The Earned Income Tax Credit -- Fair or Not Fair?

I disagree, I think we need a draft of some sort, whether it be in military or domestic service.

I think EVERYONE owes a debt to society, and since we now have a society where only about half the people pay any real taxes... Maybe people will take more interest in running their government if they actually have a stake in it. Or not.

I guess that I'm just not happy with society right now. The number and percentage of narcissitic hedonists (self-centered pleasure seekers) seems to be increasing.

Respond to this topic here on forum.oes.org

Quote:

I think EVERYONE owes a debt to society, and since we now have a society where only about half the people pay any real taxes

I'm not sure of what you mean by 'real taxes.' Do you mean real estate taxes (which is one way that the term real is used)? Or do you mean income taxes? If you earn income, you pay social security taxes, which is a tax on your income. According to the IRS, for 2005, the last year available on their website, over 134 million income tax returns were filed (for house holds, which would include individuals, couples, children, etc.). Of those, a little under 44 million returns were non-taxable. About 20 million of those non-taxable returns came from returns with adjusted incomes of under $20,000.

In addition, most states have income taxes and sales taxes. And of course, there are many ways that we pay taxes indirectly, as well.

I agree that everybody owes society. I don't agree that this debt must be paid by military service or by being subjected to a draft for national service, although I believe both military and non-military service is a noble calling.

By your own numbers, 44 out of 134 million is 32.8% pay nothing. OK, so it's not 50%, but I bet the percentage is higher than that when other factors like EIC and non-filers and under-the-table non-filers are included. AND it's going up, especially after this latest stimulus package is pretty much eliminating the 10% bracket for the year... wanna bet it gets made permanent?

I know people who didn't pay a dime in taxes all year long and got an EIC payment while driving a Lincoln Town car (recently traded in for a brand new car) have another vehicle and own a huge house worth $400,000 and have a $40,000 mortgage. No kidding.

Growing up I had a friend whose extended family lived together in a two family home. His aunts and uncle lived upstairs, his mother and siblings downstairs. His father was a brilliant man (I never knew his profession) who was always well dressed and lived in a nearby town. All of the adults worked, his uncle in a renowned-for-being-very-well-paying blue collar job, yet he was on public assistance, got government-supplied summer jobs and free school lunch. I never asked how they managed that. It just wasn't talked about.

I know another person with a professional degree who chose to live in a rural area of a rural state and chose to work in the school system so that they could work the same schedule as their kids and THEY got an EIC payment. $2,500! That same year I busted my tail working 50 hours a week and got a $5,000 bonus at work, and half of that was taken in taxes... I guess to pay my acquaintance's EIC.

These are all real stories of people I know fairly well, not from my imagination.

The "payroll taxes" amount to 7.65% paid by the worker and of that more than 6% goes to fund your own retirement/disability insurance, and the other 1.35% goes towards your medical care in your retirement years. How is that the same as paying for the government? In addition, if you have children and earn less than $36,000 or whatever it is now, the government pays you an EIC "refund" of taxes that you never paid.

EVERYBODY ought to pay something for the privilege of living here. Everybody means everybody. 1% if necessary. While I KNOW there are many people who are in truly desperate situations temporarily or permanently, there are FAR too many who are just sliding on the system. If there was NO aid, they would find work. It might not be pleasant work, it might be physically uncomfortable for some to work, but they COULD and I think they SHOULD. It is not good to lie around at home all day just because you can. You get sicker quicker. Believe me!

It's just not fair for the government to come and take my money at gunpoint and give it away to people who could work harder/more if they so choose, and there has to be at least as many of them as there are people who are truly needy and have NO options.

I'm all for helping the "less fortunate." Our household was all about helping the "less fortunate." We had charity drives and tag sales for "them." We gave to charities for them. Unfortunately the term seems to have changed lately to mean "anyone who earns less than $50,000 a year" instead of "someone who was unable to earn enough to eat, have a roof over their heads, or own a pair of shoes" like I thought it meant when I was growing up.

Actually, Ron, that 7.65% plus employer contribution goes to pay for the retirement benefits of current retirees, not your future retirement, which will be paid for by my children and should I ever have them, grandchildren. Sure, what you take out is based upon how much you contribute during your working years (up to a point), but your SS payments will be coming from the next generation or two--or three, if you are lucky. We may not like this system, but it is the one that was put in place--because there was a desperate need to help older workers who could no longer work survive--and no start up funds to fund their retirement. Right now, we have fewer workers coming into the system. Maybe the real deadbeats are those who don't have children to pay into the system.

Of the files returned with no taxes owed, some of them would be military personnel deployed in combat areas. Others are college and high school students with part time jobs to pay for their education (and other stuff, sure). Others are simply low income people--including senior citizens who pay taxes on about half of their SS payments and on any pension they receive. And of course, there are those with higher incomes who somehow have enough loopholes to owe nothing. I have no idea how that's done.

EIC was set up to off-set SS taxes. It isn't a hand out--it's a tax break for lower income people, usually with one or more children. If the income is low enough, it can actually result in a payment. The idea behind this was to encourage people to work--ie not collect welfare.

I am guessing that the person you know who moved outstate to take a job to allow her to match her schedule to her child(ren)'s schedule is not being very well paid. This is a choice many parents, especially mothers make. I did this myself: I postponed earning as much money as I could in order to raise my children--for many reasons. For one thing, child care costs are high enough that any wage I could have earned where I live would have been eaten up by child care. For another, I wanted to raise my children and this was a choice my husband and I made: to raise our kids rather than pay others to do so. We decided our family was more important than money. In turn, we've raised 4 kids who are good, bright, hard working individuals. No one's making much money yet, but all are working towards their future.

tgir wrote:

That's a difference without a distinction... Technically, any insurance monies one puts away are different monies when they take them out. The insurance company doesn't put your money away to pay only you. The amount of money you put in out of the 6.3% was supposed to be somewhat proportional to the amount you take out. It was supposed to be fair, but now if you have other earnings, you have to pay taxes on it when you get an and some are also talking about "means testing" so only paying 65% of the benefit (after tax income) isn't good enough, now they want to take 100% of it away from people who paid into the system under one set of rules...

