|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 24, 2016 18:37:09 GMT -6
Pam you need to look it up, my cousin years back got back a lot of money on EITC from both the state and federal govt well over 7,000 on a job he made only 23,000 that is a fact. Now I see the new caps at the federal level are 5,326 or close to that .
You may find it hard to believe but it happens. Do some simple math with the numbers on the website in accordance with earned income credit. The take one of the 25 states that also offer the same on the state level with just a some what smaller amount.
If you do not believe me let me know I will give you his number you can speak with him directly. I worked at the same place he did this would have been 1989 or so. He lived in ILL at the time they also have state earned income credit.
This is how the state tells of,their program word for word from their state DHS website!
You may qualify for a larger federal income tax refund. Illinois also has a State EITC! Illinois residents who claim the federal EITC may also get a State EITC which can be worth up to $288! The State EITC is worth 5 percent of the federal EITC and is fully refundable.
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Sept 24, 2016 22:04:37 GMT -6
Okay, I give up. If your cousin only made $23,000 I wouldn't begrudge him the $7000. No doubt it went right back into the economy :-)
Cheers, Pam
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Sept 25, 2016 5:42:33 GMT -6
and gee- my wife went to a Catholic school!
so what?
ok TC- Pam called you out on the source of your opinion/fact- you going to produce?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 25, 2016 8:42:12 GMT -6
If she wants his phone number she can pm me and I will give it to her.
Pam that is not one person doing such it adds to billions every year. That our govt saying we don't think you make enough so we will give you money, on top,of all the other programs one will qualify for as well.
Then you have 25 states offering the same thing on the state end. What state is financially solvent enough to continue doing such?
Jobs we need to worry about jobs, not more and more benefits from BIG GOVT.
Meanwhile that money is not going into the SS account , then we wonder why SS is at such a short fall when we somethings like this and others ?
I did not agree with it then and I do not agree with that now.
The point is one can make a good living working outside of the govt Tman that was my point. She does not have to work at a catholic school, she has chosen to do such for her entire teaching career to date. For her own reasons. Called personnel choice Tman.
Those personnel choices are getting less and less each year.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Sept 25, 2016 11:38:53 GMT -6
SS at shortfall from unpaid borrowing under GOP presidents
my point is you are against all funding, all govt- except when it singularly benefits YOU
I quit being selfish in kindergarten.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 25, 2016 16:30:47 GMT -6
Not against all funding you make statements that Inhave never said. I am for a leaner govt all the way around. Obama stated in 2008 he would go line by line and cut the fat, that never happened never even looked into really.
We need someone who will ask the tough questions and look at each and every program and see if it passes the test of real need dollar for dollar.
We have a 20 trillion debt not time to keep spending like a run away train again.
Prioritize what we need and the areas of biggest concern. Then start to cut back on some things until our economy gets really going again.
SS is one program that needs to be shored up and yes it is all the GOP's fault that I know Tman LOL.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Sept 25, 2016 22:20:54 GMT -6
Most countries with the highest UE rates are nations that have the lowest wages. So the idea of lowering wages and benefits so that more jobs are created has not been shown to be true. The lowering of taxes in the USA will not create nearly the increase in jobs in the USA as many would like to think. The government is working hard to try and stimulate job growth to a private business sector that is working hard to lower the number of employees they need or want not to raise the number they need and want. If low wages were the answer India would have 1% UE instead of 20% or more. Ditto, Mexico, Indonesia etc. Markets are created by people who have money to spend and not by people who make little money.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Sept 26, 2016 8:03:08 GMT -6
if you are worried about increasing the debt- then Trump should be the last man you vote for.
but reading economic plans and viewing predictions on what they would do- takes effort, so once again I understand you clinging to something that's simply untrue- Trump will NOT decrease the debt
From the NY times-
"Donald Trump said on Monday that he wanted to usher in “economic renewal,” but most of his proposals would hurt the economy, rack up huge deficits, accelerate climate change and leave the country isolated from the world.
