Child Tax Credit

[Okie State 3788]

I feel confident in saying that everyone who thinks they are far beyond the cutoff point AND received a deposit, doesn't actually understand the cut off point. For instance, for a family with 3 kids, the original $2,000 tax credit doesn't completely phase out until an AGI of $520,000 joint or $320,000 single.

People are fucking regarded when it comes to taxes. There's also this weird dick measuring contest on this board where everyone feels the need to talk shit on anyone receiving any kind of credit or refund. Congrats if you make more than half a mil per year. Just know that's not normal.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

10 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

So both Houses of Congress have passed huge plus ups in science funding in the last two months (Endless Frontiers in the Senate and NSF and DOE Science for the Future Acts).

Define huge. Also, if those things are huge, then what do you call the welfare programs? Is there a word for the ratio and size? Maybe whatever it is astronomers use to describe size and scope, like AU's?

I ask because what I read was In June, a bipartisan bill that would inject $90 billion into US tech and science research over five years passed the Senate. This is a step in the direction, but a it represents a a 0.1 percentage point bump, per calculations in the AESG paper, compared to 1+ percentage points.

Is this what you are referencing though?: https://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-approves-250-billion-bill-to-boost-tech-research-11623192584

Edited July 17, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[DonkeyCigars 144]

10 hours ago, Okie State said:

People are fucking regarded when it comes to taxes. There's also this weird dick measuring contest on this board where everyone feels the need to talk shit on anyone receiving any kind of credit or refund. Congrats if you make more than half a mil per year. Just know that's not normal.

This board is full of people with good educations, decent communication abilities, and a median age of like 44 years old or whatever Gen X is-- of course the median income is going to be $200k+ per person and it's just what the demographic here is. if you are an outlier (a rich person or a poor person) just take it with a grain of salt and move on. There shouldn't be any confusion about why certain topics, like tax, get discussed in a narrowly focused sense that affects most of this community.

[Bateshorn 9905]

1 hour ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Define huge. Also, if those things are huge, then what do you call the welfare programs? Is there a word for the ratio and size? Maybe whatever it is astronomers use to describe size and scope, like AU's?

I ask because what I read was In June, a bipartisan bill that would inject $90 billion into US tech and science research over five years passed the Senate. This is a step in the direction, but a it represents a a 0.1 percentage point bump, per calculations in the AESG paper, compared to 1+ percentage points.

Is this what you are referencing though?: https://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-approves-250-billion-bill-to-boost-tech-research-11623192584

Yes.  That’s Endless Frontiers, although it got renamed as it exploded in back room negotiating. That’s a lot for non health science.  NSF currently pulls $8B-ish a year.  
 

The House Bills are more modest, but also more realistic in what the appropriators are likely to actually cut checks for. We still haven’t reached the funding level growth rate envisioned in America COMPETES 1 and 2.

[Dahobbs 17447]

2 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Define huge. Also, if those things are huge, then what do you call the welfare programs the defense programs? Is there a word for the ratio and size? Maybe whatever it is astronomers use to describe size and scope, like AU's?

fify

[DonkeyCigars 144]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

fify

I guess you did, but just like free community college tuition, poor people are overwhelmingly the beneficiary of the welfare defense and job program as well. Not a lot of middle to upper middle class folks joining the services as an enlisted, non-OCS track.

The only difference is that if (acknowledging it’s a big if) the defense spending and investments are done well enough, there is a utility for everyone. Astronomical welfare for the sake of the poor has a social benefit (e.g lower crime, lower healthcare costs, etc.) in a vacuum, but on the balance when you look at the scorecard review, it’s an outsize gain for some and a net negative for others, which was my main point in taking the headline of that study with a bathtub of salt.

[Dahobbs 17447]

6 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I guess you did, but just like free community college tuition, poor people are overwhelmingly the beneficiary of the welfare defense and job program as well. Not a lot of middle to upper middle class folks joining the services as an enlisted, non-OCS track.

The only difference is that if (acknowledging it’s a big if) the defense spending and investments are done well enough, there is a utility for everyone. Astronomical welfare for the sake of the poor has a social benefit (e.g lower crime, lower healthcare costs, etc.) in a vacuum, but on the balance when you look at the scorecard review, it’s an outsize gain for some and a net negative for others, which was my main point in taking the headline of that study with a bathtub of salt.

Nonsense. Not treating people like shit is a plus everyone. If your conscience doesn't tug at you when your relative wealth is built off of and juxtaposed against nearby poverty, then you are a terrible human being. 

