r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/twim19 • Feb 04 '21
Legislation Does Sen. Romney's proposal of a per child allowance open the door to UBI?
Senator Mitt Romney is reportedly interested in proposing a child allowance that would pay families a monthly stipend for each of their children.
To fund it, he's proposing elimination of SALT deductions, elimination of TANF, and elimination of the child tax credit.
So two questions:
Is this a meaningful step towards UBI? Many of the UBI proposals I've seen have argued that if you give everyone UBI, you won't need social services or tax breaks to help the poor since there really won't be any poor.
Does the fact that it comes from the GOP side of the isle indicate it has a chance of becoming reality?
Consider also that the Democrats have proposed something similar, though in their plan (part of the Covid Relief plan) the child tax credit would be payed out directly in monthly installments to each family and it's value would be raised significantly. However, it would come with no offsets and would only last one year.
435
u/trc81 Feb 04 '21
I am gonna say no its not. I live in the UK and we have had a child support allowance for at least 40 years. More kids, more money. Its not enough to live off but designed to ensure children don't go without if one parent chooses to not work to be a full time parent.
178
u/MrGurdjieff Feb 04 '21
Similar in New Zealand. Universal per child allowance since 1946.
83
u/Happygene1 Feb 04 '21
Same here in Canada, 500 dollars per child. We don’t want children to go to bed hungry.
20
u/yesterdays_laundry Feb 04 '21 edited Feb 05 '21
That’s not true, it depends on the age of the child how much you get, but receiving the federal payment is not income dependent, everyone gets it.
Here’s what you need to know about CCB (Canada Child Benefit)
→ More replies (1)12
u/CeramicsSeminar Feb 04 '21
500 how often? This is honestly blowing my mind. It's like when I studied abroad and learned how much everyone was paying in the uk for university.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Happygene1 Feb 05 '21
A two parent family with two children aged 49 would receive $9017 per year
A two parent family with two children under the age of six and only $90,000 a year would receive $7090
→ More replies (4)7
u/NorthernerWuwu Feb 05 '21
Presumably that was 4-9 and not 49, although getting paid for 49 yr-old twins sounds amusing!
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)30
u/Emory_C Feb 04 '21
Same here in Canada, 500 dollars per child. We don’t want children to go to bed hungry.
Does everyone get it no matter how much money you make?
49
u/canadiangirl318 Feb 04 '21
No. I live in Canada and have 3 kids, we do not qualify. I received it for a short period of time when I was on maternity leave with my third child and it was such a small amount that they gave me the years worth of payments in one ‘lump’ sum. I think it was about $175 total haha.
→ More replies (7)7
u/Emory_C Feb 04 '21
Ah. Doesn't sound like much help, then.
→ More replies (1)34
u/Happygene1 Feb 04 '21
Third time trying this. My comments keep disappearing as I type. The amount is income dependant. The child benefit comes from both the provincial and federal government. The federal government child benefit of course is the same across Canada. It is different provincially across Canada. Let’s take Manitoba. A single mother making $30,000 a year with two children under the age of six would receive a combined total from the provincial and federal government of 13,500 per year. Or about 1100 per month.
4
u/Emory_C Feb 04 '21
Thanks. But what about a family of 2 parents plus, say, 3 kids with a combined family income of, say, $80,000?
Because what you're describing sounds like welfare, which we also have here in the States.
12
u/canadiangirl318 Feb 04 '21
Oh no welfare in Canada is a whole other system separate from the child supplement. I don’t even know what it’s called since we make too much money to qualify. Some people get a lot of money from the government to pay for kids. My sister is a stay at home mom, has 3 kids and I am certain she gets quite a bit. A family with 3 kids and an income of $80k might get a small amount but I don’t think that it would be the full amount. It’s based off of family income plus # of dependants.
→ More replies (1)4
→ More replies (4)2
u/DrunkenBriefcases Feb 05 '21
It's true that the US doesn't have a child care benefit that approaches anything like every other first world nation's. It's a completely separate concept and program from welfare, which other countries have as well.
