Transferable film tax credits allow companies to SELL tax credits to other companies

Dead of Knight

CAGiversary!
Feedback
15 (100%)
How the fuck is this legal???? WHY is this legal?!

http://www.boston.com/business/taxes/articles/2012/01/03/studios_credits_let_others_cut_taxes/

Most tax credits issued by the state to film production companies end up being sold to brokers, which then resell them at a profit to financial firms, other corporations, and wealthy individuals to slash their tax bills.

At least 96 percent of the $265 million in tax credits used to attract movie and television productions to Massachusetts were sold by the film companies between 2006 and 2010, according to the state Department of Revenue.

The incentives are so generous - rebates of up to 25 percent of production costs in the state - that most film companies do not end up owing nearly enough in taxes to use the credits. So they sell them at a discount, fueling a booming industry for brokers, accountants, and savvy taxpayers.

The trade in credits is sparking new criticism of the economic development program.

“The public assumes that the film tax credits are going to the film industry to bring jobs - not to Walmart,’’ said Deirdre Cummings, legislative director for the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group, an advocacy organization based in Boston. “I think the general public would have a problem with that.’’

Companies and individuals use tax credits to reduce tax bills. For example, a $1 million credit reduces a company’s tax payment by that amount.

But most film companies do not owe enough in state income taxes to use the credits, so they typically sell them.

A production company that is awarded $10 million in tax credits might sell them to a broker for $8.7 million. The broker then sells the credits to a financial company that owes state incomes taxes for a bit more - say for $9 million, earning the broker a $300,000 profit. The financial firm can then claim the full $10 million in credits on its tax return, saving $1 million.

The practices were highlighted last month when prosecutors charged a Cape Cod filmmaker, Daniel Adams, with fraudulently obtaining $4.7 million in credits for the films “The Golden Boys’’ and “The Lightkeepers.’’

Prosecutors said Walmart Stores Inc. and Bank of America Corp. bought the credits through a broker to reduce their taxes.

The companies do not report how much they earn in Massachusetts or pay in taxes in the state. The state Department of Revenue generally does not disclose how much individuals and corporations pay in taxes because of confidentiality laws.

Bank of America declined to comment. Walmart said it “makes every effort’’ to comply with state laws.

Other companies confirmed they buy film tax credits. One of the largest insurers in the state, Hanover Insurance Group of Worcester, has purchased “small amounts’’ of tax credits in recent years. Kahn, Litwin, Renza & Co. Ltd., an accounting firm with offices in Boston and Providence, buys film tax credits to help clients lower their tax bills, said Robert D’Andrea, a principal with the firm.

Officials in Governor Deval Patrick’s administration declined to say whether the governor supports film and other transferable tax credits, which can be sold to investors. A state commission is studying the issue, and the administration is awaiting the findings, to be reported in April, said Alex Zaroulis, a spokeswoman.
“We are focused on making sure the tax credits work,’’ she said.

Massachusetts, one of about three dozen states that provide film incentives, began offering tax credits in 2006 to lure movie and television productions to the state, create jobs, and boost the economy.

The incentives have helped to attract major feature films such as Ben Affleck’s movie “The Town’’ and increased film production spending in the state by more than $300 million from 2006 to 2010, according to the Revenue Department.

The competition between states for film productions has been fierce in past years. Massachusetts, for example, adopted its tax credits just months after Rhode Island launched a similar program.

Film incentives are not the Bay State’s only transferable tax credits, which are frequently used to help nonprofits and small companies not yet earning significant profits.

The state allows companies to sell credits for so-called brownfield development on former industrial sites; historic rehabilitation; building low-income housing; and manufacturing medical devices. This fiscal year, the state expects to spend more than $200 million on transferable credits, including $80 million for film companies.

Critics say the state could save millions of dollars a year by converting the tax credits to a grant program that provides direct subsidies equivalent to the 87 percent value that film companies typically receive. That would cut out brokers and buyers who pocket the rest, estimated by the state at $33 million over five years.

