[T]he president is calling on Congress to nearly double the child care tax credit for families earning less than $85,000 — a proposal that, if adopted, would lower by $900 the taxes such families owe to the government. But the credit would not be refundable, meaning that families would not get extra money back on a tax refund...Seems to me, "ordinary" means not poor and not rich. I certainly agree that if you make more than $85,000 you can look after yourself. But I find it odd that if you make less than $30,000 then you get no help raising your kids. Does Obama subscribe to eugenics, i.e. the poor should be prevented from reproducing since they obviously produce only nitwits, alcoholics, and petty thieves? Why are the poor left to fend for themselves? Is this the idea that they should be punished for being poor? A little brutalization will give them the inducement to pull up their socks and get that second or third job so that they can raise the family income? Inquiring minds would like to know.
That means: if your annual household cash income is more than $85K or less than $30K, you get nothing.
If your cash income is between $30 or $40K, there are nine chances in ten you get zero. If your cash income is between $40K and $50K, there are two chances in three you get zero. Even if your cash income is between $50K and $85K, there is still one chance in four you get zero.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
One Hand Gives, The Other Takes Away
From a posting by Brad DeLong, here is an interesting bit about a proposed tax credit to help ordinary Americans: