Couple to get a $54,000 tax refund

[qh4dotcom]

If you're expecting to owe money and haven't filed your tax return please hurry up, the U.S treasury needs the money to send a $54,000 check to these folks (sarcasm).

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/01/pf/taxes/adoption_tax_refund/index.htm

[MRoCkEd]

1. Adopt a bunch of kids.
2. Get $13,170 for each at tax time.
3. Put the kids back up for adoption.
4. ????
5. Profit!

(NOTE: Do not try this)

[goopc]

That's 54,000 less that the government has to bomb Libyans, arrest people who haven't complied with the heath insurance mandate, and kick down people's door in the middle of the night in drug raids. At least this family won't be spending the money killing Pakistani children with robot drones.

That's one way to look at it.

[Cowlesy]

Well, at least it seems like a nice family. They had to full-out adopt the kids, and it's a bit of a tax fluke given that their $54,000 is the accumulation of rolled tax credits they couldn't receive because they didn't generate enough income in the past three years to offset it.

It just goes to show how absurd our tax code is, and why it needs reform.

Taxpayers would probably foot an even higher bill of the kids were still wards of the State.

Hopefully these folks raise the kids to be productive members of society.

EDIT: And this is yet another reason why we need to repeal Obamacare (this was part of the Obamacare bill).

[qh4dotcom]

That's 54,000 less that the government has to bomb Libyans, arrest people who haven't complied with the heath insurance mandate, and kick down people's door in the middle of the night in drug raids. At least this family won't be spending the money killing Pakistani children with robot drones.

That's one way to look at it.
You forgot about Bernanke's printing press

[Trigonx]

Or 54,000 more that needs to be printed up, or added into a computer.

[qh4dotcom]

Well, at least it seems like a nice family.

There's a 96% chance that if these folks voted they voted for Obama. That's not very nice.

[moostraks]

There's a 96% chance that if these folks voted they voted for Obama. That's not very nice.

Curious why you believe there is a 96% chance they voted for Obama?

[Kludge]

Doesn't gov't also fund shelters for children? Elementary school, perhaps? Gov't-subsidized daycare?

I'm guessing they pay more per pupil (especially considering it's only a one-time credit as opposed to the 15+ years government funds kids regularly) and have more federal regulations on how the kids would be raised in all those circumstances, too. Not trying to defend it, just add perspective.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Curious why you believe there is a 96% chance they voted for Obama?

Because 96% of black voters voted for O.

[Kludge]

Because 96% of black voters voted for O.

13% of Blacks voted. Actual chance they voted for Obama (assuming all else equal but race, ofc) = <12.5%.

[angelatc]

Yeah, here's the rub:
But the tax law allows parents who adopt "special needs" children to receive the entire credit even if they had no expenses.

We toyed with the idea of being foster parents, but the government screws up the kids by diagnosing them with mental disorders, then putting them on all kinds of medications....and as a foster parent, you don't have any choice but to continue the treatments "they" dictate. So, the state gets extra subsidies for all those "special needs" kids, while potential foster/adoptive parents get frightened away by the prospect of bringing a little psycho into their home.

These people only make $39,000 a year, but the government is allowing them to adopt 5 more kids on top of the 7 they already have? I say this is a welfare scam.

[nathanmn]

13% of Blacks voted. Actual chance they voted for Obama (assuming all else equal but race, ofc) = <12.5%.

Actually I think black turnout was about the same as white turnout in 2008.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1209/racial-ethnic-voters-presidential-election

[Kludge]

Actually I think black turnout was about the same as white turnout in 2008.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1209/racial-ethnic-voters-presidential-election
Whoops. My bad.

65% according to NYT @ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/us/politics/21vote.html

96*.65=62.4%

[devil21]

It's only a one-time credit so I don't have much problem with it. If they were scoring $54k each year Id change my tune though. All those kids will cost them WAY more than $54k one year.

[LibertyRevolution]

12 kids .. the EBT on 12 kids must be a decent piece of change too.

Something tells me they are not paying for healthcare out of pocket either. ZING!

[goopc]

You forgot about Bernanke's printing press

Or 54,000 more that needs to be printed up, or added into a computer.
Even if they just print the money, the government is still in a worse position. The obviousness of our current fraudulent system becomes more clear, the politicians appear even more incompetent, and it becomes harder and harder to finance whatever new project the central planners in DC think up.

[AZKing]

What the heck does that have to do with the Affordable Care Act? Always amazes me how things can sneak into bills.

[ItsTime]

How the hell were they able to adopt if they did not have enough money?!


The Wards adopted the five children over a span of three years, so they've filed for the tax credit each year. But because they didn't make enough money, the tax credit simply rolled over from year to year and accumulated.

[LibertyRevolution]

They ran a foster home. They adopted the kids for free through the state instead of finding them permanent placement.
This is done all the time..then they collect benefits from houssing of these "special needs kids".
If the kids leave your home you lose money .. so they want to take on more kids..
Article said they are collecting like $3,300/mo from the state for the kids.

Do you think we are joking when we complain about welfare abuse?

[NYgs23]

Refundable tax credits are the problem. They allow you to get a so-called "refund" even if you owe no taxes, which is just a sneaky form of wealth redistribution.

[matt0611]

Refundable tax credits are the problem. They allow you to get a so-called "refund" even if you owe no taxes, which is just a sneaky form of wealth redistribution.

Agreed. Its not right that you should get a net positive amount of money from the federal government when you do your taxes. If theres deductions that allow you to to not have to pay them anything then thats it.

[VBRonPaulFan]

I've actually seen a few of these sort of returns come through our pipeline. One return had roughly ~$104,000 refund because they were 'adopting' like 4-5 special needs children. It was fraudulent, of course. They were really foster parents that specifically chose to watch special needs kids because the state was cutting them a damn good check every month to watch them while trying to find them adoption homes. And you can't claim this credit unless you're actually adopting. I really hate the US tax system, this shit is so ridiculous.