I am OK with it if you also take out the Earned income tax credit. If you want to give out welfare just call it welfare and make them qualify like everyone else.
I assume the newly-formed fiscal responsibily brigade of the GOP will clamber aboard the revenue-raising train right? JIndal/Kenneth the Page? You there?
eitc is means tested inherently isn't it? it's a formula. and i don't think many liberals would care what you call it.
This comment doesn't make sense. Are you against all taxes? Are you against all government programs? I assume you're not against those things, so your statement is meaningless. Could you expand on it?
well it just means if you have no income they will give you a certain amount back just for filing. Or if your income is under a certain point and you paid in X you would get X+Y back. It is backdoor welfare but without the support structure to make it more effective like real welfare has (such as training programs, social workers, or forcing them to work a certain number of hours per week)
I know there are many programs that are necessary and require taxes, but when you see programs like the Omnibus or whatever it was with all the earmarks in it with a bunch a crap, I'd rather keep the extra money.
yes so when rich people give to charities lets subsidized it (now) to the tune of 40% but when poor people give it, generally it wont be subsidized at all since they probably won't itemize. yet there is broad consensus on EITC being great. EITC helps poor families with kids that are working. essentially we're telling poor families that if you work, we'll help you out a little bit with your kids. i don't understand why you want to add more strings that cost a lot of money. what do you think families making 15k with two kids, who get a couple grand, do with their money? they're not going to waste it. they don't have enough to waste.
Yeah, the rich never gave to charity in 2000 when they had these same rates. And their lives were miserable back then. No one tried to innovate or anything.
Hardly surprising, we knew he was going to raise taxes. Here is another interesting bit No sure what exactly this means but it could be another big hit, since most of the standard deductions already get phased out for high income earners, only a few items can be applied in full anyway.
Ok. There were reasons behind the money spent on the stimulus and the money raised via taxes. Do you disagree with those reasons or are you just against the principle of the thing? And congratulations on making so much money. In today's economy it must be nice to have such a high income.
See my reply on how they are going to cap the deductions. Probably need some clarification how it applies to charities. Then call it for what it is, a handout.
oh no! so the nominal tax rate that republicans whine about all the time, will in fact become the actual tax rate they'll have to pay?
I dissagree with a lot of the money being spent. I know there are necessary functions of the goverment and we must pay for the functions, just dissagret at the extent the goverment goes sometimes. And I'm not close to making that much money. I guess I should have worded my response a little different.
i don't care to use stupid terms like handouts, but i have no problems referring to EITC as welfare. but the program is actually called EITC so i use that term.