The other 1.35% is supposed to be for medicare payments, an insurance policy for your old age, and used to be capped so that people who earned a ton of money weren't paying ridiculous amounts for old age health benefits they won't be using anyway. Of course that cap has been totally removed, so people like Michael Jordan and Oprah are paying more than a million dollars a year for health benefits they will never collect. Fair?

I mean if you want to make these things into a "general tax" let's call it a general tax, and not pretend that they are some sort of insurance plan anymore.

tgir wrote:

Maybe the real deadbeats are those who don't have children to pay into the system.

That's just absurd to call people who paid into the system and take it out deadbeats. Just absurd.

tgir wrote:

And of course, there are those with higher incomes who somehow have enough loopholes to owe nothing. I have no idea how that's done.

Because it isn't, generally. People who have higher incomes are the ones who are paying the VAST majority of all taxes.

tgir wrote:

EIC was set up to off-set SS taxes. It isn't a hand out--it's a tax break for lower income people, usually with one or more children. If the income is low enough, it can actually result in a payment.

If it is set up to offset payroll taxes which again, is supposed to be a personalized system of insurance benefits, then yes, it's still a handout.

tgir wrote:

The idea behind this was to encourage people to work--ie not collect welfare.

Again, this is silliness. If the 92.35% of the income from earnings isn't enough motivation to get someone working instead of collecting welfare, then the prospect of getting a little money next April certainly won't. The person I knew working in the school system took the money, put it in the bank and used it for family vacation. I think that year my vacation was spent handling calls from work.

They didn't pay to have someone watch their kids, and they took low paying jobs in the school so they could be with their middle school age kids and have me pay them to vacation with them for the summer. How about "You wanna take your kids camping for the summer? Take a second job, save your money and vacation time and pay for it yourself, don't come to me with your hand out for your vacation."

Again, I want to stress that if someone through no fault of their own is in need, I will be the first to give and to pay more taxes to help. I think taxes should have been "adjusted upward" to cover the expenses of this war, too. It is completely unfair to give my money to people who ARE NOT IN NEED of it.

tgir wrote:

I am guessing that the person you know who moved outstate to take a job to allow her to match her schedule to her child(ren)'s schedule is not being very well paid. This is a choice many parents, especially mothers make.

Of course they're not being well paid, it was their choice, just like it was yours. Only I get to pay for that lifestyle choice. How fair is that? *I* should get the credit because of all the hard work I did to increase the US economy and put others to work. Dontchya think? I guess taxes always penalize those who produce the most, but do they also have to reward those that choose to produce the least?

Ron, first things first: Don't take calls from work on your vacation. It's not worth it.

You may think the idea behind the EIC is 'silliness' but in fact, what I described is taken directly from the IRS site. And this has been in place since 1975. And EIC is a rebate of income taxes owed, designed to help out lower income individuals. This isn't 'your' money--it's theirs. They get to keep more of it bcause of their circumstances, just as I get to keep a little more of my money because I still have 2 dependent children, and have a mortgage on my home, and made some charitable contributions. EIC isn't welfare. It's a tax rebate. At least, according to the IRS.

If I understand your logic, everybody is obligated to take the hightest paying job so that they pay the highest amount of taxes. You may have chosen to take the sort of job that paid you a higher income--and chose also the increased responsibilities. I don't know how many teachers you know, but I know more than a few. Those vacation months in the summer are spent in large part preparing for the next set of students, maintaining licensure, taking classes to keep up to date, etc. It's not only a few hours now and then. And I also know plenty of teachers who hold other jobs to make ends meet. I expect that the teacher you mention had to count on the EIC (or tax rebate) in order to take those camping trips (the only kind I had as a kid because they were the cheap kind: we couldn't afford anything else).

Teachers, police officers, firefighters and a host of others are paid directly by taxpayers and generally earn lower wages for their efforts than they might if they chose to work in the private sector. Yet, they make the choices they do for a variety of reasons, including satisfaction for providing service to their communities. Your job may not allow you to take an earned income credit but it must pay you enough that you are wiling to put up with being called on vacation--something, btw, you shouldn't do. Everybody needs to get away now and then.

Re: SS taxes. That difference without distinction, as you put it, is the basis for the SS system. It was never intended to be a 'pay into the fund and take out only what you paid into it.' I have nothing against Oprah or Michael Jordan, for that matter, but I won't worry myself to death that they have to pay too much in medicare payments that they won't use. For that matter, if I die tomorrow, I shall have paid a lot in medicare payments that I will never use, either. The system was designed that way. The reason the age of 65 was chosen as the age when you could collect full SS benefits is because at the time, few people lived to 65. It was always a pyramid scheme, depending upon an ever increasing number of workers in each generation to pay for the generations before them. Beneficiaries collect more money than they paid in because that's how the system is designed. It was also never intended to be the sole income for retirees, but only as a supplemental, minimum income.

It's a nice fantasy that we all pay our own way, but the truth is that we all pay for each other, either directly or indirectly. We live the lives we live now, not just thanks to the hard work of our own parents and families but of all those who came before us: neither of us invented the wheel or the internet, for that matter. Yet we benefit from what was done by others in no way connected to us.