Such a system would allow the public to know who benefits from the subsidies. For the most part, the names of tax credit buyers are kept secret because of privacy laws.

“They are essentially a grant,’’ said state Senator Jamie Eldridge, Democrat of Acton, “so the state government needs to have a more transparent process for making decisions about whether this is a good use of taxpayer dollars.’’

Many brokers and film companies, however, say the current system works fine.

In Somerville, Powderhouse Productions Inc. churns out television programs for several networks, including “Dogs 101’’ for Animal Planet, “Extreme Engineering’’ for the Discovery Channel, and “America’s Wildest Roads’’ for the Travel Channel.

The company has gotten several million dollars in state film tax credits, selling most of them to Coastal Capital Advisors LLC in Boston, which then peddles them to companies looking to cut their tax bills.

Coastal would not disclose its buyers.

Tug Yourgrau, Powderhouse’s president, said the credits have helped his production company become one of the biggest in New England and triple employment to more than 100 since 2006.

“It’s Miracle-Gro,’’ he said.

The thing that's even crazier is that when I was at the accounting firm that I quit, I worked on the film tax credit procedures for one of the companies mentioned in the article, and I had NO IDEA this shit was transferable! As an accountant, I can't believe shit like this exists! This is some of the shadiest shit I've ever read. I can't say enough about how ridiculous this is. Damn...
 
[quote name='camoor']Massachusetts is so fucking corrupt. It's a slightly less trashy version of New Jersey.[/QUOTE]
I beg to differ. It's just as trashy!:lol:
 
Iowa had a similar program in place until it was abused to all hell and shut down. I sat in on the trial of one woman who had manipulated the program so severely that she had actually made a profit on the film before it had even been sold. I'd go into greater detail but my touchpad is being touchy with the auto-correct. I'll go into more detail tomorrow morning when I'm on my laptop.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Iowa had a similar program in place until it was abused to all hell and shut down. I sat in on the trial of one woman who had manipulated the program so severely that she had actually made a profit on the film before it had even been sold. I'd go into greater detail but my touchpad is being touchy with the auto-correct. I'll go into more detail tomorrow morning when I'm on my laptop.[/QUOTE]

Definitely interested in hearing this. Now I'm more glad than ever that I quit that accounting firm.
 
I believe Delaware corporations are shady so this is a fucking brand new level of shady to me.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Definitely interested in hearing this. Now I'm more glad than ever that I quit that accounting firm.[/QUOTE]

To begin, here's a Wall Street Journal article on the specific case I sat in on. Unfortunately the article doesn't go into very much detail about how her and her cohorts specifically profited from the movie so I'll run it down. It was actually a pretty complex scheme but I think I'll be able to remember most of it (the trial itself was almost a year ago now so things have gotten a little foggy, the article I linked is based on the sentencing which was a few months later).

To begin, she started a production company specifically to produce a film in Iowa. The name of the movie was The Scientist which they actually showed during the trial and while it was a film, it definitely was one of those typical "indie-type" movies. She needed others to run her scam though so she brought in some other people that she knew or worked with in Minnesota.

So basically the film tax credits worked by reimbursing 50% of any costs of a film produced in Iowa. Filmmakers were required to submit invoices and expenses in order to receive these credits. The way the scam then worked is that her production company hired her friends' companies for sound production, post production, etc. who then vastly inflated the costs. One example they showed during the trial was an apple box which was rented for the time of the movie production but the charges were so high on it such that the apple box could have been purchased bran new outright 5 times over. The prosecution also submitted pictures of the production truck which was your pretty standard 1 ton delivery truck but also showed evidence that the amount of stuff that was rented for the production would have needed to be stored in a semi trailer.

Now, the way it worked was that instead of paying out all these charges directly they gave "service in kind" invoices which basically worked to give the associated production companies an ownership stake in the film rather than an actual payment. This was key to the scam because otherwise they would have needed to actually spend the money up front rather than jut being able to rack up bogus charges that never really existed in the first place.

Anyway, after inflating these charges all the way up they received the film credits from the state which they immediately transferred/sold to other companies by way of a broker. Upon selling these credits they had already made a profit on the production of the movie before it had already been sold. The 3 main players and the "production companies" they owned received somewhere in the neighborhood of $1-2 million between the 3 of them. Now this was pure profit because they were already receiving salaries on the film in addition to having outside investors (who may/may not have known about the scam) such as a typical film would have. Those investors were also paid back in full, even before the movie was sold.

To top it all off, when the legislature found out about how the abuse of the program they quickly shut it down. Obviously there was a grace period though where any films submitted prior the actual termination of the program would be grandfathered in. At this point her production company submitted dozens of movie applications in effort to continue this scam.

This is really the broad overview of how the scam worked but this particular woman was the first to be charged criminally and go to trial. Like the article says she pleaded guilty to one charge in exchange for the remaining charges to be dropped. It was a terrible guilty plea though in which she still dragged her feet about saying she was guilty (the court, and as you can see, this judge in particular doesn't take kindly to someone pleading guilty but not actually accepting guilt). Not only that but between the trial and the sentencing she continued to blast Iowa and the Attorney General's office (who prosecuted the case) publicly saying that she was considering suing them for defamation. None of this helped her with sentencing, as you can see from the article, because the judge ended up giving her the maximum sentence for the charge she pled guilty to.

The saga continued in that the film office director, Tom Wheeler, was also charged in this because the woman in this case was not the only one who ran this type of scam. For the short time these credits were available, it's estimated that about $20 million in fraudulent charges were reimbursed by the state with tax credits. Now, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that Wheeler himself profited (aside from his state salary, obviously) from any of these scams but there does seem to be evidence to suggest that he was counseling these companies/individuals on how best to take advantage of the program including the "services in kind" invoices and putting them in contact with the broker to sell the credits. Tom Wheeler ended up having his trial at the end of summer and was convicted of 1 charge that carries a maximum penalty of 5 years but sentencing has not occurred yet.
 
sounds like most every film project I ever worked on back in the day.

It's mostly an unintended consequence. Transferable Tax Credits originally showed up in the non-profit sector (as alluded to earlier) for good reasons. When the fools decided to employ the same techniques for bringing in film money (seen as a temporary boon for local business) then it started getting a touch on the shady side. It's an interesting case of legal fraud for all intents and purposes.

I can't even begin to imagine tracking that from a financial perspective... Showing a profit on a P&L before even having sold the thing? That's got to take some genius level of subterfuge!
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']wall o' text[/QUOTE]

Sheesh! Some crazy shit indeed. Did Iowa require procedures to be done by an independent CPA firm or did they just submit the shit to the state without anyone doing due diligence? MA requires an independent CPA firm to review the shit over a certain amount, I believe it is (too lazy to recheck), which helps with fraudulent charges, but the fact that the credits are transferable in the first place is just asinine.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Sheesh! Some crazy shit indeed. Did Iowa require procedures to be done by an independent CPA firm or did they just submit the shit to the state without anyone doing due diligence? MA requires an independent CPA firm to review the shit over a certain amount, I believe it is (too lazy to recheck), which helps with fraudulent charges, but the fact that the credits are transferable in the first place is just asinine.[/QUOTE]

As far as I understood it Tom Wheeler was the only person with oversight and the responsibility of auditing. Everything went through him and once approved by him the credits were issued. At one point during the trial they specifically mentioned him as a rubber stamp. They subpoenaed him as a witness but he pleaded 5th amendment through his lawyer so they never bothered to call him.

In Iowa's case the transferability of the credits was essentially what made it profitable. Otherwise, at best they would be able to make a movie tax free.

Also, as i understand it, films aren't the only area where transferable tax credits are issued. Films just seem to be the most ripe for abuse.
 
So, in this case, I assume they can't just claim the extra tax credit and get more money back than they paid in to begin with? Like individual households get to do?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, in this case, I assume they can't just claim the extra tax credit and get more money back than they paid in to begin with? Like individual households get to do?[/QUOTE]

I'm guessing not considering this whole thing. And not all individual tax credits are like that. Only refundable ones are.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, in this case, I assume they can't just claim the extra tax credit and get more money back than they paid in to begin with? Like individual households get to do?[/QUOTE]

Did you ever play any sim games when you were a kid? They were big on the PC back in the day.

