Quantcast

Comments about ‘Sen. Mike Lee pushing for family tax credit’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Sept. 16 2013 6:11 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Shaun" the reasoning behind tax breaks for having children is that the government needs to encourage people to have more children. The theory is that to maintain Social Security an Medicare you need new workers to replace the old ones. Since the government is taking the responsibility of providing for your retirement away from the individual, they needed to keep the incentive alive for having children. Since the only way government can incentivize child birth was through tax credits, they implemented the Child Tax Credit.

SG in SLC
Salt Lake City, UT

I find the absurdity of Sen. Lee's proposal amusing, and it's fun to watch the gyrations of some of the "righties" who are trying desperately to find a way to put lipstick on this pig. It's also good to know that the "anti-neo-Malthusians" are alive and well!

As to why this proposal is absurd, particularly coming from Sen. Lee, let's start with the fact that it is fiscally irresponsible. Sen. Lee got elected on the notion that he would be a deficit hawk, but his proposed tax credit would ratchet up the budget deficit. His argument that his proposal *might* ultimately yield a larger revenue stream is sort of like a (soon-to-be-bankrupt) businessman saying that they are going to sell their widgets at a loss, but that they'll make it up in volume.

SG in SLC
Salt Lake City, UT

(continued...)

As others have said, this proposal would increase the number of individuals who don't pay any federal income tax. If the "righties" are outraged that (allegedly) 47% don't pay federal income tax, how are they going to feel about 55%? 60%? Also, indications are that this would be a non-refundable credit, so it really doesn't help those who need it most, but its greatest benefit would be to upper-middle class families with lots of kids (no surprise there).

I agree with Prof. Chambless that this is a non-starter . . . thankfully!

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "SG in SLC" why is granting a child tax credit to encourage a higher birth rate, which will maintain SS "fiscally irresponsible" at the same time that your ilk has increased unemployment from 24 weeks to 99?

According to your ilk and their fuzzy math, for every dollar spent on welfare returned more than a dollar in tax revenues. So, using the same sort of calculation, each dollar a family doesn't pay in taxes, should result in greater tax revenues.

Maybe Senator Lee used the same calculation to determine that increasing the child tax credit will result in MORE tax revenues to the federal government.

Fred44
Salt Lake City, Utah

RedShirt,

Could you direct me to your source that links the child tax credit to social security? I know that we have been promoting the idea in Utah for a long time that having more kids was going to make us more prosperous. All that has happened is that our schools are overcrowded and we can't build new ones fast enough particularly because those who have large families pay no income tax. The idea that having more kids will pay for government programs certainly hasn't worked in Utah, and we have been trying to make it work for over a 100 years.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Fred44" there is not a single link between child tax credits or dependent tax deductions and future solvency of SS. However, there are articles by the Census and IRS that state that with decreasing birth rates, the solvency of SS and Medicare is in question. Since they realize that birth rates are insufficient to maintain SS, they have to encourage birth rates. Since parents often consider family finances before having a child, the government uses tax credits and deductions to encourage more births.

This doesn't work for all government programs, just the Ponzi programs that tax workers now to pay for entitlements of people who no longer work.

raybies
Layton, UT

With our dependencies on a continual tax base to afford all these government hand outs, and with marriage being a "right" that no places any preference on those that can naturally produce children, our country needs to refocus on rewarding those who contribute to the future of the country in terms of perpetuating the tax base.

That tax base perpetuates SOLELY by the creation and fostering of well-adjusted children, who grow up to become future tax payers. They in turn provide children of their own, etc.

Give more back to the parents, they do a lot.

airnaut
Everett, 00

Math 101:

61,146,753 children in America (in 2008)
X
$2,500 additional tax credit
=
$152,866,882,500

That's an instant $152 Billion dollar per YEAR Federal give away program.

Not a good way to bring down the deficit.

Typical Republican response.
Take it out on Poor, Sick, Elderly and the children.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "airnaut" if we use the same way of calculating the benefit of the tax credit that was used to justify extending Unemployment, then according to Nancy Pelosi for ever $1 spent on unemployment results in $1.79 in taxes coming back to the government. So, if we spend $153 billion for child tax credits, the Feds should get $273 billion back. Using the same calculation, this is a deficit reducing proposal.

Fred44
Salt Lake City, Utah

RedShirt,

So what you are saying is that so that we can keep a "ponzi" scheme as you referred to social security alive, we should promote having more children by giving those who do an additional tax break? Wouldn't that come under the concept of two wrongs don't make a right?

I would argue that parents with large families don't consider finances, they expect government programs to help them pay for their children. Those of us with small families however did consider finances and that is why we didn't have more kids.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Fred44" yes that is two wrong don't make a right. It is wrong for government to think it should provide for everybody's retirement, then it is wrong to build it on the backs of our children.

Some parents don't consider personal finances. As you point out, they consider government finances regarding what the government will pay for to have the children, and what they can get from the government to raise those children.

NeilT
Clearfield, UT

Are you kidding me. I am single with no exemptions except me. I pay more in state income tax than close friends with large families. Most get refunds I always pay federal and claim a small state refund. Since state income tax goes to public education I am paying taxes to educate other peoples children. Children cost money to educate and what happens when they get in trouble and have to be incarcerated. I am not anti-family or against marriage. I am against paying more than my share of the tax burden. State Senator Pat Jones wants to remedy the situation in Utah. Kudos to her although I doubt she will succeed. It is time to seriously consider either a flat tax or national sales tax. Senator Lee you are not looking out for me or anyone else outside the tea party.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "NeilT" actually Sen. Lee is looking out for you. If it wasn't for your neighbor having the large family, most likely SS would either go totally bankrupt or have really high tax rates just to remain solvent.

Is it fair that you will have your SS funded retirement paid for by kids that your neighbor had? Where is your contribution to future SS tax payers?

Bob K
porland, OR

OK, a politician -- and by far not the most intelligent or skilled one his State has produced -- has a constituency known for large families. He proposes an extra tax credit of $2500 per child.

This seems like such obvious pandering that one imagines how he thinks it will fly. Maybe he just needs those older mormon donors and supporters. Is anyone stupid enough not to think that it costs society a lot to school, protect, and police more kids?

Some large portion of Americans believe that giving birth to more than 2 or 3 children is overtaxing the resources of the Earth and of cities.

Why does Sen Lee not come out for marriage equality, and urge Gay folks to get married and adopt some of the many thousands of children who need good homes? This would, in Utah, certainly reduce the number of young mormons who face a choice of lying vs. unhappiness.

Mike in Cedar City
Cedar City, Utah

We don't need more tax breaks, Tax the non charitable income of the churches with a tax credit for the cost of legitimate charitable contributions and activities. It's time they no longer get a free ride.

bandersen
Saint George, UT

Why do I find it ironic to watch the party of abortion, free health care, welfare dependency, government entitlements, taxation without representation, and host of other unconstitutional departments and ideas get in a huff over a child tax credit. Oh, it's actually something that would benefit families and children without any strings attached. The irony is quite amusing. Thank you.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments