many come to Lands of Many Nations, celebrating Great Spirit, "Seven Come Eleven!")

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Still unable to speak the English language, Toddsterposter tries to equate negative liability with refundable liability. That is not the case and easily would create fines or jail for anyone so contending. Anyone takes the Refundable credit per child tax credit, then there is $1400 refundable if there is zero liability Anyone takes the refundable tax credit of $1400, owing $5000.00: Then that person is as easily stupid as is Toddsterposter. They still owe $3,600. Anyone could take the $2000 non-refundable tax credit and only owe $3000.00; Except for Toddsterpatriot poster, who prefers to pay the larger amount(?).
________________________________________
People who don't pay taxes don't benefit from a rate cut. (True: They have no liability to pay!)
You know who else doesn't benefit? People with no income. (True: They have no liability to pay!)
You know who else doesn't benefit? Dead people. (False: Some of them may owe a lot, at $7.0 tril. net worth! Toddsterpatriot poster is really that very stupid!)

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!:
(Maybe many come to Lands of Many Nations, celebrating Great Spirit, "Seven Come Eleven!")

Toddsterposter tries to equate negative liability with refundable liability.

Feel free to post a source that proves I'm wrong.
Maybe the following will help?

In prior years, the Child Tax Credit was nonrefundable which means that if the available tax credit exceeded your tax liability, your tax bill was simply reduced to zero. So even if you were able to claim the entire $1,000 per child (the maximum available credit for the 2016 tax year), if you didn't have any tax liability, you couldn't benefit from the credit. The credit would not carry forward to any future years, or back to any past years: it simply disappeared.

Under tax reform, part of the Child Tax Credit remains nonrefundable but the "old" Additional Child Tax Credit, which was refundable, has essentially been merged into the new credit. I know that sounds confusing but what it means is that the Child Tax Credit is just one credit worth up to $2,000 per child and includes a refundable piece of up to $1,400 per child. To be clear, the $1,400 refundable piece is included as part of the $2,000 Child Tax Credit and is not an additional credit (unlike before).


A refundable credit means that you can take advantage of the credit even if you do not owe any tax. Unlike with a nonrefundable credit, if you don't have any tax liability, the "extra" credit is not lost but is instead refunded to you. To claim the refundable portion, you must have earned income (generally, wages, salary, tips, and net earnings from self-employment). For purposes of the new Child Tax Credit, the refundable portion is equal to 15% of your earned income which exceeds $2,500 up to the maximum credit.

Let's do the math. Say your earned income is $10,000 and let's assume that you are entitled to the entire $2,000 credit. However, at that income level, you likely don't owe any tax. With a nonrefundable credit, that wouldn't mean anything to you. However, with the refundable piece of the credit, you can
pocket up to $1,125 since $10,000 (your earned income) less $2,500 x 15% = $1,125.

(You can see what tax rates look like under tax reform here.)

What if, instead, your earned income was $50,000 and your tax owed was $5,000? You would be entitled to the entire $2,000 nonrefundable credit - no need to do the math on the refundable piece. A nonrefundable credit reduces what you owe, it just can't reduce your liability below zero. So after you apply the $2,000 credit, your tax liability is reduced to $3,000. Easy, right?

But what if you had already paid $5,000 as withholding? Do you lose the credit or the withholding? NO. Don't read too much into the word "nonrefundable" - it only means you can't reduce your tax burden below zero but it doesn't negate an overpayment. Think of nonrefundable credits as tax reductions and refundable credits as payments - that's more or less how they appear on your form 1040:

What The Expanded Child Tax Credit Looks Like After Tax Reform

 

[mascale]

Like I've been posting! (The Forbes article does need some editing, though.)
"Don't read too much into the word "nonrefundable" - it only means you can't reduce your tax burden below zero but it doesn't negate an overpayment. Think of nonrefundable credits as tax reductions and refundable credits as payments - that's more or less how they appear on your form 1040:"

The two credits are separate.