I remember I was playing an Anicient Greece sim and I tried taxing peasants but it didn't work. You needed the peasants to get anything useful done but they just didn't have the excess money that the aristocrats did, taxing the peasants at any meaningful level just lead to ghettos and fail.

Some of those sims could teach a history lesson better then any college course.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Not giving people money = taxing?[/QUOTE]

Eh I don't want to derail the thread anymore. I'd be glad to talk about the sim and the corralaries between spending the money to build the hospital to real world concepts like medicare but it should be a different thread.

I was trying to be subtle, forgive me for forgetting that you have to be beaten over the head again and again and again with the truth before you abandon a thread.
 
I tell you what, camoor - you go back and delete your initial post where you take the thread off the rails by talking about sim games and your thoughts on how video games reflect upon real life and I'll stop asking you how your post has any bearing on my question I initially asked.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I tell you what, camoor - you go back and delete your initial post where you take the thread off the rails by talking about sim games and your thoughts on how video games reflect upon real life and I'll stop asking you how your post has any bearing on my question I initially asked.[/QUOTE]

how about no
 
Fine with me. I like the part where I make a post about the topic, you go off on a tangent about tax policy, then accuse me of trying to derail the thread anyway.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, in this case, I assume they can't just claim the extra tax credit and get more money back than they paid in to begin with? Like individual households get to do?[/QUOTE]

This, this is where the thread first went off topic, doesn't look like Camoor's post to me. You had an agenda posting that, you know, we know, and camoor knew it when he called you out on it. He attempted to extricate himself but you kept pecking.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']This, this is where the thread first went off topic, doesn't look like Camoor's post to me. You had an agenda posting that, you know, we know, and camoor knew it when he called you out on it. He attempted to extricate himself but you kept pecking.[/QUOTE]

How is that going off-topic? We're talking about how the tax system is flawed and I merely took the exact topic at hand and likened it to another aspect of the tax system that is very similar to the one being discussed - i.e.: using tax credits to come out ahead of what you've paid into the system.
 
I was playing Saints Row the other day and it sort of reminded me of our corporatist society. I think the Third Street Saints should Occupy Steelport and form a consumer protection agency and cap some bitches. I also like Super Mario World. So anyone got any coal they want to trade for a coupon on Steam?

That's how you derail a thread.
 
I remember this being a problem in certain Europen countries (Germany comes to mind), but they closed the loopholes fairly quickly. Whenever tax credits are involved people/corporations seem to always try to find a loophole to abuse them.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']I remember this being a problem in certain Europen countries (Germany comes to mind), but they closed the loopholes fairly quickly. Whenever tax credits are involved people/corporations seem to always try to find a loophole to abuse them.[/QUOTE]

Uwe Boll!
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']I didn't see anything wrong with UncleBob's initial post, guys.[/QUOTE]
Then you don't know uncybob very well. He's trying to say (with some subtlety I suppose) that corporations should be treated the same as individuals. So any advantages individuals may get in some situations (like the tax refunds you mention) corporations should get as well.

He's a corporate apologist, if that helps make it any clearer.
 
[quote name='Clak']Then you don't know uncybob very well. He's trying to say (with some subtlety I suppose) that corporations should be treated the same as individuals. So any advantages individuals may get in some situations (like the tax refunds you mention) corporations should get as well.

He's a corporate apologist, if that helps make it any clearer.[/QUOTE]

I see. But still, not all individual tax credits are refundable. Still, I think in this case, a refundable credit would be better than allow the fucking selling the credits to big companies like Walmart.
 
[quote name='Clak']Then you don't know uncybob very well. He's trying to say (with some subtlety I suppose) that people who run corporations should be treated the same as individuals.[/quote]

Somewhat.

So any advantages individuals may get in some situations (like the tax refunds you mention) corporations should get as well.

