I hear you! Mine turned 17 in November, and it really hurts to not get that credit. No logic whatsoever. I always thought you got the credit until 18 or as long as a full time student.

We're going to owe big time because hubby was on unemployment for half the year, which is of course taxable. Another thing that makes no sense; I know it's income, but if you're on unemployment, you really can't afford to sock away money for taxes. Why don't they withhold?

The government's short of money.

Nicking middle class folks - a little nick here, a little one there.

**Plus** running up huge deficits - to add to a gargantuan government debt.

To fund those tax cuts - remember them?

That benefit mostly ...

... whom?

Tough trying to make a shrunken blanket cover both toes and neck - in a cold house.

Have a great week, everyone.

ole joyful

if you ask they will withhold federal taxes for unemployment. You need to ask though, they don't do it automatically. NY State will NOT withhold state taxes from unemployment. I assume that they want you to ask because this is a temporary thing and they are hoping you will find a job soon and it will pay you more money. The unemployment check is just a way to help you pay your bills while you are looking for a new job. Some people have more bills than there check pays (as there is a cap on payment) so if you bet on getting a better paying job soon, not withholding taxes may be better for you.
I personally withheld my federal taxes, I didn't want to worry about it later.
-renee

How do you not qualify for the credit? I thought it was automatic as long as your kids live with you and aren't claimed on someone else's taxes. Ohhh...maybe that's why...

Well, as for a kid not being a kid once he/she reaches 16 - most parents continue to support their kids through high school (and college, for that matter.) Age 18 makes much more sense; age 22 as long as a full time student makes even more. At least they could pro-rate the credit the year your child turns 17; mine did in november and it hurts to lose the entire credit when he was 16 almost the entire year.

i just did some sleuthing, and i guess not everybody qualifies for the credit, if you have a high income (so perhaps that is why richard_f said he didnt qualify)
__________________________________________________________
http://financialplan.about.com/cs/taxes/a/ChildTaxCredit.htm

Married Filing Jointly: $110,000
Married Filing Separately: $55,000
Other Filing Status: $75,000

"The definition of a qualifying child changed in 2005. The IRS hasn't updated its Web site with this information, but my understanding is that for purposes of the Child Tax Credit, as of 2005 a qualifying child is someone who:

Is under the age of 17 at the end of 2005.
Is your son, daughter, legally adopted child, grandchild, stepchild, eligible foster child, brother, sister, stepbrother, stepsister, or a descendant of any of the above.

The total credit (not the amount per child) is reduced by $50 for each $1,000 that your adjusted gross income exceeds the income threshold. "
_____________________________________________________

i wish our income was high enough that we didn't qualify, but since we are well within the income requirements, i think it's ridiculous that our 17 year old (who was 16 for 3/4 of the year 2005) is not eligible for the credit. we've had more expenses for him this year than for our 7 year old!

Many of us don't qualify. I have three which meet the age requirements and most years we don't get anything or very little. Has nothing to do with the gov. trying to help you cover expenses for the kids. Just a political move to look "family friendly."

My oldest son wasn't expensive at 17 since by that time he was working and I expected him to pick up expenses for things he wanted.

I do wish it had been on the books when he was small. I would have qualified then.

Gloria

As for continuing to support your kids after they turn 17, you can still claim an exemption for them as dependents up to age 24 if they are full time students. The credit is on top of that.

I finished my return and filed electronically yesterday. I actually did get a partial child credit for 2005. It phases out if you're over the income limits.

I still think that if people decide to have kids, knowing that it's not going to be cheap, there's a basic fairness issue in terms of the tax breaks that they get vs. people who can't or don't want to have children.

Here is a link that might be useful: IRS Dependent test

People that have kids DESERVE the tax break. If everyone decided to not have kids, there would be no future for man kind. The tax credit does not even come close to paying for the annual expense of raising a child, but it helps.
You childless folks need to realize that these kids will someday be paying into the social security system that will one day send you monthly checks in your senior years.

As for the age 17 cutoff, that is the Feds way of saying, "Your kids is old enough to get a job and pay taxes."

I have only one child remaining who is under 17 (last tax year I had two) and I don't get to claim any credit this year due to MAGI phase-out.

I'm sorry . . . you mean there is an exemption AND a credit for a child? I had no idea. I guess I'm just another one of those clueless, undeserving childless folks. But I have kindly been paying taxes to support public education for 29 years, so that is something.