Also, I don't see defense spending benefiting everyone in excess of their costs. But maybe you can tell me how I've benefited by wasteful wars that have accomplished nothing but human suffering. 

At any rate, I was just responding to your welfare trolling. It is a pathetic trope for morons and those that enjoy the feeling of thinking they are superior because they are better off financially.  

Edited July 17, 2021 by Dahobbs

[DonkeyCigars 144]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Nonsense. Not treating people like shit is a plus everyone. If your conscience doesn't tug at you when your relative wealth is built off of and juxtaposed against nearby poverty, then you are a terrible human being. 

Also, I don't see defense spending benefiting everyone in excess of their costs. But maybe you can tell me how I've benefited by wasteful wars that have accomplished nothing but human suffering. 

At any rate, I was just responding to your welfare trolling. It is a pathetic trope for morons and those that enjoy the feeling of thinking they are superior because they are better off financially.  

Wasteful spending of tens of trillions upon trillions of dollars = the only way to not treat people like crap to you; got it!

There is a place for welfare and government support and spending. I don’t think anybody would argue against that.

The discussion and disagreements are around where do you draw the line? What is the floor? What is the minimum acceptable benefits? What are basic American rights?

Those are fair (and very difficult) questions and will vary on personal values and beliefs and both learned and lived experiences. To act as you do is to disqualify yourself from being someone to take seriously when discussing these matters, as you prove to have the temperament and emotional blinders of a 5 year old. You are no better than and in fact by your responses I can deduce you are an everymanTrump in that regard.

But, philosophically, I guess we all come to take on characteristics of the things we fixate upon and, whether it’s a positive love or a negative hate, the idolization and worship exerts the same energy and effort.
 

at any rate, good job becoming that which you hate.

[William_Cannon 86]

Y'all are complaining about interest free loans?

As someone who regularly dances with under payment penalties, this just adds fuel to that fire since we’ll need to give it back.

What a cluster.

[Dahobbs 17447]

1 hour ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Wasteful spending of tens of trillions upon trillions of dollars = the only way to not treat people like crap to you; got it!

There is a place for welfare and government support and spending. I don’t think anybody would argue against that.

The discussion and disagreements are around where do you draw the line? What is the floor? What is the minimum acceptable benefits? What are basic American rights?

Those are fair (and very difficult) questions and will vary on personal values and beliefs and both learned and lived experiences. To act as you do is to disqualify yourself from being someone to take seriously when discussing these matters, as you prove to have the temperament and emotional blinders of a 5 year old. You are no better than and in fact by your responses I can deduce you are an everymanTrump in that regard.

But, philosophically, I guess we all come to take on characteristics of the things we fixate upon and, whether it’s a positive love or a negative hate, the idolization and worship exerts the same energy and effort.
 

at any rate, good job becoming that which you hate.

I agree, wastefully spending trillions is a bad idea. But I don't think providing direct funding to American families is wasteful. Certainly, I don't find them as wasteful as trillions in defense spending. There may be more efficient ways to use the money, but at least the funding directly to families is providing an unqualified good (reduction in poverty, food, education, opportunity, etc). Military spending provides some good in the form of employment and self defense (which I do think is important). But it also provides a lot of bad in the form of needless wars and death. 

I don't know what the rest of your rant has to do with anything. I was responding to your suggestion that spending on the poor doesn't benefit everyone. I pointed out that is only true if you don't derive any moral or personal satisfaction out of improving the circumstances of those around you or if you in fact take some satisfaction in others not being as well off as you. 

I mean, what exactly about my post did you find so offensive? Do you not derive any benefit from helping others? 

Edited July 17, 2021 by Dahobbs

[DonkeyCigars 144]

13 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I agree, wastefully spending trillions is a bad idea. But I don't think providing direct funding to American families is wasteful. Certainly, I don't find them as wasteful as trillions in defense spending. There may be more efficient ways to use the money, but at least the funding directly to families is providing an unqualified good (reduction in poverty, food, education, opportunity, etc). Military spending provides some good in the form of employment and self defense (which I do think is important). But it also provides a lot of bad in the form of needless wars and death. 

I don't know what the rest of your rant has to do with anything. I was responding to your suggestion that spending on the poor doesn't benefit everyone. I pointed out that is only true if you don't derive any moral or personal satisfaction out of improving the circumstances of those around you or if you in fact take some satisfaction in others not being as well off as you. 

I mean, what exactly about my post did you find so offensive? Do you not derive any benefit from helping others? 

