Welfare Recipients Now Outnumber Workers

[Neotrotsky]

Somehow I don't care . Things to take it up with Obama and the Democrat Party because it was them that failed them

That is perfect

Of course you don't. You only "care" when its small poor people that you can kick around. When its McDonalds you be quiet.

Fuck honor now lol

No, we were against Obama care. Then, because of Obamacare, people don't work past 30 hours. But the liberals say that's fine, I guess. I say, increase the minimum wage, liberals say "no." Okay, you have a better plan, somehow.

We try to make it better for the poorest of us all, but the Democrats just want to keep them in their place. We want them to work if they can, make more money that way than getting government checks and feel good about themselves. At some time, we just sigh, and say, okay fuck it. we don't care anymore.

Sure

One can see that all the left's programs have not helped minorities get out of poverty.
No doubt it empowers politicians

Worse than apartheid: Black in Obama's American

Black South Africans under apartheid had a median net worth about 6.8% that of white South Africans.

The average white household iin the US has a net worth of $110,729.
Black Americans’ median net worth is less than 5 percent that of white Americans.

$4,955 to exact


h/t Kevin D. Williamson

 

[eagle1462010]

What was one of the primary causes of the outsourcing of jobs...............................

Anybody remember this guy............................The same one that actually helped get Clinton Elected because Bush Sr. lost votes to him.........

Giant Sucking sound..................

Looks Like Ross Perot Was Right About The ?Giant Sucking Sound? - Business Insider

However, the goods balance of trade for the U.S. with Mexico has been negative and steadily growing over the years. In 2010 it amounted to $61.6 billion, which was 9.5% of the total goods trade deficit last year.

So Perot has been vindicated in his opinion; expanded free trade has not been accompanied by an increase in jobs in the U.S. relative to the vast numbers of jobs created in the rest of the world as NAFTA became just a stepping stone on the pathway to global commerce.

Just how much the giant vacuum has been collecting has been calculated at GEI Analysis. The results are shown in the following two graphs. The first shows manufacturing jobs lost each year starting with 1992 that are equivalent to the U.S. goods trade deficits over the past 19 years. The second shows the cumulative job loss, amounting to almost 29 million jobs by the end of 2010.



Read more: Looks Like Ross Perot Was Right About The ?Giant Sucking Sound? - Business Insider

 

[alan1]

21 Statistics About The Explosive Growth Of Poverty In America That Everyone Should Know

Yes, corporate profits are at levels never seen before, but so is the number of Americans on food stamps. Yes, housing prices have started to rebound a little bit (especially in wealthy areas), but there are also more than a million public school students in America that are homeless. That is the first time that has ever happened in U.S. history. So should we measure our economic progress by the false stock market bubble that has been inflated by Ben Bernanke's reckless money printing, or should we measure our economic progress by how the poor and the middle class are doing? Because if we look at how average Americans are doing these days, then there is not much to be excited about. In fact, poverty continues to experience explosive growth in the United States and the middle class continues to shrink. Sadly, the truth is that things are not getting better for most Americans. With each passing year the level of economic suffering in this country continues to go up, and we haven't even reached the next major wave of the economic collapse yet. When that strikes, the level of economic pain in this nation is going to be off the charts.

1 - According to the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately one out of every six Americans is now living in poverty. The number of Americans living in poverty is now at a level not seen since the 1960s.

2 - When you add in the number of low income Americans it is even more sobering. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 146 million Americans are either "poor" or "low income".

3 - Today, approximately 20 percent of all children in the United States are living in poverty. Incredibly, a higher percentage of children is living in poverty in America today than was the case back in 1975.

4 - It may be hard to believe, but approximately 57 percent of all children in the United States are currently living in homes that are either considered to be either "low income" or impoverished.

comment

Read the rest or disregard, that is simply up to you. Our Standard of Living has been in decline for quite a while now. Poverty is increasing, and the Middle Class is shrinking. The value of the dollar has been in steady decline for 4 decades. We have the bubble Machine of Wall Street going again with no real results with economic output averaging only 1.7 per year growth in the long term.

All those billions of dollars being spent on "The war on poverty", and we have nothing to show for it.

Yet again, I defer to a man from over 200 years ago,

“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” ~ Ben Franklin

How do you know whether we have anything to show for it when you can't know how it would have been had no anti-poverty programs ever been implemented??