This really burns me up when I went in today to find out that I would not be recieving the child tax credit on my son that just turned 17 in Oct. and is in 11th grade and is also planning to go off to college. I could undestand 18 afterall that is the age that we are still legally respon onsible for them but that is all well and good, lets see here keeping them clothed feed sheltered in school and lets not even start on where the school taxes are going and still have to provide all we do at the begining of each year and we cant get a simple tax break till our child is out of school or I would of even understood 18 cause they are still in high school. Sounds to me someone needs to be making better decisions on behalf of the people.

The reason is that the tax credit was to cover child care provided by another. At 17 hopefully no one still needs a baby sitter.

Child tax credit and child and dependent care credit are two totally separate credits. One has nothing to do with the other.

at least you will probably get the tuition credit for college expenses. 2k credit makes paying 25k for tuition so much easier. haha.

I was very upset to find out that I would not be receiveing the child tax credit for my daughter this tax season. She was only 17 for 3 days. We really needed that credit. Ive been fighting cancer for 2yrs and my disability sure isnt the income I had when I was nursing and my poor husband has to fight to get enough hrs to make ends meat. This is just awful

Several years ago, I did my own taxes and took the child care tax credit for my 19 year old unemployed child. I got auditted by IRS, , penalized , interest,etc. Ended up owing around $2000. So if 16 or 17 seems odd, don't question it. Just obey the law.

I just did my taxes and they said i could not claim my 17 year old son he is a full time student in 11th grade he lives at home with me i pay for his housing food clothes school supplies everything. I though as long as a child is in school full time not working and lives with his parents i could clam him on mytaxes add a dependent. This is bull s**t ther government does not care about the family's that struggle and look forward to claming there children add a dependent. So I'm out $1000 cuz i take care of my son that's a full time student.I'm sure all the government workers get to clam there children 17 and older. This is just so very wrong.

Other than noting that this thread is > 9 years old, the comments have been mostly from uninformed or misinformed people. There are two items being discussed, they're different. If you read the earlier comments, it's easy to see that many have mixed up one with the other. Or they were told the rule for one, and thought it applied to the other.

1) The Exemption for Dependents is a subtraction from income (it's increased over the years, it's a $3950 deduction for 2014) for each dependent child for whom you provide > half of their support and who are under 19, or under 24 if a full time student, or totally disabled. This is the same deduction as the personal exemption each adult taxpayer gets, you get one for every member of the family.

2) There's a Child and Dependent Care credit. A credit is a subtraction from income tax, not from income. Run the words together and you'll understand what it's for - CHILDCARE expenses that allow a person to work. Pre-school, daycare, paying a relative to look after a smaller child, etc. The expenses must be for a child 12 years of age or younger, it may have included older kids in prior years. There aren't too many 16 year-olds with baby sitters or in nursery school. It's a credit of one-third or less of expenses incurred, it runs to $1000 or less per year.

The "government" doesn't make the rules, Congress does. If you don't like the tax rules, or would like a new rule to be put in, write your representative in Congress. That's where the laws come from.

This is just one very tiny reason we should toss the entire 77,000 page tax code into the woodstove and start over. Reduce the entire 1040 to 3 lines:

1- How much money did you make last year?

2- What is 10% of that amount?

3-Send it in.

No deductions, no exemptions, no subsidies, nothing.

The tax code isn't as large as you suggest but it's not do-able as an afternoon reading project. Should it be?

Politicians of both political parties are equally responsible for the bulk and muddle behind today's tax rules, What's there is the result of 60+ years of politics and political wrangling.

Proposals for changing to a flat rate tax, as a concept, are always DOA. For perhaps a dozen good reasons. Yet the topic is kept alive, for reasons I don't understand.

The easiest to understand and calculate flat rate tax would be a value added tax. Outside the US, these can range from 15-25% on all goods and services. That's a simplified flat tax you can push if that's what you're looking for. But as with a flat income tax, it's also not a good idea to have here.

On $5,000. income ... 10% is $500.00.

On $1,000,000. income ... 10% is $100,000.

Can anyone spell, "fairness"?

ole joyfuelled

A person with income of $5000 has insufficient money to pay for food and shelter. After paying his 10% tax, he has even less. He really can't afford to pay any tax.

A person with $1 million of income, after paying $100K of tax, has hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars left over after food and shelter to do and buy lots of other things. He can afford to pay this tax and more, without compromising his lifestyle.

