3 ms·

In 1987 the nation lost 7 million children for similar reasons. In 1986, when taxpayers had only to provide the names for children they were claiming as exempt

by adolph 3y ago

In 1987 the nation lost 7 million children for similar reasons. In 1986, when taxpayers had only to provide the names for children they were claiming as exemptions, 77 million dependents were listed. But then the law changed, and in returns filed for 1987 only 70 million exemptions were identified. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-12-11-me-33-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-12-11-me-33-sto...

flutas 3y ago
My first thought on that: How many of those missing 7m were split custody cases where both were claiming them. Then with the new law it's "Oh hey, [parent allowed to claim tax for the child] can I have their social for taxes? Whatdya mean you won't give it to me?"
- bombcar 3y ago
  Some podcast did an "update" on Freakonomics and according to them the majority of the difference could be explained by double custody/double claims and people not getting SSNs in time.
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    10% of all children had double custody claims? That seems surprisingly high to me
    - bombcar 3y ago
      There's an and in there. SSNs weren't automatically issued at birth until relatively recently.
      - jjk166 3y ago
        August 1987 specifically. So everyone the rule change affected would have been born before. Since most people got SSNs only when they started working, a good chunk of these dependents likely didn't have SSNs at the time.
- adolph 3y ago
  Might be the case but I remember the day I got one as a kid, unknown to me this was the reason. Oh the stress of signing my name in permanent ink on this very small piece of light cardstock to which I needed access if required by the government and yet must not be lost. How can something so small not go missing? How could I possibly sign my name again like that to prove that I am me or that I am the legitimate bearer of more numbers than my parent’s telephone?

by adolph 3y ago

flutas 3y ago

My first thought on that: How many of those missing 7m were split custody cases where both were claiming them. Then with the new law it's "Oh hey, [parent allowed to claim tax for the child] can I have their social for taxes? Whatdya mean you won't give it to me?"

bombcar 3y ago
Some podcast did an "update" on Freakonomics and according to them the majority of the difference could be explained by double custody/double claims and people not getting SSNs in time.
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  10% of all children had double custody claims? That seems surprisingly high to me
  - bombcar 3y ago
    There's an and in there. SSNs weren't automatically issued at birth until relatively recently.
    - jjk166 3y ago
      August 1987 specifically. So everyone the rule change affected would have been born before. Since most people got SSNs only when they started working, a good chunk of these dependents likely didn't have SSNs at the time.
adolph 3y ago
Might be the case but I remember the day I got one as a kid, unknown to me this was the reason. Oh the stress of signing my name in permanent ink on this very small piece of light cardstock to which I needed access if required by the government and yet must not be lost. How can something so small not go missing? How could I possibly sign my name again like that to prove that I am me or that I am the legitimate bearer of more numbers than my parent’s telephone?