http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/01/pf/taxes/adoption_tax_refund/index.htm?source=cnn_bin&hpt=Sbin

In the past few years, the Wards have expanded their already big clan of seven children by adopting five new kids. For each of these adopted children, they are eligible for a one-time tax credit of up to $13,170.

The credit has been around since 1997, but this tax season it is refundable for the first time -- which is the tax equivalent of hitting the jackpot.

Basically, this low income couple gets a $54,000 tax refund despite only making $39,000 per year just because they adopted kids. They have 7 kids already, and now get to add 5 more and get paid to do it? This is exhibit A of a waste of money. These parents should not be allowed to adopt anyone, because clearly they are doing it for a paycheck and not because they care.

The kicker is, on $39,000 a year, there is no FREAKING WAY they can raise twelve children, so you know they are on welfare, sucking even more of taxpayer's money. I won't even go to the racial issue either, so let's not.

Thoughts?

1. I am pretty sure that this is a one time credit that is meant to offset the cost of the adoption process.
2. These people had adopted all of the children without the benefit of the credit since it was not refundable when they originally adopted.
3. The parents are foster parents to begin with and are adopting children with a lot of medical issues.
4. While I think that adding to an already large family when you have limited means is normally not a good thing, I am inclined to agree with this use of money. A better option would be to have someone with means adopt these children but are those people looking to adopt enough of these kids? It does not appear that the family is improving their standard of living by adding children. Indeed it looks as if they are really under the gun. I also think that it is likely more cost effective to have these kids in a family rather than have them bouncing around through foster care or being institutionalized. I know this is a lot of opinion with no numbers to back it up yet. And then there is the human factor...

analogkid;731909 wrote:1. I am pretty sure that this is a one time credit that is meant to offset the cost of the adoption process.
2. These people had adopted all of the children without the benefit of the credit since it was not refundable when they originally adopted.
3. The parents are foster parents to begin with and are adopting children with a lot of medical issues.
4. While I think that adding to an already large family when you have limited means is normally not a good thing, I am inclined to agree with this use of money. A better option would be to have someone with means adopt these children but are those people looking to adopt enough of these kids? It does not appear that the family is improving their standard of living by adding children. Indeed it looks as if they are really under the gun. I also think that it is likely more cost effective to have these kids in a family rather than have them bouncing around through foster care or being institutionalized. I know this is a lot of opinion with no numbers to back it up yet. And then there is the human factor...

Yea, a one time tax credit. These people don't even pay taxes and you know next year they'll get another fat refund because they will have 12 dependents on a paltry salary. Just wait til the welfare clowns get a hold of this information, they'll be adopting kids like crazy to get their drug money.

"1. I am pretty sure that this is a one time credit that is meant to offset the cost of the adoption process."

If they are adopting through foster/ward of the state, the costs are miniscule, if present at all. We aren't talking about a "traditional" private adoption where you have to get attorneys and the state involved to transfer parental rights - costs for that can be exorbitant - easily over $50,000 if interstate.

Im all for adoption tax credits. Many companies will cover part of the cost too

"Im all for adoption tax credits."

I am as well, but any type of 'refundable' credit should raise ethical questions. The couple in question is making $39,000 (no doubt paying no taxes on that aside from FICA), receiving $3,300/mth in assumedly tax free assistance from the state and still gets a $54,000 'refund.' Ideally they'll spend this money wisely. That's nearly $120K net they are receiving from FY '10.

Manhattan Buckeye;732125 wrote:"Im all for adoption tax credits."

I am as well, but any type of 'refundable' credit should raise ethical questions. The couple in question is making $39,000 (no doubt paying no taxes on that aside from FICA), receiving $3,300/mth in assumedly tax free assistance from the state and still gets a $54,000 'refund.' Ideally they'll spend this money wisely. That's nearly $120K net they are receiving from FY '10.

Sweet deal....I wonder if they receive regular visits from Children's Services?

Manhattan Buckeye;732125 wrote:"Im all for adoption tax credits."

I am as well, but any type of 'refundable' credit should raise ethical questions. The couple in question is making $39,000 (no doubt paying no taxes on that aside from FICA), receiving $3,300/mth in assumedly tax free assistance from the state and still gets a $54,000 'refund.' Ideally they'll spend this money wisely. That's nearly $120K net they are receiving from FY '10.