Flat rate taxes and sales/value added/goods and services taxes are
regressive, they cause a disproportionate burden on people who can least afford to pay them. Look up the definition of this term insofar as it applies to tax systems, you'll
understand the concept better than you do now.

I don't mean to be rude, but what I say is probably going to be offensive. The thing that always bothers me about tax policy and politics, is the fact that it engages people in the discussion who really have no business there, but are convinced they know a lot. I am the Dean of Accounting and Finance at a university and I spend a great deal of my time looking at and researching money, the economy, a bit on taxes, etc... And with all that I am barely able to hold my own in a discussion about massive reformation of the tax code, and its effect on the economy. There are maybe a few thousand people thousand people in this country who are better at this than I am (believe it or not I am trying to be humble). None of those people are running for office, to be fair I doubt any of those people are even advising someone who is. The reason I am pretty sure of this is because of the liberal application of an old poem by Alexander Pope, "For fools rush in where angels fear to tread."

I'm not sure to whom or what this last comment was directed. I spent a career as a tax adviser to large and growing corporations and tax policy and advocacy was something that got a lot of attention. At the Congressional level, "tax policy" isn't theoretical or philosophical, it's political. Nothing more.

Elected officials, even those on the relevant tax committees, know little to nothing about the matters they oversee. They rely on their staffs, who generally are technically competent. Changes are made based upon budget requirements and the lawmakers' perceptions of public opinion and the views of those who have made the most campaign contributions. True macroeconomic policy considerations don't usually play any role in what's done.

It was not really directed at you. I was more or less saying that people who want to scrap the current system to enact some completely different new system that is more fair or has some other advantage, usually have no clue what they are talking about. You didn't even want to change the system. I was agreeing with you, Snidely

quit belly aching, This nonsense originally ended at age 14 but was extended to age 17. It is a refundable Tax credit--Due to William Jefferson Clinton, which means you get it even if you paid no taxes. Compare this to the education tax credit which is ONLY against taxes paid I'm. So in other words procreate and generate kids and get paid for it. This was intended to defray costs for day care and educating a kid, not just to reduce your tax bill. In reality, the kids do not benefit but rather gives money to mom (or dad if around) to go buy a minivan or take an extravagant vacation. You complainers have nothing to complain about.

You are upset about a 13 year old post by someone who hasn't posted in years.

It is a refundable Tax credit--Due to William Jefferson Clinton

It was not due to William Jefferson Clinton... It was a bi-partisan bill that 99.6% of republicans in the house and 100% of republicans in the senate voted for, while only getting about 80% of democrats.

In reality, the kids do not benefit but rather gives money to mom (or dad if around) to go buy a minivan or take an extravagant vacation.

Both of those things have value to a child. I actually remember vacations pretty fondly and find them to be of immense value. As my kids enter college, they have spent at least a month on six continents. I believe it was an enriching experience for them and I did try a minivan for a short while...it didn't take but I can certainly see how having reliable transportation is a benefit to a kid.

As far as Im concerned the cut off date should be 18. We are responsible for our children in every way shape or form for them until 18. We still have to buy their, food, if still in school, clothes, keep roof over their head, electric, water and etc. We could also so much as go to jail for them if they are neglected from any of these items. So for the one who said it earlier the government just does

doesn't make sense. They have no money and what they do have they want to spend it on what they want. Hope Trump changes the rules.

I don't agree either, but at least 17 year olds can usually hold a part-time job- I know I did. 30 hrs a week starting as a Junior, then 40 hrs + for undergrad and graduate (2014 grad).

The child care credit was supposed to offset the cost of child care while parents worked, pre-school, and after school care until a parent was available when it was originally written, A 17 year old unless they have a disability no longer needs those things.

Everybody has their hand out.

maifleur, the subject is why the Child Tax Credit cuts off at age 17, not the Child and Dependent Care credit which cuts off at age 13. They are two totally different credits.

"Everybody has their hand out."

Do you file your return disclosing only your income and not claiming deductions, exemptions and credits the law permits for you to reduce your tax liability?