Good point, I can't actually KNOW that. Never the less, the poverty rate has remained insignificantly changed for the past forty years.

We must remember that that graph is a percentage of the population. It doesn't mean that it is the same people in poverty today that were in poverty 5, 10 or even 20 years ago. People move in and out of income classes over time. I know I have. While my experience is merely anecdotal, I can tell you, 20 years ago I was a single parent barely making ends meet (in the second lowest quin-tile in family income and near the bottom of that quin-tile), but today, I am at the high end of the fourth quin-tile. The reasons for my change are varied, and they run the gamut from no longer supporting children to being paid more as a highly experienced employee. Now then, my children have moved in the opposite direction. At the point they moved out of my house, they were living in a high fourth quin-tile household. However, once they were on their own and self supporting, they dropped into the second level quin-tile for household income. That is mostly because they are young and inexperienced in the work force, they cannot command top wages like I can. My youngest daughter is soon to be married. The moment she becomes married, her and her husbands combined income will immediately vault them both from the second quin-tile into the third quin-tile for household income.

The poverty rate remains pretty consistent, but it isn't the same exact people over time.

 

[beagle9]

Shocked?

I'm not. Not really. It is, afterall, the goal of the democrat party

Census Bureau: Welfare Recipients Now Outnumber Full-Time Workers…

Work harder everyone, millions of Obamabots are depending on you.

Via CNS News:

Americans who were recipients of means-tested government benefits in 2011 outnumbered year-round full-time workers, according to data released this month by the Census Bureau.

They also out-numbered the total population of the Philippines.

There were 108,592,000 people in the United States in the fourth quarter of 2011 who were recipients of one or more means-tested government benefit programs, the Census Bureau said in data released this week. Meanwhile, according to the Census Bureau, there were 101,716,000 people who worked full-time year round in 2011. That included both private-sector and government workers.

That means there were about 1.07 people getting some form of means-tested government benefit for every 1 person working full-time year round.

- See more at: Weasel Zippers | Scouring the bowels of the internet | Weasel Zippers

This is the fall out from Nafta and going Global full Monty in this nation, wherefore it released the business sector from their responsibilities to do what is right by their countrymen and their nation always in the scheme of things, just as doing what they think was best for their business interest as well in concert with. Both could always be done hand in hand and side by side, but we by the hundreds of thousands were cast into the shadows of it all.

Sadly they chose their business interest and greed over their nations balancing of the books properly, and it's security along with the balancing of the population through dis-incentivizing when needed or incentivizing when needed. They chose to dump thousands onto the gooberments roles without even a blink of their eye, meanwhile they became filthy rich beyond their wildest imaginations in the process.

The gooberments response is to make the rich pay for it all through higher taxation on them who control so much wealth now, and they want this in order to pay for the fall out, but the gooberment managing the fall out of people is always a huge task in these situations created, and it has no idea what it is doing when it does it most of the time, but what is realized in the process of this situation, was that it learned that these people who had to become dependent on them (the gooberment), were in fact very useful to them in the form of power through the vote down the road a ways. I guess this how one side tends to get the riches back for the people, but where does those riches go next is a real mystery, because poverty remains no matter whose side controls the money at any given time.

You see if you give them (the out casted in society) what they need instead of them working for it, then they will become loyal to the hand that is feeding them quickly, and not to the ones who had abandoned them or sidelined them in the way that they had been sidelined. This is where we are at again today, in the midst of the fall out from going global, the deregulation, monopolies being created, lopsided trade or one sided trade in some cases, fall out from Nafta, lying down with communist governments in order to use their slave labor to create American products out of site of we the people, who would just purchase those products without caring how it was made or where it had come from (remember Nike), and also being dependent on oil for to long from the middle east without a balanced plan to combat oil tycoons who have only their global interest at stake in the game, in which has been another problem for this nation. Do they really have our nations interest in the game also when conducting their business or is it about profits mostly for those of them who are involved ? On and on it all goes, and where it all should stop, well nobody knows, but it is interesting to watch it all take place just how it was all predicted it would take place.

 

[Neotrotsky]

All those billions of dollars being spent on "The war on poverty", and we have nothing to show for it.

Yet again, I defer to a man from over 200 years ago,

“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” ~ Ben Franklin

How do you know whether we have anything to show for it when you can't know how it would have been had no anti-poverty programs ever been implemented??

Good point, I can't actually KNOW that. Never the less, the poverty rate has remained insignificantly changed for the past forty years.

We must remember that that graph is a percentage of the population. It doesn't mean that it is the same people in poverty today that were in poverty 5, 10 or even 20 years ago. People move in and out of income classes over time. I know I have. While my experience is merely anecdotal, I can tell you, 20 years ago I was a single parent barely making ends meet (in the second lowest quin-tile in family income and near the bottom of that quin-tile), but today, I am at the high end of the fourth quin-tile. The reasons for my change are varied, and they run the gamut from no longer supporting children to being paid more as a highly experienced employee. Now then, my children have moved in the opposite direction. At the point they moved out of my house, they were living in a high fourth quin-tile household. However, once they were on their own and self supporting, they dropped into the second level quin-tile for household income. That is mostly because they are young and inexperienced in the work force, they cannot command top wages like I can. My youngest daughter is soon to be married. The moment she becomes married, her and her husbands combined income will immediately vault them both from the second quin-tile into the third quin-tile for household income.

The poverty rate remains pretty consistent, but it isn't the same exact people over time.

Over 15 trillion has been spent since 1965 and
the poverty rates are about the same.

The Great Society was claimed by some on the left
it would end poverty in our lifetime.
We just didn't know they meant for someone born in 1965

 

[NYcarbineer]

All those billions of dollars being spent on "The war on poverty", and we have nothing to show for it.

Yet again, I defer to a man from over 200 years ago,

“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” ~ Ben Franklin

How do you know whether we have anything to show for it when you can't know how it would have been had no anti-poverty programs ever been implemented??

Good point, I can't actually KNOW that. Never the less, the poverty rate has remained insignificantly changed for the past forty years.

We must remember that that graph is a percentage of the population. It doesn't mean that it is the same people in poverty today that were in poverty 5, 10 or even 20 years ago. People move in and out of income classes over time. I know I have. While my experience is merely anecdotal, I can tell you, 20 years ago I was a single parent barely making ends meet (in the second lowest quin-tile in family income and near the bottom of that quin-tile), but today, I am at the high end of the fourth quin-tile. The reasons for my change are varied, and they run the gamut from no longer supporting children to being paid more as a highly experienced employee. Now then, my children have moved in the opposite direction. At the point they moved out of my house, they were living in a high fourth quin-tile household. However, once they were on their own and self supporting, they dropped into the second level quin-tile for household income. That is mostly because they are young and inexperienced in the work force, they cannot command top wages like I can. My youngest daughter is soon to be married. The moment she becomes married, her and her husbands combined income will immediately vault them both from the second quin-tile into the third quin-tile for household income.

The poverty rate remains pretty consistent, but it isn't the same exact people over time.

In 1965 almost anywhere in America you could walk out of your high school graduation and, if you chose, go get a good paying job in industry/manufacturing, a job that would pay enough to support yourself, and a spouse, and kids in at least a working/middle class living.
Today almost nowhere in America can you do that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I was saying that your definition of 'child tax credit' was wrong

Since they are two different credits- Child Tax Credit and Additional Child Tax Credit
I also pointed out that since Additional Child Tax Credit is netted out against SS taxes and Medicare taxes
in combination with all other credits,
the gov't never has a negative cash flow with the tax payer.

I know what it does. Nothing you say however changes the fact that it is a means tested government benefit;

it's the government paying part of a bill you owe that the government does not do for people of higher incomes,

or for that matter, for people without children.

 

[Neotrotsky]

A bill they made up- almost like protection money from the mob
"I'm giving you a break today- only give 50 bucks instead of a hundred"
Keeping more of your own money is not a subsidy
unless one thinks all money belongs to the gov't


The cut is around $70,000; I think for married couples.

Over that is higher income?

Again
flat tax no deductions
I am for it

 

[eagle1462010]

I was saying that your definition of 'child tax credit' was wrong

Since they are two different credits- Child Tax Credit and Additional Child Tax Credit
I also pointed out that since Additional Child Tax Credit is netted out against SS taxes and Medicare taxes
in combination with all other credits,
the gov't never has a negative cash flow with the tax payer.

I know what it does. Nothing you say however changes the fact that it is a means tested government benefit;

it's the government paying part of a bill you owe that the government does not do for people of higher incomes,

or for that matter, for people without children.

riddle me this......................

A family in poverty making say 20k with 4 kids..................
At the end of the year, they get the EIC and Child Credits.............
Pay 0 in Federal Taxes, but get a 7k check from the Gov't via the credits..............

Which is welfare.......................Every year.............Cost's a couple of hundred Billion a year in Revenues.............

Is it right to pay 0 in taxes but get a check that's about 40% of your yearly income.........

 

[RKMBrown]

Our poverty rate is complete BS. The number of people living in poverty does not include any of our assistance programs. The truth is the only people actually in poverty are the ones that want to be that way. The rest receive enough freebies to live just fine above the poverty level. Many people that qualify for assistance live better than people who don't and/or don't collect assistance. If every family that is below the poverty line receives money to put them above the poverty line, why then are they still counted in the poverty rate? Oh yeah, because our poverty assistance programs are hand-outs that never really raise anyone out of poverty, they just pay people to remain in poverty. Duh.

Our effective poverty rate is ZERO.

 

[JoeNormal]

Most working poor people work for companies that rake in untold billions of dollars, so the real frustration is why are you and me having to help these corporations to subsidize their employees?

Walmart is one of the largest employers in America, if not the largest. And yet a great deal of their workforce is part of the number of people who need additional assistance.

If their employees were making $5 more an hour, less of us would have to help out.

Too bad Republicans are against raising the minimum wage though. A lot of them don't even believe there should be one. Republicans are the most hypocritical bums on this whole issue.

We could solve a lot of this problem by simply paying our working poor more fairly for the house they put in at corporations that have never done better for themselves. They can still be mega rich AND make their employees' lives better AND lessen the burden for you and me.

It's a triple-whammy to raise the minimum wage in a meaningful way, but Republicans would never go for it, because they would rather be able to push this issue forever than to actually fix it. That's all they're worth these days; just hypocritical complaining in order to get themselves all riled up.

Why do you commies always feel that you and others deserve money others earned?

Mainly because in most cases, they didn't earn it.

 

[alan1]

How do you know whether we have anything to show for it when you can't know how it would have been had no anti-poverty programs ever been implemented??

Good point, I can't actually KNOW that. Never the less, the poverty rate has remained insignificantly changed for the past forty years.

We must remember that that graph is a percentage of the population. It doesn't mean that it is the same people in poverty today that were in poverty 5, 10 or even 20 years ago. People move in and out of income classes over time. I know I have. While my experience is merely anecdotal, I can tell you, 20 years ago I was a single parent barely making ends meet (in the second lowest quin-tile in family income and near the bottom of that quin-tile), but today, I am at the high end of the fourth quin-tile. The reasons for my change are varied, and they run the gamut from no longer supporting children to being paid more as a highly experienced employee. Now then, my children have moved in the opposite direction. At the point they moved out of my house, they were living in a high fourth quin-tile household. However, once they were on their own and self supporting, they dropped into the second level quin-tile for household income. That is mostly because they are young and inexperienced in the work force, they cannot command top wages like I can. My youngest daughter is soon to be married. The moment she becomes married, her and her husbands combined income will immediately vault them both from the second quin-tile into the third quin-tile for household income.

The poverty rate remains pretty consistent, but it isn't the same exact people over time.

In 1965 almost anywhere in America you could walk out of your high school graduation and, if you chose, go get a good paying job in industry/manufacturing, a job that would pay enough to support yourself, and a spouse, and kids in at least a working/middle class living.
Today almost nowhere in America can you do that.

I would argue that in 1965 a high-school education actually meant that one had obtained a level of education that is far higher than the high-school education of today. Today, they just pass the kids on.
Yay education <sarcasm intended>. But I digress.

Are you a proponent of these supposed "good manufacturing jobs"? Because, as of yet, I haven't seen a single politician wanting THEIR child working in manufacturing, just your child or my child working a job like that.
Would you rather your child work manufacturing shirts in a textile factory or providing a service such as medical care (doctor or nurse), accounting (financial officer for the manufacturer) or legal (attorney)? Perhaps you want your children working on an oil well, drilling holes in the ground as opposed to being the geologist that finds the oil well or engineer that designs the equipment for drilling.

