Did Mike Lee forget the fact that the US is running a massive deficit and this
will only exacerbate the financial burden on future taxpayers...
"The legislation does not yet have a co-sponsor""This is
going to be a process that will take some time for us to get support, but
we’re confident that this is the right way to go..."Us?
We? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
Wow, that's some real mental contortions to justify his pandering. You want a tax break because eventually your kids will pay taxes? Ya,
thanks Dad, I'll have a little more deficit in my future please.Never mind the cost of educating these little tricycle motors, we'll let
other people pay for that.Don't forget to teach your kids about
personal responsibility Mike and friends.
It is quite amusing to read the entitlement generation advocate for free
'education', free health care, and a host of government programs that
do little more than drain sewer water, and then undermine it's greatest
strength, children. I'm all for cutting the federal government out of
everything that isn't constitutionally mandated (which includes a host of
government sponsored departments, the least of which is the Department of
Education), but if the current tax system is to stay in its present
unconstitutional form, the least it could do is give greater tax relief to those
parents who have sacrificed the most and who by belief and action have borne the
burden of posterity and shown the greatest patriotism to this country's
future by bringing God's greatest gift into it.
More Republican style socialism and redistribution of wealth. These so-called
Tea Party Republicans are a bunch of posers. I thought they wanted to reduce
the deficit. I guess I thought wrong.
This will definitely swell the number of people who pay no federal income tax.
Then future Republicans can run against them.
This is the best proposal from Mike Lee yet. Our nation will benefit from
families raising kids and this gives incentive for families to have kids and
stops them from being financially burdensome on young families. Way to go Mike!
Our Economy was built on strong families and the only way our nation will pull
itself out of debt is by encouraging strong families.
Dumb move Lee. The government needs to stop giving handouts.
Doesn't this mean a family that breeds irresponsibly who already
doesn't pay any taxes and is on welfare will get more welfare at the cost
to all of us who actually pay taxes? Senator Lee sounds like a liberal.
Mike, Mike, Mike. I'd love an extra $10k/yr (it would have been $25k for
my parents), but this is such a dumb idea that it's not even laughable.
Please, focus on the hard things that you were elected to actually help resolve.
Don't drum up new issues that have no support and that would only put the
country deeper into debt. I thought that's what you stood for, wasn't
I thought Mike Lee was against adding debt?I thought he was against
handouts?So why is he all for handing out more money that we
don't have which will only increase our debt?
We do not need more tax credits. We need better paying jobs.
I wonder what percentage of Utahns already don't pay any income taxes as it
is... apparently Lee thinks it should be more.
I was going to point out problems with Lee's thinking, but prior comments
pretty much hit on it. Oh, Utah, what have you done? Bring the boy back home for
Redistribution of wealth to increase the debt. Someone tell the tea party to get
on the silly hats and protest and yell about this.
Sounds like Mike has started campaigning early.Isn't this what
the good Senator has accused the President of? Giving stuff away to get
elected?Hey, with my kids still at home, I'd love a bigger tax
break, but I'm also smart enough to realize that this doesn't help
with the deficit. No thanks Senator.
Hope you succeed. This is the kind of tax reform I hope you concentrate your
Wait just a second -- Isn't this a redistribution of wealth?[Those with NO or fewer children, paying for those with more and MORE
children.]Honestly, the mental back-flip-flops, 180s, and
about-faces by the far-right is astounding!Hypocrites.
Child Tax Credits are to many Republicans constituents as Welfare and other
gov't freebies are to many Democrat constituents. Sad. We
need to cut spending drastically by eliminating both Tax Credits and Entitlement
program and Raise taxes. It's not rocket science. Or we WILL become
Detroit or Greece. There is no doubt. It's called math. The
problem with the Senate and the President (all of them since Eisenhower) is they
just don't get a little bit of math. The equal sign (=) is not
the > sign. Budgets should use = signs. That's what it means to
balance a budget. Equal Sign... not that hard. Stick to that and we have
How embarrassing Lee has become. His tax cut bill should be debated and
considered "independent" from its financial impact? He has no idea how
it will effect how this will effect overall revenues and no proposal for how to
offset the revenue cut with spending cuts? Is it any wonder our
country is in such a financial mess when people like Lee are running the ship?
Cross me off Lee's supporter list.
"This should be considered independent of deficit reduction plans"...Are
you serious Senator?
I have to kind of laugh here "I can't pay for your contraception
because I am not going to pay for you to have sex"But "oh
you're having kids" I will pay for you to have sex.
Roland Kayser, LDS liberal and all the other liberals, socialists, and
government entitlement fans. I absolutely agree with Mike Lee's child tax
credit plan. However, this is what I'm willing to do, since many of you
want to talk about how uncompromising conservatives are: I will not support the
child tax credit, or any other government program or tax plan, if you will
eliminate welfare, the department of education, energy, and any other government
'program' that gives any citizen an advantage, including your home
mortgage deduction, etc. Is it a deal, or were you just talking, instead of
doing something? Do you really want to compromise, or were you just wanting
this to be a one way street? Action speaks louder than words.
Wasn't this the same Senator Mike Lee who lost his Alpine mansion on a
Government sponsored Short Sale?and bandersenI bet he took the
tax deduction on that house as well!
From now on, whenever I hear Mike Lee talking about reducing the debt or
deficit, I will know his words for what they are: rank hypocrisy.
How about a flat tax with no one getting any credits? The ONLY REASONS our
lawmakers have instituted tax credits are because they want to encourage
something by giving a financial incentive OR they want the opportunity, like
this story demonstrates, to convince their constituents that they are looking
out for them. These credits are usually paid for by the other taxpayers. Hey,
it helps them get re-elected.
The only thing worse than a "tax and spend" liberal is a "don't
tax and spend" conservative.
@banderson"However, this is what I'm willing to do, since many of
you want to talk about how uncompromising conservatives are: I will not support
the child tax credit, or any other government program or tax plan, if you will
eliminate welfare, the department of education, energy, and any other
government"Absolutely not. It's not a very good compromise
when one side gives up basically everything and the other side (that already
claims they don't want to create more gov't programs...) gives up
Sorry Lee, wrong bill, wrong time.Lets focus on getting our fiscal
house in order. Reduce spending, perhaps even increase taxes, if that's
what it takes.
Where are all those Mike Lee supporters/apologists today? Those same people who
criticized President Obama for buying the election? Where are those who
supported The Mitt's attack on the 47 percent? Folks like Redshirt, 2 bits,
Mike Richards, DN Subscriber, etc are all missing in action on this story.
This makes no sense. How do you propose a tax refund when we have a huge tax
shortfall?I think parents knew the cost of having children when they
had them. It's a real burden. But something YOU need to accept when you
have them (not society).I know society benefits from you having
children (in the long view). There's not doubt of that. But you
shouldn't expect the government to fund your decision (even if everybody in
society benefits from you making this decision).Now IF we had a tax
surplus... I would be all for it. The first people who deserve a break is
young parents trying to start a family and still make ends meet with the mother
staying at home to nurture the children in that family.
Another tax credit for large families? I don't think so. What about those
families whose kids are all grown and moved out or those who don't have
kids? They get nothing. They do get to pay for all the large families kids at
the local public schools however with their taxes. I honestly think that tax
exemptions should be limited to a maximum of 5 per family - two adults and three
kids. Families are encouraged to keep having 6 or 7 or ... 13 kids because they
get others to pay for them with their taxes and then they get a nice refund
check at the end of the year from the Fed and State to goto Disneyland with. In
the mean time we are collecting LESS taxes or shifting the tax burden to others.
Enough is enough!!
I thought Mike Lee was all about CUTTING government and entitlements? Now
suddenly he wants to add another entitlement? What gives Mike??? Either you are
for small government and less entitlements OR you aren't. Can't have
it both ways. Sounds like it is time for a letter to Mike's office.
He must have a lot of kids. The tax credit can only be used by those who make
enough money to pay taxes. What is his proposal to help those working two jobs
at minimum wage and still don't make enough to pay taxes? Cut their food
stamps. Tea party mentality at it's finest.
Just more political pandering. Why in the world are we paying these guys? They
will say and do anything to stay in power. I say no more tax deductions, if you
can't afford children then don't have them, or sacrifice until you can
afford them. Utah has it's fair share of 47%'ers because of the
already existing child tax credit, yet we still love to get up on our little
soap boxes and complain about all of those OTHER nasty 47% freeloaders. I say incorporate a flat tax where everyone pays equally and get rid of
all deductions and credits.
To the liberals that think this is a redistribution of wealth plan. You are
wrong. The tax credit will be available to all. Those that will benefit from
this are those that actually pay taxes, not just a select group. EIC
redistributes wealth, and that is not being touched.This is not
funding people having kids, this is an "investment" in the future. As
the US birthrate drops, somebody has to be there to make things and pay the
taxes that fund retirement SS accounts.I would think that the
liberals here would be grateful for Senator Lee doing something to keep their
wealth redistribution program known as Social Security running for a bit
longer.To "patriot" how much do those that have raised a
family need? Their retirement will be funded by the kids that this bill is
hoping to encourage.
When will politicians stop giving handouts to their constituents?
If we had a single-payer healthcare system, that would go a long way to helping
I thought liberals were all about helping the middle class family. Obviously,
from the comments here, they are not.patriot"I
thought Mike Lee was all about CUTTING government and entitlements?"This is a cut in government. Letting people keep more of what they make
is less government. If he collected the taxes and then had a government agency
distribute the money back to certain families, that would be bigger
government.I think this is the right thing to do on so many levels,
especially if it is done INSTEAD of the current redistribution programs. When
the government collects the money for redistribution, the bureaucracy take a
huge bite out before anyone is helped by the program. They are so top heavy in
expenses, they could never qualify as a 501c non-profit.And BTW, I
don't have a large family and I would never see a dime from the program. My
kids are grown.And all you liberals pretending you are going to stop
your support of Lee, you can't stop something you never started.
re:andyjaggyFlat tax is the answer for certain I agree. These
political games being played by congress have to stop. I thought Mike was all
about reducing the size and amount of entitlements? Don't get it.
I once attended a City Meeting where the topic was the Jordan School Districts
inability to fund it's operations for the next school year. The proposal
to resolve the problem was to levy an additional $60.00 in property tax the
following year. A lady in her mid to late 30's stood up and with tears in
her eyes and begged the people not to support this Tax. The extra $60.00 a year
would simply push her and her family of 14 Over the edge. That's right 12
Kids.The tax bill failed at the next election and the Jordan School
District terminated hundreds of teachers and support staff to deal with the
shortfall. At the special Counsel Meeting that followed you will never guess
who was the first in line to stand and chew the Counsel out for allowing the
Jordan School District to do this to the Children.The moral of the
story here is you cant have your cake and eat it too. You can't complain
about huge deficits and Government hand outs and then expect the Government to
basically give you a hand out! If you can't afford them
don't have them!
It's the *rationale* for this proposed tax credit that is (for me) more
disturbing than the budgetary concerns.If the government gives tax
credits to parents on the basis that those parents are raising (and funding)
tomorrow's workforce, will the government start to demand accountability of
those parents on how well they're doing? (Are you raising your children
well enough to "earn" that tax credit? Are you spending that tax credit
on materials that will benefit your children/our future workers?)Or
what about parents raising disabled children who will obviously never contribute
to the workforce... perhaps those parents should pay a tax *penalty*? After all,
shouldn't the government try to discourage parents from raising burdens on
the economy? No, I didn't really think so either. ;)The whole
idea of government tax breaks & credits to try to incentivize what some
politicians see as societally favorable behavior seems dangerous to me. Besides,
I thought Mike Lee was supposed to be conservative? Shouldn't we be seeking
to simplify our ridiculous tax code rather than complicating it?
I thought our issue was lack of jobs for the people we already had, not a lack
of people. Plenty of children are being created without an incentive. The
returns Mr Lee speaks of can only be realized if those children have decent jobs
to employ them.
Some of the postings on here are just useless. I read each and every one of
them. Yes, I agree, No, I don't, Mike Lee is a hypocrite, blah blah
blah.Ever think to consider your own thoughts and what they might
mean. Flip flop, this and the other.I am not saying I am in
agreeance with this plan or against, I am open to hearing more about it. So
many people on here talking about what it will do to the national debt, these
same people who are in agreeance with every other government program that gives
aid and adds to the debt. Who is the hypocrite now? You want to keep all of
your programs that you support. But because this one was drummed up by a
Republican it is no good. Each and everyone of you cried during the political
races about how the republicans didn't want to help anyone. Where here is
a repub wanting to help people. And not one of you can deny it. Quit living on
one side of the line and if you are going to stay there, then quit talking about
equality, because it is hypocritical.
While I think it's a bad proposal... At least he's trying to buy votes
from Americans with families (unlike the Democrats who are buying votes by
pandering to the illegal alien supporters and every other special interest group
out there).But I agree that he's doing the same thing Democrats
do all the time... and he should be embarrassed (as should Democrats who buy
votes by proposing bills for special interest groups).It's
nothing new. Democrats who are getting all bent out of shape over it need to
get a grip and look at the kind of pandering Democrats in Washington do all the
Hey, 2 bits, this is a Lee proposal, so focus on him. This has nothing to do
To the writer that called income tax unconstitutional, I draw your attention to
Amendment XVI; which states in its entirety, "The Congress shall have power
to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without
apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or
enumeration." This amendment was passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified
February 3, 1913. But I guess this fact doesn't correspond with the en
vogue Articles of Confederation view of the Constitution. You might want to
check Article V. of the Constitution about legality of amendments. It might not
be popular, but it is the law.
I love the way the democrats are squirming at this proposal. They are totally
jumping the party line claiming to be worried about the debt. What a laugh. They
must be really scared.But here is the reason they are scared. This
is a totally conservative proposal which will help the middle class. That is the
last thing democrats want. Democrats want everyone to think they are the
champion of the middle class with all their hand out programs. Now they have an
even better program, that costs tons less, to compete with.They
should be scared.
This is a great tax reduction plan for the benefit of those raising children.
It is a major reduction in income tax and, since 47% do not now earn enough to
pay income tax anyway, I actually feel, like Ron Paul, that income tax should be
abolished altogether.Presently married women who stay home (as many
do) to better raise their children are making a great material sacrifice. I
would like to bet that their children are much less likely to be a drain on the
juvenile justice system, and later the jails and prisons, and the cost of
policing society. With overcrowded jails and prisons and increasing juvenile
problems, so many drug arrests etc the higher exemptions may have many unplanned
benefits as more mothers are enabled to stay home .Abolishing the
Internal Revenue system altogether, if we decided to free everyone from income
tax, would save bureaucratic costs, and remove a fearful and onerous tax
enforcement system.Replace Income Tax with import taxes as our
ancestors did so successfully (before 1913) and abolish those departments that
Mr Paul suggested, close down foreign military bases and stop "obamcare"
- and save TRILLIONS. We'll be better off by far.
please let this happen before my kids are old. I need the extra money! Kids are
This stands out as another reason why Republicans say NO to everything, and
never give any suggestions.Defund and shutdown the entire American
Government to de-fund Obamacare, and now THIS!Keep it coming
Mike.The Democrats need you more than anyone else in the Senate right
I don't necessarily agree with the idea, but I DO agree with the fact that
if Mr. Obama had proposed it - it would be the best thing since sliced bread for
the libs.Their brainwashing shows. Obama good. Republicans bad.
Thats' all we need to know!
Senator Lee is all hat (lots of ideas) and no cattle (no successful
I absolutely love this. The liberals are outraged when someone they don't
agree with, in this case a tax credit for families, wants a tax break. When it
comes to free health care, abortion services, welfare dependency programs,
supporting drug addictions, mental-analysis, medicaid, medicare, social
security, and an ad infinitum list of government entitlement programs, the
liberals want more of it at a reduced rate supported by the the hard working,
oh,dare I say, fathers of this country. So, let's just all get along and
do what the Constitution has said all along, be accountable to yourself, respect
those God-given rights, and return our land to prosperity. Now, that's a
re:BadgerbadgerLetting people keep more is great but my point is
there are others who DON'T get to keep more of their hard earned money and
yet they continue to have to support their children who happen to have left the
home and are living in a dorm at college and still need lots of help from mom
and dad. So what about those people??? If you are going to cut taxes then CUT
ALL taxes ...not just some select few. It is completely bogus to assume others
aren't equally justified in receiving the same tax credit. It is
interesting to see those big families who supposedly need the tax cut ...yet
they turn around with their BIG tax return and spend it on Disneyland. That is a
fact especially here in Utah. I was one of those about 10 years ago and I felt
guilty to get that tax break while my neighbor who was still supporting his kids
in college got NO TAX BREAK. The person who proposed the FLAT TAX is correct.
The FLAT TAX is the only fair way to administer taxation.
Love it when the 47% and their "advocates" suddenly become deficit
hawks! The hypocrites always entertain! banderson has had the greatest comments
today, and NOBODY on the left has provided any logical response to him.
This is actually a great proposal by Senator Lee and would go a long way towards
making taxes fair. You take a couple (husband and wife) making 100K a year, and
compare a couple with 3 kids (family of 5) making the same money,... who pays
more taxes? Of course the couple will pay more. Everyone's situation is
different, but that couple will pay on average, 20K in federal taxes. Lets say
the family of 5 pays a third of what the couple pays, 7K. That leaves the couple
with 80K to divide among themselves for their spending and living, or 40K
apiece. The family has 93K to divide among themselves for spending and living,
or just under 19K apiece. Now who's logic thinks that is fair and
equitable. I say Sen. Lee's proposal is to stingy. It needs to be more like
$8000 tax credit!!
GOP Spending plan: Do as we say, not as we do. This is the same philosophy
that GW Bush did with 2 stimulus packages, tax cuts, 2 unpaid trillion dollar
wars. Seems like the GOP has an appetite for increasing deficits as well.
I don't agree with patriot on much but I admire the consistency on deficit
@bandersen. Why should people get tax credits for having kids in the first
place? In your above post you said people need to be accountable but tax credits
are opposite of that.
To "Shaun" the reasoning behind tax breaks for having children is that
the government needs to encourage people to have more children. The theory is
that to maintain Social Security an Medicare you need new workers to replace the
old ones. Since the government is taking the responsibility of providing for
your retirement away from the individual, they needed to keep the incentive
alive for having children. Since the only way government can incentivize child
birth was through tax credits, they implemented the Child Tax Credit.
I find the absurdity of Sen. Lee's proposal amusing, and it's fun to
watch the gyrations of some of the "righties" who are trying desperately
to find a way to put lipstick on this pig. It's also good to know that the
"anti-neo-Malthusians" are alive and well!As to why this
proposal is absurd, particularly coming from Sen. Lee, let's start with the
fact that it is fiscally irresponsible. Sen. Lee got elected on the notion that
he would be a deficit hawk, but his proposed tax credit would ratchet up the
budget deficit. His argument that his proposal *might* ultimately yield a
larger revenue stream is sort of like a (soon-to-be-bankrupt) businessman saying
that they are going to sell their widgets at a loss, but that they'll make
it up in volume.
(continued...)As others have said, this proposal would increase the
number of individuals who don't pay any federal income tax. If the
"righties" are outraged that (allegedly) 47% don't pay federal
income tax, how are they going to feel about 55%? 60%? Also, indications are
that this would be a non-refundable credit, so it really doesn't help those
who need it most, but its greatest benefit would be to upper-middle class
families with lots of kids (no surprise there).I agree with Prof.
Chambless that this is a non-starter . . . thankfully!
To "SG in SLC" why is granting a child tax credit to encourage a higher
birth rate, which will maintain SS "fiscally irresponsible" at the same
time that your ilk has increased unemployment from 24 weeks to 99?According to your ilk and their fuzzy math, for every dollar spent on welfare
returned more than a dollar in tax revenues. So, using the same sort of
calculation, each dollar a family doesn't pay in taxes, should result in
greater tax revenues.Maybe Senator Lee used the same calculation to
determine that increasing the child tax credit will result in MORE tax revenues
to the federal government.
RedShirt,Could you direct me to your source that links the child tax
credit to social security? I know that we have been promoting the idea in Utah
for a long time that having more kids was going to make us more prosperous. All
that has happened is that our schools are overcrowded and we can't build
new ones fast enough particularly because those who have large families pay no
income tax. The idea that having more kids will pay for government programs
certainly hasn't worked in Utah, and we have been trying to make it work
for over a 100 years.
