|
Published: July 8, 2009
“This may come as a shock to parents”
State slashes tax deduction for dependent children, but won’t touch Planned Parenthood funding
 While California legislators have so far rejected modest cuts in “family planning” funding for Planned Parenthood as a means to help balance a more than $24 billion budget shortfall, lawmakers seem to have no problem targeting families as a way to bolster state revenues.
“California parents beware: Those little tax deductions running around the house are now worth less (in a strictly financial sense, of course),” reports the San Francisco Chronicle. “To help balance its budget, California has reduced the state tax credit for dependents.”
The dependent tax credit for state income taxes will be reduced from $309 to about $99 for 2009, the newspaper reported. As a consequence, the dependent credit will be reduced from $309 per child to roughly $99 per child.
“The change will increase a family's California taxes for 2009 by about $210 per dependent compared with 2008,” said the Chronicle. “A family with one dependent that normally gets a state-tax refund will get back $210 less when they file their 2009 return next year. A family that normally owes money will have to pay $210 more. Multiply that by two or more dependents, and it really adds up.”
Noted Chronicle business writer Kathleen Pender in her column ‘Net Worth,’ “This may come as a shock to parents who have been too busy shuttling between soccer games and viola lessons to keep up with the state's budget fiasco.”
“Obviously, cutting $210 from a $300 tax credit per child is a huge tax increase on families,” observed the blog L.A. Catholic. “Economists have a rule: If you want more of something, subsidize it; and if you want less of something, tax it. Anybody who would tax little kids wants fewer of them.”
L.A. Catholic suggested the state’s bishops raise their voices against the change: “Cardinal Mahony and the rest of our California bishops need to denounce this anti-child, anti-family, mammoth tax increase publicly and loudly, don't you think?”
Posted Wednesday, July 08, 2009 12:23 AM By Central Valley
California bishops raise their voice.....Who will listen. They have surrendered their apostolic authority long ago.The same legislators who will cut tax credits for children will continue funding abortions and Steinbock and Mahony will still give them communion. The rule of the Fresno See is to follow the party line. If you cross the party line and offend, Steinbock will send you packing. California coudl be interesting in a few years with retirments of Mahoney, Steinbock, Brown et al.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 08, 2009 3:38 AM By BJ
California scares me... we gotta pray for a change of heart, (or transplant?), in its secular contra family, contra religious, auto destruction.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 08, 2009 7:50 AM By John
As goes the West Side, so goes the State.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 08, 2009 8:00 AM By JLS
China has a model for this child of the state issue ... forced abortion. And since China is a creditor of this nation, and since creditors like to call the shots, well then we can see the direction that the govt is leading us in.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 08, 2009 8:45 AM By Dave
No doubt California believes in Planned Parenthoods philosophy of getting rid of those on the roles of welfare by targeting minority communities with their clinics and advertising. There is a powerful new documentary out there called Maafa 21 that documents the racist underpinnings of abortion.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 08, 2009 10:05 AM By Ann
Perhaps when the collection baskets appear more and more empty next year, the bishops will finally "get it" and begin to speak up for families who are being punished for having children. The California government seems to be doing the bidding of Satan these days. It's time the bishops do something for families who support the parishes and schools.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 08, 2009 11:30 AM By Abeca Christian
This saddens me. As it is, it is already hard to raise a family here now they want to punish us and make us slaves. I wish I knew what else we can do to punish these anti-family law makers. Of course the liberals don't see anything wrong with this.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 08, 2009 12:26 PM By Pax Christi
Yeah, how about it, Your Excellencies? Put $201 into the state's collection basket, with part of it funding abortions, or put $201 in your collection baskets? The "choice" is yours.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 08, 2009 1:26 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Re.: "“This may come as a shock to parents”, it would be only a shock to parents who have head their heads in the sand for far too long!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founder & Chairman
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 08, 2009 2:24 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Central Valley: Yes, the _San Francisco Chronicle_ report regarding the decision of the State of California to cut (severely) the tax credit for dependent children recounts an unhappy but symptomatic attitude on the part California legislators. But let me ask you this: What is it in this report that, in your mind, warrants your attacking the apostolic authority of Catholic bishops? You write: "[The bishops] have surrendered their apostolic authority long ago." If you think one or another bishop is remiss in the exercise of his Apostolic authority, then be careful to state in what specifc regard this bishop is remissive. But to claim that the Catholic bishops of California have "surrendered" their Apostolic authority is to jump over the horse by seven leagues -- I mean, given what Apostolic authority is and our obligation to respect it.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 08, 2009 6:00 PM By CatholicScoob
Why quote from that nutty tabloid blog
L.A. Catholic?? California Catholic Daily just lost points with me.
|
Posted Thursday, July 09, 2009 2:13 PM By JLS
CatholicScoob: Catholicism does not need your points. Rather you need Catholicism.
|
Posted Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:04 AM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Catholic$scoob,
This may come as a surprise to you, but "California Catholic Daily" came in part from "L.A. Catholic"!
