Democrats and the president hate poor people. Advanced EIC is repealed

[Quixote]

Does anyone know how much AEIC has been paid annually? My experience would suggest that it is less than 0.1% of the annual EIC allowed. That could explain why it was so easily repealed.

IRS has always been schizophrenic about AEIC, with the public information folks advertising it and customer service talking people out of applying for it.

And yes - for those persons that receive a tax refund when they actually paid no taxes, EIC is welfare.

True, but there are no such people. Anyone who qualifies for the credit has earned income and, therefore, a social security tax liability. Most Americans pay more in social security tax than they do in income tax. A person going from welfare to work would experince an immediate tax increase of from 7.65% to 14.38% of gross income without EIC.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Oh, the money there thing was me being kinda out of it. Ignore that bit. As for the paid out bit, sure. I earned the EIC last year (only reason I didn't pay taxes, as i actually owed money, probably the only reason this year I may not pay taxes although I may owe money again)

 

[eeyore1954]

I'm not sure why Republicans are so upset over this. Since when do they care about poor people?

I don't know of any republicans who are upset over it. I just wonder why you can't be honest enough to admit repealing Advanced EIC is a step that will hurt some people who are in poverty. Can you honestly tell me that you wouldn't have been condeming Bush if this had been during his administration.

Repealing the AEITC will save the taxpayer $1.1 billion over the next ten years. Is it worth it to hurt those who were dependent on it.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It may hurt SOME people, but only until they get their tax returns.

 

[eeyore1954]

It may hurt SOME people, but only until they get their tax returns.

Maybe you really don't care about poor people? As long as it is done by the people you agree with it doesn't matter if they are hurt. They are the some people who are hurt but it is ok they only have to wait over 12 months from the first payment they are missing.

 

[eeyore1954]

I'm not sure why Republicans are so upset over this. Since when do they care about poor people?

I believe conservatives give more money to charity , also more time and donate more blood than liberals. I have only found one "study" . From anecdotal experience as a tax preparer it is true.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I don't care about your anecdotes.

Eeyore, do you believe it would be easier to get taxes back from a person who applied for EIC but ultimately didn't, or to give them those credits back after verifying they qualify for them?

 

[sarge]

And your point is? The Republican party has devolved since then into a frothing, extremist party of haters.

More sound bytes.

My point is that you wade into a thread and make a post that is demonstrably incorrect, when a little reasearch would have allowed you to either not post (if an inconvenient truth is more than you can stomach) or actually make an accurate post, even though it isn't exactly complimentary to "your" side (if you are one of the rare ideologues that can do that).

And for the record, the last time the EIC was substantially increased was under the Reagan administration - hardly ancient history.

 

[sarge]

True, but there are no such people.

Of course there are such people.

A low income wage earner can certainly get enough back from EIC to offset his total income tax liability (including his portion of SS), resulting in a net gain.

 

[eeyore1954]

I don't care about your anecdotes.

Eeyore, do you believe it would be easier to get taxes back from a person who applied for EIC but ultimately didn't, or to give them those credits back after verifying they qualify for them?

I didn't quite understand your statement but
Of course it is easier to not give out the money until you are sure. Getting the money back from someone who did not qualify is difficult.

So would you be in favor of making them wait at least another year . No eic payments will be made until all documents can be verified. Currently the IRS estimates there is around $10,000,000,000 worth of fraudulent EIC. Fraud is currently so easy and rampant maybe EIC should also be repealed.

http://247wallst.com/2010/09/22/irs-possibly-issues-1-billion-worth-of-bogus-refunds/

The IRS has vowed for years to crack down on taxpayers who steal money from the program designed to help the poor. People have been caught bilking the system through multiple returns with phony Social Security numbers or claims of non-existent children and fictional spouses. The IRS estimates that there are more than $10 billion in phony EITC claims filed annually. Even rich folks get in on the action.

 

[sarge]

I didn't quite understand your statement but
Of course it is easier to not give out the money until you are sure. Getting the money back from someone who did not qualify is difficult.

So would you be in favor of making them wait at least another year . No eic payments will be made until all documents can be verified. Currently the IRS estimates there is around $10,000,000,000 worth of fraudulent EIC. Fraud is currently so easy and rampant maybe EIC should also be repealed.

http://247wallst.com/2010/09/22/irs-possibly-issues-1-billion-worth-of-bogus-refunds/

Scrap the EIC and offer meaningful tax relief for working class folks.

I am a real sarge - at least, I used to be. I was also once a tax professional. Both facts are relevent to my opinion of the EIC, and its value to Americans.

At one time (mid-80s to early 90s), a servicemember had to include all of his earned income when determining eligibilty for the EIC, whether the income was taxable or not. The impact on servicemember eligibility was significant. Soldiers earn a housing allowance and a food allowance that isn't taxable, but was earned income. With basic pay, this generally meant that a servicemember with a spouse and a child did not qualify for the earned income credit. Fair enough, as servicemembers are generally (contrary to popular myth) relatively well paid.

Sometime after the early 90s, the rules changed. Non-taxed income no longer counted as earned income. So, Soldiers drawing $30K a year in taxable income and $15K a year in non-taxable income were suddenly eligible for the EITC. During the current GWOT, the rules changed again. Servicemembers deployed to combat areas could choose to count some of their untaxed income as earned income. The result? Soldiers earning 5 times the poverty rate are suddenly eligible for the EITC.

As with all entitlement programs, the rules are changed to increase the eligible pool, until the few wind up supporting the many. It is inevitable.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Currently the IRS estimates there is around $10,000,000,000 worth of fraudulent EIC. Fraud is currently so easy and rampant maybe EIC should also be repealed.

Or, perhaps they should do something to minimize that fraud.... like require people to show they qualify BEFORE they get the credit.

 

[Quixote]

Of course there are such people.

A low income wage earner can certainly get enough back from EIC to offset his total income tax liability (including his portion of SS), resulting in a net gain.

I apologize for responding to what you wrote rather than to what you meant to write.

 

[Quixote]

I think the real loser over the repeal of AEIC is the IRS. Rather than repealing AEIC, Congress should have made it mandatory for all EIC recipients. If EIC fraud is rampant, it is because IRS can not audit enough returns. If AEIC were mandatory, the vetting process would be delegated to the employers, who are in a much better position to determine their employees' eligibility. The taxpayer's income is almost never the issue in an EIC audit. The issue is always whether or not the taxpayer had EIC qualifying children.

Mandatory AEIC would also reduce the size of refunds, reducing the incentive for EIC fraud.

 

[eeyore1954]

Or, perhaps they should do something to minimize that fraud.... like require people to show they qualify BEFORE they get the credit.

So you would be in favor of not giving EIC with the tax returns. This type of verification would cause many truly poor people to wait even longer.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

It is money given to lower income people as an incentive to work. A person who makes 20,000 and has 3qualifying children get over 5,000 dollars paid to them by the government for working.

I would have thought the $20,000 was the payment for working.

Silly me.

 

[sarge]

I apologize for responding to what you wrote rather than to what you meant to write.

My original statement was accurate. I wrote "And yes - for those persons that receive a tax refund when they actually paid no taxes, EIC is welfare." A refund negates a payment, and filers actually get more back in their refund than they had withheld through the year, including the employee portion of SS taxes.

If that wasn't clear from the original, my appologies. If it was clear, and you simply disagree with my definition of "paid taxes", well, that's fine also.