Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Update - 3/11/21 - America Rescue Plan Bill is signed!


Recommended Posts

Just now, China said:

 

Considering how much it costs to raise a child, the tax deduction for having a child doesn't cover all of that plus give you enough to pay for a vacation.  It's definitely cheaper not to have kids.  It's about budgeting.

I'm well aware of the costs to raise a child as my comments were primarily in jest.  However, we all know people that have kids they can't afford to begin with.  I don't really subscribe to the thought that having more kids should equal a lesser tax burden.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, China said:

 

Considering how much it costs to raise a child, the tax deduction for having a child doesn't cover all of that plus give you enough to pay for a vacation.  It's definitely cheaper not to have kids.  It's about budgeting.

 

In all seriousness, I get having kids is expensive. So are my pets. Can I get a tax credit and stimulus checks for them too? 🙂

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Does you having your pet provide a public good?  Having kids does provide a public good.  Our society benefits from parents raising their kids.  The tax code is a means by which the government can encourage behaviors beneficial to society (at least some people believe it is, but I will admit its efficacy is debatable for some).

 

If you doubt the benefit to society of  having kids, I direct you to China's one child law which was in effect the opposite.  What it does give us is a view of what happens down the road as they have an aging workforce and population without enough young people to support them.  Mexico is the only industrial country in the world without an aging workforce.  For the rest of us, it is simply a degree of difficulty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, gbear said:

Does you having your pet provide a public good?  Having kids does provide a public good. 

I'd say yes - my puppy cheers people up all the time.  My kid though, he can be a real prick and a leech on our finances.

 

In all seriousness, people aren't going to stop procreating because of the lack of tax break.  So that argument is rather weak for me.

Edited by BatteredFanSyndrome
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a problem in this country where the people having the most children are at the bottom end of the socioeconomic scale. As you go up the scale people have less and less children. They also have them later in life. 
 

putting career first and general budget concerns are the top two reasons for this if I recall correctly. 
 

I do not think people should get more than what is currently given for children. I think what is currently done is sillyness. 
 

but we have a real problem. I’d like to see something that actually addresses the problem of where on the scale our children are being bred from, instead of just a blanket giveaway of money. 
 

I realize there’s a way to read this and find offense. And I don’t really give a ****. It’s the truth. And it’s not good long term for our children to be coming almost exclusively from that end of the scale. The better people are able to afford giving a child the best possible start, the less likely they are to actually have children. It’s an issue. 
 

(I’d rather see us tackle the expenses related to children as opposed to tax credits)

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, tax breaks don't influence the decision to have kids, but that isn't the real issue.  The real question is will they raise them? The simple truth is many don't want the burden, and the tax credits are a poor inducement.  They try to offset some small portion of the economic cost of raising a kid.  It would be far better to have better childcare services, better healthcare/insurance options, better community ways of providing support to parents.  However in the U.S. we like to pretend it is all about the money, so we offer it in the form of tax credits.  

 

It doesn't work, and our kids born and unborn suffer for it. 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Think about all the folks that at one point made salaries in the phase-out and no longer do or even those that still do and voted for the dems, who will be losing out on that pile of dung they call a proposal.  All those folks are going to be pissed and rightfully so.

 

If they want to play the game of giving more money to people who actually are really in need of it, and take what I would get and give it to them - fine.  I have no idea how they would feasably be able to determine that in a way that gets people money anytime soon.  I don't think it's possible.

 

But if they allow that arbitrary crap to go through, the dems are dead to me.

Edited by BatteredFanSyndrome
Link to post
Share on other sites

The lower phase out cant happen with this round. They are still basing the phase out on 2019 taxes. It wont be until people file this year will they know who lost money. And if they wait that long Dems will be really screwed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

If they want to play the game of giving the money to people who actually are really in need of it, and take what I would get and give it to them - fine.  I have no idea how they would feasably be able to determine that in a way that gets people money anytime soon.  I don't think it's possible.

 

I don't think you could get the money out in a reasonable schedule, and the fact that they use AGI and not gross is one of the issues.

 

That being said, I think the only way that could be remotely reasonable would be to create a base income level and then apply the COLA difference OPM uses for federal employee salaries. Create the base and then apply the specific region COLA to the base rate. Federal agencies are already setup to operate this way.  

