Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

skiitifyoucan t1_jdwy5yt wrote

I looked at my taxes, which I did like 2 months ago. Just wanted to make sure that I got this. I use TurboTax... and they are pretty good about these things. It looks like this applies to children born 2017 and later fyi.

3

Jeddy803 t1_jdwvde7 wrote

What if you already filed?

2

the_walking_guy2 t1_jdyeg2t wrote

The credit is not that new. It was available when you filed. It is only for children under 6 years old.

1

newnemo OP t1_jdwk5mn wrote

>Vermonters who have young children and make less than $125,000 of annual income — including those who make no income at all — are eligible to receive $1,000 per child in a refundable tax credit for the 2022 filing year. Filers who make up to $175,000 are eligible for partial credit.

…..

>More than 34,000 children are expected to benefit from the tax credit this year, according to the state’s Legislative Joint Fiscal Office. However, even as Vermont Tax Department officials promote the new credit, it faces a threat in the Legislature. The state Senate is already considering doing away with the credit to help pay for an expansion of child care subsidies. A proposal to cut the benefit, advanced by the Senate Finance Committee last Wednesday, still needs approval by the full chamber, after which it would likely face an uphill battle in the House.

>Regardless of the outcome of that legislative debate, the credit remains available to families this filing season.

…..

>While the tax credit is currently available to anyone making under $125,000 per year— including those who make no income at all — many families with low earnings are not required to file tax returns and risk missing out on the credit.

>State Tax Commissioner Craig Bolio is encouraging those who are eligible to file, regardless of income, in order to receive the credit.

….

>Alongside the child tax credit, the Vermont earned income tax credit and the child and dependent care credit increased this year to 38% and 72% of the federal credit respectively. Bolio said families who qualify for the child tax credit might meet the requirements for all three.

Article continues….

1

Proud-Put-9907 t1_jebzf62 wrote

Straight trash. Having kids shouldn't pay. If you cannot afford your kids you need to step up or not have them.

1

greenglasstree t1_je0c4r9 wrote

This isn't enough. If governments were serious about making child raising less burdensome for young adults, it would be $12000 per year, per child, for everyone making $400,000 or less per year. Plus free cosmetic surgery and laser scar removal for new mothers. Plus vouchers for night nurses. Plus incentives for childcare professionals overseas to immigrate here. Plus free community college. Plus 1 year of maternity leave and 1 year of paternity leave.

−1

RZRPRINCESS t1_je00jpm wrote

How about a tax credit for people who adopted animals? lol

But seriously that should be a thing, too!

−3

Kvltadelic t1_jdxwfhy wrote

More welfare for breeders!

−14

Rogers_Ebert t1_je56rpq wrote

Believe it or not reproduction is a basic fundamental biological process that all lifeforms engage in or they go extinct.

1

Kvltadelic t1_je5bt3c wrote

Don’t threaten me with a good time, let’s march hand in hand into extinction!

I was mostly joking but I seriously think it’s ridiculous that people get massive tax breaks for reproducing. I’m paying into a system without creating more dependents to pull money out via schools and healthcare.

There should be a tax break for mitigating overpopulation and not forcing anyone to look at dumb pictures of my offspring.

2

Rogers_Ebert t1_je5c7lo wrote

We need people to work and provide servies to the community. We need families to continue providing a tax base to continue as a community. Communities are made up of people and we get more people by reproducing, we need to incentivize this.

It is also a tax break from previous liabilities the family already had, they aren't getting money from the State just keeping more of what they already earned, not the State.

1

Kvltadelic t1_je6uq66 wrote

I don’t know how you could take a clear eyed view of the world and come to the conclusion that we need more people. Global population has skyrocketed in the past few generations, im pretty sure we will be ok.

Look- I am very supportive of social programs that help children and families. And I fully accept that I am paying for program which I won’t directly reap the benefits of, because that’s just part of being in a society that has empathy and takes care of those who need it.

But I just can’t get behind the idea that you should be discounted from that social and financial obligation BECAUSE you are having kids and creating the need for it.

−1

Rogers_Ebert t1_je7mb3q wrote

This idea has been repeated over and over again, yet we have adapted. We adapted through hunger virtually eliminating it in most parts of the world.

Maybe your cynical misanthropic view is the problem?

1

Kvltadelic t1_je7o7nv wrote

Ooooo big swing! I think you are right, the solution to resource scarcity and climate change is definitely optimism!

I’m not cynical or misanthropic at all, I live a relaxing, nap-filled, child free existence. It’s really quite pleasant. And I’m very supportive of other peoples decisions, good on you- have 12 of you want 12. How about you take some responsibility for your actions and pay the taxes I pay in order to fund all of the government resources your children can use. I’m just sick of subsidizing other people getting knocked up because society tells me there is some intangible benefit of spitting out more humans.

0

[deleted] t1_jdy3tsu wrote

[deleted]

−17

ChocolateDiligent t1_jdy5scr wrote

People who can’t afford housing shouldn’t have it either! Losers!

4

[deleted] t1_jdymv6f wrote

[deleted]

−2

ChocolateDiligent t1_je0d6rz wrote

It’s the logic of your own argument, one cannot afford something therefore… Do you believe abstinence works? People have children, most people who care would rather find solutions for inevitabilities, rather than denying their existence or someones rights.

0

[deleted] t1_je0oa7v wrote

[deleted]

2

ChocolateDiligent t1_je1k4rv wrote

Of course abstinence doesn't work, that is my point. Are you on a parade to provide birth control to people for free? It's comments like your original one that misses the mark. People have kids, it is inevitable, planned or unplanned. You can wish people were smarter, but they are not.

So my question is what do you do with that information? Do we support children and their parents knowing that it helps the majority of people who receive funding or not? I'm guessing you are in the not, camp. You unfortunately cannot legislate laws or credit to those who are smart and those who are not, it doesn't work like that.
edit: You still haven't proved why people who can't afford housing shouldn't have it comment is unrelated, it certainly isn't. At the core of your argument lies the same logic, how would you differ from this position if "someone can't afford something they shouldn't have it" and not contradict yourself?

1

Rogers_Ebert t1_je577lf wrote

Humans have been having babies and raising families before the advent of the written and spoken word. There are people that lived in huts made of sod that bore children.

The main issue here is that this is a tax credit meaning it's absolving the parents of an already owed tax liability. Depending on your feelings of the State and government, taxes I'm Vermo t are already too high for their return.

2