It just cracks me up when people(politicians primarily) speak of "good manufacturing jobs" when they absolutely would prefer that their own children grow up to become doctors, lawyers and other professionals far from laborers in a manufacturing plant.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Good point, I can't actually KNOW that. Never the less, the poverty rate has remained insignificantly changed for the past forty years.

We must remember that that graph is a percentage of the population. It doesn't mean that it is the same people in poverty today that were in poverty 5, 10 or even 20 years ago. People move in and out of income classes over time. I know I have. While my experience is merely anecdotal, I can tell you, 20 years ago I was a single parent barely making ends meet (in the second lowest quin-tile in family income and near the bottom of that quin-tile), but today, I am at the high end of the fourth quin-tile. The reasons for my change are varied, and they run the gamut from no longer supporting children to being paid more as a highly experienced employee. Now then, my children have moved in the opposite direction. At the point they moved out of my house, they were living in a high fourth quin-tile household. However, once they were on their own and self supporting, they dropped into the second level quin-tile for household income. That is mostly because they are young and inexperienced in the work force, they cannot command top wages like I can. My youngest daughter is soon to be married. The moment she becomes married, her and her husbands combined income will immediately vault them both from the second quin-tile into the third quin-tile for household income.

The poverty rate remains pretty consistent, but it isn't the same exact people over time.

In 1965 almost anywhere in America you could walk out of your high school graduation and, if you chose, go get a good paying job in industry/manufacturing, a job that would pay enough to support yourself, and a spouse, and kids in at least a working/middle class living.
Today almost nowhere in America can you do that.

I would argue that in 1965 a high-school education actually meant that one had obtained a level of education that is far higher than the high-school education of today. Today, they just pass the kids on.
Yay education <sarcasm intended>. But I digress.

Are you a proponent of these supposed "good manufacturing jobs"? Because, as of yet, I haven't seen a single politician wanting THEIR child working in manufacturing, just your child or my child working a job like that.
Would you rather your child work manufacturing shirts in a textile factory or providing a service such as medical care (doctor or nurse), accounting (financial officer for the manufacturer) or legal (attorney)? Perhaps you want your children working on an oil well, drilling holes in the ground as opposed to being the geologist that finds the oil well or engineer that designs the equipment for drilling.

It just cracks me up when people(politicians primarily) speak of "good manufacturing jobs" when they absolutely would prefer that their own children grow up to become doctors, lawyers and other professionals far from laborers in a manufacturing plant.

I know for a fact that around here, when manufacturing jobs were plentiful, people wished for something more than that for their kids;

nowadays, around here, people just wish those manufacturing jobs were back.

Not everyone can be a geologist or a doctor. The greatness of a society should be measured not by what the exceptional people can achieve,

but by what the ordinary folks can achieve.

You imply that there was something wrong with our society back when ordinary, average people could make a good living in a factory.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A bill they made up- almost like protection money from the mob
"I'm giving you a break today- only give 50 bucks instead of a hundred"
Keeping more of your own money is not a subsidy
unless one thinks all money belongs to the gov't


The cut is around $70,000; I think for married couples.

Over that is higher income?

Again
flat tax no deductions
I am for it

You're for raising taxes on the poor.

The nation's tax bill is in place through legislation. We have laws in this country. Tax laws included.

With the income tax, everyone starts out with a gross income, and a set of tax rates that they are subject to.

From there, each person qualifies or doesn't qualify for certain reductions either to that gross income, or to that tax rate liability.

When you get a tax credit for having children and being under a certain amount of income, the government is reducing your tax bill. That is means tested benefit; it is money you no longer owe because of your particular income level - plus the fact of your having children.

People who don't have children or make too much money then pick up the tab for your benefit.

 

[RKMBrown]

In 1965 almost anywhere in America you could walk out of your high school graduation and, if you chose, go get a good paying job in industry/manufacturing, a job that would pay enough to support yourself, and a spouse, and kids in at least a working/middle class living.
Today almost nowhere in America can you do that.

I would argue that in 1965 a high-school education actually meant that one had obtained a level of education that is far higher than the high-school education of today. Today, they just pass the kids on.
Yay education <sarcasm intended>. But I digress.

