Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

I want my EITC

Feb 25, 2004 9:02PM PST

Oh wait! I don't qualify because I don't have a child. Minor detail. The Federal government is discriminating against me as I cannot get all the benefits extended to those with children. So, silly as it might sound, I have decided that I have two children, my cats. Heck, they aren't humans, nor even technically children anymore in cat years, but these are only minor details. They are what I say they are so I want my EITC!

Evie Happy

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
That's a sin.
Feb 25, 2004 11:33PM PST

Evie, notwithstanding all the talk about redefining the family, you've now gotten onto holy ground. That would deny tax revenue to the government! Clearly, that would be a terrible thing to do!

Happy

- Collapse -
You can qualify without children
Feb 25, 2004 11:44PM PST

....provided you're willing to take a small pay cut.

http://www.cbpp.org/6-22-00eitc.htm

Maybe if you had kids and understood the financial impact having a child can have, you wouldn't be so smug. IMO the EITC makes a lot more sense than reducing billionaires' tax rates.

- Collapse -
Well Josh I have kids and they also have kids...
Feb 26, 2004 1:12AM PST

and the "financial impact" argument will not wash because it is your choice to have them and how many to have (as it was mine and theirs) and it is NOT my responsibility to help you pay for raising yours in any way, shape, or form.

I have 4X4 F250 with a 460 ci engine and it likely uses a bit more gas than your vehicle and the tires cost several times as much so maybe you would support the government providing me monitary assistance (provided of course by all of you with more economical vehicles) and subsidize my expenses for it? Smaller ones will not adequately serve my NEEDS.

Although senseless, it is equivalent to the "expenses" argument of children.

- Collapse -
The thing is
Feb 26, 2004 1:35AM PST

at some point my kid is going to produce revenues and contribute to the economy. My kid is going to pay taxes.

I don't think your 4x4 will do the same.

- Collapse -
Nope, the 4X4 ALREADY is producing
Feb 26, 2004 3:03AM PST

revenues for me and thus tax monies through me.

MANY children NEVER achieve the same either for or through themselves or another...

Sorry but the "produce revenues and contribute to the economy" argument doesn't wash either (want to subsidize my foster daughter's race horses as they directly "produce revenues and contribute to the economy"?)

- Collapse -
Re:Nope, the 4X4 ALREADY is producing
Feb 26, 2004 3:19AM PST

If that is so isn't the 4x4 then tax deductible?

- Collapse -
Nope, only a portion...
Feb 26, 2004 10:21PM PST

just as having kids ALREADY provides increased deductions and tax EXEMPTIONS. I get some deductions but NO exemption for it.

Still nothing there to justify EIC as anything but WELFARE.

EIC is welfare pure and simple. If one is so concerned about the "working poor" then one should be working to get the minimum income on which one must pay taxes increased rather than giving away some other persons income for their use. EIC is quite simply a redistribution of wealth and a tenet of Communism.

- Collapse -
Smug?
Feb 26, 2004 7:34AM PST

I might not have kids, but I have plenty of friends that do and know full well what it costs. That's one reason my husband and I put off having some of our own. Children are a choice, and while society as a whole has an interest in promoting stable two-parent families, it has gotten to the point that so long as we can tie kids to any program, we can spend spend spend. Children are a choice planned for -- at least back in my parents' generation that was the way it was, and it worked quite well.

My post was not so much about this, however, as it was to demonstrate that the governments, Federal on down, "discriminate" against and/or do not offer the same benefits to singles, married or married with children. And that is because there is a societal benefit to supporting that which is the backbone of our society -- the traditional family. There are a whole lot of government programs I do not "qualify" for because I am the wrong gender, make too much money, don't have kids, etc. So this issue about gay marriage is just another example where there is really no discrimination. Marriage codified in our society is about having children. Yes, some marry with no intent to have kids, but let's be real, I didn't marry my husband so I could visit him in the hospital. Gays qualify for marriage if they want to marry someone of the opposite sex because, as my husband's boss is fond of saying, "it is what it is", and gays just want to redefine an institution. There is no right to get married in this country.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Re:Smug?
Feb 26, 2004 10:29PM PST

I knew the point you were making but I still don't think it is an apples to apples comparison.

No I don't think you married your husband so that you could visit him in the hospital. I'd like to think you married him because you loved him and should it (God forbid) ever become necessary visit him in the hospital.

Is it really so bad to allow gays to be treated as family.

- Collapse -
Was I too lame for a reply or you had no reply? ;-) * or NT or whatever
Feb 27, 2004 1:59PM PST

.

- Collapse -
Oops here it is!
Feb 27, 2004 10:57PM PST

Hi Rick,

** I apparently had this sitting in the "hopper" in my browser since yesterday! Thought I had posted it. **

It's an apples and apples thing because what the proponents of gay marriage want is the "benefits" of governmentally sanctioned marriage. There are a whole lot of government benefits for which I do not qualify. Gays do not qualify for marriage as it has been defined through centuries as being between a man and a woman.

The reason for the way our social security system and medical insurance system is the way it is is based on promotion and support of the stable family unit. When Moms stayed at home to raise the kids and men were the breadwinners it seemed not only reasonable but necessary to extend the benefits "earned" by the husband to the entire family. The solution to this is to revamp some of these, not change the institution of marriage. The reason for public policy supporting heterosexual marriage is for one reason -- it's a tried and true way to guarantee the best shot for children born in such. Yes, marriages fail. And yes, children can be brought up in alternative families quite well. But bottom line is that marriage is shored up for the benefit to society through the children. Two men or two women can't make a baby. The natural way of things is man attracted to woman and vice versa. The parts fit together, and the biology necessitates a sperm and an egg to make a baby. Children should have a mother and a father to the greatest extent that is possible.

It is already part of hospital licensing that they allow whoever the patient designates as family to visit. When my hubby was in the hospital, nobody asked me for my marriage certificate to visit him. I have also been the one to take a female friend to the hospital and visit her because she had no local family. Nobody questioned this or cared if we were a lesbian couple or what our relationship was. Now if we are talking making medical decisions, there are legal means to do that.

I think SS and insurance should be personalized. Two people don't have different medical expenses if they are married or single. If SS were privatized then the individual has total say on who gets to use the money for what while they are alive, or who gets the money if they die.

I have a gay friend who has never come out and said she is. But she has been with the same woman for more than a decade now -- bought a house with her, moved for her career and vice versa, etc. Her family treats her partner as family but it's just not an issue because she doesn't make it one. The nature of my husband's relationship with her is such that if she felt any persecution or shunning from family or friends she would certainly express it. But she is happy. Her sister, OTOH, has only recently converted. She has heaped more problems on her boys than just a messy divorce. You can't talk to her for five minutes without her mentioning something about being a lesbian. She calls her partner her wife -- actually "the wife" -- and it is just annoying. Same family and friends, different response.

I have no problem with gays having commitment ceremonies. But it's just not marriage. Whether someone is considered family or not is a matter for the people in their lives. JMO.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Re: I want my EITC
Feb 26, 2004 2:39AM PST

Hi, Evie.

>>I have decided that I have two children, my cats.<<
What flavor cake do you want that file baked into? Happy

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re:Re: I want my EITC
Feb 26, 2004 3:38AM PST

Hi Dave

Now wait a minute here. I think if Evie registers the cats with a SS number she will be OK.

George

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Re: I want my EITC
Feb 26, 2004 3:42AM PST

Won't be long after that before her cats start getting offers for low-interest credit cards. I'd love to be the one calling the credit card company -- "Muffy can't really sign her name; is a paw print OK?"

Happy

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Re:Re: I want my EITC
Feb 26, 2004 3:51AM PST

Hi Josh

Ha Ha, Which paw do you want? Front Right, Front Left, Rear Right, Rear Left or about face.

George

- Collapse -
Re:I want my EITC-now for the rest of the (true) story
Feb 26, 2004 4:17AM PST

Being in the middle of tax season, I am feeling majorly stressed anyway.... and then I get this response from clients who are accustomed to getting a generous EITC every year since they can't seem to hold a job for more than a few months: ''What do you mean, I am only getting $2000 back from the government! It isn't fair! I ALWAYS get back at least $3000! Just because I made a little more money this year (little being about 5000 or 6000 more) they shouldn't have taken away more money! Well, I will show them - this year, I just won't work as much!'' Sigh........

