Tax return is nearly $3000 LESS because I worked part-time last year!

[mtblujeans]

My DH used to work from home when we first bought this house. He deducted part of the house (mortgage) for his office area. Then, he found out that - when we eventually sell this house - he would have to deduct that same percentage of the house from our net gain. He moved out right away and rented an office. Perhaps those who are deducting a percentage of the mortgage as expense when working from home already know about that....?

 

[HHSTigerFan]

So what about the new home buyer credit? The $8k credit that many got for buying a house...is that welfare too?

Was against that too... again, why exclude people at a certain income level?

 

[ohlas]

So what about the new home buyer credit? The $8k credit that many got for buying a house...is that welfare too?

yes its government welfare to take money in any form from the government.
(unless u work for them) all the government is doing is trying to control what you do with your money, in most of the tax codes... 8k credit for buying a house because they want people to buy houses what about 10 years from now when the houseing market is booming will there be 8k credit...nope...

 

[luvsJack]

And its the govts job to take money from one person and give it to another? Really??[/]

Have you ever lived on money that qualifies you for EIC? We have a responsiblity to make sure everyone in our country is able to eat, have shelter and clothing. Without that check once a year, there are many that would not be able to pay for the gas to heat thier home or their child's school clothes for the next year.

I am so sick of hearing "just work 5 jobs and work yourself out of it". And if you are a single mom with 3 small children, what are you supposed to do with them? I don't know about where you live, but here there are no overnight child care centers. And not everyone has a friend or relative that can do it. I was lucky, I was able to work 2 jobs because I had my mom and dad. I was able to work one during the day to make the bulk of my pay and then worked at night knowing I would move up to a much better position. Even WITH both jobs I STILL qualified for EIC! And I knew several other single moms who didn't have parents to help or anyone to keep their child at night so they could work. For them things were a lot harder.

A married couple cannot always work and not pay child care. If you have more than one child, it just about will not pay for both parents to work but yet with only one working they qualify for EIC.

It is always easy to pass judgement or play "what I would do if I ran the government" when you have never had to let your child do without, not so easy when you have walked in those shoes.


So you seriously think that the government should go after those that are barely making it now? They don't pay taxes so put them on the street? Is that it? Or maybe you think the government can force places like McD's or Walmart pay more so that the folks working there won't qualify? Or the jobs that are dependent on the weather--the government should make the weather cooperate so that their pay doesn't go down to nothing during the wet winter months?

And I am not even touching the fact that some of our military qualifies for EIC because it makes me sick that we do not value these heros more than that but then YOU think we shouldn't give them that either? Ok, so YOU go fight in Afghanistan. Looking at the charts some posted, many police officers and firemen would qualify too, but oh we don't need them either do we?

Do I have a problem with those making over $150,000 paying extra taxes? No. I am not going to be all up in the air if they don't either. But, at least I know that if they pay extra, they will still have food, clothing and shelter.

As for the OP being a SAHM, if it is costing her family for her to work then she should stay home. Unless she has a better position on the horizon and that is the benefit of working now, it would be stupid to cost her family money to hold down a job. Personally, I would sit down and figure the gas, child care, clothing, lunches, whatever expenses she has from working and subtract that from the money she makes. At the small amount she made, if she is paying child care chances are it is costing her to work regardless of what it did to her refund check.

This is just like those endless threads that go on and on about the food stamp queens that are out buying junk food or steak and lobster (depending on which thread you read) with their food stamps. And of course EVERYONE has stood behind that woman at Walmart that said "I need a raise, I think I will have another baby". There will always be those that think of tax refund, school financial aid refunds, or government assistance as something they are entitled to. But that is NOT the majority. How many of you went to the store and saw the mom loading up on groceries, buying her kids some shoes and clothes, buying tires for her car and said "I bet she got her tax refund!" Not many, because we don't notice them. Those buying the big screen TVs stand out of all of us but they are really in the minority. Most just see that refund check as a leg up and a way to provide some neccesities for their family this year.

 

[HHSTigerFan]

And its the govts job to take money from one person and give it to another? Really??[/]

Have you ever lived on money that qualifies you for EIC? We have a responsiblity to make sure everyone in our country is able to eat, have shelter and clothing. Without that check once a year, there are many that would not be able to pay for the gas to heat thier home or their child's school clothes for the next year.

What happened to self responsibility? And where in the US Constitution does it mention supporting those that can't sustain themselves?

 

[Acklander]

I believe in small govt, instead of raping the taxpayers further, its time to cut costs and get rid of the entitlements.. Instead of worrying about the family paying $100K in taxes, why not worry about the guy thats paying none?

I'm all for tax breaks, once the national debt is under control. We financed 2 wars, while at the same time as giving tax cuts. Personally, I'm more worried about being owned by China at this time. Once the debt is taken care of, then I agree - tax cuts for everyone.

