Quantcast
Utah

Sen. Mike Lee pushing for family tax credit

Comments

Return To Article
  • mcdugall Murray, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 6:37 p.m.

    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...

  • slpa1 West Jordan, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 6:45 p.m.

    "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?

  • redshirt007 tranquility base, 00
    Sept. 16, 2013 6:47 p.m.

    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.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 9:02 p.m.

    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.

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 9:02 p.m.

    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.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 9:27 p.m.

    This will definitely swell the number of people who pay no federal income tax. Then future Republicans can run against them.

  • The Hammer lehi, utah
    Sept. 16, 2013 9:41 p.m.

    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.

  • md Cache, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 9:46 p.m.

    Dumb move Lee. The government needs to stop giving handouts.

  • Steven S Jarvis Orem, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 9:53 p.m.

    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.

  • staypuffinpc Provo, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 9:56 p.m.

    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 it?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 10:28 p.m.

    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?

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 11:46 p.m.

    We do not need more tax credits. We need better paying jobs.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 1:49 a.m.

    I wonder what percentage of Utahns already don't pay any income taxes as it is... apparently Lee thinks it should be more.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 5:55 a.m.

    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 good.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 6:13 a.m.

    Redistribution of wealth to increase the debt. Someone tell the tea party to get on the silly hats and protest and yell about this.

  • Cincinnatus Kearns, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 6:22 a.m.

    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.

  • FDRfan Sugar City, ID
    Sept. 17, 2013 7:10 a.m.

    Hope you succeed. This is the kind of tax reform I hope you concentrate your efforts.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 7:12 a.m.

    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.

  • Hamath Omaha, NE
    Sept. 17, 2013 7:32 a.m.

    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 a chance.

  • Ace Farmington, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 8:31 a.m.

    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.

  • CC Saint George, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 8:45 a.m.

    "This should be considered independent of deficit reduction plans"...Are you serious Senator?

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 8:45 a.m.

    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.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 9:45 a.m.

    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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 10:05 a.m.

    Wasn't this the same Senator Mike Lee who lost his Alpine mansion on a Government sponsored Short Sale?

    and bandersen
    I bet he took the tax deduction on that house as well!

  • The Skeptical Chymist SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 10:26 a.m.

    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.

  • IMAPatriot2 PLEASANT GROVE, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 10:40 a.m.

    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.

  • LiberalEastCoastMember Parkesburg, PA
    Sept. 17, 2013 10:44 a.m.

    The only thing worse than a "tax and spend" liberal is a "don't tax and spend" conservative.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 10:54 a.m.

    @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 basically nothing.

  • Social Mod Fiscal Con West Jordan, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 11:05 a.m.

    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.

  • FreedomFighter41 Provo, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 11:07 a.m.

    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. Why's that?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 11:13 a.m.

    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.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 11:30 a.m.

    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!!

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 11:33 a.m.

    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.

  • dobberdobber Ivins, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 11:40 a.m.

    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.

  • andyjaggy American Fork, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 11:45 a.m.

    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.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 11:48 a.m.

    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.

  • milhouse Atlanta, GA
    Sept. 17, 2013 11:51 a.m.

    When will politicians stop giving handouts to their constituents?

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    Sept. 17, 2013 11:54 a.m.

    If we had a single-payer healthcare system, that would go a long way to helping families.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 11:59 a.m.

    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.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 12:02 p.m.

    re:andyjaggy

    Flat 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.

  • sid 6.7 Holladay, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 12:03 p.m.

    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!

  • ProvoLow Provo, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 12:05 p.m.

    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?

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    Sept. 17, 2013 12:14 p.m.

    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.

  • UtahBruin Saratoga Springs, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 12:27 p.m.

    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.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 12:35 p.m.

    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 time.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 12:47 p.m.

    Hey, 2 bits, this is a Lee proposal, so focus on him. This has nothing to do with Democrats.

  • djc Stansbury Park, Ut
    Sept. 17, 2013 1:00 p.m.

    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.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 1:07 p.m.

    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.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 1:21 p.m.

    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.

  • raybies Layton, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 1:34 p.m.

    please let this happen before my kids are old. I need the extra money! Kids are expensive!

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 1:38 p.m.

    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 now....

  • 1conservative WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 1:49 p.m.

    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!

  • dalefarr South Jordan, Utah
    Sept. 17, 2013 2:06 p.m.

    Senator Lee is all hat (lots of ideas) and no cattle (no successful legislation).

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 2:36 p.m.

    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 novel idea!

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 3:07 p.m.

    re:Badgerbadger

    Letting 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.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    Sept. 17, 2013 3:59 p.m.

    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!!

  • JohnJacobJingleHeimerSchmidt Beverly Hills, CA
    Sept. 17, 2013 6:33 p.m.

    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.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 7:05 p.m.

    I don't agree with patriot on much but I admire the consistency on deficit reduction.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 11:04 p.m.

    @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.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 7:51 a.m.

    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.

  • SG in SLC Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 9:03 a.m.

    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.

  • SG in SLC Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 9:04 a.m.

    (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!

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 9:44 a.m.

    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.

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Sept. 18, 2013 11:28 a.m.

    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.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 1:52 p.m.

    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.

  • raybies Layton, UT
    Sept. 19, 2013 6:42 a.m.

    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.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Sept. 19, 2013 9:06 a.m.

    Math 101:

    61,146,753 children in America (in 2008)
    X
    $2,500 additional tax credit
    =
    $152,866,882,500

    That'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.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Sept. 19, 2013 10:55 a.m.

    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.

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Sept. 19, 2013 12:47 p.m.

    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.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Sept. 19, 2013 1:42 p.m.

    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.

  • NeilT Clearfield, UT
    Sept. 19, 2013 8:04 p.m.

    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 party.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Sept. 20, 2013 7:52 a.m.

    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?

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Sept. 21, 2013 12:35 a.m.

    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.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Sept. 21, 2013 5:26 p.m.

    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.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Sept. 22, 2013 8:54 a.m.

    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 you.