Not quite. I actually disagree with this abuse of the tax system.

However, I also do not feel that individuals should be able to get back more from filing their Federal Income Taxes than what they paid into the system for the year. I get that some folks have a zero tax liability as far as Federal Income Taxes. I'm not a fan of having a negative tax liability.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Somewhat.



Not quite. I actually disagree with this abuse of the tax system.

However, I also do not feel that individuals should be able to get back more from filing their Federal Income Taxes than what they paid into the system for the year. I get that some folks have a zero tax liability as far as Federal Income Taxes. I'm not a fan of having a negative tax liability.[/QUOTE]

Can you be more specific as to what comes to mind when you think of a tax credit that you are against? Because the first things that pop into my mind are credits for education, first time home buying, child care expenses... things that should ultimately lead to allowing individuals to make more money and thus contribute more in taxes later on after a period of their life passes where that credit could make or break a decision. Not trying to argue the merits of those credits on a micro level but your statement is very black and white and leads me to think you have some confusion on what's a credit vs deduciton. I think it'd be easy to bring up some kind of welfare sponge example but I can speak from personal experience and say that in my early 20s when I was working and going to school full time and living on my own, the credit I got back in taxes from education expenses definitely went toward paying for my summer semesters in college so I could get the hell out of a dead end retail job and into a profession career ASAP.
 
[quote name='QiG']Can you be more specific as to what comes to mind when you think of a tax credit that you are against? Because the first things that pop into my mind are credits for education, first time home buying, child care expenses... things that should ultimately lead to allowing individuals to make more money and thus contribute more in taxes later on after a period of their life passes where that credit could make or break a decision. Not trying to argue the merits of those credits on a micro level but your statement is very black and white and leads me to think you have some confusion on what's a credit vs deduciton. I think it'd be easy to bring up some kind of welfare sponge example but I can speak from personal experience and say that in my early 20s when I was working and going to school full time and living on my own, the credit I got back in taxes from education expenses definitely went toward paying for my summer semesters in college so I could get the hell out of a dead end retail job and into a profession career ASAP.[/QUOTE]

That sounds great - in theory.

The issue I have with that, however, is that there's absolutely no guarantee that an individual is going to use that free money to better themselves in such a way that they'll be paying more taxes in later.

It's the same line of thought as someone saying "Hey, let's give MegaCorp a huge tax credit - they'll use that savings to create more jobs, which will create more taxes via more working individuals."

Raise your hand if you support that line of thinking.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']That sounds great - in theory.

The issue I have with that, however, is that there's absolutely no guarantee that an individual is going to use that free money to better themselves in such a way that they'll be paying more taxes in later.

It's the same line of thought as someone saying "Hey, let's give MegaCorp a huge tax credit - they'll use that savings to create more jobs, which will create more taxes via more working individuals."

Raise your hand if you support that line of thinking.[/QUOTE]

Individuals =/= corporations

Plus I don't really care if they better themselves, giving them back some money in taxes to poverty-stricken individuals means they are less likely to abuse social services, resort to theft, get tied up in trouble/courts/jail, etc. It's cost effective.

Then it just becomes a matter of principle, and arguements based on nothing but principle are typically bullshit.
 
[quote name='camoor']Then it just becomes a matter of principle, and arguements based on nothing but principle are typically bullshit.[/quote]

I put it in this order because this is the truest and most relevant.

The people who says that are the people who are least likely to have principles to begin with.

Plus I don't really care if they better themselves, giving them back some money in taxes to poverty-stricken individuals means they are less likely to abuse social services, resort to theft, get tied up in trouble/courts/jail, etc. It's cost effective.

There are always exceptions, but to focus on outliers to the exclusion of everything else is classic trolling.

Also for the purpose of getting the economy going again if they go out and buy big screens it is still putting money to work.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']That sounds great - in theory.

The issue I have with that, however, is that there's absolutely no guarantee that an individual is going to use that free money to better themselves in such a way that they'll be paying more taxes in later.