 

[HHSTigerFan]

Do I have a problem with those making over $150,000 paying extra taxes? No. I am not going to be all up in the air if they don't either. But, at least I know that if they pay extra, they will still have food, clothing and shelter.

As for the OP being a SAHM, if it is costing her family for her to work then she should stay home. Unless she has a better position on the horizon and that is the benefit of working now, it would be stupid to cost her family money to hold down a job. Personally, I would sit down and figure the gas, child care, clothing, lunches, whatever expenses she has from working and subtract that from the money she makes. At the small amount she made, if she is paying child care chances are it is costing her to work regardless of what it did to her refund check.

And to be damned if its ruining our country right??

Its ok for the "wealthy" to pay more taxes and support the country, but its not ok for the OP to work and save the country $3K because she has to work a job thats physically demanding?

 

[sam_gordon]

What happened to self responsibility? And where in the US Constitution does it mention supporting those that can't sustain themselves?

I understand your point. I really do. But I want to ask you this... if a family can't sustain itself, let's say one parent and two kids with no family in the area to rely on, what should they do? How do they put food on the table and a roof over their head? To say nothing about electricity & water. It's very possible the single parent only has a HS diploma or a GED because they don't have the time or money to go to college. So they're working at Wal*Mart or McDonald's while the kids are in school. OR, they're paying for daycare, which reduces how much money they have. So, what is your solution?

I think luvsjack said it very well, YES, there are people who abuse the system. But (and I agree) they are the minority.

 

[HHSTigerFan]

I understand your point. I really do. But I want to ask you this... if a family can't sustain itself, let's say one parent and two kids with no family in the area to rely on, what should they do? How do they put food on the table and a roof over their head? To say nothing about electricity & water. It's very possible the single parent only has a HS diploma or a GED because they don't have the time or money to go to college. So they're working at Wal*Mart or McDonald's while the kids are in school. OR, they're paying for daycare, which reduces how much money they have. So, what is your solution?

I think luvsjack said it very well, YES, there are people who abuse the system. But (and I agree) they are the minority.

Its not the governments job to take my money and give it to others, thats what charities are for.. this country needs to realize that or it won't be around for future generations to benefit from.. We HAVE to get people off the government nipple, its that simple..

 

[Acklander]

And to be damned if its ruining our country right??

Its ok for the "wealthy" to pay more taxes and support the country, but its not ok for the OP to work and save the country $3K because she has to work a job thats physically demanding?

the wealthy paying more taxes isn't ruining our country. The tax codes used to top out at 90% for the super rich. Since the changes during the Regan era, the only difference is the gap between the haves and the have nots. So, if you want to look at history, it's the tax breaks for the wealthy that has ruined the country.

 

[4disneyfans]

Here is one for you.....my hubby works in construction...one of the employee's isnt an American citizen nor is his family members.....he(makes about $12 an hour) and his wife(who works very little) got back over $8000....many many thousands of dollars MORE than they paid in.....$1000 of that was money they should have gotten back last year....so actually this years return was $7000 plus last years $1000 equals $8000 return....I clearly do not understand....they have two small children so I am sure EIC is a big part of the refund......

 

[MrsPete]

But how do you make people pay more in wages? If a working mom has 2 or 3 kids in childcare, and the mom has no marketable skills to obtain higher wages, there is simply no way to earn the income needed.

There's no answer to that question. The real questions are, "How do you make teenagers and young adults realize that they need to obtain enough education that they are qualified for high-wage jobs?" and "How do you get people to postpone children until they're ready to afford them, and how do you get people to save money for a rainy day instead of going into debt?" If everyone did those things -- that is, if people planned and were financially responsible from the get-go, few people would ever need a government safety net. They'd be their own safety net!

It's not a hand out. It's a tax credit. When you file your taxes do you consider any deductions or credits you may qualify for to be a hand out???

Two different stories:

A taxpayer gets a deduction. That's a reduction in his tax bill. He's still paying a good bit to the government.

A member of the working poor gets a 100% tax refund AND gets more money back. That's money he didn't earn. Regardless of whether you choose to call it a tax credit, an entitlement, or wealth redistribution -- it's a someone else's money being put into his hand. It's welfare.

Personally, I don't care for ANY tax credits. I would love to see a flat personal income tax rate and a VAT tax on non-necessities (iow - tax ipods but not pea pods). But too many special interests on both sides of the spectrum have always opposed those ideas.

This makes so much sense to me that I simply cannot grasp the opposition's arguments.

I think this thread is a sad commentary on society's general perception of stay at home parents.

No, it has absolutely nothing to do with being a stay-at-home-parent. It has to do with people supporting themselves instead of taking money from the government.

Every family should decide for themselves whether they want to /can afford to have a parent stay home. But it should be up to each family to make that decision AND to decide how to pay for it -- the taxpayers shouldn't supplement that decision.

And yet the OP's post is evidence to the contrary. The loss of the EIC is enough to have her reconsidering her place as a working member of society. It is actually a disincentive to seek work when your current income falls just inside the guidelines.

