EITC – Better Pay for Hardworking Families | Soshal Network, Social Circle Connection

EITC – Better Pay for Hardworking Families

0

Enjoyed the video ladies check these swimsuits out

The EITC provides much better spend for hardworking households with tasks that merely do not allow them to earn ends meet.

#DrainTheBanks #Sponsored

Share Your Comments

59 comments

  1. Posted by liberal cuck, at Reply

    Just work and stop complaining you lazy fucks

    • Posted by Mexican Muslim Turk, at Reply

      liberal cuck

      Liberals are known for being lazy, that’s why the word “lazy” is synonymous with “liberal.”

    • Posted by Proto Man, at Reply

      liberal cuck they DO work , the work FULL TIME and STILL don’t make enough to survive! … nice try though.

    • Posted by liberal cuck, at Reply

      Proto Man Typical leftists excuses. Maybe if you retards complained less about how poor you are, and found other ways to make money. Maybe you’ll be a bit less miserable.

  2. Posted by Savage-American Imperialist, at Reply

    Cenk, I saw that click bait video earlier and I couldn’t stop laughing by your sheer stupidity. Well, I hope your anus is lubbed up, because, Ben is going balls deep.

    • Posted by Hugh Janus, at Reply

      This is just my opinion, but I think Cenk made that video because he’s trying to turn the whole debate into a joke so he can’t really appear to have lost anything serious. Cenk’s biggest strength in the debate will be pandering to the audience by making Shapiro out to be heartless and mean spirited, while never actually replying to any of Shapiro’s arguments.

    • Posted by Bob Sagert, at Reply

      shapiro is climate denying moron, enough said lol. You ppl are useless, why not go to channels you like and be positive about things instead of coming here and not helping your cause? Because we hear your stupid arguments then just assume all contards must be that way lol;) Find a hobby, son…

    • Posted by Hugh Janus, at Reply

      Bob Sagert Translator: Ben Shapiro makes logical arguments regarding environmental policy and I don’t know how to respond to criticism of my beliefs so please post your comments on another channel.

  3. Posted by bob dylan, at Reply

    Like this I need self esteem

    • Posted by Ms. Woodard, at Reply

      bob dylan like

  4. Posted by Hugh Janus, at Reply

    “Even if you owed no taxes during the course of the year, if you made up to a certain income and have kids, you still get money back.” If you didn’t pay any taxes during the course of the year, how can you get money “back”?

    • Posted by Jordan J, at Reply

      Taxes employers pay that result in garnishing wages would be my guess, but idk honestly.

    • Posted by Celso Junior, at Reply

      Hugh Janus You have to read between the lines. By “money back”, they actually mean “other people’s money”. Math is a socialist’s cryptonite, isn’t it?

  5. Posted by Starpowerplayboy, at Reply

    here for my daily dislike

    • Posted by ASIMO 3089, at Reply

      Starpowerplayboy damn that’s sad lol ūüėā

  6. Posted by Hugh Janus, at Reply

    Why are taxpayers obligated to pay for other people’s children when the parents couldn’t afford to have those kids and abortion is legal in all 50 states? Your body your choice. Your choice your money.

    • Posted by Hugh Janus, at Reply

      Why change the subject instead of responding to my questions and points, M A?

    • Posted by TangoAlphaDelta, at Reply

      Hugh Janus A taxpayer’s obligation arises because the state is sovereign and can impose such on said taxpayers. Your question is really a rhetorical device designed to repeat a libertarian mantra. The rational question is what does a policy achieve and what do you think government policy should seek to achieve. You seem to hold private property rights as an end unto itself, or at least that seems implied by your question. I do not accept that. I consider all private property is a right insofar as it is consistent with the legitimate interests of society. I think society has a legitimate interest in promoting the welfare of children and can therefore tax you to achieve that. Don’t like it? Well you can convince all the other selfish assholes to think like you if you like. That, I think, is one of your inalienable rights.

