Though provoking fiction before the election...

[MikeAurelius]

My ex wife regularly got back far more money than she ever paid in for the first few years after our divorce. Possibly because she didn't have to claim child support.
How is it less disgusting to have children that you can't provide for, children that will have to be taken care of by others' resources, than to notice that this happens? Where is your disgust for those who are the source of the misery their children must endure? That seems a far worse thing to me than merely noticing that some people engage in the practice.

I have plenty of disgust for those issues, however, I was commenting on gmc's post, not anything else.

A question though, if she was your ex-wife, how do you know she got back more than she paid in? That's a curious comment, Wes. I've never seen a case of getting more money back in refunds than was paid into the IRS. As far as I know, it can't happen.

The whole issue of 'having more children than you can afford' is absurd on the very face of it, especially when you consider the facts that the Repugnants want to remove all women's access to birth control. So, then it becomes a double wammy. The woman is derided for wanting to control how many children she has, and then has to face ridicule for having more than she/they can afford.

How can you possibly support that with a straight face?

[CoolOptician]

(smile) I almost posted on this thread a couple times. But wasn't sure it would do any good. :-)) My 'pet peeve' is how people speak to others. I have less problem with 'straight to the point' facts than 'descriptive' words that are really one's own judgment. From either side. Like disgusting, baloney or laziness etc. Bottom line, we cannot 'know' another's motivation, nor are they always the same. Just because WE see the world in a particular way, does not mean that other different ways of 'seeing' it are not as righteous....FOR THEM. :-)) I do so wish we'd remember that when we choose verbiage to share.

Mike, people DO get back more than they pay in actual federal income taxes, it happens. I cannot say the percentage, but it happens. Below are the places you can see that it does. And that the amount goes up by the number of children you have.

http://taxes.about.com/od/deductions...rnedincome.htm

The earned income credit is a refundable tax credit designed for lower income working families and individuals. The amount of the credit varies depending on your level of income and how many dependents you support. The tax credit can even generate a tax refund larger than the amount of tax paid in through withholding. For the years 2009 through 2012, the Earned Income Credit is temporarily increased for working families with three or more dependents. Previously the earned income credit maxed out at two dependents. The earned income credit will revert back to maxing
out with two dependents starting in 2013.

Now it has been intended to help people actually work more, versus being on the welfare system. "From its roots as an idea from conservative economist Milton Friedman several decades ago, the Earned Income Tax Credit has become an increasingly important tool to make work pay more than welfare and enough to lift people working full time at the minimum wage out of poverty."

The problem becomes that very 'fine line' between that 'hand up' and the 'hand out.' I know in MY world (and it is hard for me to believe it isn't the same for everybody out there) there is at least one person that we know (and for me it is more like ten), who has taken 'help' from others, whether family or the government and become 'enabled' by the process. They stopped trying. They just looked for handouts and someone else to do for them. That does not take away from the many people who are unable to earn a living wage in our world.

The goal would be to find the 'sweet spot' in the middle, to help those with true need, while not enabling those who do just want to have someone else do it for them. But the problem is we all start 'poking each other' with words, like they are a big, long stick. And then someone reacts to that, and throws words back. And before you know it, we are arguing about something that we might actually only look at differently a very small percentage. And the media and our politics has now become part of the 'pokers.' For what purpose, and maybe a myriad of ones, I don't know for sure. But we have created a nation of arguers and looking for whatever we can find 'wrong' in another. Versus finding the things we agree on, and can come to the table with manners, and get in the habit of talking about what we do agree on.....so we can venture into the areas where we don't, and maybe actually find REAL solutions to problems and areas of disagreement.

My goodness, maybe we do need to listen to our mom's again.....if you can't say something nice (contributing in a positive way, even if it is how you word a problem you see), then maybe we should keep our mouths shut!

P.S. Sorry the 'credit table' link didn't come thru the first time

http://apps.irs.gov/app/vita/content...able_1040i.pdf

[Wes]

Earned income credit. She told me so.
Please do not suggest you know my politics. I am neither repugnicant no dim-orc-rat. ;).
Now, despite your rant about what Repugnican'ts want to do, the bottom line is that both birth control and abortion are legal.
Personally, I would like to see a policy enacted where anyone could receive "welfare for life" if they agreed to a voluntary free sterilization procedure prior to having children. Of course this practical solution to human misery and overcrowding could never happen. Neither party is practical. Modern repubs must follow their ancient desert religion, while dims dont want real solutions, they want to be made to feel good about their guilt-ridden selves.

