SUBJ: Tale of two women: (R19) FROM: GH Wells 10/17/94 S#: 76138 Two young single women earn $6.85 per hour and made $1425O last year. One of them had a baby. The other one was forced by the Federal Income Tax laws to give $123O to the unwed mother. To look at it another way, the unwed mother was really making $7.44 per hour while the other woman made $6.26, a difference of $1.18 per hour. Or you could say that the unwed mother got to take home the December paycheck of the other woman. Mind you, we're not talking about welfare or aid to dependent children or anything like that. We're talking about Federal Income Tax. Does this seem fair, right, moral, just, or sensible? How would you like to work for a whole month and let someone else cash your check? -::- SUBJ: What are you talking about?(R) FROM: Toadsucker 10/18/94 S#: 76606 Why does one have to pay the other? -::- SUBJ: : (R) FROM: GH Wells 10/18/94 S#: 76968 Well, actually, the money doesn't go directly from the one woman to the other; one has to write a check to the government for $123O (or else it is withheld from her paychecks throughout the year) and the other one gets a check from the government for $123O at the end of the year (without having anything withheld from her paychecks). But what's the difference? -::- SUBJ: ... (R) FROM: Toadsucker 10/19/94 S#: 77143 But why does one get $1230? You don't get that much for deducting a dependant, do you? -::- SUBJ: : (R) FROM: GH Wells 10/19/94 S#: 77186 It's called Earned Income Credit. Look in the back of your Income Tax booklet. The credit can be as high as $2364. This is not a deduction; it is money that increases your income, even if you pay no tax at all. But you haven't answered my question: Is it fair to take $123O from a single woman who makes $1425O and give it to an unwed mother who earned the same amount? -::- SUBJ: . (R) FROM: LucjanS 10/20/94 S#: 77340 For child's sake? -::- SUBJ: : (R) FROM: GH Wells 10/20/94 S#: 77411 I can understand how it would be fair, right, just, moral, and sensible if the father of the child were forced to provide support for his own child, but a completely unrelated person? Besides, my question is: does it make sense to reward a woman for having a child out of wedlock at the expense of one who doesn't? Doesn't this encourage undesirable behavior? Furthermore, the same unwed mother can get even more money in following years if she repeats her behavior and has more babies. In the second year she does this she gets $1647 and in the third year she gets $1911. She can get even more money by earning less. Does this make sense? -::- SUBJ: G.H. (R) FROM: CHESTER E 10/20/94 S#: 77437 No, of course it doesn't make sense. But the question should be raised on how such a bass ackward system got started in the first place. For the answer we must go to the Johnson years and the Great Soceity and study the circumstances surrounding that wonderful institution that is welfare. -::- SUBJ: : (R) FROM: GH Wells 10/20/94 S#: 77573 But this isn't welfare. It's Federal Income Tax. It's just that some people have a negative tax. I wonder if it even shows up in the Federal Budget. I doubt it. I doubt that it even gets counted as an entitlement. I doubt that anyone knows how much money is transferred from tax payers to those who receive this credit. -::- SUBJ: ... (R) FROM: Toadsucker 10/21/94 S#: 77613 As GH said, this is not welfare. I suppose the intent of it is to help the kids, not the parent. But there are certainly pitfalls, I'm not sure what the best answer is here. I'm not so sympathetic to the unwed mother (especially if she goes on to have more) as I am to the children. I don't want them to go hungry, but at the same time I don't want to incourage more illegitimate kids either. The answer has to lie in having an economic system where people can get a job and afford to support their families in reasonable comfort. We don't have that now. I see lots of cases where the single mother is working her butt off, often holding *two* jobs to make ends meet, and then of course the kids go unsupervised much of the time. We are not in a healthy society at all right now. -::- SUBJ: : (R) FROM: GH Wells 10/21/94 S#: 77636 How about if we lower tax rates, raise the exemptions, increase the thresholds at which higher rates apply, and elimintate credits unless they offset a tax? Let's also call the taking of money from one individual and giving it to another one welfare and put it on budget where it can be noticed. -::- SUBJ: Fine with me. (R) FROM: Toadsucker 10/21/94 S#: 77664 Might do a little good; might do a little harm. There are good arguments for both sides. As for nomenclature, call it what you want. May as well call the graduated tax structure a form of welfare too. And of course, sales tax, being a regressive tax, should be called welfare for the rich. But I would like to see someone actually try to solve our problems rather than bicker over this nit-picky stuff. -::- SUBJ: : (R) FROM: GH Wells 10/22/94 S#: 77701 Let it be known: welfare is giving money to people that was previously taken from others. Reducing taxes is not welfare. Saying that the sales tax is welfare for the rich is ridiculous. -::- SUBJ: What is ridiculous... (R) FROM: Toadsucker 10/22/94 S#: 77806 is arguing about what to call things, while people are suffering. -::- SUBJ: Question: (R) FROM: Toadsucker 10/22/94 S#: 77826 Do you understand why taxing the people through a sales tax benefits the rich? -::- SUBJ: Well, I... (R) FROM: CHESTER E 10/22/94 S#: 77965 certainly don't. It seems to me that those with more disposable income could and would afford to buy more things that are taxable (assuming that food and drugs are exempt) thus paying more sales tax. The concept of it being welfare for the rich eludes me. -::- SUBJ: : (R) FROM: GH Wells 10/23/94 S#: 78211 He probably means that sales tax is not graduated (although in California it is, since food is not taxed), and therefore the poor pay a greater percentage of their net income in sales tax than do the rich who don't need to spend as great a percentage of their income just to survive. It's logic like this that produces propositions on our ballot to tax everyone's income at 2.5% for health care, plus another 2.5% for income above half a million dollars. A person making a million dollars would have to pay $37,5OO for health care. A person making a billion dollars would have to pay 37.5 MILLLION dollars for health care! -::- SUBJ: That's correct. (R) FROM: Toadsucker 10/23/94 S#: 78636 Virtually all economists, liberal and conservative, agree that a sales tax is one of the most regressive taxes, meaning it hits the poor harder than the wealthy. It amazes me how easily sales taxes go through here in CA. As for health care: GEEZ, I sure am glad I don't make a $billion a year!! -::- SUBJ: 10% tax (R) FROM: Cue stick1 10/26/94 S#: 79745 When the IRS collects taxes it has high costs to collect them (tax forms,mailing, computers, and to many people processing all that paper.) I contend that Social Security already has a system in place to collect their taxes, with very little paper work. Why not tax everyone 10% of their gross income and have it collected by the SS automaticly just like it does now with most employees. At the end of the year or whatever, they could simply push a button and put the money from the 10% tax in the IRS account. I say all the tax shelters, and other benifits the rich get should be ended. As it is right now people pay the SS tax percentage without any dependent deductions,or all the other income tax type deductions you would on your tax forms. I would like to have someone run the numbers to see with our present system, how much money the IRS puts into the budget fund after expenses, compaired to how much SS adds to its fund each year? We might be able to match what the IRS ends up with, by hving a standard tax even lower than 10%. -::- SUBJ: ... FROM: Toadsucker 10/27/94 S#: 80345 I'm surprised no-one has taken me to task on my statement about our sorry history of supporting brutal tyrants. Anyone care to debate: El Salvador Nicaragua Guatamala Panama Southeast Asia Iran/Contra coverup Eastern Europe The Shaw of Iran China & Tibet Indonesia's invasion of East Timor ???