    • Posted by TangoAlphaDelta, at Reply

      Hugh Janus An “argument” is a reason in support of an idea. So the fact you feel shamed does not negate that it is an argument. Please familiarize yourself with a dictionary.

    • Posted by Hugh Janus, at Reply

      Nowhere did I question the state’s authority to impose taxes. The rest of your comment is deflection and also your opinion, not a response to my questions or points, and also not an argument.

    • Posted by Hugh Janus, at Reply

      That’s incorrect. Implying that children will starve to the point of needing medical care or that government will impose eugenics policies absent government money in and of itself is an assertion, not an argument.

  7. Posted by Monkey Kiss, at Reply

    There should be zero financial incentive to have children and I hope middle class taxpayers aren’t paying for this. Tax the rich, the corporations and shut down overseas tax havens.

    • Posted by Justin Time, at Reply

      nobody is being “incentivized” to have kids because of a tax credit. if you believe that then you clearly have absolutely no idea how much it costs to raise children.

  8. Posted by Kevin Montrond, at Reply

    Republicans will find a way to destroy EITC. They will do anything to screw the poor.

    • Posted by Guindo, The, at Reply

      It’s existed in the federal tax system for 40 years tho………..

  9. Posted by Jeri Kourkoumelis, at Reply

    Get rid of the Federal Reserve and return to the gold standard.

    • Posted by justletmepostthis, at Reply

      Oh. Are you going to go back to Jimmy Dores page then? Maybe the other related channels?

    • Posted by Jeri Kourkoumelis, at Reply

      justletmepostthis¬†You should read Behind The Curtain by John Hammer. The whole thing is philosophical alchemy pushed on to humanity through pay to play corruption by inbred hucksters. A big part of the agenda¬†is about creating debt that allows corporations to take over nation’s resources.

    • Posted by justletmepostthis, at Reply

      Slavery took everything away. Money adds more to it. Its the same end.

    • Posted by emerald3331, at Reply

      We would have recessions and depressions every few years.

  10. Posted by Brown Buffalo, at Reply

    Nelson Mandela destroyed South Africa.

    • Posted by u tubbe, at Reply

      Brown Buffalo nope….racist people like you did.

    • Posted by Brown Buffalo, at Reply

      u tubbe Studies show that 60 percent of BLACK South Africans say life was better under Apartheid. Before him crime rate in South Africa was the lowest in the world. Now it’s among the highest in the world. Facts are racist?

  11. Posted by songsylph111, at Reply

    I wish that we would just require corporations to pay taxes…fairly, AND Pay true living wages.

    • Posted by 500 subs without a video challenge, at Reply

      songsylph111 why don’t people trying to support families get better jobs

    • Posted by Nasty Millenial, at Reply

      500 subs without a video challenge Because it’s really hard to support your children, take care of them AND further your education.

    • Posted by 500 subs without a video challenge, at Reply

      Nasty Millenial then they should wait until they’re done with their education before they have kids

  12. Posted by tyler g, at Reply

    The earned income tax credit is a soft middle ground for what we move towards, a universal basic income.

    • Posted by Nasty Millenial, at Reply

      Bass Boost Mobile You can barely survive with minimum wage, you’d probably still have 2 jobs to make ends meet

    • Posted by Edgar Hernandez, at Reply

      I wouldn’t.

    • Posted by Bass Boost Mobile, at Reply

      i make 10 an hour and im doing ok. but i dont have to support anyone.

  13. Posted by 500 subs without a video challenge, at Reply

    I’m just sayin, you shouldn’t have kids if you know you can’t support them

    • Posted by Pyro 494, at Reply

      500 subs without a video challenge What if you were making six figures before the recession, had one kid in 07, lost your job in 08 or 09, went through their savings to stay afloat, and then had to resort to minimum wage jobs. It’s not as simple as people shouldn’t have kids if they don’t have the money to support them. That is a reasonable thing to ask of people but sometimes they fell on hard times after they had a kid.

    • Posted by Robert Patterson, at Reply

      500 subs without a video challenge I wish your mom didn’t have kids.