I live in a small city and because of this, I see very directly how my dollars are spent. I was extremely conscious of the fact that I was paying for my kids' orthodontist's quarterly vacations and well maintained tan. I made a point not to look up his house: I don't want to know. He makes tons more money than I ever will. And should: his is a more specialized job than mine, requiring more training. However, this didn't stop him complaining about the low level of payment he received from insurance companies, or even worse, the state, which is why he limited the number of patients he saw who received medical assistance from the state. I confess I didn't feel sorry for him. It certainly seemed to pay him well enough to continue his work. I don't much care for the guy who owns the grocery where I do most of my shopping but I continue because I dislike the mega stores which are my only other options. And so it goes, right on down the line. I choose to buy as locally as I can, from people I like, as much as I can.

My dollars spent at various merchants and for various services pay for what I receive, but they also go to pay for what I might consider bad habits of those whom I pay. Or their extravagant (or not) lifestyles.

Our money is like the threads of a spider web, affecting every part of the economy. Here and all over the world. You can't separate it out so neatly.

The maximum EIC gift of $4,716 is reached with an income of just under $12,000. The payroll taxes of 7.65% on $12,000 would be just $918.
( http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p596.pdf EIC Table, page 46.)

$4,716 would be the payroll taxes on an income of $61,647.

I really don't know how to do the math so that an EIC benefit of $4,716 on an income of $12,000 can possibly be a "rebate of taxes paid" or an "offsetting of payroll taxes" regardless of the original intent of the program and regardless of text you found somewhere on an IRS site.

It's a redistribution of the wealth, period. Even if it was "JUST" a rebate of their payroll taxes, that would still give them free entry into a HIGHLY progressive Social Security system that would wind up paying them perhaps much more than $100,000 in their retirement years ($500 a month for 16 years).

Again, if you want to abolish the social Security program as an independent entity and just make it something funded out of the general funds that's a different story. But the way it is set up now allows for cynical class warfare attacks against "the rich" like the people you really aren't worried about. I guess their $1million payroll taxes aren't loopholeable. Assuming current tax schedules they are likely paying another $35 or $50 million in income taxes.

We need to move away from income taxes as revenue for the Federal Government anyway, as the rest of the world is eating our lunch on this in so many ways. I wrote about it once before on here.

tgir wrote:

If I understand your logic, everybody is obligated to take the hightest paying job so that they pay the highest amount of taxes. You may have chosen to take the sort of job that paid you a higher income--and chose also the increased responsibilities. I don't know how many teachers you know, but I know more than a few. Those vacation months in the summer are spent in large part preparing for the next set of students, maintaining licensure, taking classes to keep up to date, etc. It's not only a few hours now and then. And I also know plenty of teachers who hold other jobs to make ends meet. I expect that the teacher you mention had to count on the EIC (or tax rebate) in order to take those camping trips (the only kind I had as a kid because they were the cheap kind: we couldn't afford anything else).

Teachers, police officers, firefighters and a host of others are paid directly by taxpayers and generally earn lower wages for their efforts than they might if they chose to work in the private sector. Yet, they make the choices they do for a variety of reasons, including satisfaction for providing service to their communities.

I didn't say that people needed to select the highest paying job possible, I just don't want to be penalized for the choices of some in selecting a lower paying job as a lifestyle issue. I didn't really fully appreciate the wonder of living a simpler less-productive life of leisure on the public dole until too late I guess.

I don't know where YOU live, but teachers around here make a very comfortable living, with $50,000 average salaries after a few years and less than 200 work days a year... and of course no need to pay to have anyone watch the kids all summer long.

If the town and state you live in decides that having the best possible teachers is an important thing they will pay the teachers more and tax their people to do it. Don't be taxing someone here in Massachusetts to give an EIC payment to some library assistant in New Hampshire becasue the people there don't value them as much.

tgir wrote:

Your job may not allow you to take an earned income credit but it must pay you enough that you are wiling to put up with being called on vacation--something, btw, you shouldn't do. Everybody needs to get away now and then.

No, no NO! Not on MY dime! Everyone doesn't need to get away for 8 weeks in the summer and 2 weeks every semester and Christmas week and on and on. People (except teachers) never used to take more than a week (or maybe two) a year and maybe a few days at the beach! Teachers took summer jobs! (not around here anymore.) People used to work 6 days a week! All those people who ARE paying the taxes, the business owners, the risk takers, the employers, (some) mid and upper level managers... THEY are the ones still working 6 days a week, still pushing the economy forward, providing jobs and paying the taxes.

I rode the commuter rail with alot of those "fat cats" who are the wealthy living it up... I left home at 5:30 AM, the train left the station at 6AM and I got home at 7PM. I saw many of the same faces both ways; regardless I'm sure most of them weren't leaving work at 3PM.

My dad owned a business, his first 2 week vacation came at the age of 43. I was 13. Before then, summers were spent at a nearby beach, essentially for free. He struggled for many years to eke out a living and had 2 good years as a result of a TV fad coming his way. Those two years, the government took more than 50% in taxes. Fair?

I took those calls (and by the way, being on call 24/7 for many years, my wife thought I was having an affair with the computer operations department 1,000 miles away) as MY lifestyle choice. It enabled me to set up my future when I wouldn't have to work so hard or so much. It reduced the risk of not having enough savings for retirement. I sacrificed the NOW for delayed gratification.

tgir wrote:

I expect that the teacher you mention had to count on the EIC (or tax rebate) in order to take those camping trips (the only kind I had as a kid because they were the cheap kind: we couldn't afford anything else).

I never said "she" was a teacher; that person went to work in the school system for $8 an hour as a library assistant.

That person worked 8 hours a day on school days, plus two days before and two days after the year. 184 days. A person in the same role now would earn just under $12,000 a year (184*8hours*$8 = $11,840), and would receive an EIC of $4,716.

If we look at it like they worked a year-round "normal" job, they'd work probably 60 more days per year. $4,716 / 60 = $78.60 a day(payroll tax free!!), more than their regular $64 a day. Fair?

