Let's increase the taxes on the poor.

[robeiae]

Great. So what about the non-working Americans. You know, people like Mitt Romney, who get most of their income from investments, capital gains, and the like.

Oh, wait . . . big dumb silly me. That's different.

caw

Aside from trotting out a little class warfare lingo and revealing your deep-seated hatred of the rich, I'm not sure I get your point.

 

[robeiae]

What other reasons, besides income?

Demographics matter. People that are retired and living off of savings don't need to be pay income taxes. Teenagers working a part-time job after school don't, either.

The great majority of working Americans pay taxes. If they're so poor that they pay no federal income tax (and that's pretty poor; I'm one of them) they still pay FICA taxes (Social Security and Medicare).

True. Nonetheless, a quite significant percentage does not pay income taxes and that percentage has been rising (more recent numbers here): http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ff202.pdf

And as the above piece notes, this is hardly the consequence of Democrat policy alone.

But it's a stupid and dangerous trend imo.

 

[FalconMage]

We have a thread here rightfully excoriating a preacher who alleges Democrats want to kill babies.

If Eric Cantor were Willie Sutton, reincarnated, he'd apparently rob homeless shelters.

But I guess this is different.

 

[benbradley]

Demographics matter. People that are retired and living off of savings don't need to be pay income taxes.

A lot of retired people are living off the same thing Warren Buffet lives off of - dividends. And Buffet wants Congress to raise his taxes to the same level as his secretary.

 

[Katrina S. Forest]

Taper the per-child tax credit. Full credit for first child, 75% for second, 50% for third, and 25% for fourth. In this way, you discourage welfare-earning baby-making factories like the duggars and octo-mom from funding their lifestyles with wave after wave of rugrat.

The problem is, you're now pressuring a woman to terminate any pregnancies that occur whether she wants to terminate them or not. To me, that's just as anti-choice as trying to block her from an abortion when she wants one.

It also assumes the worst intentions of a whole group of people. I'd rather assume the best and if some poor-intentioned people come into the mix, I'm okay with that.

 

[Shadow Dragon]

We have a thread here rightfully excoriating a preacher who alleges Democrats want to kill babies.



But I guess this is different.

Actually, I would say that it is different. In the case of the Mississippi governor, he said all democrats, not just a specific one or even a specific group within the party. In this case, it's insulting a single person who has a history of less than ethical statements; like his comments on the republicans filibustering everything, "Hostage taking works."

 

[dclary]

The problem is, you're now pressuring a woman to terminate any pregnancies that occur whether she wants to terminate them or not. To me, that's just as anti-choice as trying to block her from an abortion when she wants one.

It also assumes the worst intentions of a whole group of people. I'd rather assume the best and if some poor-intentioned people come into the mix, I'm okay with that.

If you cannot afford to raise a child, you should show the personal responsibility to prevent bringing children into the world.






(/cue "what about rape? why shouldn't the man take birth control? what if he lies? get the hell out of my uterus! etc. posts in 3...2...1...)

 

[Alessandra Kelley]

If you cannot afford to raise a child, you should show the personal responsibility to prevent bringing children into the world.

I hate to be repetitive, but in my previous post on this thread I already answered that:

one study found that women on welfare were more conscientious about using contraceptives while on welfare, that they were less likely to want an additional pregnancy, and that they were less likely to become pregnant while on welfare. Other studies have found that women on welfare become less interested in having additional children when they realize how great the financial strain of child rearing is. In sum there is very little financial incentive to bear further children while on AFDC

(From "Women and Children on Welfare: Fact Versus Stereotypical Perceptions," by Alice Battancourt of HHS.)

Women on welfare already are more inclined to use birth control and less likely to have, or have more, children. This is statistically established fact.

Trying to pressure them into having even fewer children by withholding the miserly allowance they are given for each child seems cruel at best, and given the meager amount of money doled out, unlikely to generate much in the way of savings.

 

[benbradley]

If they're on welfare, then the standard deductions don't apply, do they?

I'm not a tax expert, but it seems that would be a logical conclusion. Or is the deduction for having a dependent part of an "earned income tax credit?" These tax things are so complicated...

 

[robeiae]

Charlie Rangel will be hosting a webinar on the tax laws next month...

 

[Katrina S. Forest]

If you cannot afford to raise a child, you should show the personal responsibility to prevent bringing children into the world.

All I can say is that losing a pregnancy, even an unexpected one, that a woman hoped to carry to term is heartbreaking. Yes, even when it happens very early on the pregnancy.

I cannot even begin to imagine how a woman would feel if someone tried to coerce her into ending a wanted pregnancy for no reason other than she is poor. No one deserves to be treated like that.

