If you are poor w/3 children, the govt pays you $6k for filing your taxes

[jackstar7]

This is just wrong, they shouldn't be getting any tax dollars and the welfare should be cut.

Part II: Explain your answer.

 

[Jhhnn]

Part II: Explain your answer.

He can't, not anymore than people can explain faith in the virgin birth.

 

[Incorruptible]

Part II: Explain your answer.

They don't have a right to other peoples money. If people want to donate to them then they can but government taking money from hard working people to give to them isn't right.

 

[Incorruptible]

He can't, not anymore than people can explain faith in the virgin birth.

WTF?

 

[Jhhnn]

They don't have a right to other peoples money. If people want to donate to them then they can but government taking money from hard working people to give to them isn't right.

On the job posting is hard work?

 

[Jhhnn]

WTF?

You prove my point entirely.

 

[Incorruptible]

On the job posting is hard work?

If I finish early then I get some free time still they have no right to my money.

 

[jackstar7]

Taxes go towards all of our goals. No one is going to like their money going to all of them. Everyone objects to some of them. We all do it, because we're a collective nation of individuals with a myriad of needs.

You don't like that your tax money goes to this? Boo fucking hoo. You've probably donated all of a complete dollar in your whole life of taxable work.

 

[Incorruptible]

Taxes go towards all of our goals. No one is going to like their money going to all of them. Everyone objects to some of them. We all do it, because we're a collective nation of individuals with a myriad of needs.

You don't like that your tax money goes to this? Boo fucking hoo. You've probably donated all of a complete dollar in your whole life of taxable work.

Prove it. I have donated much more. You conveniently forgot many of these programs violate the Constitution.

 

[Atreus21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit

For tax year 2013, the maximum EITC benefit for a single person or couple filing without qualifying children is $487.
The maximum EITC with one qualifying child is $3,250, with two children it is $5,372, and with three or more qualifying children it is $6,044


At first I thought the poor can work the system by working under the table and having $0 reported income.
then claim the $6k.

But apparently you cant:
Earned income is defined by the United States Internal Revenue Code as income received through personal effort, with the following as the main sources... welfare isn't one of the sources.

so for those that actually work (working poor $38k - 51k), this $6k probably helps immensely.


edit:
The IRS has estimated that between 21% and 25% of this cost ($11.6 to $13.6 billion) is due to EITC payments that were issued improperly, to recipients who did not qualify for the EITC benefit that they received.


HOW!?

I have 2 children, and after I file taxes I usually get about 2 grand back. As you said in your OP, it helps immensely.

 

[jackstar7]

[/B]
Prove it. I have donated much more. You conveniently forgot many of these programs violate the Constitution.

Prove what? That only the tiniest percentage of your taxes go to these programs? That's just a fact.

 

[Jhhnn]

If I finish early then I get some free time still they have no right to my money.

You've been posting here all morning.

 

[Jhhnn]

[/B]
Prove it. I have donated much more.

Unproveable assertion. It's easier to imagine you rapping your gold on the table, like Fagin.

You conveniently forgot many of these programs violate the Constitution.

Quote the passage. Explain the preamble, while you're at it.

 

[piasabird]

You get a standard deduction for yourself as well. So if you file your taxes right it could be quite a bit. Don't forget other deductions that may be possible to claim like education, real estate or job hunting. How its possible to take care of 3 children work and go to school can be quite daunting.

 

[OGOC]

The problem is that you're both wedded to capitalism in the same way that someone feels wedded to Creationism; you're emotionally invested in it and feel personally insulted whenever someone so much as suggests that changes need to be made.

Funny stuff you wrote there. Someone else is trashing capitalism even though he admits it's not really capitalism, while I point out how changes over the past 100 years led that fake "capitalism" into the near-destruction of the entire global economy.

Post some logical and factual arguments instead of your simplistic, emotional attacks.

Did you expect something different from a righty whose every arguement is based on emotion and gut reaction? My guess is that righties share a gene with Neanderthals (I'm not being hyperbolic either, emotions in an age of an awakening of human intelligence doesn't seem like a superior trait to the more logical/inquisitive homo Sapiens).

Same for you. Stick to logical and factual arguments instead of your simplistic, emotional, and hypocritical attacks.

 

[Jhhnn]

Funny stuff you wrote there. Someone else is trashing capitalism even though he admits it's not really capitalism, while I point out how changes over the past 100 years led that fake "capitalism" into the near-destruction of the entire global economy.

Capitalism regularly trashed the economy long before there was much in the way of regulation at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_economic_crises

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banking_crises

Which is, of course, the reason why regulations were instituted in the first place.

It's still Capitalism, by the way, bigger than it ever was.

 

[jackstar7]

Pure and unfettered capitalism is a fantasy.

Keep chasing those rainbows!

 

[OGOC]

Capitalism regularly trashed the economy long before there was much in the way of regulation at all.