Perhaps you'd like to look at it as a boost in pay? $4,716 / 1472 hours (184 days * 8 hours) it's a payroll-tax free amount of an extra $3.20 per hour. Fair?

By the way, as soon as that person became ineligible for the EIC and the kids graduated, they took a job as a professional, and is earning a nice living putting money away as fast as possible for retirement and "lamenting" that they should have been saving money for retirement earlier. I bit my tongue. (So I guess that whole "ecouragement to work" thing kinda backfired in this case, eh?)

I don't know if I will be able to do that when they first complain about paying taxes to me.

tgir wrote:

Right now, we have fewer workers coming into the system. Maybe the real deadbeats are those who don't have children to pay into the system.

Are you kidding?

Here is a perfect example............

The exwife os someone I know has a professional degree, one which would allow her to make a living sitting in a chair (I don't want to be too specific for privacy). She also has an illness which has rendered her "disabled" (a choice she made long before most people would have decided to become disabled). She lives on disability and alimony.

In order not to have to pay taxes on her alimony (which is substantial), she CLAIMS to have a small income from a private practice (she doesn't) which is just enough to qualify her for all kinds of taxes "credits". She is able to GET MONEY BACK from the Government in the form of a tax return when she has never paid a dime of taxes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :evil:

MEANWHILE, since my legal tax status is "single" and I cannot claim my daughter as a deduction despite the fact that I pay a large part of her bills I am stuck in the highest tax bracket there is on my relatively small income.

This was the first year EVER there was any kind of financial benefit for the hundreds and hundreds of hours I spend volunteering my time at the firehouse, NYS gave every volunteer firemperson or EMT a $200.00 tax credit. To me THAT is community service.

A couple of things, Firefighters and the like make more money working for the government than they do working for private companies. Private companies are in it to make a buck for themselves wheras the government looks at it like a necessary evil, so to say. The government also gives more benefits and 'toys' to their emergency services people. OH AND! How come when a government employee gets a bonus, it still gets taxed? Isn't that like indian giving? (it's okay, I'm part native american :roll:

) Say you get a $100 bonus. You're only really going to see $70 of that. The same people who gave you the money just took some of it back. It's like grandma giving you $10 for your birthday and then saying she's going to need $3 back to cover some of your costs.

Can someone also explain to me the whole disability thing? I've had many people on ambulance over the years who hand me medicare cards or say that their disability covers their medical expenses and they are living in huge houses or they walk to the ambulance all by themselves. (They also throw their cards at you as soon as you walk in the door. Yeah, that really says 'sick' to me!)
I had a woman at one point who was in her early 20's who was in a nursing home. Her big problem, she was fat and lazy!!! That's it! Fat and Lazy!! All she had to do was get up off her big round butt and she would have been fine. I watched her gain almost 200 pounds in the time that she was there. Even she admitted that there was nothing wrong with her, she just didn't want to do anything!! She was on disability due to her weight! The other shoe dropped when I walked in to transport her to dialysis (yeah, she got that bad all on her own!) and she usually went in a wheelchair. Well, she decided that she no longer wished to waddle her way to the wheelchair and she wished for us to pick her up and carry her on a stretcher! One of her thighs weighed more than I did!!!
How can someone like this, who chooses that lot in life be given medical benefits and supplements? I think that we should be allowed to make those people work. Cattleprods for everyone!

The person I mentioned previously went from a six figure income doing a job which required a chair a desk and a phone (FROM HOME!!!!!!!!!!!!) to living on disability because she wanted her exhusband to continue to support her through alimony.

She collects disability, food stamps, housing assistance, heating assistance and receives better medical care and prescription coverage than I do. Her phone and electric bill are thousands of dollars past due but because of her "disabled" status they are not disconnected.

She bounces checks at her local bank routinely, but has never been charged with bank fraud but she plays the "disabled" card. The government pays for taxis to Dr's appointments and other "non essential" places. But rather than take the time to arrange transportation and call for an appointment every medical need becomes an emergency involving an ambulance and emergency room visit.

This person is draining our government (and us) of thousands of dollers every year and claiming taxcredits and receiving money back every year without paying in a penny.

Did you know that being an "alcholic" is considered a "disability". We have a frequent flyer in my ambulance area that lives on the "dole" and uses the ER (and our ambulance) as her primary form of health care. One night she wanted to go out on the town, called the ambulance with "difficulty breathing", met us at the curb dressed to the nines. She refused all care on the way to the hospital and upon arrival informed the nurse that she didn't want to be admitted, hopped off the stretcher and headed out the door. She simply wanted a ride to town :evil:

As a volunteer agency we cannot refuse to transport anyone.

The firefighters in my area are not well paid--many are volunteers--so they work for free.

Ron, a LOT of parents, pretty often women, take lower paying jobs with more flexible hours while their kids are in school. Then, we take better paying jobs, pretty often to help pay for college and for retirement. For some of us, we consider it to be responsible parenting. I know very few if any people who don't lament not putting away enough money for retirement, once their kids are finished with school. The EIC payments your acquaintence received was HER money.

I know that there are people who work the system. I also know of men who quit their jobs to avoid paying child support for the children they abandoned, and many more who underpay child support and trot out the "I'll go to court and get custody" card whenever the ex protests. Even when it's unlikely that there would be a change in custody, I don't know many custodial parents who are willing to risk losing their children over money.

The remark about those without children being the dead beats was tongue in cheek--but also to the point if you think that some people aren't contributing enough to the general welfare. When it comes to social security, none of us is paying for our own retirement. The system is set up so that our children and grandchildren pay for our retirements. Don't worry--my husband and I have 4 children, so we can carry a couple of you.