To "Fred44" there is not a single link between child tax credits or
dependent tax deductions and future solvency of SS. However, there are articles
by the Census and IRS that state that with decreasing birth rates, the solvency
of SS and Medicare is in question. Since they realize that birth rates are
insufficient to maintain SS, they have to encourage birth rates. Since parents
often consider family finances before having a child, the government uses tax
credits and deductions to encourage more births.This doesn't
work for all government programs, just the Ponzi programs that tax workers now
to pay for entitlements of people who no longer work.
With our dependencies on a continual tax base to afford all these government
hand outs, and with marriage being a "right" that no places any
preference on those that can naturally produce children, our country needs to
refocus on rewarding those who contribute to the future of the country in terms
of perpetuating the tax base. That tax base perpetuates SOLELY by
the creation and fostering of well-adjusted children, who grow up to become
future tax payers. They in turn provide children of their own, etc. Give more back to the parents, they do a lot.
Math 101:61,146,753 children in America (in 2008)X$2,500
additional tax credit=$152,866,882,500That's an
instant $152 Billion dollar per YEAR Federal give away program.Not a
good way to bring down the deficit.Typical Republican response.Take it out on Poor, Sick, Elderly and the children.
To "airnaut" if we use the same way of calculating the benefit of the
tax credit that was used to justify extending Unemployment, then according to
Nancy Pelosi for ever $1 spent on unemployment results in $1.79 in taxes coming
back to the government. So, if we spend $153 billion for child tax credits, the
Feds should get $273 billion back. Using the same calculation, this is a
deficit reducing proposal.
RedShirt,So what you are saying is that so that we can keep a
"ponzi" scheme as you referred to social security alive, we should
promote having more children by giving those who do an additional tax break?
Wouldn't that come under the concept of two wrongs don't make a right?
I would argue that parents with large families don't consider
finances, they expect government programs to help them pay for their children.
Those of us with small families however did consider finances and that is why we
didn't have more kids.
To "Fred44" yes that is two wrong don't make a right. It is wrong
for government to think it should provide for everybody's retirement, then
it is wrong to build it on the backs of our children.Some parents
don't consider personal finances. As you point out, they consider
government finances regarding what the government will pay for to have the
children, and what they can get from the government to raise those children.
Are you kidding me. I am single with no exemptions except me. I pay more in
state income tax than close friends with large families. Most get refunds I
always pay federal and claim a small state refund. Since state income tax goes
to public education I am paying taxes to educate other peoples children.
Children cost money to educate and what happens when they get in trouble and
have to be incarcerated. I am not anti-family or against marriage. I am
against paying more than my share of the tax burden. State Senator Pat Jones
wants to remedy the situation in Utah. Kudos to her although I doubt she will
succeed. It is time to seriously consider either a flat tax or national sales
tax. Senator Lee you are not looking out for me or anyone else outside the tea
To "NeilT" actually Sen. Lee is looking out for you. If it wasn't
for your neighbor having the large family, most likely SS would either go
totally bankrupt or have really high tax rates just to remain solvent.Is it fair that you will have your SS funded retirement paid for by kids that
your neighbor had? Where is your contribution to future SS tax payers?
OK, a politician -- and by far not the most intelligent or skilled one his State
has produced -- has a constituency known for large families. He proposes an
extra tax credit of $2500 per child.This seems like such obvious
pandering that one imagines how he thinks it will fly. Maybe he just needs those
older mormon donors and supporters. Is anyone stupid enough not to think that it
costs society a lot to school, protect, and police more kids?Some
large portion of Americans believe that giving birth to more than 2 or 3
children is overtaxing the resources of the Earth and of cities. Why
does Sen Lee not come out for marriage equality, and urge Gay folks to get
married and adopt some of the many thousands of children who need good homes?
This would, in Utah, certainly reduce the number of young mormons who face a
choice of lying vs. unhappiness.
We don't need more tax breaks, Tax the non charitable income of the
churches with a tax credit for the cost of legitimate charitable contributions
and activities. It's time they no longer get a free ride.
Why do I find it ironic to watch the party of abortion, free health care,
welfare dependency, government entitlements, taxation without representation,
and host of other unconstitutional departments and ideas get in a huff over a
child tax credit. Oh, it's actually something that would benefit families
and children without any strings attached. The irony is quite amusing. Thank