A beauty of actual capitalism is the market tends to correct itself in a timely manner, and people who do the wrong thing tend to get punished for it. Contrast that with fake capitalism.

It's still Capitalism, by the way, bigger than it ever was.

Capitalism doesn't bail out banks that do the wrong thing.

 

[Jhhnn]

Pure and unfettered capitalism is a fantasy.

Keep chasing those rainbows!

Well, yeh, but it's much purer when capitalistic wealth runs the govt as in much of the developing world. Enormous inequality makes such societies inherently unstable, with periodic revolutions & acts of ruthless oppression being common.

 

[Jhhnn]

A beauty of actual capitalism is the market tends to correct itself in a timely manner, and people who do the wrong thing tend to get punished for it. Contrast that with fake capitalism.

Capitalism doesn't bail out banks that do the wrong thing.

Explain the content in the links I posted in that context.

Good Luck, you'll need it.

 

[werepossum]

I have 2 children, and after I file taxes I usually get about 2 grand back. As you said in your OP, it helps immensely.

It always helps when someone gives you money, but that isn't the point. The point is that with a safety net adequate to give people a decent life, work at the lower end of the skills spectrum is counter-productive; it effectively pays nothing. The EIC recognizes this and rebates some of one's income tax. However, with the tax revisions since Reagan, low income people pay no income tax yet the problem remains, so the EIC now pays more than one pays in income tax. In affect government is giving you someone else's money, or if you prefer, someone else is paying your payroll taxes. (Although it's worth pointing that just because you get money back doesn't mean you're getting EIC money, high withholding has the same effect.)

There really isn't a good solution to this. Cutting the safety net means that people in high cost areas won't make enough to survive and people in other areas have little hope of pulling themselves out of poverty unless they already possess desirable skills or the labor market is really tight - not likely with liberal unskilled immigration both legal and illegal. Raising minimum wage cuts some jobs and raises costs. Dropping the EIC makes low end work not worth the effort. So while I'm against wealth transfer in principle, practically speaking this is the best solution. And philosophically I prefer supporting people who are working (and low wage work is often hard work) to people riding welfare.

 

[werepossum]

Capitalism regularly trashed the economy long before there was much in the way of regulation at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_economic_crises

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banking_crises

Which is, of course, the reason why regulations were instituted in the first place.

It's still Capitalism, by the way, bigger than it ever was.

That's the thing about capitalism. It is by far the best generator of societal wealth, but unfettered it tends to produce boom and bust cycles. Part of the point of regulation is that with a little drag on productivity, we can greatly tame the boom and bust cycle. Had we not eliminated Glass-Steagall, been more aggressive in enforcing regulations, been more realistic in HUD targets, and been less greedy, the 2007-2008 recession should have been no worse than typical. Instead we did virtually everything to recreate the conditions of the Great Depression except remove deposit guarantees and thereby turned a crash in one sector into a crash system-wide.

The really scary thing is that we've done almost nothing to prevent a recurrence and some things to make it worse. For instance, when we bailed out the too-big-to-fail banks we made them strong enough to gobble up smaller banks, making the too-big-to-fail banks even bigger.

 

[Jhhnn]

And philosophically I prefer supporting people who are working (and low wage work is often hard work) to people riding welfare.

You had to use emotionally loaded terminology to make that distinction- "people riding welfare"

"Riding" is false attribution to welfare recipients in general, demeaning them all, basically blaming the victims.

The people you're talking about aren't who you think they are, either-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/28/poverty-unemployment-rates_n_3666594.html

They're not right wing stereotypes at all.

If you want to understand why the economy is screwed up, you have to look at the winners & the power holders, not the losers & the powerless.

 

[werepossum]

You had to use emotionally loaded terminology to make that distinction- "people riding welfare"

"Riding" is false attribution to welfare recipients in general, demeaning them all, basically blaming the victims.

The people you're talking about aren't who you think they are, either-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/28/poverty-unemployment-rates_n_3666594.html

They're not right wing stereotypes at all.

If you want to understand why the economy is screwed up, you have to look at the winners & the power holders, not the losers & the powerless.

"People riding welfare" refers to a subgroup of those on welfare, people who never work as a matter of lifestyle. As Kadarin succinctly put it:

I don't have a problem with the government providing a little assistance to the working poor. I do, however, have a problem with a society that allows for multiple generations of people to live on welfare without contributing back.

Obviously neither Kadarin nor I have a problem with people going on welfare because they've had a great catastrophe and suddenly become unable to support themselves, for whatever reason. Our objection is to people for whom welfare is a choice, a way of life, one they make no effort to escape.

To object to this by saying that most welfare recipients do not do this is as nonsensical as objecting to me stating that I dislike dogs that bite me by stating that most dogs do not bite me. That most dogs do not bite me is not a good reason to not dislike dogs which do bite me.

 

[jackstar7]

The feeling of injustice at the thought of those scamming the system inflates their number beyond the truth though.