My daughter is disabled and receives $800 a month to live on...out of that $800 they automatically keep back $100 for her Medicare..she has to pay co-pays and deductables for her Dr visits, perscriptions, blood work ect. This month she had to see her dr three times, so three visits at $53 a visit plus the co-pays on the lab work. She also gets her money on the second Wednesday of the month...so many months she does not recieve money for 5 weeks, and the drs do not like to wait to get paid. The dr insist on being paid BEFORE the visit...so you walk in and sit down at the receptionist desk and pay your bill...then he will see you. So if you are out of your meds (which are regulated by the Federal government so you can only get so many)and don't have the $53, but will in a couple of days when your SSID comes in, he will not see her.
With the balance of her money she has to take care of the few bills she has because she has to live with HER PARENTS. She can't afford to live on her own. She also pays child support to her two children's fathers and both of the Father's are always telling the kids to call their mother for money...These are healthy men with decent paying jobs. It hurts my daughter each time she has to tell her child "no, I can't afford it."
Believe me, my daughter does not live high on the hog. I would trade everything to see her healthy and without pain, working a good paying job or even a low paying job, just to have her with a better life then she has now, she is only 32. My daughter had worked since she was 14 yrs old.

I got caught up in the web of people abusing the system at the hospital. The day that the dr told me to go to the emergency room with my shingles, I sat for 7 hours in diar pain while I watch one Old person after another come in and say they where "short of breath". Most had just come from lunch and listening to them chatting with their friends they didn't seem "short of breath" to me. At one point, the nurse came out and aske me it "I was short of breath" I should have taken the "hint" and said "yes" I then would have been taken care of sooner. Anyway, after 7 hours and finally a diagnosis, which took less then 5 minutes, the dr wanted to admitt me in the hospital and I told them no and went home...with pain meds...and the rest is history.

Sorry I am so long, but I would rather not be disabled.

See that's the problem. The people who know how to work the system get all the extras for nothing. The people who really need the help, can't get it because the system is tied up with people abusing everything.
I think your daughter may be getting underpaid. Maybe because she's still living on her own. (Not that she wants to live in a nursing home, no way!) I know that the people who are just claiming to be disabled and are in the nursing homes get much more.

Las Vegas Sheepie Lover wrote:

tgir wrote:

Right now, we have fewer workers coming into the system. Maybe the real deadbeats are those who don't have children to pay into the system.

Are you kidding?

Yeah, that one made my eyebrows shoot up too. I don't have any deductions (oops, I meant Children) of my own. I pay a significant amount of state and local taxes that support the school system. I'm also paying SS tax. So, I'm supporting both the generation ahead of me and the generation behind me. I make too much to qualify for EIC and also too much to qualify for the Economic Stimulus Freebie that is being voted on now. So, when I look at the total amount that I paid in taxes in 2007, I don't feel like a deadbeat. Sucker, maybe. But not a deadbeat.

AND, children are only a deduction for a short period in our working lives. Most of us continue to "assist" them financially LONG after the government recognizes that support!

No, the sucker part comes when you pay for your medical benefits. Single is 1 price, "family" is more than double! Even if you are just married, no kids, you pay the same as a family with 10 kids!! To me, that is completely unfair!!

Maxmm wrote:

I AGREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ron wrote:

I really don't know how to do the math so that an EIC benefit of $4,716 on an income of $12,000 can possibly be a "rebate of taxes paid" or an "offsetting of payroll taxes" regardless of the original intent of the program and regardless of text you found somewhere on an IRS site.

It's a redistribution of the wealth, period.

Speaking of wealth redistribution, have y'all taken a close look at the Economic Stimulus Plan:

Quote:

"The legislation would rush rebates — $600 for individuals, $1,200 for couples — to most taxpayers and cut business taxes in hopes of reviving the economy. Individuals making up to $75,000 a year and couples earning up to $150,000 would get the full rebate, with those making more than that getting smaller checks.

People who paid no income taxes but earned at least $3,000 — including through Social Security or veterans' disability benefits — would get a $300 rebate."

If you pay no taxes, and you get money back, how is this a "rebate"? It's taking money from the tax payers and giving it to the non tax payers.

Speaking of which (the $600.oo rebate), I'm pretty sure that the Lower income folks will blow it, the upper income will save it and those of us in the middle won't know what to do with it because we know we'll just get taxed on it next year :roll:

Isn't this "rebate" just essentially an advance on next year's tax refund anyway? Why even bother?

The whole sham behind the stimulus package is to make voters feel better about the economy during an election year.

Quote:

Moving with uncommon speed, Congress gave final approval on Thursday to a $168 billion economic rescue package, including rebates for taxpayers and tax breaks for businesses, that lawmakers and President Bush hope will set off a rush of springtime spending and spark the slowing economy.

So, we're increasing the national debt by $168BN. How can that be good for the economy? What happens if people take the money and buy things that were made in China? Then we're improving the Chinese economy.

Lest we forget, the Republicans inherited a balanced budge AND a surplus :evil:

I believe this recent "giveaway" is intented to leave folks with a "pleasant feeling" toward the Republicans (who cannot get elected in the coming election) and at the same time inflate the deficet left for the Dems.

Tasker's Mom wrote:

If the rebate is supposed to be a stimulus package, the lower income people who will 'blow it' to use your terms--ie spend it all immediately are doing just what it was intended to do: purchase goods and services to stimulate the economy. I am not sure what you mean by upper income but the cut off for full rebate is $75K for singles, $150K for married couples. If you earn more than that, or so little that you pay no taxes, you would get less.

I actually don't know if this will be considered taxable income for next year.

You don't actually believe that the Government is going to give you a "rebate" and not consider it taxable income do you??

When I talk about lower middle and higher I am referring to people in th 0-75K range.

There are many ways to "blow" 600.00 that don't contribute to stimulating our economy, do I really need to elaborate?

Tasker's Mom wrote:

There are many ways to "blow" 600.00 that don't contribute to stimulating our economy, do I really need to elaborate?

Yes, I would like to know your opinion of what poor people spend money on.

Quote:

The EIC payments your acquaintence received was HER money.

I really don't know why you keep saying this over and over when I've just PROVED that the EIC payments are MORE than was paid in any kind of taxes. Why do you keep insisting it is a woman I am talking about as well, when I've made it clear that I've kept the identity gender neutral?

tgir wrote:

Tasker's Mom wrote:

There are many ways to "blow" 600.00 that don't contribute to stimulating our economy, do I really need to elaborate?

Yes, I would like to know your opinion of what poor people spend money on.

I'm not sure why you are offended by my post but I have no desire to debate what I feel is my "opinion" on the forum,. I spend many hours each week as an EMT in homes of lower income people seeking care because of poor life style choices involving drugs and alcohol. I see in, homes of welfare recipients big screen TV's and stereo systems that most of us "working" people cannot afford. Most of them purchased on rent to own plans, they will be reposessed and the person will be out all the money they have paid. I see many lower income people who cannot give their children decent food but can buy 2 or 3 packs of cigarettes a day and have no trouble buying their beer and junk food.

The majority of snowmobile ATV and motorcycle accidents I respond to are for people who can't afford to buy insurance for the vehicles they have just wrapped themselves around the tree with.

Go to any "mini mart" in my area and the line at the lottery cashier is full of people who can't pay their bills hoping to strike it rich on the lottery. The casinos in my area are full of low income people spending what little money they have on slot machines and races.

As a RN I struggle daily with people who won't quit smoking because the insurance company won't pay for their nicotine patches or require a large copay for smoking cessation medication. They can't afford those things but they can buy their cigarettes.

Does that mean every single person of low income will squander their check, no but I doubt that it's going to benefit the economy much.

I am not sure why you are annoyed by my opinion but it is just that, my opinion.

Tasker's Mom wrote:

Lest we forget, the Republicans inherited a balanced budge AND a surplus :evil:

I love to talk politics! :twisted:

You're absolutely right - the Bush administration has been completely irresponsible from a fiscal perspective. You can't increase spending and decrease income. The math doesn't come out right. But the Democrats were just as gung-ho for this giveaway as the Republicans - in fact they wanted to give away even more (they can't help themselves). I think it's the incumbents of both parties who are trying to ensure their re-election.

Bailey's Mom wrote:

Tasker's Mom wrote:

Lest we forget, the Republicans inherited a balanced budge AND a surplus :evil:

I love to talk politics! :twisted:

So true, but then it's hard for ANYONE to turn down money when it's handed to them :wink:

tgir wrote:

Tasker's Mom wrote:

There are many ways to "blow" 600.00 that don't contribute to stimulating our economy, do I really need to elaborate?

Yes, I would like to know your opinion of what poor people spend money on.

I live in MI, where we live and die with the auto industry. For the past several years this state has been dying, and everyone I've talked to about the rebate plans to spend it on past due heating bills, late mortgage payments, etc., IF they can hang on that long. No talk of big screen tvs or vacations here. Exactly how does that stimulate our economy? It doesn't :evil:

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly how does that stimulate our economy? It doesn't :evil:

Well, not as directly as someone purchasing a product made in the US by a US company of all US parts.

However, it puts money into the hands of businesses that will either spend it on new equipment, or hiring someone (or not laying someone else off), or puttnig it in the bank (who then lends it out to someone else so that they can buy something) or return it to invetors through a dividend, who would then either put it in the bank, or go and buy something themselves.

A single dollar spent domestically works through the economy several times. A dollar spent on something made overseas helps a retailer, who may hire another salesperson, and whose profits may or may not be going into the hands of american owners...

Of course those bank loans and the dividend check might just cause one in X thousand people to go out and buy new cars, which might cause GM to call someone back...

tgir wrote:

Tasker's Mom wrote:

There are many ways to "blow" 600.00 that don't contribute to stimulating our economy, do I really need to elaborate?

Yes, I would like to know your opinion of what poor people spend money on.

Cigarettes, liquor, diapers and NASCAR events.

I think you can get free diapers from the state, leaving more money for the more important stuff like NASCAR.

ButtersStotch wrote:

tgir wrote:

Tasker's Mom wrote:

There are many ways to "blow" 600.00 that don't contribute to stimulating our economy, do I really need to elaborate?

Yes, I would like to know your opinion of what poor people spend money on.

Cigarettes, liquor, diapers and NASCAR events.

Know many poor people?

Back when I was poor (and didn't take an EIC), I spent my money on food, rent, utilities, clothes for my kids, books.

My grandparents, who were poor all their lives, spent their money on food, utilities, basic necessities. My parents were the same when they were poor, although they did smoke. If it makes you feel better, cigarettes killed my dad. Most of the people I know who smoke now are not poor. Most of the people that I know who are poor spend their money the way I did and my parents and my grandparents: stuff to keep alive. Sure, I know people who don't have very much money who spend more than they should on liquor. Same thing with people with more money. BTW, I know a lot of working poor: people with two or three low paying jobs (no benefits) who are stressed to the max trying to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.

tgir wrote:

Most of the people I know who smoke now are not poor.

I beg to differ with you, look at who buys cigarettes in the store. I am a smoking cessation counselor and I can tell you that the majority of people who smoke cannot afford to do so.

As far as the history of you and your family, I am sorry you have gone through difficult times. Many of us here on the forum have as well. I don't consider myself upper class, I am a single parent who raised two children on an barely adequate income.

Our observations may not apply to all people of a class but they are accurate when it comes to many bit are not aimed at you and your family personally.

Tasker's Mom wrote:

tgir wrote:

Most of the people I know who smoke now are not poor.