[shanbaum]

Mike, the EITC does in fact provide the possibility of "refunding" more tax than was paid in. As I write that, I'm struck by the lousy vocabulary used to describe it. But it is what happens. As you wrote, the EITC was originally designed to offset some of the regressive nature of the payroll tax, and to incentivize work. Over time, the latter became the emphasis, as it was expanded, during both Republican and Democratic administrations. The amount of the EITC is governed in large part by the number of children in the family, so the scheme does bear a certain moral hazard. It pays people, in effect, to have children, which is something that both parties can't seem to avoid doing. Note, for example, the Republicans' expansion of the child tax credit in 2001 and 2003. It is, however, still the case that one must have earnings in order to qualify for the EITC, which is why a lot of conservatives over the years have supported it as an alternative to welfare - on its face, it does make work more attractive. That, coupled with the fact that "traditional" welfare (now known as "Temporary Assistance to Needy Families", or TANF) is now time-limited, it's not really practical to be a welfare queen anymore.

There are, of course, at least two sides to issue; while some people are livid that their hard-earned tax dollars go to support "lazy layabouts who have children they can't afford", some of us are willing to run the risk of encouraging one kind of bad behavior (having unaffordable children) in an effort to promote a different good behavior (working) and importantly, to improve the lives of those children who couldn't help being born - and who may well have been born in any case. There were, after all, unaffordable children for eons before anyone thought of giving them a hand up.

[MikeAurelius]

I haven't suggested anything at all about your politics. Please go back and re-read the actual words I wrote, not what you think I wrote. There's a difference.

Sterilization for life?????? And what happens if they should happen to no longer need "welfare for life"?

And as far as "dims" (as you put it) "feeling good about their guilt-ridden selves", wow. Just, wow. Once again, you've managed to flummox me. I just can't imagine anyone who has such a negative view on life.

[Wes]

I have a realistic view of life. It is better to pay people NOT to have children they cant afford or don't want than it is to pay them to KEEP having children they can't afford or don't want. Why is that so hard to understand?

[Wes]

Why did you say gmc's statement was disgusting? Did it make you feel morally superior? Did it make you feel good?

[MikeAurelius]

Mike, the EITC does in fact provide the possibility of "refunding" more tax than was paid in. As I write that, I'm struck by the lousy vocabulary used to describe it. But it is what happens. As you wrote, the EITC was originally designed to offset some of the regressive nature of the payroll tax, and to incentivize work. Over time, the latter became the emphasis, as it was expanded, during both Republican and Democratic administrations. The amount of the EITC is governed in large part by the number of children in the family, so the scheme does bear a certain moral hazard. It pays people, in effect, to have children, which is something that both parties can't seem to avoid doing. Note, for example, the Republicans' expansion of the child tax credit in 2001 and 2003. It is, however, still the case that one must have earnings in order to qualify for the EITC, which is why a lot of conservatives over the years have supported it as an alternative to welfare - on its face, it does make work more attractive. That, coupled with the fact that "traditional" welfare (now known as "Temporary Assistance to Needy Families", or TANF) is now time-limited, it's not really practical to be a welfare queen anymore.

There are, of course, at least two sides to issue; while some people are livid that their hard-earned tax dollars go to support "lazy layabouts who have children they can't afford", some of us are willing to run the risk of encouraging one kind of bad behavior (having unaffordable children) in an effort to promote a different good behavior (working) and importantly, to improve the lives of those children who couldn't help being born - and who may well have been born in any case. There were, after all, unaffordable children for eons before anyone thought of giving them a hand up.

Thanks for your outstanding (and un-sharp-barbed) post! I did some research and discovered that, yes, through EITC it is possible to get more than paid-in. It's semantics, I guess, and most likely the fault is mine for not being precise in my wording.

I tend to look for the good in people, while recognizing that there are also those who are bad "on purpose". Yes, there are the welfare "cheats" who purposely have children to get money from the government. But I don't believe the solution is sterilzation for life. That smacks of an European "final" solution to me.

On the other hand, there are those who had 7 children and could afford it, but the economy no longer was able to provide the job(s) necessary, and now they can't afford it. Children are not commodities like cars that can be traded in when they are no longer affordable, yet "some" people seem to think that they should be treated as such.

My son (I've mentioned before) has Down's Syndrome. Because of him, my family is part of the 47% of so-called "takers". He's currently in a group home, paid for in part by his Social Security disability payments, partly by county monies, partly by state monies, and partly by federal monies. Is it really fair to call him (us) takers? I work full time, pay in taxes to the state and federal governments, I employ two people who also pay taxes. My ex-wife also works full time and pays in taxes. Yet, because of Matthew, we are "takers".