In a speech billed as a blueprint for stimulating growth and creating jobs, Mr. Trump offered a grab bag of ideas that borrow from discredited supply-side economics, the fossil fuel industry’s wish list and “America First” isolationism. He also criticized Hillary Clinton and President Obama for what he called their “job-killing, tax-raising, poverty-inducing” agenda. It was vintage Trump, full of promises of greatness and victories backed by fantastical proposals.
Mr. Trump told the Detroit Economic Club that he would cut taxes to an extent not seen since Ronald Reagan was in the White House. He said he would slash the corporate tax rate to 15 percent, arguing that the current statutory 35 percent is one of the highest among developed countries. He did not mention that the average effective corporate tax rate was 18.1 percent in 2015, including state and local taxes, according to the White House and the Treasury Department. He claims he would help workers by getting rid of the estate tax, though repealing it would have almost no effect on working families. Under current law, that tax doesn’t touch 99.8 percent of all estates because it applies only to that portion of an estate that exceeds $5.4 million for an individual or $10.9 million for a married couple.
The big problem with Mr. Trump’s tax ideas is that they would leave a multitrillion-dollar deficit for no benefit. Proponents of supply-side economics argue that cutting tax rates encourages people to work and businesses to invest. But the gains are much more modest than proponents claim because many businesses won’t invest unless demand for their products is growing and many people are not motivated by lower tax rates to work more.
On the other hand, significant tax cuts exact very real costs. Mr. Trump’s previous tax plan, released last year, would have reduced federal revenue by $9.5 trillion over 10 years, according to the Tax Policy Center, meaning that Mr. Trump would have to slash government spending or increase borrowing substantially. George W. Bush pushed big tax cuts through Congress in 2001 and 2003 with the promises of strong growth that never materialized.
Mr. Trump also promises to take a machete to existing federal regulations and put a moratorium on new rules. He wants to get rid of environmental policies that he says are driving up the cost of electricity by restricting the production and use of coal and other fossil fuels. In fact, electricity rates, adjusted for inflation, have increased just 2.2 percent, to 12.82 cents per kilowatt-hour, from 2008 to 2015 and are expected to decline to 12.64 cents this year, according to the federal Energy Information Administration.
Increasing fossil fuel production, and the carbon dioxide emissions associated with it, is exactly the wrong strategy at a time when the world has become increasingly concerned about global warming and its disastrous consequences. But this is of little concern to Mr. Trump, who has dismissed climate change as a hoax and whose “energy revolution,” as he outlined it on Monday, made no mention of carbon-free renewable energy sources. On trade, Mr. Trump renewed his pledge to kill the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an agreement that Mr. Obama negotiated with 11 countries. Mr. Trump claims he can bring back millions of manufacturing jobs to the United States by slapping retaliatory tariffs against China for manipulating its currency, offering illegal subsidies to its exporters and stealing intellectual property from American companies. But such actions would do nothing to recreate jobs that have been replaced by automation, and companies could move production to other developing countries. Mr. Trump’s earlier pledge to put a 45 percent tariff on all Chinese goods would almost certainly start a trade war that would harm American industries that export goods to China.
Mr. Trump considers himself a businessman, uniquely capable of improving the economy. But this list of misguided and risky proposals would reduce economic growth while showering the rich with tax breaks." Now, please, counter with what your neighbors brothers cousins girlfriend tells you-
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Sept 26, 2016 8:31:29 GMT -6
I did taxes for 32 years and still do a handful. If the person received over $5k then it was EIC and the state at whatever percent of the federal and most likely any and all taxes withheld from their wages while they were working. To get EIC they needed to work and most states allowed a smaller credit and some qualified for additional tax credits if they did not maximize their EIC but to get that total they were also getting their federal and maybe some state refunds back to make the total as large as it was or is. Yes they are large numbers but the EIC was created to reward people for working and not working.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 28, 2016 5:14:17 GMT -6
Tman the NY times lol. Love there take,on fossil fuels.
|
|