Posted on 11/08/2017 1:24:53 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Does the leadership of this party have actual, diagnosable brain damage? Of all the places in the tax code they could try to find some extra revenue, the supposedly pro-life GOP decides to squeeze … middle-class adoptive families?
While funding Planned Parenthood in their budget?
While our billionaire president is grumbling privately to Democrats that they should repeal the estate tax, which only bites the mega-rich?
We’re past the point of wondering whether the GOP wants to lose. The question now is whether they deserve to lose. Judging from this account by Haley Byrd of the IJR, all signs point to yes:
A GOP lawmaker told me ystrday he was surprised leadership didn’t think ending it would anger pro-lifers. But not seeing much of a fuss.
— Haley Byrd (@byrdinator) November 8, 2017
The adoption tax credit only costs $300 million per year. It’s not even pocket change for Uncle Sam. For the GOP, allegedly the party of social conservatives, to nuke it over a pittance of savings feels like almost deliberate sabotage of adoptive families. What the hell are they thinking?
But it gets worse. As John McCormack points out, in the long run the adoption tax credit pays for itself, in both tangible and intangible terms:
“What they don’t factor in is the total cost to society with a child in foster care,” Johnson tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD. The costs to taxpayers of keeping a child in foster care—health care, food, housing, social workers, and administrators—are far greater than the one-time tax credit adoptive families may receive.
“Comparing the per-child cost of subsidized adoption from foster care with the cost of maintaining a child in foster care, one concludes that the child adopted from foster care costs the public only 40 percent as much as the child who remains in foster care,” according to a report from the National Council for Adoption. “The difference in cost per child per year amounts to $15,480.”
Paul Ryan had the balls earlier today to shrug off complaints about repealing the adoption tax credit by noting that it primarily benefits the upper class. Meanwhile, notes McCormack, the GOP bill would reduce revenue from the estate tax — which only benefits the very uppermost of the upper class — by $172 billion over the next 10 years. Eliminating the adoption tax credit, by comparison, would save the government just $3.8 billion. Ryan’s willing to lose 50 times the amount of revenue that would be lost by saving the adoption tax credit in the name of letting mega-millionaires pass more money on to their kids. Bananas.
Even his point about the credit mainly benefiting higher-income individuals is misleading. It’s true that upper-middle-class families tend to claim the credit but that’s because adoption is so fantastically expensive that only upper-middle-class families can afford to do it. Forget the day-to-day costs of caring for an adopted infant; the adoption process itself can cost $35,000 or more. This Twitter thread by a Google engineer laying out the hardships of adoption went viral a few days ago because of how shocking the sums were. He claims to have spent $50,000 on adopting his first child, which includes fees for the adoption agency, lawyers, travel, hotels, medical care, and other miscellaneous expenses. The only reason he was able to afford it, he notes, was because he had Google stock to sell and even then he was stretched. Some adoptive families take out second mortgages, borrow from relatives, and so on. The tax credit gives them back $13,000 to help defray that. And even that comes with strings: David French, an adoptive dad himself, notes that the IRS audited nearly 70 percent of the families that received the credit recently to check for fraud. It found none.
The only principled argument for ending the adoption tax credit is if you believe the government shouldn’t redistribute taxpayer money via credits of any sort. That’s a fine libertarian view but it ain’t the GOP’s view; in fact, their tax reform plan proposes expanding the child tax credit modestly. If you’re going to have credits in the code, a robust one for adoptive families is a no-brainer. If anything, the mismatch between the current value of the credit and the reality of much more exorbitant adoption fees means Republicans should seize the opportunity to expand the credit. Shave $50 billion off those estate-tax cuts for the mega-rich and apply it to adoption so that more than just Google engineers and lawyers can afford to adopt. If you’re going to be a “pro-family” party, be pro-family.
The death tax is theft.
Why?
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
The states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to tax and spend for INTRAstate family issues and a lot of other intrastate issues that the corrupt feds are now considering taking away deductions for.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"The smart crooks long ago figured out that getting themselves elected to federal office to make unconstitutional tax laws to fill their pockets is a much easier way to make a living than robbing banks." —me
"Federal career lawmakers probably laugh all the way to the bank to deposit bribes for putting loopholes for the rich and corporations in tax appropriations laws, Congress actually not having the express constitutional authority to make most laws where domestic policy is concerned. Such laws are based on stolen state powers and uniquely associated stolen state revenues." —me
Ultimately depending on what the legal majority voters of a given state want, the states would be able to provide adoption deductions, or an equivalent, if the feds weren't stealing state revenues through unconstitutional federal taxes.
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
Instead, we have a 16,845 page Internal Revenue Code and cannot prepare a tax return without a CPA or a computer.
And yes, every single one of the countless itemized deductions in the Internal Revenue Code was lobbied for by someone who is adamant that that deduction is sacred.
And the uber wealthy know how to avoid it; unlike those with much, much much smaller estates, who get hurt the worst.
John Ossoff’s body double is an idiot
Spot on. Everyone wants simple taxes as long as their pet deduction is included.
That is a criminally doctrinaire rationale. The purpose of tax breaks is to encourage certain behaviors. Some of those behaviors are good for Americans as a whole, and some are not. Throwing them all in the same bucket is silly.
Actually, I think everyone wants FAIR taxes that are simple ENOUGH for the average taxpayer to UNDERSTAND their fairness and benefit to America as a whole.
If The GOP Repeals The Adoption Tax Credit The Party Should Disband
Really? That’s where you draw the line?
A tax credit is not a deduction,
it is theft that hurts children.
No, people do not want FAIR taxes.
People want the best tax, the original tax of no tax,
paid by tariffs.
Tariff is the only FAIR tax that the rich elite hate.
Yeah, "people" who have no grasp of economics.
Because it’s insanely expensive, 10s of thousands of dollars, and rife with corruption and human trafficking. Children are kidnapped or outright bought, parents or family members are told child is going to the US for school. Remember the flap over the boy Madonna adopted?
Better to expand the child credit. That will benefit ALL families.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.