It's the same line of thought as someone saying "Hey, let's give MegaCorp a huge tax credit - they'll use that savings to create more jobs, which will create more taxes via more working individuals."

Raise your hand if you support that line of thinking.[/QUOTE]

What's in theory? I gave you a real world example of it working. Keep in mind these credits are based on the individual having already spent money in a specific way. If we gave money to everyone who said they're planning on going to go to college, whoa man we'd be in trouble.

I absolutely raise my hand that I believe in this working.
 
[quote name='Msut77']There are always exceptions, but to focus on outliers to the exclusion of everything else is classic trolling.

Also for the purpose of getting the economy going again if they go out and buy big screens it is still putting money to work.[/QUOTE]

Great point, I believe most economically disadvantaged Americans are willing to work hard to become a success if they are just given a chance, but when talking to conservatives the convo always seems to short circuit to so-called "welfare queens" so I thought I would just cut to the chase.
 
[quote name='QiG']What's in theory? I gave you a real world example of it working. Keep in mind these credits are based on the individual having already spent money in a specific way. If we gave money to everyone who said they're planning on going to go to college, whoa man we'd be in trouble.

I absolutely raise my hand that I believe in this working.[/QUOTE]

Some of the credits are based on how the money is spent. Then, there's the "Earned Income Tax Credit", where merely having children gets you free money from the government.

But, as far as your specific situation, as we've already established many times on here, one person's story = anecdotal evidence - which is no evidence at all.

[quote name='camoor']Individuals =/= corporations[/quote]

Individuals = people who run corporations.

Unless all the major corporations have been secretly taken over by Skynet. In which case, I guess it doesn't really matter - the whole "No Fate" thing is crap.

Plus I don't really care if they better themselves, giving them back some money in taxes to poverty-stricken individuals means they are less likely to abuse social services, resort to theft, get tied up in trouble/courts/jail, etc. It's cost effective.

"Give me your money or I'll take it from you."?

There's sound reasoning to base an entire social environment upon.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']"Give me your money or I'll take it from you."?

There's sound reasoning to base an entire social environment upon.[/QUOTE]

You don't really have a choice. If a guy has a starving kid at home he's going to do what he has to do even if it involves stealing a loaf of bread. You can believe that.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Some of the credits are based on how the money is spent. Then, there's the "Earned Income Tax Credit", where merely having children gets you free money from the government.

But, as far as your specific situation, as we've already established many times on here, one person's story = anecdotal evidence - which is no evidence at all.[/QUOTE]

I am curious as to your source regarding EITC because you seem to be misinformed. It is not a reward for breeding as you would have people believe. It's not even a requirement to have children to qualify. It's a supplemental credit for low income earners, with an emphasis on income earners. If someone simply had a child and did not work during the tax year, they would not qualify.

But I do see that you are vehemently set in your opinion and I will stop trying to sway you. I understand where you are coming from because it is easy to think of people who have made a living of abusing the system, I just wanted to point out that there are people out here who are productive members of society who have been able to use the help provided for the exact reasons they were intended. I consider myself one of those people, I've actually qualified for EITC a few years back. Coming from a background where every bit of help made a difference I appreciate the small investment fellow tax payers have made in me along the way and I believe that a few bad apples shouldn't ruin it for everyone.
 
[quote name='QiG']I am curious as to your source regarding EITC because you seem to be misinformed. It is not a reward for breeding as you would have people believe. It's not even a requirement to have children to qualify. It's a supplemental credit for low income earners, with an emphasis on income earners. If someone simply had a child and did not work during the tax year, they would not qualify.

But I do see that you are vehemently set in your opinion and I will stop trying to sway you. I understand where you are coming from because it is easy to think of people who have made a living of abusing the system, I just wanted to point out that there are people out here who are productive members of society who have been able to use the help provided for the exact reasons they were intended. I consider myself one of those people, I've actually qualified for EITC a few years back. Coming from a background where every bit of help made a difference I appreciate the small investment fellow tax payers have made in me along the way and I believe that a few bad apples shouldn't ruin it for everyone.[/QUOTE]

Socialist!
 