"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Did you see the size of Senator Franken's hands(?)!)

 

[Claudette]

r

The bill would have better had the family making a pittance of 60 grand for triple the cut....but we can't have that can we....not one person was able to explain why the cuts weren't ALot bigger.

Huh?????????????? A family making $60K is getting their federal tax burden cut by 20%. Under the Trump tax cuts, a $60K family falls in the second tax bracket, which has had its rate cut from 15% to 12%, a reduction of 20%. And that's just the cut they're getting from the rate cut. If they have kids, they're getting an extra $1,000 per child because the Trump tax cuts have doubled the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000 per child.

Free your mind.

He'd need to have a MIND before he could free it buddy. LOL

 

[mascale]

Even the Form 1040-ES for tax year 2018 is not yet available. That will likely be the first proletarian explanation and example of how the Child Tax Credit(s) work in the new tax plan. Speaker "Rotten Ryan," however: Did not initially suggest a $2100 tax saving under the new plan, for the Example family of four.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!
(It doesn't get more transparent than that(?)!)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Like I've been posting! (The Forbes article does need some editing, though.)
"Don't read too much into the word "nonrefundable" - it only means you can't reduce your tax burden below zero but it doesn't negate an overpayment. Think of nonrefundable credits as tax reductions and refundable credits as payments - that's more or less how they appear on your form 1040:"

The two credits are separate.


"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Did you see the size of Senator Franken's hands(?)!)

The two credits are separate.

Yup.
Use the $600 non-refundable first. Reduce your liability with it, but not below zero.
Then use the $1400 refundable.

 

[mascale]

The order of precedence is correct, but not the application. The 2017 $60000 filer owes $905 after taking the non-refundable $1000.00 per child tax. Using the Non-refundable credit first is required. There is no refund. That reasoning also likely applies to the 2018 filer, who then needs the non-refundable $2000.00 per child to get past the $3225.00. That can only be taken to zero, however. Unlike the 2017 tax year--the $1000 non-refundable and refundable are the same--in 2018, the $4000 has already been taken in the line item. It is non-refundable, but the tax owed is zero. There is no further eligibility for any further per child tax credit. For 2017, taking a $1000 child credit happens as follows.
_________________________________________
If you owe the IRS only $500, you wouldn't have to pay anything because your $1,000 will wipe the bill out. But the IRS won't send you a refund for the remaining $500, either ... because the credit is non-refundable.

The Child Tax Credit is technically non-refundable, but there's another credit available called the Additional Child Tax Credit and this one is refundable so you might get some money back.

The Additional Child Tax Credit works as something of an offshoot of the original Child Tax Credit. If you have one or two children, applying the Additional Child Tax Credit can result in receiving a refund equal to the unused portion of your Child Tax Credit—that which wasn't used to erase your tax bill—or 15 percent of your income over $3,000, whichever is less. Claiming the Additional Child Tax Credit effectively works out so that the unused balance of your child tax credit, or at least a portion of it, becomes eligible for a refund.
____________________________________________

The tax filer takes that credit--refundable--instead of the non-refundable first required alternative. Since there was eligibility for the 2nd alternative, then that got taken, but instead of the first--not as an add-on. Similarly, more likely, your 2000 non-refundable credit is not eligible for any portion of the $1400 extra. You have to take the credit--or reject the first--in the order of precedence.

So more likely for 2018 tax year, the filer takes the required first alternative for the zero liability. If that is rejected, then the refundable alternative would leave the filer owing income tax. That wouldn't work.

The basis for the Additional Child Tax credit is to make lower income families eligible for a refund, even if the other deductions and credits, not including any child credit, create a zero tax liability. That household does not first claim the non-refundable credit at all. That offers no refund. It only claims the additional refundable child tax credit. For 2017, that amounts are the same, regardless of which one gets taken. The amounts are different, is all: For 2018. It is better to owe zero, than to owe the $425.00.

Most likely that will be the rule, applied.