    • Posted by 500 subs without a video challenge, at Reply

      Robert Patterson why so

  14. Posted by Listenbuddy1, at Reply

    It’s this kind of thinking that almost destroyed my original hometown of Detroit. Libs destroy everything they try to improve. Avoid them (unless you’re trolling them).

    • Posted by Edgar Hernandez, at Reply

      lol yeah that was the problem.

    • Posted by What Key?, at Reply

      Listenbuddy1 New York City, entirely run by Liberals, greatest City in the world. California, entirely run by Liberals, budget surplus and 6th largest economy in the world by it’s self. Conservative Utopia Kansas is on the verge of callapse.

  15. Posted by James Dulin, at Reply

    How would we prevent landlords from jacking up rents on poor families enjoying this program? Because that is what would happen. Joe suddenly has 50% more income, rent goes up $500 a month.

    • Posted by atomicTOONS, at Reply

      Excellent Question!

    • Posted by Artaneius, at Reply

      Easy if they raise the prices of their rent. The government takes away their liscense and forces them to keep their prices the same or else.

    • Posted by James Dulin, at Reply

      That would be great, but our governments haven’t done that. I mean, when women entered the workforce in mass, rents doubled, because landlords figured couples have twice the money. No one stopped that, because the thought is that middle income and rich people buy rental property to get a return on investment and that investment should be protected by the government (it shouldn’t be, but rich people feel it should be protected). Still, rents go up by the amount landlords think they can ask for, and the game favors them, because if you, as a renter, refuse to pay the increase, they can easily find someone that will pay.

    • Posted by Candi Gryl, at Reply

      We need “Rent Control” in California!!! Its starting to look like New York!

    • Posted by Kosh 963, at Reply

      Housing & Land¬†Core¬†Formula (1st) is generally based at¬†Minimum— on the Gold Standard (X gold multiplied by the price of gold);¬† which,¬† changes yearly for inflation and/or adjusted whenever a¬†change in¬†Renter or¬†Homeowner…¬†¬† (2nd) A higher¬†$ adjustment is¬†included: based on,¬†Average income of a¬†Neighborhood/Community/Area (whichever is the most profitable Point of Reference) , Regardless— if they are Employed within it…¬†and work 100 miles away.¬† ¬†(3rd) Supply and Demand—¬† which, is the Real Reason Real Estate Investors,¬† Hate— HATE… ¬†when government entities ¬†wants to Or builds Affordable Housing Projects…¬† They can’t Manipulate or Monopolize¬†the Volume/Quality¬†of housing…¬†¬†¬†¬†THEN add all other expenses & adjustments for Risk &¬†Profitability.¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬† ¬†Also, on the very over simplistic level—¬† The reason why NY City real estate is More expensive the say any other major city in the middle of the country is—¬† Massive Amounts of Money & Wealth is¬†Piling-up in One Place (/Coast)¬†and¬†Not Spent or Re-dispersed Back (Inland) in a mainly 1 directional economy…¬† And that how people end-up renting or¬†owning S*#! holes for Ridiculous Amounts of money.

  16. Posted by Sean Hayes, at Reply

    Sounds like subsidizing very profitable corporations to further underpay their employees…

    • Posted by Uno G, at Reply

      This plus food stamps keeps Walmart raking it in the the family who owns Walmart own more wealth than 60 million Americans.

  17. Posted by MobiusCoin, at Reply

    Do more substantive policy discussions like this. These are refreshingly interesting pieces.

  18. Posted by Alex M, at Reply

    Cost to lift the 45 million Americans living in poverty above the poverty line using a Negative Income Tax similar to the EITC: $219 billion/year.
    Cost of Trump tax cuts for the richest Americans: $550 billion/year.

    • Posted by poppaDehorn, at Reply

      exactly this. the right can never debate economic policy when they support tax cuts for the rich. “free community college tutition?! impossible, that would cost $60 billion a year!” but theyre fine with gifting, literally handing over more that $500 billion of our tax dollars to the top 1%.