Thursday, October 18, 2018

Kamala Harris Introduces Bill to Give Everyone $6,000 Per Year

American families making less than $100,000 a year could be eligible for a monthly "tax credit" of up to $500, or $6,000 a year, under new legislation announced today by Democratic U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris of California, reports the Sacramento Bee.

Individuals making less than $50,000 would be eligible for up to $250 a month, $3,000 a year.

“The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimates the (bill) would impact one in every two workers and two out of every three children in America,” according to Harris’ office.

This is just another crazed scheme from yet another 2020 presidential candidate. Promise the world to everyone, suffocate the economy and put the country on the fast track toward socialism.

Not surprisingly, her father is a professor emeritus in the Department of Economics at Stanford--a total Keynesian macroeconomist.



  1. *Sigh*
    See also:

  2. If this proposal is a true tax credit - a reduction in amount of taxes owed - then it allows those eligible to keep more of their own money and should be praised, or at least supported, by libertarians. Tax credits are not subsidies in which money is taken from some and given to others, as long as a taxpayer doesn't get credits in excess of what they would otherwise owe.

    On the surface, at least, isn't this a move TOWARDS liberty?

    1. @Ombibulous

      This is very true. However, much like Trump's corporate tax cuts, if there are no corresponding cuts to federal spending, the net benefits are limited.

    2. Tax credits are usually designed as behavior modification for doing what the self proclaimed "elites" think is best for society. They are a management tool. Furthermore it is not like government decreases spending for tax credits thus through inflation, borrowing, or some other mechanism they merely shift who pays the taxes from those who qualify for the credit to those who don't or simply take the wealth from everyone later. Then there is the voting aspect of it. Blocks vote for tax credits for themselves and taxes on others to pay for services they want for themselves.

      Thus I do not see tax credits in general as any sort of praiseworthy mechanism, but rather just a way for statists to do what they do and get support for it. Perhaps there is some mechanism by which the state can't manipulate things with tax credits, but it is unlikely.

    3. It's an interesting question with targeted tax credits about whether we should think of them from the perspective of groups or individuals. If the taxes previously paid by those getting the credits will in the future be paid for by others, then as a group taxpayers aren't winning against the state. But from the perspective of those individuals getting the tax credits, that's a win for liberty.

      If a burglar is routinely breaking into every house on a street to take stuff to sustain himself, and one day one resident spends the money to buy some big dogs, such that, going forward, the burglar steers clear of this house, but makes up for it at the other houses, I think we'd say "Well done" to that resident.

  3. Therefor, if you're making 50,000/year, any desire to be more productive (and make more money) is reduced unless there is a HUGE pay increase.

  4. She could do the same thing by just cutting payroll taxes to 0% on your first $25,000, and 0% income tax rate on your first $50,000.

  5. The cutoff is 100K. Thus the goal should be to make 99,999.99 unless one can jump to 106,000. Of course taxes are in play here too so the penalty zone may be even larger. No matter where the threshold is placed there is a penalty zone where the increased earnings do not offset the loss of the government check.