Mike Lee's family tax credit

[The Thriller]

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865586516/Sen-Mike-Lee-pushing-for-family-tax-credit.html

Interesting proposed idea from Utah's favorite Tea Party Senator. Legislation that will not only increase the national debt but inflate those 47 percenters who pay no income tax to an even larger number. What's funny to me is that Mike Lee has clearly stated how he doesn't want to pay anyone to have sex (in his resistance to have birth control covered by in insurance plans by religions) but is happy to force the rest of us to pay for those who want to have sex to have kids. Interesting.

The legislation does not yet have a co-sponsor, he said, and he has not discussed the bill with Senate leadership.

"We'll just be introducing it. That's typically what one does," Lee said. "One introduces it, makes a pitch and then gathers support."

Lee said the fiscal impact of his proposal is still being determined, and an estimate of lost revenue as a result of the tax credit was not available Monday. But because the proposal would create a more stable, growth-friendly tax code, it could contribute to a more robust economy and greater revenue collection by the federal government, he said.

Tim Chambless, an associate professor of political science at the University of Utah and outreach coordinator with the Hinkley Institute of Politics, said Lee's proposal faces an uphill battle.

"This proposal is something that basically is a press release," Chambless said. "It has no chance of passing under the current conditions."

A tax credit like the one Lee is proposing would have the greatest benefit for large families and would likely be supported most by parents of several children, he said. It would likely be better received in Utah

 

[Harambe]

I don't quite understand this. Maybe someone can assist?

Our taxes help pay for our government and infrastructure. Look at schooling, specifically. The more kids you have, the more kids have to go through the educational system. So that should mean MORE taxes, not less, to cover the extra burden on our schools.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

 

[The Thriller]

I don't quite understand this. Maybe someone can assist?

Our taxes help pay for our government and infrastructure. Look at schooling, specifically. The more kids you have, the more kids have to go through the educational system. So that should mean MORE taxes, not less, to cover the extra burden on our schools.

I don't understand this either.

And coming from the same guy who was supposedly concerned with debt and entitlements? Sounds like this only adds more debt and more entitlement.

 

[franklin]

I don't quite understand this. Maybe someone can assist?

Our taxes help pay for our government and infrastructure. Look at schooling, specifically. The more kids you have, the more kids have to go through the educational system. So that should mean MORE taxes, not less, to cover the extra burden on our schools.

You will pay your fair/equal share might be good in theory, but it's horrible in practice. Schools, for example, are an investment that benefits everyone in society. Excluding the poor through price increases will cost us more than paying for their education up front.

"Now let us see what the present primary schools cost us, on the supposition that all the children of 10. 11. & 12. years old are, as they ought to be, at school: and, if they are not, so much the work is the system; for they will be untaught, and their ignorance & vices will, in future life cost us much dearer in their consequences, than it would have done, in their correction, by a good education." --Thomas Jefferson

 

[♪alt13]

You will pay your fair/equal share might be good in theory, but it's horrible in practice. Schools, for example, are an investment that benefits everyone in society. Excluding the poor through price increases will cost us more than paying for their education up front.

"Now let us see what the present primary schools cost us, on the supposition that all the children of 10. 11. & 12. years old are, as they ought to be, at school: and, if they are not, so much the work is the system; for they will be untaught, and their ignorance & vices will, in future life cost us much dearer in their consequences, than it would have done, in their correction, by a good education." --Thomas Jefferson

I don't think anyone is saying that we should get rid of public school or not let people enroll their third or fourth child.

Giving people an incentive to have more children than they can financially manage is a bad idea in a world where every natural and public system is stressed by an increasing population.

 

[Harambe]

You will pay your fair/equal share might be good in theory, but it's horrible in practice. Schools, for example, are an investment that benefits everyone in society. Excluding the poor through price increases will cost us more than paying for their education up front.

"Now let us see what the present primary schools cost us, on the supposition that all the children of 10. 11. & 12. years old are, as they ought to be, at school: and, if they are not, so much the work is the system; for they will be untaught, and their ignorance & vices will, in future life cost us much dearer in their consequences, than it would have done, in their correction, by a good education." --Thomas Jefferson

I don't think you're following the line.

I don't have any children, I'm not married, and I get raped come tax time. Luckily, I claim 0 all year and managed to come out way ahead using just the standard deduction. That being observed, I will gladly stay at 0, and continue taking it from behind if it helps keep our schools running. I'm not advising pay your fair share, I'm advising common sense.

Many people have more kids than they can afford. Take your pick of reasons(too stupid to use birth control, get too drunk and forget about it, coercion by a certain local religion into believing that we should be repopulating the Earth to the furthest extent), it doesn't matter. If you can't afford to have children with an already generous tax benefit that I, the single male that uses by far less of the tax dollars I put in, will likely never have, you shouldn't be having more children.

Pointing this all back to paying your fair share/not paying your fair share is not where I'm going with this at all, it's just an observation on top of the real issue:

Why do we want the government to foot the bill for America to populate an already overpopulated planet?

 

[franklin]

I do get that, Roach. It was more of a tangent on the example you chose that I took exception with.

I have plenty of issues with the way health insurance premiums are covered by employers. Why should the single guy pay adjusted premiums for the guy with 2 kids, and why should the guy with 2 kids pay the same premiums as the guy with 7 (who bitches daily to me about gay guys shacking up to "game the system" when that's exactly what he's doing). Why should the worker who doesn't pay the $330 of $1200/month total benefit not get a $870/mo raise?

My point is I'm very much in favor of removing moral hazard from our system, but I also don't see how framing it in poor terms helps get to that end.