I think the point of the child tax credit is to encourage people to have children. If you look at the birth rates not only in our country but others you would see that after the baby boom, their was a bit of a dry spell. Well, when you look at that effect on the next generation of workers and see the wave of retirees that will need social security and medicare, they really needed to encourage or try to support those who were willing to procreate. Without the next gen of workers, Social Security fails as longevity of "life after retirement" increases. Also medical advances that continue to get more expensive. We do have to be careful becoming too dependent on the government, because they abuse this position. However I do think they were trying to encourage people to help fill in the next generation a bit better. Japan is a really good example of a low birth rate. This can cause big problems down the road. I also think that it should be 18. Legally obligated, why not extend the credit.

I don't agree. The amount of credit is heavily skewed to benefit low income taxpayers. The higher one's income, the less the credit is as a percentage of the expense. And the max credit is only a few thousand dollars anyway. It's more than nothing but not a game changer for anyone because when you need to pay for child care to work, that's what you need to do.

It's mainly to help offset the expense for low income people - for them, the higher percentage and the amount is much more meaningful than for higher earners closer to or above average income levels.

Elmer, I think you may be confusing the Child Tax Credit (CTC) with Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). CTC is $1,000 per child until the year that the child reaches age 17. It begins to phase out at $110,000 for married filing jointly couples and $75,000 for singles and head of household. There is no limit on the number of children you can received CTC for. EITC is far more money and phases out at lower incomes depending on how many children you have. The maximum number of children is three that can be claimed for EITC. For a married couple with three children, their income must be below $53,505 for 2016 to claim EITC; for a single parent with one child the limit is $39,296. The amounts of EITC look a bit like a bell curve with the maximum EITC of $6,269 for 2016 being paid to a married couple with three children with an income between about $14,000 and $23,500. EITC is a separate credit from CTC. Taxpayers can get both if they qualify.

Child and dependent care credit decreases from 35 to 20 % of expenses, up to 6000 of expenses, as income increases from 15 to 43K.

Am I missing something?

Child and dependent care is another credit separate from the Child Tax Credit. The OP was about the Child Tax Credit. Maifeur brought up the Child and Dependent Care Credit which was not the subject of the OP. The Child Tax Credit, the Earned Income Credit and the Child and Dependent Care Credit are three separate credits each with their own set of rules. You are correct on the phase out of the Child and Dependent Care Credit.

Okay. Thanks.

Wow - many years ago, jiggreen asked a reasonable "why" question (the same question that got me here, by googling) and there has been so much discussion about many not-necessarily-related topics, but no answers to the original question.

I agree the cut-off point seems naturally like it should be 18, and am wondering about the "under 17" rationale.

I will add that I find it dispiriting that folks here are discussing and confusing 4 seperate tax issues! This confusion is partly the result of our convoluted and confusing tax code!

many years ago, jiggreen asked a reasonable "why" question (the same question that got me here, by googling) and there has been so much discussion about many not-necessarily-related topics, but no answers to the original question.

Well I will answer the question for you, the credit was designed to reduce childhood poverty. Research found that families in poverty were considerably more likely to have children under 16, so to target those families directly they came up with the child tax credit. Originally, the proposed phase outs were a bit lower but were moved up to catch single parents. This inadvertently provided a tax break for middle class couples as we try to avoid a marriage penalty in our tax code.

The number of teens from poor families who work is pretty high, so once those kids turn 16 the problem is alleviated quite a bit. While you can certainly argue the cutoff should be 18, doing so would have largely put the entire credit at risk.

Yeah, and here I am a (former) tax guy botching up some responses. I ended even the limited responsibility I had for individual tax services, though it was high income individuals, early in my career. Thankfully, because it's not real interesting.

The problem with individual tax rules, maybe all tax rules and it's neither new nor going away, is that they're too often envisioned and proposed in the spotlight of public view and as matters of politics. They're subject to various forms of negotiation and alteration along the way. What comes out of the process (which, like the sausage factory, you don't want to see) doesn't always resemble what was input or intended. Nor, explainable by what had been described at the front end.

The US isn't alone in this regard but the tax law is a very poor tool for most social engineering that's attempted using it as the tool. But it continues to be used over and over all the same.

The US isn't alone in this regard but the tax law is a very poor tool for most social engineering that's attempted using it as the tool. But it continues to be used over and over all the same.

I agree that we do it wrong and therefore it largely fails, but I think there is some compelling reasons to consider using the tax code for social engineering. The idea being that money would be better were it never removed from the paychecks of the poor. It is much more efficient to let them keep money than it is to take it from them and give it back through social programs and rebates and refunds.

