Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lane3 who wrote (101024)	2/18/2005 2:06:44 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) of 793990

Not at all backwards. There has been precious little change in the real value of child tax incentives since they were originally enacted. I think the $1,000 we see now was changed perhaps a few years ago. The original figure, which I don't recall, was substantially less and had been in place for literally decades. Adjust for inflation, and I guarantee you that the original figure is worth many, many times what the adjusted figure is now. There were no COLA or other adjustments made for years. The real value of the tax incentive favoring childbearing was reduced by a huge percentage over time. Take away the incentive, as took place, and it is indeed possible that tax policy in some measure did contribute to the lousy demographic trends. My point is that these trends need to be addressed. Meaningful tax incentives are one way of doing so. The trends can be seen here--check 2044, or thereabouts, when it hits the fan: census.gov Also see: findarticles.com A good source, here: aoa.gov

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next