 

For example if they use the 100k family income level apply the DC metro allowance of 30.48% to create the regional level. But this completely ignores the fact that a 2019 tax filer may have lost their job during the year and now they are screwed because as far as the IRS is concerned they earned above the allowable amount in 2019 . 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, GoSkinsGo said:

 

I don't think you could get the money out in a reasonable schedule, and the fact that they use AGI and not gross is one of the issues.

 

That being said, I think the only way that could be remotely reasonable would be to create a base income level and then apply the COLA difference OPM uses for federal employee salaries. Create the base and then apply the specific region COLA to the base rate. Federal agencies are already setup to operate this way.  

 

For example if they use the 100k family income level apply the DC metro allowance of 30.48% to create the regional level. But this completely ignores the fact that a 2019 tax filer may have lost their job during the year and now they are screwed because as far as the IRS is concerned they earned above the allowable amount in 2019 . 

I agree that there are better ways to do it.  But the quickest way to get money in the hands of most people who need it is to stop all The Who should and shouldn’t get it nonsense and just do it.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I agree that there are better ways to do it.  But the quickest way to get money in the hands of most people who need it is to stop all The Who should and shouldn’t get it nonsense and just do it.

 

I agree completely, trying to create checks and balances at this point is a loser both politically and for the people who truly need it. They need to continue using the same criteria and just push it through. People won't remember why they didn't get the next round, they will just remember that Trump gave them money and Biden didn't. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It would also likely boost the economy no matter what. Those who may not need it will likely use it buy something.  Those who do need it will use it to pay the rent or buy food or something else that doesn't immediately boost the economy (despite it doing more good overall in getting the $ to them). 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, GoSkinsGo said:

create a base income level and then apply the COLA difference OPM uses for federal employee salaries. Create the base and then apply the specific region COLA to the base rate. Federal agencies are already setup to operate this way.  

 

 

I’ve argued for a while now to use a similar system to determine minimum wage.  I hate how people tend to ignore that a dollar in San Francisco isn’t the same as a dollar in Wichita.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

I’ve argued for a while now to use a similar system to determine minimum wage.  I hate how people tend to ignore that a dollar in San Francisco isn’t the same as a dollar in Wichita.  

 

In theory, state and or local city minimum wages are supposed to do that. For example, SF has a local min wage of $16.07hr while the state rate is $13 to $14hr (depending on size of company)

Edited by The Evil Genius
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Senate passed an amendment to the budget resolution that prevents "upper income taxpayers" from getting checks. The good news is that ultimately Bernie Sanders will decide what defines an "upper income taxpayer".

 

So there is broad support that the checks phase out before $300k, which is what the House proposal did. 

 

I think the trick is to allow taxpayers to qualify based on 2020 AGI, similar to people qualifying using 2018 AGI in round 1.  That would also identify more who was impacted by COVID.  

 

I certainly do support not adjusting where the phaseout thresholds start.  $75k for individual and $150k per married joint filers. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Riggo-toni said:

Ok, I am screwed...

 


I know right? 1400 bucks is 1400 bucks. Rich people will be blowing that maskless at the restaurant tipping the swim suit bod waiter. 
 

where is a lecture on the velocity of a dollar when you need it @PeterMP....

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tshile said:

We have a problem in this country where the people having the most children are at the bottom end of the socioeconomic scale. As you go up the scale people have less and less children. They also have them later in life. 
 

putting career first and general budget concerns are the top two reasons for this if I recall correctly. 

 

 

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife and I do alright and while we don’t “need” the $1400 you can be damn sure we’ll spend that ****. If you’re a 1%er then sure, that **** won’t trickle down, but lowering it to not include upper middle or lower upper class is missing out what could be a big influx to the rest of the country. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fergasun said:

 

I think the trick is to allow taxpayers to qualify based on 2020 AGI

With nobody being able to file taxes until Feb. 12, probably easier said than done.  That said, it sounds like the rebates should help, but still stall getting money into the hands of the people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • goskins10 changed the title to Update - 3/11/21 - America Rescue Plan Bill is signed!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...