And what prevents them from simply saying "We can't take care of these kids anymore, but thanks for the refund." This loophole was probably designed by the democrats to buy more votes from the ignorant bleeding hearts.

waaay cheaper than the state caring for them. these kids likely would never have been adopted. older children with medical problems.

Gblock;733112 wrote:waaay cheaper than the state caring for them. these kids likely would never have been adopted. older children with medical problems.

Let's see....ward of the Nanny State or adoption by Momma & Poppa Scamthesystem. I'll get back to you on that one.

LJ;732122 wrote:Im all for adoption tax credits. Many companies will cover part of the cost too

So it's the government and tax payers' duty to pay for peoples' adoptions?

Gblock;733112 wrote:waaay cheaper than the state caring for them. these kids likely would never have been adopted. older children with medical problems.

How is it way cheaper? They just got a $54,000 tax refund, $3,300 per month, and the couple will get to claim 7 dependents. And do you really believe that someone can take care of 14 people(12 kids + 2 adults) on $39,000 a year? They're on welfare, the state is still paying for them.

I'd rather the state take care of them at a premium, at least we know where the money is going.

WebFire;733903 wrote:So it's the government and tax payers' duty to pay for peoples' adoptions?

So you are against all tax credits?

sleeper;733926 wrote:How is it way cheaper? They just got a $54,000 tax refund, $3,300 per month, and the couple will get to claim 7 dependents. And do you really believe that someone can take care of 14 people(12 kids + 2 adults) on $39,000 a year? They're on welfare, the state is still paying for them.

I'd rather the state take care of them at a premium, at least we know where the money is going.

Don't forget they will probably get government assistance for day care costs, free school lunches for life and probably plenty of financial aid to attend college down the line. (let's be honest, it will probably be free for them). That's no chump change for 12 kids.

That's a nice score, but the way the professionals do it on the east side of Cleveland is to have 10 kids with one woman, don't marry her, get her on welfare, the father works and gets the fat tax refund every year. You can make 6 figures a year on a $12/hour job that way.

LJ;733930 wrote:So you are against all tax credits?

I know I am. The purpose of the power of taxation is to provide funds for the legitimate functions of government. Period. To use it as a punitive measure to discourage the legal activities of the people so they behave in a manner the government sees fit or to reward those that act according to the will of the government with exemption from those punitive measures, is in my opinion an unjust abuse of that power.

LJ;733930 wrote:So you are against all tax credits?

I am. Any tax credit is just social/economic engineering by the government. I'd rather have them lower taxes across the board, then use lame incentives like "Adopt a child, and we'll give you money". What about the people who have no interest in adopting children? They get to subsidize those that CHOOSE to adopt. Awesome!

sleeper;734124 wrote:I am. Any tax credit is just social/economic engineering by the government. I'd rather have them lower taxes across the board, then use lame incentives like "Adopt a child, and we'll give you money". What about the people who have no interest in adopting children? They get to subsidize those that CHOOSE to adopt. Awesome!

Just another form of redistribution if wealth. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

LJ;733930 wrote:So you are against all tax credits?

Yeah, I guess I am. Kind of defeats the purpose of taxing in the first place. They need to majorly simply the tax system.

sleeper;734124 wrote:I am. Any tax credit is just social/economic engineering by the government. I'd rather have them lower taxes across the board, then use lame incentives like "Adopt a child, and we'll give you money". What about the people who have no interest in adopting children? They get to subsidize those that CHOOSE to adopt. Awesome!

What about the costs that would come out of your pocket in the form of taxes if there weren't subsidies to encourage private actors to adopt children? For instance, the justification for allowing non-profits to be tax exempt is because they supposedly seek to alleviate some societal burden that might otherwise be born by the People as a whole. In this instance, you have private individuals agreeing to alleviate your burden to provide tax dollars for the state rearing children. In addition, it is a general rule that a private actor might better raise children without parents than if they were to be raised by the state. If the state has an interest in providing the structures that might better provide for our future generations it seems to me that a tax credit for those who might take up this charge is not horrible pill to swallow.

believer;734166 wrote:Just another form of redistribution if wealth. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Blah, blah, blah. I wonder which influential thinker said this one. "The subject of every State ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the State."