This conversation happens about half the time I have a client who is eligible for the EITC and their refund is not as big as they have gotten before. I haven't had one of mine yet who was selected for the verification - and I shudder to think what their reaction is going to be when I tell them they have to provide documentation proving their eligibility.

There is just no explaining to people how much worse off they are when they won't work because it might make their tax refund smaller. I gave up trying to explain it a few years back. But this definitely says something about the mindset of many, many people who are getting this money funded by our tax dollars every year. Mind you, I am not against helping the less fortunate - but when they stand there and tell me that they are not going to work as much solely because of this, I just want to beat them about the head and shoulders.

And I bet that Beckie has some real war stories too on this subject. How about it, Louis?

Ruth Sad

- Collapse -
Hi Ruth!
Feb 26, 2004 4:40AM PST

Seems you only visit us around tax time lately; nice to hear from you again.

Maybe you should suggest to these dolts that they have more money withheld from each check so they'll get more back at the end of the year.

- Collapse -
Hey Josh-great to see you!
Feb 26, 2004 6:09AM PST

How is your family doing? I'll bet your "baby girl" is not so much of a baby any more. They grow up so fast.

You're right-I am not around much any more. I have popped in a couple of times and there seemed to be mostly the usual flamefests so I just didn't post. But there are still several of you good people that I think of frequently.

Sadly, your advice regarding withholding more is useless. In most cases, these people make sure they don't have anything at all withheld - and it is deliberate on their part. They either claim exempt from withholding or claim enough allowances to be sure that they won't have anything held out. These are the people that give the 'working poor' a bad name - they feel like the government 'owes' them all this money just for making the effort to work when they feel like it. And I am not talking about the people who are really trying to make it - these people are just using the system and our tax dollars so they can slouch around and never make any effort to help themselves.

Rant over Happy See you later!

Ruth

- Collapse -
Howdy, Ruth!
Feb 26, 2004 6:54AM PST

Good of you to take time from your busy schedule to visit us again.

Your client scenarios are sad in that they apparently don't appreciate they have to do their part to benefit from the help for which they qualify. Shoot- I would still consider $200 a windfall. {-)

If I am correct, it is best to keep as much of your paycheck as you can, use or save it, rather than giving it to the government for a year just to get a big refund.

Hope you and Billy are doing well!

Angeline
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
Hi, Angeline! Good to see you too.
Feb 26, 2004 10:52AM PST

You know how it goes - I get to needing a little stress relief, and some of you folks are the first people that come to mind Happy

You are correct - you are much better off not letting the government use any more of your money than you can manage to keep out of their hands. Basically, you are giving them an interest-free loan for up to a year... and it makes very little fiscal sense. But I know it is hard for some people to take that money and set it aside if they ever get it, so for them it is an easy alternative to savings accounts etc. Myself, I calculate my taxes very carefully and try to come as close to even as I can - the money I would otherwise be sending to them or spending goes in my 401k account. Given that I have never had this option before my current job, I need to put as much away as I can now to prepare for the future.

We are doing fine - Billy is great. He is now finishing his junior year in college, still focused on his computer info systems major but things have taken an interesting turn. The CIS department head is his advisor, and as of this semester Billy is "teaching" some of her classes (including one that is a class he hasn't even had yet - the advanced networking class!). This is an unofficial thing; she pays him out of her own pocket to do this. But she and the other professors in the department have been talking to him about taking a faculty position at his college after he gets his degree - and he is seriously considering it. With a bachelor degree he could only hold an adjunct professor position, but they would also help him get a master's degree so he could enter the tenure track. So I suspect that he may already have a job waiting for him when he graduates, which is always a good thing Happy As you can tell, I am just slightly proud of my baby.

I am fine too, still doing software support for my 'real' job, and tax returns during tax season. I love my boss, and most of the time I love my work. There are just those moments when I wonder about my chosen career though Wink

I will try to drop in more often. Hope all is well with you and yours too.

Ruth

- Collapse -
Re: Hi, Angeline! -- Hi, Ruth!
Feb 26, 2004 12:46PM PST

We miss you around here -- you can always just skip any thread with more than 10 messages to avoid controversy!
How is Billy doing with his music?

