MISSING OUT: Poor families face the reality of no tax rebate

The Grand Rapids Press ^ | Wednesday, June 04, 2003 | Ted Roelofs

[GovernmentShrinker]

AND most of her rent is paid by "federal subsidies" (a.k.a. you and me and all the other hardworking folks who didn't go out and have 6 kids by age 26 on an income of $15,000).

[supercat]

AND most of her rent is paid by "federal subsidies" (a.k.a. you and me and all the other hardworking folks who didn't go out and have 6 kids by age 26 on an income of $15,000).

Exactly what welfare and related benefits is someone earning $15,000 allowed to receive? I don't want to dispute your point, but I am curious.

[Fraulein]

BTTT

[randog]

I say we give her the money. Send her an unsigned check with instructions to hold it between her knees until she reaches menopause, at which time the check will be signed. Trust me, it'll be money well spent.

[katze]

Yeah, she probably gets her child care free, and I've read a bus picks up these employees, to and from work. The Dems wring their hands about low-income paying "payroll taxes", meaning their contribution to Social Security. She will get her windfall at the end of the year, EITC.

[Uncle Sausage]

The criteria for these handouts is not only the annual income, but also the number of dependents in the family. With six dependents, she could probably earn $30K and still be eligible for all the freebies.

[hunter112]

Yeah, she probably gets her child care free, and I've read a bus picks up these employees, to and from work.

Well, on the off chance that she pays for child care, she certainly hasn't gotten any breaks there. The child care credit has remained absolutely unchanged since 1981, the limits have not raised one iota.

No, I don't believe she deserves money for nothing, but at least she is working. We have no idea about the father of the children, maybe he's a bum. Paying people to breed is a bad idea for government whether its welfare or child tax credits.

[maxwellp]

Is this lady married? "What do you have to do to get on top?"

Well for one thing, you work and save some money before you turn out six children. Marrying a decent guy also helps.

Sheesh! I really don't know how to reach someone like this. She sounds borderline retarded.

[optimistically_conservative]

26 and 6 kids? Where's dad(dies)?

Then she became worried about her oldest son, Terrell, whom she feared was getting into trouble on the streets.

Terrell's how old?

Palmer said. "What do you have to do to get on top?"

You're kidding, right? It's a rhetorical question, right?

What's that thing they say about life being hard and being stupid?

[optimistically_conservative]

You may find your answers at the links below. I'd like to know how much of her $15,000 income is already tax funded.

http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/win/dataportal.asp

For example, try the link below and type $7.20/hr for 40 hr days, 52 weeks.
http://www.connect2jobs.org/connect2cash/

[WVNan]

What's wrong with buying clothes at Goodwill? I buy clothes there. Get some great buys.

[GovernmentShrinker]

I don't know exactly, but with six kids I imagine quite a bit. Also, it doesn't sound as if she's still making $15K -- I think that's what she made before quitting to do random sewing work at home (which she was free to do, since all the benefits were readily available to her). Even while making $15K, I expect that her benefits included housing subsidy (usually requires that the head of household pay 1/4 of their income towards rent, with the rest made up by the feds -- and a home big enough to meet federal requirements for six kids probably costs a lot more than 1/4 of $15K per year), Medicaid coverage for the kids and maybe for herself as well, and food stamps.

Needless to say, if you make $15K and refrain from having children, you're sh*t out of luck, and if you stop at one or two you'll get very little help. This is one of many reasons why I'm absolutely 100% pro-choice and in favor of public funding of abortions. The practice of using children as hostages to get money from people who work is leading us down the road to full-blown socialism at high speed (do you think ANY of those kids will vote for welfare cuts when they grow up?), and expecting totally irresponsible people to use contraceptives reliably is simply ludicrous. The best we can hope for is to get the message out to them that if they get pregnant, they have to get unpregnant fast (at public expense, since they won't have the cash handy, since they spent it all on clothes and booze), or their baby will be immediately and permanently confiscated the first time they ask for public assistance (mandatory sterilization at that point would be a good idea too, but I know I'm just dreaming on that one). If we don't give them the option of getting unpregnant fast, then we're heartless beasts for confiscating their innocent little children "just because their parents are poor", and they'll play this to the hilt at the next election, to get all their socialist candidates elected (none of whom will be anti-abortion, ironically).

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

"What do you have to do to get on top?"

That is a question best answered by an entirely different discussion. One with no hard and fast answer.

But, what does it take to get a tax rebate? Easy. Pay taxes!

[F16Fighter]

How can anyone miss what they've never had to begin with?

[Publius6961]

Awwwwwwwww Geeeeeeeeee...
Guess they can't go to the mall and get refunds without having any merchandise to return?

It's so unfair!.
Guess it's easier to write it up this way than simply to state that the bureaucrats want to increase welfare to the permanent parasites?
They just can't seem to find a phrase that makes it easier for nobody to notice.

[oldtimer]

With regard to abortions.

You are talking about racial genocide now, and Jesse and Al will surely be in your face real quick.

[TheDon]

Of course it's back. The Demorats are desperately seeking an issue for the 2004 election cycle. After voting it down, they now want to blame the Pubs!

[takenoprisoner]

Has the earned income tax credit been revoked? A head of household under this plan in her income range gets back 10 fold as much as they paid in.

[katze]

The 6 children does play a part. One, even two, "slips" may be forgiven, but at her age, she could easily have 10 more children, at the rate she's going.

"At least she is working"? Since when has the responsibility for taking care of self gone by the wayside? I worked from my early teens until my retirement, and I don't see one person better than the other. I'm tired of taking care of other folks children, to include paying outrageous property tax to send their kids to school. Time for some serious reform.

Currently, I have serious illness, that is proving to be quite expensive. Now, if I had Medicaid, I could keep my money--as is, I pay as long as I can, then they take my home and other assets. Well, I guess I'm really at fault, since I worked so many years, and didn't have a passel of kids I couldn't take care of, so I have a home, retirement income, and ask no one for anything.

[bethelgrad]

I am a full time student with a wife and two kids. I live on about that much. I'm baring my soul here folks so please understand my reluctance to share this. Not only do I get all my federal and state back during tax season, the child credits make it so that I get more back than I paid to begin with. No I won't be getting a rebate. But I am getting back more than I paid anyway. How could I ever complain?

As a coservative this really hurts my pride, but soon I graduate and enter the world of overtaxation and repay it back many times over.