So again, the Family of Four at $60000 in Rotten Ryan's example gets a tax cut that does not even keep pace with inflation: Like for most of the market of spenders everyday. The rich are not even likely to keep the Bentley fleet at 20 or more new, every year.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"

 

[PredFan]

Famously a family of four at $60,000 per year gets $1182.00 savings in taxes this year, less than the recent 2% inflation of last year. That was $1200.00, just last year. This year the House GOP needed Democrats to keep the Federal government open. Famously, the Senate Republicans split on the issue of keeping the Federal government open.

The "Corrupt Deal" in the White House is actually far worse for progress than Jello. It has already cost the typical US household, even a cost-of-living increase!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, No Stirred!"
(2% does likely compute the time that US President has spent playing golf since taking office! It is either that or get some sleep, (and cutting back on the uppers)!)

How are things on your planet? Here on earth, that kind of insanity doesn’t exist.

 

[PredFan]

It’s amusing to watch the left twist themselves into knots trying to turn this boom into a bust. They just hate America that much.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The order of precedence is correct, but not the application. The 2017 $60000 filer owes $905 after taking the non-refundable $1000.00 per child tax. Using the Non-refundable credit first is required. There is no refund. That reasoning also likely applies to the 2018 filer, who then needs the non-refundable $2000.00 per child to get past the $3225.00. That can only be taken to zero, however. Unlike the 2017 tax year--the $1000 non-refundable and refundable are the same--in 2018, the $4000 has already been taken in the line item. It is non-refundable, but the tax owed is zero. There is no further eligibility for any further per child tax credit. For 2017, taking a $1000 child credit happens as follows.
_________________________________________
If you owe the IRS only $500, you wouldn't have to pay anything because your $1,000 will wipe the bill out. But the IRS won't send you a refund for the remaining $500, either ... because the credit is non-refundable.

The Child Tax Credit is technically non-refundable, but there's another credit available called the Additional Child Tax Credit and this one is refundable so you might get some money back.

The Additional Child Tax Credit works as something of an offshoot of the original Child Tax Credit. If you have one or two children, applying the Additional Child Tax Credit can result in receiving a refund equal to the unused portion of your Child Tax Credit—that which wasn't used to erase your tax bill—or 15 percent of your income over $3,000, whichever is less. Claiming the Additional Child Tax Credit effectively works out so that the unused balance of your child tax credit, or at least a portion of it, becomes eligible for a refund.
____________________________________________

The tax filer takes that credit--refundable--instead of the non-refundable first required alternative. Since there was eligibility for the 2nd alternative, then that got taken, but instead of the first--not as an add-on. Similarly, more likely, your 2000 non-refundable credit is not eligible for any portion of the $1400 extra. You have to take the credit--or reject the first--in the order of precedence.

So more likely for 2018 tax year, the filer takes the required first alternative for the zero liability. If that is rejected, then the refundable alternative would leave the filer owing income tax. That wouldn't work.

The basis for the Additional Child Tax credit is to make lower income families eligible for a refund, even if the other deductions and credits, not including any child credit, create a zero tax liability. That household does not first claim the non-refundable credit at all. That offers no refund. It only claims the additional refundable child tax credit. For 2017, that amounts are the same, regardless of which one gets taken. The amounts are different, is all: For 2018. It is better to owe zero, than to owe the $425.00.

Most likely that will be the rule, applied.

So again, the Family of Four at $60000 in Rotten Ryan's example gets a tax cut that does not even keep pace with inflation: Like for most of the market of spenders everyday. The rich are not even likely to keep the Bentley fleet at 20 or more new, every year.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"

The tax filer takes that credit--refundable--instead of the non-refundable first required alternative. Since there was eligibility for the 2nd alternative, then that got taken, but instead of the first--not as an add-on. Similarly, more likely, your 2000 non-refundable credit is not eligible for any portion of the $1400 extra. You have to take the credit--or reject the first--in the order of precedence.

Wrong.