[quote name='QiG']It is not a reward for breeding as you would have people believe. It's not even a requirement to have children to qualify.[/QUOTE]

I think you'd reasonably agree - If two individuals are exactly alike, except one has a kid and the other does not - the individual with a kid is going to qualify for quite a bit more of an Earned Income Credit than the one without the kid - for no other reason than that they have a kid.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I think you'd reasonably agree - If two individuals are exactly alike, except one has a kid and the other does not - the individual with a kid is going to qualify for quite a bit more of an Earned Income Credit than the one without the kid - for no other reason than that they have a kid.[/QUOTE]

Yes that's correct. Way to show reading comprehension. Is there a point to this prattle?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']...[/QUOTE]

For the record I have no problem with it.

But I think a hard-nosed man like you has two options. You can vote for programs like EIC or you can vote for letting poor kids starve on principle.

This shouldn't have to be said but I'll say it anyway to be clear - if you pick the latter you're an asshole.
 
If the extra ~$2,500 is what stands between you feeding your child or not, then you probably shouldn't have children. That child is likely never going to be able to afford to go to college (which, as we've discussed on these forums, for better or worse, is pretty much required for any decent job). The parent likely doesn't have any kind of decent health insurance for the kid. I'd have to worry about what kind of living conditions that kid has.
 
BS. Anyone can afford college. Lots of grants and scholarships for kids from low income homes,work study programs etc. More scholarships for doing well in school etc., with some states giving full rides (or close to it for kids that get a 3.0 or above in high school and maintain it in college.

And there are student loans to cover the gaps, which are a worthwhile investment as long as one takes the bare minimum they need (take advantage of all the grants/scholarships possible, work part time to pay room and board etc.) and gets a degree in a field with solid job prospects and earning potential.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']BS. Anyone can afford college. Lots of grants and scholarships for kids from low income homes,mwork study programs etc. More scholarships for doing well in school etc., with some states giving full rides (or close to it for kids that get a 3.0 or above I. High school and maintain it in college.

And there are student loans to cover the gaps, which are a worthwhile investment as long as one takes the bare minimum they need (take advantage of all the grants/scholarships possible, work part time to pay room and board etc.) and gets a degree in a field with solid job prospects and earning potential.[/QUOTE]

I'm totally saving this post for the next time the topic of the High Cost of Higher Education comes up.

So, dmaul - are you saying that being poor shouldn't stop someone from working hard, pulling up their bootstraps and making something of themselves?
 
I've always said that.

And I've also always said that being born poor (and even more so if also black/hispanic) means having more obstacles in your way to being able to stay focused in school and set yourself up for college. So just telling them to pull up their bootstraps isn't the solution.

Hard work is of course part of the equation regardless of whether born poor or not. But hard work isn't enough for a lot of kids growing up in broken homes, in neighborhoods with lots of crime and other problems etc. Even a lot of the hard working ones end up having to drop out (or not go to college) as they have to find a way to earn money and help support their family. Many never have a chance to develop a work ethic as their parents were never involved in their lives and never instilled the needed discipline in them etc. All that magnified tenfold for kids that are abused, neglected etc.

So, like most things, it's not a black and white, either/or situation where people just need to work hard, or we need to invest more resources in disadvantaged areas. Both have to happen to increase the number of people who make it out of disadvantaged areas and break the cycle of poverty.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Hard work is of course part of the equation regardless of whether born poor or not. But hard work isn't enough for a lot of kids growing up in broken homes, in neighborhoods with lots of crime and other problems etc. Even a lot of the hard working ones end up having to drop out (or not go to college) as they have to find a way to earn money and help support their family. Many never have a chance to develop a work ethic as their parents were never involved in their lives and never instilled the needed discipline in them etc. All that magnified tenfold for kids that are abused, neglected etc.[/QUOTE]

So, in a situation where $2,500 is what separates a parent from being able to feed their child or not, is that $2,500 really going to make a major change in the future of that child?
 
bread's done
Back
Top