Introducing... the Fetus Tax Credit!

[Canuckistani]

If this bill is about helping to allay medical expenses for pregnancy, why is it needed? Can't you already deduct medical expenses of all sorts? If not, why not? Why single out pregnancy, which is a voluntary condition, but not allow deductions for cancer, say?

Why is this bill needed at all? It's the camel's nose in the tent.

[kimmy]

To be fair, the article linked in the OP is misleading.

I don't think anything I said or the article said is untrue or misleading. Michigan Republicans did axe tax credits for actual children last year, and they are now introducing a bill to create a fetus tax credit. What's dishonest?

But if this was really a life-begins-at-conception deal then the bill wouldn't specify 12 weeks, would it?

If they were really concerned with helping families, they wouldn't have axed EITC and childcare tax credits last year, would they?

LOL, well said. They're like a pack of Pavlov's dogs. *ding* *ding* *ding*

"We" are a pack of Pavlov's dogs, but you guys are paragons of objectivity, right? If it's predictable that people like me and cybercoma are against this, it was equally predictable that pro-fetus shills like you and betsy and the Michigan Family Forum and the Michigan GOP themselves think it's a great idea.

True. That's part of the problem relying on very partisan media for information.

Coming from you, that's absolutely hilarious, Mr Fair and Balanced, because you're the last person on the entire planet who has any business criticizing anybody else for relying on partisan media.

Quick impression: "Romney landslide! Romney landslide! I can hardly wait to see the shock on you liberals faces on election night LOLOLOLOL!!"

The guy who had his head so far up Andrew Breitbart's decomposing sphincter that he actually thought Romney was going to win is criticizing me for relying on biased media sources? I don't think that's going to fly.

My favourite part of the OP was the "folks, we couldn't make this stuff up." Actually, you did!

It's all true, and you are wrong as usual.

This is an attack on pro-choice. If a child is a "dependent" at 12 weeks, then the next move is to say that the woman is killing a dependent.

Or fetal monitoring. A lot of people are looking at this as an attempt to back-door "personhood" into law, and given the Michigan GOP's track record on abortion, the suspicion is warranted.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think anything I said or the article said is untrue or misleading. Michigan Republicans did axe tax credits for actual children last year, and they are now introducing a bill to create a fetus tax credit. What's dishonest?

If they were really concerned with helping families, they wouldn't have axed EITC and childcare tax credits last year, would they?

The idea that these two are somehow part of a larger vision for how fetuses are children is put together by the author.

Yep, tax exemptions for fetuses.

This bill really demonstrates the exciting new extremist direction of anti-choice nuttery—the bill author's Todd Akin-style imagined reality, where OB-GYNs are fetus doctors instead of lady doctors, is particularly charming.

[cybercoma]

They are back-dooring fetal personhood.

[Pliny]

They are back-dooring fetal personhood.

Yeah! Just like what happened with Blacks and Women!

[Michael Hardner]

This is an attack on pro-choice. If a child is a "dependent" at 12 weeks, then the next move is to say that the woman is killing a dependent.

AW's assessment is that this legislation recognizes costs that are incurred in preparing for birth, which sounds reasonable to me.

[cybercoma]

So did the early childhood costs go down? Is that why they cut those benefits?

[Michael Hardner]

So did the early childhood costs go down? Is that why they cut those benefits?

I expect that the benefits were cut due to politics as usual.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't think anything I said or the article said is untrue or misleading. Michigan Republicans did axe tax credits for actual children last year, and they are now introducing a bill to create a fetus tax credit. What's dishonest?

The way it's worded makes it sound as if the "tax credit" that fetuses are getting is the "tax cut" that was made for "actual children," especially with the addition of "cynics have accused Republicans of only caring about children until they're born. Well, in Michigan, that claim has teeth." How does that claim have teeth, when children have the same tax exemption as fetuses? How is that caring more about children until they are born? It is misleading, at best.

If they were really concerned with helping families, they wouldn't have axed EITC and childcare tax credits last year, would they?

They kept the dependent tax exemption and lowered the overall tax rate. At any rate, they are at least as concerned with helping families who have children as they are with helping expectant families. There are expenses incurred with being pregnant, which sometimes leads to the mother having to quit work or miss work, where there is no compensation. So there are expenses, just as there are expenses with a still birth - which is why some states have a still born tax. That doesn't mean the legislatures in those states care more about dead babies than they do living babies if they cut some other taxes, does it? So why should that line of logic be applied here?

It is a misrepresentation, and the reaction is somewhat difficult to understand. I would think women/families would be glad to have a tax break that helps during pregnancy as well as after.

[cybercoma]

I expect that the benefits were cut due to politics as usual.

But the fetus benefit was not added due to politics as usual?

[Michael Hardner]

But the fetus benefit was not added due to politics as usual?

Adding government benefits to help families in need ? No, I do NOT think that that is politics as usual these days.

[msj]

The way it's worded makes it sound as if the "tax credit" that fetuses are getting is the "tax cut" that was made for "actual children," especially with the addition of "cynics have accused Republicans of only caring about children until they're born. Well, in Michigan, that claim has teeth." How does that claim have teeth, when children have the same tax exemption as fetuses? How is that caring more about children until they are born? It is misleading, at best.

My reading of it is that the claim has teeth because the article mentions cutting of childcare subsidies.

The basic takeaway I took was this:

Increased benefits $X to potential parents with a potential child - the "fetus tax credit" if you will.

Reduced benefits of $X to existing parents with cuts to existing tax credit(s)/childcare subsidies.

On the whole, the reductions are greater than the increase.

Is that interpretation of the story incorrect?

Is this not what is, in effect, been proposed?

That is, have benefits not been cut and are being cut while a proposed increase for a new tax credit is being created?

Edited November 26, 2012 by msj

[Guest American Woman]

My reading of it is that the claim has teeth because the article mentions cutting of childcare subsidies.

The basic takeaway I took was this:

Extended benefits $X to potential parents with a potential child.

Reduced benefits of $X to existing parents with cuts to tax credit(s)/childcare subsidies.

No, not "extended." Since there were no benefits to expectant parents, how could they be "extended?"

Here's the bottom line - the benefits are the same to those with a child and those expecting a child. There is no "caring more about the fetus" since both the child and the fetus would be privy to the same benefit.

As for the other tax cuts, they have nothing to do with this issue. It's ridiculous to say 'you can't give expectant parents a tax break because other taxes have been reduced.' It makes no sense at all. .

[Bitsy]

Here's the bottom line - the benefits are the same to those with a child and those expecting a child. There is no "caring more about the fetus" since both the child and the fetus would be privy to the same benefit.

I thought the child tax credit had been eliminated.

[Guest American Woman]

I thought the child tax credit had been eliminated.

The child tax credit has been eliminated, but the deduction for a dependent child has not. The proposal in question would allow expectant parents to take the same deduction for a fetus of at least 12 weeks gestation at the end of the tax year (and under a doctor's care) that parents are allowed to take for a dependent child.

[Canuckistani]

Are medical expenses not deductible in the US? Assuming they are, expenses due to pregnancy are already covered.

AW's assessment is that this legislation recognizes costs that are incurred in preparing for birth, which sounds reasonable to me.

Expenses incurred before birth - tax deductible. Expenses after birth, not so much. Reasonable? Really?

[Guest American Woman]

Are medical expenses not deductible in the US? Assuming they are, expenses due to pregnancy are already covered.

Expenses incurred before birth - tax deductible. Expenses after birth, not so much. Reasonable? Really?

Are you truly not getting the reality that both would qualify for the same deduction?

Edited to add: if you think medical expenses are the only expenses incurred by pregnancy, I can only assume that you have no personal experience in that area.

But medical expenses for children are deductible, too; the exemption for dependents is an additional deduction.

Edited November 26, 2012 by American Woman

[msj]

No, not "extended." Since there were no benefits to expectant parents, how could they be "extended?"

Poor word choice then.

What I meant is that the benefits were going to be granted to people based on 12 weeks gestation which is new. So perhaps I should have stated something like a "new twist to an old benefit?"

Here's the bottom line - the benefits are the same to those with a child and those expecting a child. There is no "caring more about the fetus" since both the child and the fetus would be privy to the same benefit.

As for the other tax cuts, they have nothing to do with this issue. It's ridiculous to say 'you can't give expectant parents a tax break because other taxes have been reduced.' It makes no sense at all. .

I'm not talking about tax cuts. I'm talking about cutting childcare subsidies. So not sure what you are talking about on that.

The point remains - on the one hand giving a "new twist on old tax benefits" to potential parents.

On the other hand - reducing childcare subsidies to existing parents.

Which is kind of weird except that we know certain politicians prefer not to give childcare subsidies as certain politicians believe a certain gender should be in the home looking after their children - but that's another can of worms.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Which is kind of weird except that we know certain politicians prefer not to give childcare subsidies as certain politicians believe a certain gender should be in the home looking after their children - but that's another can of worms.

And we also know that certain other politicians want to give subsidies for a certain gender to have abortions, but that too is another can of worms.

[Pliny]

And we also know that certain other politicians want to give subsidies for a certain gender to have abortions, but that too is another can of worms.

Democrats just want women to have the wherewithal to be able to make the right decision for themselves, if the guy is cute enough.