Sure I do. But I think there are differences in gain (I.e marginal versus absolute) and the law of diminishing returns can be applied to moral value and gains as well as material. It appears you don’t seem to think that.

And I apologize for potentially mischaracterizing you earlier if I read you wrong— I do think there is room for differences and for folks to exist on a spectrum of morality or 9-block of beliefs (e.g. lawful good, chaotic good, etc.) and we don’t need complete consensus on subjective values and beliefs to get along and respect one another. So again, sorry.

[Burt 4062]

Its probably been discussed here but I dont care to sort through the posts of the mouth breathers...but why did I get a check in the mail rather than it being directly deposited into my account?

[dcar00 14035]

On 7/16/2021 at 9:54 AM, Dahobbs said:

I agree, the republicans are attacking education. 

Direct investment in the poor will pay itself back easily. And that investment can take several forms, including investment in education for the poor or direct stimulus to allow the poor to take advantage of the options we want to give them. Or did you think a poor person was going to choose college over eating? 

Direct investment in the poor. that's a new one.

this is just one more step to UBI, which will of course end up never being enough.  We really should just short cut all this and have employers send paychecks and profits to the govt for disbursement.

[dcar00 14035]

On 7/16/2021 at 4:35 PM, Dahobbs said:

Including the poor in the term "society" seems dishonest to you? Ok.

And it's not like it didn't expressly state the information you want:

"The present discounted value of current and future benefits for society equals roughly $810 billion, or more than eight times initial costs. Recipients of the transfer gain $860 billion. Taxpayers recoup $51 billion of their initial investment of $100 billion."

 

and social security was never going to get means tested or become insolvent.  the numbers like this never add up in the end but it sure sounds good.

[Fudge Nuggets 19151]

9 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

poor people are overwhelmingly the beneficiary of the welfare defense and job program as well.

This is a problem, not a feature.  For a significant portion of the male, minority, poor population enlisting and jail are about their two biggest options.

[Dahobbs 17447]

7 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

and social security was never going to get means tested or become insolvent.  the numbers like this never add up in the end but it sure sounds good.

What does that have to do with anything? My point is that no one is presenting this as a self-funded or self-payed for program. It is a social investment, but a taxpayer expenditure. From a federal revenue perspective, it returns 50% of its cost (according to this report). I just don't know why that should matter. It provides a societal benefit well in excess of its cost and we can afford it. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19151]

15 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

We really should just short cut all this and have employers send paychecks and profits to the govt for disbursement.

Nah, just a portion of it.  Say around 37% since corporations are people too.

[Dahobbs 17447]

17 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

Direct investment in the poor. that's a new one.

It's sad that you feel that way. 

[dcar00 14035]

4 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Nah, just a portion of it.  Say around 37% since corporations are people too.

nah, all of it.  why 37? why not 52? why not 100?  why are we minimizing the direct investment in the poor in any sense?

[dcar00 14035]

6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It's sad that you feel that way. 

get over yourself.  I don't feel any way.  why not just say we need to have no poor people so we should just evenly distribute all revenue.

[Dahobbs 17447]

15 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

get over yourself.  I don't feel any way.  why not just say we need to have no poor people so we should just evenly distribute all revenue.

You're the one that ridiculed the idea of investing in the poor. If you don't feel that way, don't post it. 

As to your second point, as the richest nation on the planet, we should have no poor people. But I don't think the solution is to evenly distribute revenue. I know you think everyone on the "left" is communist. But the truth is I'm a huge believer in the power of the market to efficiently allocate resources. But, sometimes the market needs help to do the most good. 

Edited July 18, 2021 by Dahobbs

[Fudge Nuggets 19151]

2 hours ago, dcar00 said:

nah, all of it.  why 37? why not 52? why not 100?  why are we minimizing the direct investment in the poor in any sense?

Because that would be stupid.

[F250 28691]

1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Because that would be stupid.

Why take a bath if I am going to get dirty again. Absurd things children say.

 

[Dahobbs 17447]

8 hours ago, F250 said:

Why take a bath if I am going to get dirty again. Absurd things children say.

 

He's already given the straw man fallacy a good work out so decided to try out the slippery slope fallacy for good measure. 

[936horn 910]

The fuck? I opted out of this but I just got a check in the mail addressed to my wife citing the August payment of child tax credit. I file our taxes as MFJ, my wife has zero income and yet was I supposed to opt her out as well? Not the end of the world but just annoying now since I’ll have to pay it back come tax time

Edited August 20, 2021 by 936horn