National consumption tax will probably hit some fundies hard, too, I bet.

[Ilsa]

I know people with large familes and good incomes that probably pay next to nothing in taxes, except for FICA. They get the tax credit for their kids. If they lose that income tax structure, thye'll be paying quit a bit more to support the necessities of clothing those children. They won't be happy people, and will claim that this is "anti-family".

What do you think? Have I hit on something here?

[Atman]

1. This could be a HUGE talking point!

The way the GOP picks up on buzzwords and hammers them into the collective conscience, we need to do this with the anti-family consumption tax.

See? I did it right there. Call it what it is ALL THE TIME. It is ANTI-FAMILY. Call it that. Hammer it home.

Someone more qualified than I should assemble a list of the items an average household with kids purchases, and DO THE MATH for the fundies. Huggies are absurdly expensive...what's the tax on a couple of packages of Huggies every week? Shoes for the kids? Backpacks, lunchboxes, toys, books, everything.

What I see happening is congressmen lining up to write exemptions for the type of articles I mention, the way many states currently have some sort of clothing exemption. BUT, then it screws the whole process and begins to defeat the purpose of "simplification." Great point, Ilsa! Thanks!

[Ilsa]

12. Huggies? Man when my kids got out of diapers, it was

like we had gotten a RAISE! Seriously, I figure that diapers cost about 25 cents each, so it is quite easy to go through $1.5-2.00 a day, or $50- $60 a month, plus sales tax.

When we had sales-tax-free-weekend here (an annual event), I stocked up.

This is especially expensive for families whose children have developmental disabilities.

[jmowreader]

2. You may well have

Let me throw out a model for you.

The Joneses have seven children. The child tax credit, which is a refundable credit, is $1000 per child, meaning that after the Joneses calculate their entire tax bill, they then get to subtract $7000 from it. If the $7000 is more than their tax bill was, they receive whatever's left.

Let's also say that the Joneses get paid $60,000 per year but after going through Schedule A, their tax is $4500.

If the Joneses had $6500 withheld from their income for federal tax, their tax bill is $4500 and their credit is $7000, they receive the remaining $2500 from the child tax credit plus the entire $6500 that was withheld all year! This is a tax-free windfall for large-family fundamentalists that will disappear if a consumption tax replaces the current income tax.

If you can imagine going from getting a $9000 check every March to being forced to pay one-third of your income to the federal government, you see the situation the fundamentalists are in. They'll be asked to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but because they went forth, were fruitful and multiplied far beyond the means of anyone who's not named Bill Gates, rendering unto Caesar isn't in their budgets.

[SoCalDem]

8. Wouldn't they only get back the difference of what they actually paid in?

60K is not low income eough to get the EIC refunded to them.. Exemptions only lower your income to reach the "taxable income" figure.. (or so I thought)

correct me if I'm wrong..


The consumption tax WOULD devastate this family regardless of their tax implications though :(

[jmowreader]

17. EIC and the child credit are different, which is why I didn't use it

EIC is intended to bring you above the poverty line. I don't remember what the cutoff is, but it's very low--and in the New Bush Era, claiming EIC is a quick way to be audited if the rest of your return isn't squeaky clean.

The child credit starts to be limited when your AGI is a bit over $100,000, and all one needs to do to claim that is have children. It doesn't seem to be an audit magnet--now that all children must have a social security number, it's pretty easy to prove that they exist.

Both are refundable credits.

Deductions reduce your taxable income. Credits reduce your tax.

[Ms_Mary]

3. Good point. There's also more here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1039835

I've outlined a lot of my concerns and questions in that thread.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. I think you have

this inherent unfairness in the minds of fundies will become more apparent when they realize that childless couples and >gasp< gays who choose not to adopt children will be better off than they will. Also ask them what they are getting for paying all these taxes--better health care service? Better roads? Or nothing?

[Massacure]

5. Would phonebills be part of a consumption tax?

Because of it is, then O'Rielly will be paying quite a bit more on his bill for all that phone sex. :P

[elehhhhna]

9. I'll bet NOTHING is exempt.

[Massacure]

11. Did you find my joke not funny?

:(

[Ilsa]

13. I liked it! heh heh heh. I love every

opportunity someone uses to slam that hypocrit!

[koopie57]

6. what about those

fundies who like to buy a new car every year or two?

[Deja Q]

7. What the fuck?! The repukes are pro-consumerism - wouldn't this tax

REDUCE the amount of spending people would do, which in turn WILL hurt the economy further and kill off jobs, and so on?

Anyone supporting this tax concept, especially if they are Republican (or neocon repuke) is insane.

[Ilsa]

14. I agree with you. I think it would bring retail sales to a

loud screeching halt, at least for awhile. As was said in another thread, then we'd see forms of barter crop up, legal or not. The govt won't have enough agents to try and find everyone trying to "cheat."

[Starlight]

16. That's what I've been saying. n/t

[OneTwentyoNine]

10. Won't care or won't be smart enough to know the diff....

They'd pull a lever for George if they were living in a fucking cardboard box because the Reverand told them to. That won't sway their vote at all.

[Ilsa]

15. That's what alot of people say, especially according to that

What's wrong with Kansas? or whatever that book is called. Alot of people vote "their morals", not their pocketbook. But my guess is that after a few years of it, they'll change their minds and decide it isn't godly to do that, blame the Dems for it, then change it.