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Hi Dave-good to see you too
Feb 27, 2004 11:20PM PST

If I was going to skip threads with more than 10 posts I would miss a lot of the fun too Happy

Billy is doing great in band. First chair trombone in concert band, featured tenor trombone soloist and/or bass trombone in jazz band, and is currently in the pit orchestra for a campus musical - they are performing "The Secret Garden" this spring, and he tells me I am going to enjoy it enormously so I am looking forward to that.

Hope all is well with you and yours too. I will try to pop in more often.

Ruth

- Collapse -
Re:Hey Josh-great to see you!
Feb 26, 2004 10:17PM PST

Actually I was being facetious about the withholding thing. I just saw it as a way for your clients to con themselves into thinking they're getting more back.

We just found out that our refund is going to be pretty large this year -- our first full year with a dependent -- so I'm going to fill out a new W-4 and reduce my withholding a little so I can bring a few more dollars home each week.

The little rugrat is doing just great. She'll be 17 months old next week and she's talking up a storm. Not walking yet but my side of the family tend to be late walkers. I was 17 months when I started walking. She loves Sesame Street and Barney, and some days its hard to get those dang Barney songs out of my head.

Hope you'll stop by again soon!

- Collapse -
That is pretty standard as far as responses, but...
Feb 26, 2004 10:31PM PST

I'll bet that many would forget about the EIC and work when they can if every EIC pay out check was labeled in large letters as "WELFARE CHECK".

A good portion of the people who strive so hard to "qualify" for it are unaware of what it actually is and simply consider it as "free money". If they realized it is a form of WELFARE they wouldn't be so quick to put their hand out.

- Collapse -
Many people, Ed
Feb 27, 2004 12:31AM PST

who have hit hard times would not appreciate your sanctimonious capitalization of welfare. It's good that you and yours have never, apparently from your attitude, been in a situation that required getting such assistance. If that ever comes to pass, you might adopt an attitude of compassion for their benefit.

Dan

- Collapse -
Sanctimonious? That is you, not me Dan...
Feb 27, 2004 1:05AM PST

because that is what EIC is, WELFARE!

Using euphamisms such as "tax rebates" for those who paid and/or owe no taxes doesn't conceal the fact.

WELFARE isn't a "dirty word" any more than CHARITY or PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, unless you yourself, for some reason, associate it with such.

Call it what it is and maybe people who simply view it as an entitlement or government give-a-way they shouldn't miss out on will leave it for those who actually do need it (such as Ruth indicated below).

Think you can get over your sanctimonious perversions ow what is actually stated one of these days?

As an aside, I can remember some rather hard times long before there was any such thing as EIC or even much other type of government WELFARE. We got along...

- Collapse -
Your compassion brings a tear to my eye
Feb 27, 2004 1:14AM PST

because of its absence. Would you favor a program of compelling anyone who is receiving any government assistance to wear a big red "W"? Would that shame them sufficiently for your purposes?

Dan

- Collapse -
Good, because compassion is NOT...
Feb 27, 2004 1:29AM PST

helping the less fortunate in need of assistance by taking the monies earned by another and giving it to them.

Comapssion and Charity are best shown by using your own funds to help those in need. This is something Liberals (most of them) can't seem to grasp as their (YOUR) view of compassion is taking from the more fortunate and giving to the less fortunate without inconveniencing yourself--it is also hypocracy.

Those tears in your eyes are apparently cause by feeling sorry for yourself, not for others.

- Collapse -
I call it sticking their hands in my pocket, but
Feb 27, 2004 11:53AM PST

the result is the same. Happy

- Collapse -
Speaking of getting along ...
Feb 27, 2004 1:37AM PST

... was discussing with Mom a while back as to our family having boarders when I was a kid. One man from Japan still keeps in touch from time to time, and although he only lived with us for two years, he sent gifts for us kids every year at Christmas. That's irrelevant ... just reminiscing aloud Happy What is relevant is that Mom came out with "we didn't have any family to turn to for help when money was tight, so this is how we made it". Recently it has been reported that many of the poor actually own their homes. I wonder how many would consider such an "inconvenience" as a means of making ends meet. I doubt Mom will ever come out and admit it, but my sister was almost certainly not a planned child. The income from the boarders helped offset the costs of adding another child to our family.

Evie Happy