I've volunteered many hours to supporting women in crisis pregnancies. They're not trying to leech off the government, they didn't get pregnant because it seemed like fun. In many cases, they took precautions against it. But now, being female, they're the ones who have to deal with the situation. No one has the right to set some minimum income level at which it's "okay" for them to give birth to a new baby.

I will probably not continue this debate much farther, just because I'm not sure what else I'll say other than rephrasing this post in one way or another. But those are my feelings.

EDIT: Apologies if my post was a bit repetitive. There were a couple posts while I was typing.

 

[blacbird]

Aside from trotting out a little class warfare lingo and revealing your deep-seated hatred of the rich, I'm not sure I get your point.

I didn't think you would, but you're the one who trotted out the phrase "working Americans". Perhaps you would like to elucidate that definition a bit further.

I don't hate "the rich". I'm a considerable admirer of Bill Gates, as a case in point, for the way in which he became rich, and has conducted himself in recent years with the resources he has gained.

Mitt Romney I'm less enthusiastic about. A guy who won the lottery prenatally, and has increased his holdings largely through predatory economics on the less fortunate. And who now wants to parade before us the moral wonders of wealth.

And push for paying less in taxes than the pittance he currently does. As for "class warfare", the Mitt Romneys of this nation have been waging it for decades, with conspicuous success.

caw

 

[dclary]

If they're on welfare, then the standard deductions don't apply, do they?

I'm not a tax expert, but it seems that would be a logical conclusion. Or is the deduction for having a dependent part of an "earned income tax credit?" These tax things are so complicated...

Even if you do 1040-EZ, and claim the standard deduction, there is currently a $2000 tax credit per child, in and above "earned income tax credit" (That one always stumps me. Earned by whom, exactly? Not the person claiming it, that's for sure).

And a tax credit is different than a deduction. It lowers your tax by exactly that. So let's say you have two children, and make minimum wage. Your AGI is $0.00 after standard deduction, so your tax for the year is $0.00. Then you apply the $4000 in tax credits, and net a hefty $4000 refund.

There's a reason why "Father of the Bride II" was originally called "Daddy's Little Dividend."

 

[dclary]

All I can say is that losing a pregnancy, even an unexpected one, that a woman hoped to carry to term is heartbreaking. Yes, even when it happens very early on the pregnancy.

I cannot even begin to imagine how a woman would feel if someone tried to coerce her into ending a wanted pregnancy for no reason other than she is poor. No one deserves to be treated like that.

I've volunteered many hours to supporting women in crisis pregnancies. They're not trying to leech off the government, they didn't get pregnant because it seemed like fun. In many cases, they took precautions against it. But now, being female, they're the ones who have to deal with the situation. No one has the right to set some minimum income level at which it's "okay" for them to give birth to a new baby.

I will probably not continue this debate much farther, just because I'm not sure what else I'll say other than rephrasing this post in one way or another. But those are my feelings.

EDIT: Apologies if my post was a bit repetitive. There were a couple posts while I was typing.

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, but I appreciate you taking the time to share your feelings on the matter. My first wife and I lost three children to miscarriage. I can feel (in whatever small way that a man can feel) your loss there.

 

[Katrina S. Forest]

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, but I appreciate you taking the time to share your feelings on the matter. My first wife and I lost three children to miscarriage. I can feel (in whatever small way that a man can feel) your loss there.

I'm sorry for your loss, and I apologize if I've jumped to conclusions about you or anything else. That wasn't my intention.

I know I'm ultra-sensitive on this topic, so perhaps it's best for me to back out of the thread now.

 

[fireluxlou]

Taper the per-child tax credit. Full credit for first child, 75% for second, 50% for third, and 25% for fourth. In this way, you discourage welfare-earning baby-making factories like the duggars and octo-mom from funding their lifestyles with wave after wave of rugrat.

Before you go spouting lies about the Duggars. They do not live on welfare nor do they or they have ever had money from the state for raising their children. They make money through endorsements, sponsorships and their reality show. The children are homeschooled and they use the College Plus program. They live off their land and before they got famous, Jim used to be a house representative and now he's in real estate and an investor. Their whole income these days comes from rental properties and investments in property as they own many commercial and private ones. Their house is made by themselves as well.

But I'd never criticise anyone for having help from the state because I still get help from the government towards my tuition and my family used to before we grew up.

 

[Alessandra Kelley]

There's a reason why "Father of the Bride II" was originally called "Daddy's Little Dividend."

I thought the "dividend" in the comedy "Father's Little Dividend" ( the 1951 sequel to "Father of the Bride") referred to Spencer Tracy's controlling businessman character getting into a power struggle with his daughter over her baby.

It had nothing to do with taxes.