We just screw this up. The child tax credit, the earned income credit, and the child and dependent care credit are all essentially once a year rebates, so instead of encouraging good spending and budgeting habits they are get out of jail free cards or annual shopping sprees.

There was a proposal several years ago that had people qualify for next year's rebate using this year's taxes and the rebate would reduce their withholding (it could even be used to reduce FICA and State withholding). However, that too is a minefield.

"There was a proposal several years ago that had people qualify for next year's rebate using this year's taxes and the rebate would reduce their withholding (it could even be used to reduce FICA and State withholding" That truly would be a huge minefield especially with loss of jobs, divorces, deaths and other of life's happenings that change things.

I never had children and when our niece came to live with us we never used her as a dependent so the child tax credit never effected us. But from the time she was 14 and eligible for the job that she wanted she worked so the comment about working is very true. Also part of the idea of the child tax credit was that it would partially cover the cost of child daycare and other expenses. Although most states are unclear about when a child may be left by themselves I have read of a few that the cutoff is 16 if someone wants to object to the child being left alone. Although the expenses of a child continue unless the child has a disability the extra money for daycare aspect is not needed after a certain point.

The proposals for the newest tax plan with the loss of exemptions should perhaps be a good topic of discussion because the loss will make not having a year of child tax credit look like chicken feed.

Tax legislation? It's very early days, I think the slates are pretty blank for now. I don't follow it closely (I don't need to anymore) but it's a race for which the horses are difficult to handicap and the process can have surprising twists. Better to wait until more happens before starting to assume any ins or outs.

I know it is unpopular to those with low income to be hit with a flat 10% income tax but consider this. I have seen that people are more invested in something and the outcome when they have a personal investment. If you are paying 10% of your hard earned income as Federal income tax, you will be more concerned about how those dollars are spent. You will tend to vote more, take the time to research where the money is going, etc. . . because of the impact it has on your income. It truly is your government and your country when you own part of it. I say this from a perspective of helping those in need and seeing the difference between those who have no problem getting a hand out and those who prefer a hand up. Economically I think a flat 10% income tax across the board would surprise people with how much more revenue would come in to pay a balanced budget required to be passed and approved October 1 each year instead of pushed back until January and then again depending on the politics at the time. The tax should perform its function of supporting the government and not be used for something it is not intended to accomplish which is social reform or social adjustments. The budget should be finalized by October 1 period, end of story. No budget no government until one is approved.

In my view, a flat tax will never be put in place because it is highly regressive - lower income people pay too high a burden from their income compared to higher income people, and higher income people who can afford to pay more don't have to.

Social engineering and political policies accomplished through a tax system? Yes, of course that's what's done here and everywhere else in the world. If you don't like the things encouraged and discouraged, elect representatives who share your views.

If you're looking to get more people to vote, a good idea I share, the easiest way to do that is to make voting compulsory as it is in many countries around the world. And hold the elections on the weekends to make it easier for M-F workers to get there. In several of these countries, non-voting leads to a moderate fine and continued non-voting can lead to a suspension of the right to vote. Quick and easy.

Prior to the new tax bill I did some calculations of flat tax vs what was current. At the then suggested 15% not the 10% suggested by the poster many middle income people would have paid more when all of the deductions and exemptions were considered. SS recipients not only would loose the 15% that they are not now being taxed on but an additional 15%. Most people only think of old people as receiving SS but there are many younger people whose parents have died that also receive it. By my calculations a person would have needed to be in the middle of the 25% bracket before there were any savings.

I have not been bored enough to work with the new tax plan.

While I agree that a flat tax would make everything simpler. Thinking that it would only effect low income people unless you consider anyone making less than $150,000 as low income only means you have not done the calculations.

I agree that moving the voting to the weekend might mean more people would vote but the ways some other countries have insured that most of their people vote is not something that I would like to see in this country.

It's hard to say that we have a democracy when in so many elections, the voter turnout is less than 50%. What do we want it to be to cause one candidate to win? Should it be the candidate of the party more successful in getting people to vote? That's hardly the right basis for determining the results of an election.

I'd love to see compulsory voting and fines for no-shows. In one action it would bring a push to end the ridiculous situations we have in so many states where the underfunding of and inattention to keeping voter roles current would need to be fixed and also do away with voting obstacles that still exist for minority populations in many parts of the country.

Belgium, as an example, has had compulsory voting for over 100 years. I have some familiarity with the country - while it has its own challenges with political matters, the compulsory voting is accepted and supported by the population.