God bless, yours in Thier Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founder & Chairman
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
|
Posted Saturday, July 11, 2009 6:38 AM By Annika
Would any bishop anywhere speak out about taxes burdening families in America? I believe the USCCB believes taxing the best way to redistribute wealth. The bishops look kindly on government's needs, whether inspired by China or otherwise. The policies of most bishops put unfair expectation of revenue being sent to the chanceries by parishes. When the bishops got greedier, was their not a direct correlation with the closing of parish schools? Pah-leeze, the bishops don't give a whit about families and financial burdens. They are even worse than the California legislature.
|
Posted Sunday, July 12, 2009 5:05 PM By Kristen
Annika, this tax credit IS redistributing wealth. It is taking money from people without kids and giving it to people with kids. Every tax credit has to be paid for by someone. A true conservative would be against this tax credit.
|
Posted Monday, July 13, 2009 9:18 PM By JLS
Kristen, this bill reduces the tax credit per child. This means that families have to pay more taxes than before. The complex tax structure should be overhauled. The Church is meant by Jesus to do the giving, not the taking. But presently through govt tax structure, the govt is punishing families per child. People with no children have no tax credit, and thus pay more taxes. Families with children receive tax deductions per child, but not as much as before this bill.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 14, 2009 9:00 AM By Abeca Christian
Planned Parenthood someday we will see the end of you.......the end of abortion, it is then that you will no longer be in business. Who knows, it may come when the world ends....hmm
|
Posted Tuesday, July 14, 2009 3:54 PM By Kristen
JLS, I fully understand what this tax credit means. I still am not going to shed tears about it being reduced. People who are poor (kids or no kids) should get tax reductions. Rich people, upper middle class people--they don't need tax credits simply because they have kids. Poor single people do not need their share of tax pie increased just because other (possibly rich) people have kids. Why is the government punishing people by not giving them money for having kids? (don't kid yourself, that's exactly what a tax credit is). I believe in the conservative tax agenda which is a simplified, flat tax for people, with a deduction for the amount it takes to live very simply, ie the poverty line. This tax credit is liberal foolishness, pandering to people who have kids--ie, most people.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:56 PM By JLS
Kristen, I see your point, and it is well taken. Flat tax could be good, but then it's putting all the fish in one's barrel, the whole shipment on one boat, all the eggs in one basket: All of which means big risk, should a government decide to dink with it. My position is that the Church should give the government money, not the other way around as it is now. You work out the details, but Jesus Christ teaches that the Church should render under Caesar what is Caesar's, and money is Caesar's, souls are God's.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:58 PM By JLS
But, Kristen, one little issue with your "Every tax credit has to be paid for by someone.": Kristen, every printing press in the Treasury's basement was bought on credit.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 15, 2009 9:29 PM By JLS
Rethinking Kristen's pitch with its seeming three parts: One, less tax credit per child is better: Two, because it gives poor parents more money: Three, because somebody has to pick up the tab. I see what she's gettng at, but also I see that she's using "new math", which is based not on number theory but on feel good theory. If it sounds jingly, then it's the right thing for conservatives. Kristen, how am I doing so far? Am I getting it? Say, Obama was elected by this same sort of "new math", or "new logic" rather: Decrease abortion by increasing abortion. So we should increase tax credits by decreasing tax credits. I get it finally.
|
Posted Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:26 PM By Abeca Christian
JLS with Obama there are many free handouts to the people who suck the system dry. For instance some people buy Fillet Minion, Lobster, junk food with their EBT cards (welfare), while the rest of us hard working American's pay high taxes to keep these lazy people well fed, while we can't afford to feed our kids Fillet Minion and good food (only when on sale). I don't mind feeding those that truly need it but when people who don't need it and truly know how to work the system to take my hard earned tax money, then Obama is my enemy because he is a socialist, an almost communist in thinking. In my opinion, his party likes people to be government dependent. How is this helping people work hard and take personal responsibility? Obama and his groupies can all move to an Island away from all of us who take personal responsibility for our actions, where they can all depend on each other but for me, I only want to depend on my Lord and live a life full of great character in Christ.
|
Posted Sunday, July 26, 2009 1:17 PM By mp
I don't understand how all these people don't get that cutting family planning budgets while keeping tax credits the same would in the long run make everyone a loser. That $210 a child might seem like something to freak out about, but how many less unwanted children could come from $210 worth of condoms or other PREVENTATIVE birth control(i.e. NOT abortions)?!? If you have a religious stance against birth control, then fine, I'm not here to argue about whether or not condoms are morally right, but your religious insistence should not come above My freedom to choose not to burden both myself and the taxpayers with another child. If you are in some sort of serious danger over $210, you do not have the financial stability necessary to raise a child, and it's not the government's duty to ensure your dream of raising kids you can't afford. Face it people, the country is overpopulated, our resources are running out, and now you're complaining about not being REWARDED for adding to the crunch?? Get real.
|
Posted Sunday, July 26, 2009 6:13 PM By JLS
mp, condoms and other birth control devices/chemicals are mortal sins, not economic alternatives. Human lives are not commodities. The "Fifth Gospel" reveals that the "great city that is burning" includes the buying and selling of souls. The modern fable that there is a population "crunch" as you call it, is just a fable based on hysteria and hate of humans and God. There is enough food and space for even billions more ... the problem is not lack of resources but insufficient love of God and neighbor. In reality, Jesus teaches us that "the poor will always be with you": This means that no technology or government programs are going to eliminate poverty. The only solution is to love God and your neighbor as yourself. If you don't love yourself much, then worship and love God and you will find love for yourself and your neighbor.
|
© California Catholic Daily 2009. All Rights Reserved.
|