Exactly, and I don't blame the OP for doing what's best for her and taking advantage of what's available to her -- but I do blame our government for crafting programs that put people into this position. Work should pay. But that isn't always true.

The EIC is a teeny, tiny SPECK in the deficit.

So are all the other programs, but they add up to real money.

We pay many taxes in this country, not just income tax. The EIC is refunding some of those other taxes back to those who earn the least.

It is ALSO giving them money above and beyond the taxes they paid into the system.

And yet again with the "productive members of society" BS.

If her DH works, he's a productive member of society.

If she stays home and cares for their children and home, she's a productive member of society.

But you're assuming that "productive member of society" is the same thing as taxpayer. They're two separate things. Money isn't the only thing that makes a person productive and valuable, but it IS the only thing upon which income taxes are based.

It has been said numerous times throughout this thread she was not a "productive member of society" until she started a paid job. I disagree.

Actually, you're the one who's insisting that lack of a paycheck = lack of respect. Most people say lack of a paycheck = lack of a paycheck. It doesn't have anything to do with a person's value to society.

 

[HHSTigerFan]

the wealthy paying more taxes isn't ruining our country. The tax codes used to top out at 90% for the super rich. Since the changes during the Regan era, the only difference is the gap between the haves and the have nots. So, if you want to look at history, it's the tax breaks for the wealthy that has ruined the country.

Love it, "tax breaks for the wealthy"... how is the guy paying $200K in taxes getting a break over the guy thats paying none?

 

[Muushka]

Here is one for you.....my hubby works in construction...one of the employee's isnt an American citizen nor is his family members.....he(makes about $12 an hour) and his wife(who works very little) got back over $8000....many many thousands of dollars MORE than they paid in.....$1000 of that was money they should have gotten back last year....so actually this years return was $7000 plus last years $1000 equals $8000 return....I clearly do not understand....they have two small children so I am sure EIC is a big part of the refund......

Try looking at that scenario for a couple of months. H&R Block employment opened up my eyes.
I had no idea how bad it was.
Blue collar crime, sanctioned by the government.

I don't think people realize that there are people (like me) who have no desire to contribute to their child's expenses.
If you can't afford them, don't have them. Or just have 1 if you must.

 

[Acklander]

Love it, "tax breaks for the wealthy"... how is the guy paying $200K in taxes getting a break over the guy thats paying none?

Look at what the tax rates used to be, compared to what they are now. Look at what the national debt used to be, compared to what it is now.

And if someone is paying 200K in taxes I would assume he has a decent income. Now, the question is, how many of the big tax payers employees qualify for the EIC???

 

[Acklander]

I don't think people realize that there are people (like me) who have no desire to contribute to their child's expenses.
If you can't afford them, don't have them. Or just have 1 if you must.

but if the only babies born were the ones that the parents could afford, most of us probably wouldn't be here.

 

[HHSTigerFan]

Look at what the tax rates used to be, compared to what they are now. Look at what the national debt used to be, compared to what it is now.

And if someone is paying 200K in taxes I would assume he has a decent income. Now, the question is, how many of the big tax payers employees qualify for the EIC???

Because the wealthy are not getting gouged, they are the probblem???

So the easy answer is to cut programs like EIC and other entitlements and get back to dangling the carrot in front of people instead of creating welfare lifers..

 

[Anjelica]

Look at what the tax rates used to be, compared to what they are now. Look at what the national debt used to be, compared to what it is now.

And if someone is paying 200K in taxes I would assume he has a decent income. Now, the question is, how many of the big tax payers employees qualify for the EIC???

We should continue to saddle the wealthy because they can "afford" it? Do we ever wonder why corporations, etc. move to states and sometimes even oversea's because they are more "tax friendly"? If you continue to treat those at the top unfairly they won't be around to continue to pay the bulk of taxes. Then the rest of the tax burden fall to everyone else (and if you look at the tax facts that is a HUGE some of taxes everyone else will have to make up for).

I live in the "Great" State of Illinois where a few years ago 50% of all children born were born on MEDICAID. This month our income tax rates went up 2% and corporate tax rate's also increased. It's one thing to try and fix our budget, etc. but on top of the increases in taxes they GREW the budget. It's insulting to every taxpayer in this state to ask us to continue to work harder, pay more in taxes and then our illustrious government continue to spend money without making any cuts.

 

[summerrluvv]

So what about the new home buyer credit? The $8k credit that many got for buying a house...is that welfare too?

has to be...along with financial aid for college, grants, reimbursement from the state for families that have children w/ special needs and the list goes on. I say off with their heads!!!!

 

[Muushka]

but if the only babies born were the ones that the parents could afford, most of us probably wouldn't be here.

That's interesting. I was born many years prior to the Great War on Poverty created by Johnson.
Even though we lived in poverty, I survived.
I also learned that there was no way I would ever live that way again.