That's the problem with labels. People use them to put other people in neatly defined boxes, when closer inspection will show that the box is wrong and the label is wrong.

Walking a mile in someone else's shoes will go a long way towards changing the attitudes of those who choose to make statements like the above.

[MikeAurelius]

Why did you say gmc's statement was disgusting? Did it make you feel morally superior? Did it make you feel good?

Back it down, Wes. You are becoming combative. I'm not playing the game.

[gmc]

I ran some numbers to show what I mean.

Assume a single parent with three dependent children. Earns $10 an hour and works a 40 hour week. Poverty level for family of four = $23,050
Gross income = $20,800
Standard deduction of $8,500, head of household
$950 x 3 kids = $2,850
AGI = $11,550
Tax liability = $1,158
EIC = $3,830
Tax "refund" = $2,672

Disgusting, no. Harsh but accurate, yes.

[shanbaum]

I have a realistic view of life. It is better to pay people NOT to have children they cant afford or don't want than it is to pay them to KEEP having children they can't afford or don't want. Why is that so hard to understand?

That is not hard to understand at all. Whether it is "realistic" is a different matter. I don't think that many people respond to the moral hazard I wrote of earlier by
actually having kids in order to up their EITC or other benefit, any more than many people respond to the moral hazard that arises from having insurance by burning down their businesses. I'm sure both happen occasionally. Do you have any statistics to support your (apparent) belief that it's so rampant as to be a big problem?

It's certainly your right to argue that we have these benefit schemes upside-down, and that, if anything, we should pay poor people to not have kids. This being a democracy, all you have to do is convince a majority of voters that that's the right thing to do. I doubt you would succeed. But if you did, I bet that a new crop of indignant voters would rise up with the cry, "why are we paying these people for just not having kids?"

[shanbaum]

Gary, I don't understand your point. Assuming that your numbers are correct, are you saying that supplementing the income of a family of four making $20K is... what? A bad thing? A good thing? What do you mean by "harsh"?

[shanbaum]

Note, by the way, that that $21K earner would have paid over $3000 in payroll taxes (ok, you have to add the employer's share to his gross; so he's making $22K). As you've calculated it, his EITC offsets his payroll taxes and grants an extra $500 or so (rough numbers all). Harsh? Good? Bad?

[Wes]

Mike, to discuss your veiled nazi reference; there's a vast difference between a voluntary program and the Holocaust, and even suggesting a comparison is ludicrous and demeans what European Jews went through. (That's me using a typical liberal moral superiority put down on you. )
Many couples I know choose not to have children all on the their own. This really isn't different. I underwent a sterilization procedure 8 years ago myself.

[Judy Canty]

It would appear that many of you have bought into this:

The idea of welfare fraud goes back to the early-1960s; although the offenders in those stories were typically male or faceless.^[1] There were, however, journalistic exposés on what would become known as welfare queens. Readers Digest and Look magazine published sensational stories about mothers abusing the system.^[1] Some of these stories, and some that followed into the 1990s, focused on female welfare recipients engaged in behavior counter-productive to eventual financial independence such as having illegitimate children, using AFDC money to buy drugs, or showing little desire to work. These women were understood to be social pariahs, draining society of valuable resources while engaging in self damaging behavior.^[1] Despite these early examples, stories about able-bodied men collecting welfare continued until the 1970s, at which point women became the main focus of welfare fraud stories.^[1]
The term "welfare queen" is most often associated with Ronald Reagan who brought the idea to a national audience. During his 1976 presidential campaign, Reagan would tell the story of a woman from Chicago's South Side who was arrested for welfare fraud:

"She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000."^[4]

Since Reagan never named a particular woman, the description can be viewed as an example of dramatic hyperbole.^{[citation needed]} Critics Paul Krugman and Mark J. Green have argued that the story grossly exaggerates a minor case of welfare fraud.^{[5][6][need quotation to verify]} In 1976, the New York Times reported that a woman from Chicago, Linda Taylor, was charged with using four aliases and of cheating the government out of $8,000.^[6] She appeared again in the newspaper while the Illinois Attorney General continued investigating her case.^[7] The woman was ultimately found guilty of "welfare fraud and perjury" in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.^[8]
Reagan’s use of the term was related to a growing unease among New Right politicians about the expansion of the welfare apparatus. Touching on the cornerstones of American political philosophy (individualism and egalitarianism), the New Right sought to form a top-down coalition with big business and white working-class voters to undo the popular Great Society programs of the 1960s.^[3]
In response to Reagan's use of the term, Susan Douglas, a professor of communication studies at the University of Michigan, writes:

"He specialized in the exaggerated, outrageous tale that was almost always unsubstantiated, usually false, yet so sensational that it merited repeated recounting… And because his ‘examples’ of welfare queens drew on existing stereotypes of welfare cheats and resonated with news stories about welfare fraud, they did indeed gain real traction."^[1]

[MikeAurelius]

It's a put-down only if the receiver accepts it as such.

And btw, it isn't voluntary if it is a stipulation. That's a misconception. Voluntary means just that. No strings attached. Free choice. Your suggestion was exactly what I described it as, a form of economic genocide.

[MikeAurelius]

It would appear that many of you have bought into this:

<snipped>

Thanks, Judy!!!!

[NCspecs]

I have a realistic view of life. It is better to pay people NOT to have children they cant afford or don't want than it is to pay them to KEEP having children they can't afford or don't want. Why is that so hard to understand?

Actually, It's better to pay people to EDUCATE people on how the whole "baby-making-responsibility-for-a-life" thing works. You'd be surprised (probably you wouldn't) how many people who are "adults" but are incapable of critical thinking-they don't even have the skill set to open a checking account.

I propose something different. Educate people. We make a big stink about being the "greatest nation on earth" yet education is sorely lacking. It's obvious from many of the posts here on Optiboard; between the grammatic snafus and the head shaking over inexperienced "opticians" that there is a big problem.

This thread started with a reference to literature. My take on a dystopian future? Farenheit 451.

[Judy Canty]

Personally, I would like to see a policy enacted where anyone could receive "welfare for life" if they agreed to a voluntary free sterilization procedure prior to having children. Of course this practical solution to human misery and overcrowding could never happen.

Can I assume that "voluntary free sterilization" would also apply to men? Because, after all is said and done, it does take two.

Perhaps this would be the next "Hunger Games". We could call it "Baby Games" and only the fittest could reproduce...oh, wait...

[shanbaum]

I guess I shouldn't have used the term "welfare queen". You're right, Judy, it was always something of an urban legend. But I think that there were some generally-acknowledged problems with AFDC that may have been corrected in TANF. There are certainly substantive differences - TANF serves around 4 million households annually, compared with 12 million who participated in AFDC (if I recall correctly).

It was just a literary shortcut. I should have written something like "if it were ever possible to be dependent on welfare in the way some believe everyone who is 'on welfare' is, it is a whole lot more difficult to do so now than before". For that matter, the very idea of being "on welfare" is really confused amongst members of the public, including candidate Romney, with his 47% comment. As I've said before, the really substantial transfer of money that occurs in our country is to the very young and relatively old, from everyone else. If transfer payments are "the problem", then, the poor are not the problem. It's the damn kids, and old folks.

[Wes]

This is going to sound odd coming from me, but education by itself is not the answer. We can not educate those who are unwilling or unable to be educated. People respond to incentives. Currently, we incentivise unproductive and socially damaging behaviors, so we keep getting more of that.

[Wes]

Can I assume that "voluntary free sterilization" would also apply to men? Because, after all is said and done, it does take two.

Perhaps this would be the next "Hunger Games". We could call it "Baby Games" and only the fittest could reproduce...oh, wait...

Of course it would apply to men. You are twisting my intentions and words and you know it. Stop being disingenuous.

[NCspecs]

This is going to sound odd coming from me, but education by itself is not the answer. We can not educate those who are unwilling or unable to be educated. People respond to incentives. Currently, we incentivise unproductive and socially damaging behaviors, so we keep getting more of that.

Just curious; who would qualify as "unable to be educated"?

[Judy Canty]

My other question would be "How many of you involved in this discussion have benefited from the Earned Income Credit, AFDC, Medicaid and/or received Food Stamps?" Ask yourselves what other taxpayer funded programs have helped you. GI Bill, Veterans Benefits, FAFSA, Pell Grants, Social Security Benefits for Survivors. Did these programs help or hurt?

[Judy Canty]

I have a realistic view of life. It is better to pay people NOT to have children they cant afford or don't want than it is to pay them to KEEP having children they can't afford or don't want. Why is that so hard to understand?

Not being disingenuous at all. The "having" and "keeping" is a function of gender.