Well this is a bit of a tangent, but I have to disagree.

I was raised in an affluent family, and cigarettes killed both of my parents and one uncle. I have three cousins (out of six) who are smokers. They are in their 30's, two have Master's Degrees and one is an RN. They earn above average salaries and come from families that are very well off, they were never poor a day in their lives. I have sponsored smoking cessation classes in the workplace for many years, and these are all educated professionals with much higher than average salaries, certainly not poor people. I am in several professional organizations and am always amazed at the number of people who sneak out after lunches or between meetings to grab a cigarette. These are nowhere near poor people.

I know for a fact that smoking crosses all socio-economic lines equally. While it is frustrating to see people with lower or no incomes spend money on cigarettes rather than food, clothes, education...whatever, it's just not true that smoking is more prevalent among the poor.

I am not sure how you can differ with my statement that most of the people I know who smoke are not poor. You do not know who it is that I know or observe.

My inlaws, who came from extremely affluent backgrounds, both smoked. My father in law still does, unfortunately. Most of the parents of my friends when I was growing up smoked. Few of the friends of my generation did, yet I see many younger people smoke --I live in a college town and am appalled at the number of students--who at most are only 'student poor' and drive better cars than most of their professors--who smoke. As well as a lot of professors--well educated, relatively affluent individuals.

There is no need to feel sorry for me for hard times--they were brief and non-damaging. They gave me an apprediation for what I have, the knowledge that I don't need most of it, and an understanding of what is and what is not important. It would be tempting to say that hard times gave me a strong work ethic--the truth is that many of the poor people I know work harder than any of the many rich people I know. But I don't think that work ethic is the entire story about who is wealthy or even middle class and who struggles.

The research disagrees
http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/100 ... -8881.html
Here is an interesting study which indicates that men in Bangladesh (one of the poorest countries in the world) have the highest incident of tobacco use
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=466

American Journal of Public Health :
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/2/269

And it has been shown that tobacco companies consistently aim their advertising dollars at lower socio economic groups:
http://www.cababstractsplus.org/google/ ... 0053007576

And finally, from the CDC
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5320a2.htm

So I am sorry if the facts offend you, and I never said that lower income folks are the only ones who smoke but my statement is well supported by research.

tgir wrote:

ButtersStotch wrote:

tgir wrote:

Tasker's Mom wrote:

There are many ways to "blow" 600.00 that don't contribute to stimulating our economy, do I really need to elaborate?

Yes, I would like to know your opinion of what poor people spend money on.

Cigarettes, liquor, diapers and NASCAR events.

Know many poor people?

Back when I was poor (and didn't take an EIC), I spent my money on food, rent, utilities, clothes for my kids, books.

Yes, I do. I spent 10 years delivering pizzas and I've been inside more homes than I could count and the comment that I made was not without merit (minus the NASCAR part). You get to especially know your regulars and what their lives are all about. I delivered to many low income housing areas and I can't recall more than a handful of non smokers out of many of those areas. I also remember that marijuana was a regular scent that you could expect to be emanating from the majority of their homes. I can't tell you how many people would tell me, "Yeah, we didn't have anything to eat in the house so we had to order pizza" but the majority of the time, again, beer was readily available. So actually, add fast food too the list of things that poor people spend their money on. I don't even want to comment on the condition that I've seen kids in. I called social services on several families.

I think you should consider yourself an anomaly rather than the norm. We grew up poor too and my mom spent her money much like how you did but again, I don't think that is representative of the general poor public. Most poor people are poor forever because they make poor choices. The people that work their way out of being poor because they hit hard times are another story. Poor is a lifestyle for some people and they write off their lives like it's all they'll ever be.

i tend to agree with jill. my husband has been a fireman for over 20 yrs...i have gone on a few calls with him over the years..

what i have seen those few times, blows my mind...beer, smokes and qt bags (quick trip) filled with unnecessary food items...not to mention, kids in filth but the mom/dad or both sitting high in the corner waiting for their next fix....i always thought that brian exaggerated some of his storys...unfortunately, i was wrong..really wrong...

why go an extra block to a real grocery store where you can save money when the qt is right next door and they can charge you double.....

i guess what im saying is that the poor tend to make superbly poor judgement calls...

I am not an anomoly: this is the story of my generation, raised by parents who grew up in the depression, most often under difficult circumstances.

I spent some time working for Head Start. Of the families I saw there, some were poor because of bad choices they made; some were poor because of bad choices they were born into and hadn't yet gained the vision of themselves that would let them move into better lives. Some were poor because of their disabilities: more than one parent was mildly mentally retarded, and some had physical disabilities. There were some with mental illnesses--stigmatized and badly treated even today. Two were widowed, with young children. Some were new to this country--working hard to make a better life for their children. Some were frankly terrible parents; most were good parents or trying hard to be good parents. All were working.

I remember attending parent meetings and watching with horror at the discomfort and intimidation that so many of these people felt at sitting in even a pre-school classroom: they had been taught that education was for other people; they felt not smart enough, not good enough to do well in school. They wanted their kids to do well, but were terribly afraid that perhaps doing well in school was for other people's children.

It's been a while since I worked for Head Start. Once in a while, I run into a parent (or child) that I knew from those days. I am sometimes surprised at how much better some of these parents (but not all) are doing than I would have predicted. Some I had written off as never improving themselves have really made great strides. Some are still struggling; some have given up.

Of course, drugs and alcohol abuse change everything--for well to do as well as for poor. Usually, if there are financial resources, addictions can be covered up, at least for a while.

My kids have friends who grew up in really difficult circumstances. I see the struggles these kids have getting beyond the poor choices and poor circumstances they grew up with. It's a step forward and half a step back, two steps forward, one back for them, as they try desperately not to repeat the mistakes their parents made.