Are you a proponent of these supposed "good manufacturing jobs"? Because, as of yet, I haven't seen a single politician wanting THEIR child working in manufacturing, just your child or my child working a job like that.
Would you rather your child work manufacturing shirts in a textile factory or providing a service such as medical care (doctor or nurse), accounting (financial officer for the manufacturer) or legal (attorney)? Perhaps you want your children working on an oil well, drilling holes in the ground as opposed to being the geologist that finds the oil well or engineer that designs the equipment for drilling.

It just cracks me up when people(politicians primarily) speak of "good manufacturing jobs" when they absolutely would prefer that their own children grow up to become doctors, lawyers and other professionals far from laborers in a manufacturing plant.

I know for a fact that around here, when manufacturing jobs were plentiful, people wished for something more than that for their kids;

nowadays, around here, people just wish those manufacturing jobs were back.

Not everyone can be a geologist or a doctor. The greatness of a society should be measured not by what the exceptional people can achieve,

but by what the ordinary folks can achieve.

You imply that there was something wrong with our society back when ordinary, average people could make a good living in a factory.

We still have factories, duh. Just because your dumb ass democrat location ran off the jobs does not mean smart conservative locations don't have factories churning out products for profit.

 

[thanatos144]

Originally posted by soulja
Your swearing proves that i'm correct after all!

"You cant handle the truth" too bad Tom Cruise cant save Americans in real life. Ignorance is bliss you shall remain in it.

Don't reply with anything educated or factual, that would be too much trouble. And oh I didn't know that Canadians don't use the occasional swear words, get real.

According to whom?

 

[auditor0007]

Shocked?

I'm not. Not really. It is, afterall, the goal of the democrat party

Census Bureau: Welfare Recipients Now Outnumber Full-Time Workers…

Work harder everyone, millions of Obamabots are depending on you.

Via CNS News:

Americans who were recipients of means-tested government benefits in 2011 outnumbered year-round full-time workers, according to data released this month by the Census Bureau.

They also out-numbered the total population of the Philippines.

There were 108,592,000 people in the United States in the fourth quarter of 2011 who were recipients of one or more means-tested government benefit programs, the Census Bureau said in data released this week. Meanwhile, according to the Census Bureau, there were 101,716,000 people who worked full-time year round in 2011. That included both private-sector and government workers.

That means there were about 1.07 people getting some form of means-tested government benefit for every 1 person working full-time year round.

- See more at: Weasel Zippers | Scouring the bowels of the internet | Weasel Zippers

First of all it counts everyone in the household even if only one member receives benefits. Secondly, it does not account for the fact that many of these people work full-time. They just don't work one full-time job; they work multiple part-time jobs and still don't make enough to keep a roof over their heads and feed their kids. Does the report state how many of these people actually work? Any single parent who works full-time for minimum wage is going to be on government assistance. The fast food companies love the subsidies.

 

[Vox]

The extreme left views all money as belonging to the gov't

I know, but that is a LIE

 

[Vox]

A bill they made up- almost like protection money from the mob
"I'm giving you a break today- only give 50 bucks instead of a hundred"
Keeping more of your own money is not a subsidy
unless one thinks all money belongs to the gov't


The cut is around $70,000; I think for married couples.

Over that is higher income?

Again
flat tax no deductions
I am for it

You're for raising taxes on the poor.

The nation's tax bill is in place through legislation. We have laws in this country. Tax laws included.

With the income tax, everyone starts out with a gross income, and a set of tax rates that they are subject to.

From there, each person qualifies or doesn't qualify for certain reductions either to that gross income, or to that tax rate liability.

When you get a tax credit for having children and being under a certain amount of income, the government is reducing your tax bill. That is means tested benefit; it is money you no longer owe because of your particular income level - plus the fact of your having children.

People who don't have children or make too much money then pick up the tab for your benefit.

poor do not pay taxes in this country, so don't lie.

having a tax break is not getting robbed by the government - and that has nothing to do with a handout from the government.
giving tax credits for children( and not to everybody - it stops at about 40K) is beneficial to the country - because it is encouraging people to raise children- and if people would stop having children - we will have disaster like Europe or japan, when there is not enough workers to feed the retirees.

 

[auditor0007]

The extreme left views all money as belonging to the gov't

I know, but that is a LIE

Ah, the stupid shit cons believe.