As far as choosing pizza and fast food over decent stuff: yeah, that's a lot of my professional co-worker's choices, too. It's easy, it's quick, it requires no thinking. And if you are poor, no pots and pans, no utilities. Have you lived in poor neighborhoods in cities? FOr the most part, the only grocery stores around charge a lot more than the ones the suburbanites get to use: their clientel lacks transportation to shop around, and they know it.

Most people on welfare are children; most leave welfare in a few years. Of course there are generations of families who live off the system at the poor end of the spectrum--and generations of people who live off the system at the high one, too. Paris Hilton makes abominably bad choices, but her family's money will keep her from living with the consequences. Morally, how is she different? Poor people can afford fewer bad choices and they suffer the consequences more.

tgir wrote:

I am not an anomoly: this is the story of my generation, raised by parents who grew up in the depression, most often under difficult circumstances.

That in itself proves my point. We're really dealing with the nouvelle poor now-- a whole different generation who blames others for their misfortunes rather than taking responsibility and doing something about it. They blame society, they blame their parents, they blame the government, but they don't blame themselves and until you can take responsibility for your own life, you'll never be able to do anything to make it better.

I think a huge difference is the influx of drugs--across all economic strata. My father said he always knew where to get drugs, and he grew up in rural Indiana during the 30's and 40's--but it's more pervasive now.

There have always been people who blamed the system, blamed other people. Not all of them are poor. In fact, if you tune into the right (or wrong) radio station, you can hear some of them talking about how bad other people are.

Interesting.

Except for the superlatives like "ALL" or "MOST"....

I think everyone is right!

There are many who take advantage of the system
There are many who truly need the system.
There are many who abuse the system.
There are many who use the system for a short time.
There are many who stay on for as long as allowed.
There are poor who smoke and wealthy who smoke.
There are poor who make bad financial decisions.
There are poor who can't make good financial decisions.
There are poor who used to be well off who make bad financial decisions.
People who can't afford to eat out order pizza in.
People who live in many urban neighborhoods pay more for groceries.

There is the whole gamut of people who rely on public assistance.

Most people, left or right, wouldn't begrudge a person who has fallen on hard times a hand up. [i]Most people, left or right, don't want to see abuse of the system.

Maybe we should be looking for ways to get rid of the abusers.

Ron wrote:

Maybe we should be looking for ways to get rid of the abusers.

Like exile? :lol:

barney1 wrote:

Ron wrote:

Maybe we should be looking for ways to get rid of the abusers.

Like exile? :lol:

Do we have an American version of Siberia?

tgir wrote:

Have you lived in poor neighborhoods in cities? FOr the most part, the only grocery stores around charge a lot more than the ones the suburbanites get to use: their clientel lacks transportation to shop around, and they know it.

True, this is a big problem for all people in urban areas - no real grocery stores, no WalMarts/Targets/Costcos. I lived in downtown Chicago for a long time and you wouldn't believe how much those little urban stores charge for necessities like milk and toilet paper. There are also very few real banks in the poorer urban neighborhoods, so many people are forced to use Cash Exchanges which charge ridiculous fees.

tgir wrote:

Poor people can afford fewer bad choices and they suffer the consequences more.

I agree with this as well, although I think this is extending into the middle class now more than it ever has. It seems like most people are living paycheck to paycheck with huge amounts of credit card debit. One problem - even if it's not of your own making - can lead to a family being homeless. We have people here who invested in houses that will never be completed now that the builders have gone bankrupt. Not necessarily the fault of the buyers - just bad timing. But they are still locked into a loan for a home that isn't finished, paying rent or a second mortgage.

An illness, even with insurance, can drive a family into bankruptcy.
So can loss of a job due to the economy. People who are losing jobs in certain industries (construction, financial services, mortgages/title services) will not find a job at a comparable salary, and may not find another job at all. I have a friend who was making $40 an hour with full benefits in construction until 6 months ago. Now even though he's highly skilled and good at what he does, he's out of luck. He's doing independent contract work to make some money, nowhere near what he made before. If he had a high dollar lifestyle or a lot of debt to service, he's be in huge trouble. Fortunately, he's frugal and low-cost so he's getting by (but with no insurance - eeek!).

Quote:

Do we have an American version of Siberia?

HA! yes- it's called Lebanon, PA. :wink:

That's why I hate to drive through it - I'm afraid I won't
get out.

I think someone should address the IRS issues in America. This earned income tax credit is a joke. I've worked 80 hours a week, consecutively, for 22 years. I have always tried to make the best living I could, without assistance from anyone, including the government. I work with people who "chose" to have numerous children they can't afford. They receive all manners of government help. Medicaid, food stamps, and many get free or reduced housing. They claim several dependents throughout the year to limit the taxes cut from their checks, most refuse to work extra because it will effect their government assistance. Yet, they get huge, unheard of, amounts of money back on their tax returns. They get assistance and pay the least amount of taxes. Believe me, I see it every year, they get 10 times back what they paid in and in a week they're completely broke. In most cases they just blow it , on game systems, games, season theme park tickets, TV's, etc, and then complain they can't pay the electric bill. They are rich for a week and then it's all gone. If they pay $500.00 in federal taxes then give them their $500.00 back. But, where on God's green earth, do they deserve $5000.00? People even claim children that don't belong to them, that they don't support in any way. Parents that file separate, so each can claim a kid and get more money back. All because of this ridiculous tax break called "EARNED INCOME CREDIT". In most cases, it's not "EARNED". This is from a Tampa, Fl resident.

Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:

Custom Search

Please contact our Webmaster with questions or comments.

Please read our PRIVACY statement and Terms of Use

Please contact our Webmaster with questions or comments.
Please read our PRIVACY statement and Terms of Use
Copyright 2000 - 2012 by OES.org. All rights reserved.