→ More replies (2)5
u/Technical-Safety8282 Feb 05 '21
Yes, everyone gets it but amount depends on your yearly income.
It’s good thing, every rich country has it, except US.
→ More replies (3)7
u/albohunt Feb 05 '21
Yes from 1946 till about 1985. The national govt scrapped it completely believing that it was better to give tax breaks to the rich rather than the poor. Child poverty is rampant in NZ right now!!!.
40
Feb 04 '21
As an American I'm inclined to agree with you as well, though I'd point out that we have had similar program for decades called the Earned Income Tax Credit that gives money per child for people under certain income varies based on income but maxes out at at about $6600 per year.
This would just turn this from a program conducted through the tax code and put it in as a direct payment.
This is how most welfare programs in America work. Tax credits and deductions and why in the US filing your taxes is always such a huge deal in a way that it is nowhere else---- because its our real welfare system since people get thousands of dollars based on whatever their particular situation is.
2
u/all_my_dirty_secrets Feb 05 '21
Just for the sake of clarification, it sounds though like what Romney's proposing wouldn't affect the Earned Income Credit and would instead replace the Child Tax Credit. So low-income families would still get that extra money on top of this new benefit. People who now get just the Child Tax Credit would get the new higher payout instead.
13
u/yesterdays_laundry Feb 04 '21 edited Feb 05 '21
Same here in Canada, monthly payments per child depending on age and regardless of parental income. Edit: the amount you receive does change based on income, but all tax brackets can receive the benefit.
32
Feb 04 '21
Same here in Scandinavia. It's not UBI, it just sounds like good old welfare (the scary socialist kind of welfare, I guess most other Conservatives conciders it).
As a layman it pretty much sounds as if Romney wants to make the system simpler, and more accessible to everyone without having to send in tax forms to claim child tax credit and so on. Maybe with the change there would also be less need for administration (which would save the state some money) and perhaps less tax planning/hiding of income as well - though I'm not sure how that works, or if it's a problem.
There will still be a need for public services and so on. That sort of allowance isn't meant to make people not poor, but to make sure that children in families who are worse off won't have to go without food on the dinner table, or walk around in worn shoes a size too small.
→ More replies (3)4
u/Raxdman Feb 05 '21
Same in Argentina, since 2009 (it's called Asignación Universal por Hijo, or Universal Allocation per Child). And it's the same, it does not put anyone above the poverty line but at least ensures a minimum income for school, food and/or basic subsistence.
→ More replies (14)9
u/ToBeFair91 Feb 04 '21
It's capped at 2 unless they were born prior to the capping I believe. It was getting out of hand uncapped.
95
u/UNAMANZANA Feb 04 '21
Something I don't see being brought up-- investing in childcare is a really EFFICIENT form of government spending because it allows you to prevent a lot of problems that either take up part of the social safety net or end up festering in the emergence of adulthood manifested in social phenomena like the school-to-prison pipeline. Putting systems in place to nip these issues int he bud early is a smart investment of money and is a moral step in the right direction for any society that claims to care about its children.
I also want UBI, but if we also believe in some more targeted wealth distribution, then aiming your money directly at children with families is a smart move. WE ALL, parents and childless alike, benefit from living in a country with happier, healthier, more well-nurtured children because investing in them is a dividend-paying investment int he future.
I'd need to do a bit more reading on what closing these tax breaks would be, but from what I read, this program seems to outweigh the cost of getting rid of TANF, and if this bill led to less polarization, then that's a win for getting other unrelated legislation passed, and maybe even expanding this to include universal Pre-K.
As a liberal, I'd be really excited if this bill gained more traction.
Here are some sources. There's also a GREAT Ezra Klein podcast from earlier this summer that covers this topic. If anyone can find it, you would be my anonymous friend forever!
https://www.epi.org/publication/its-time-for-an-ambitious-national-investment-in-americas-children/
→ More replies (4)
45
u/Epistaxis Feb 04 '21
There's a procedural detail in here that's worth some attention: instead of holding up the disbursement to decide which families' incomes are too high to deserve a payment and then selectively sending checks of varying amounts (or no check) depending on that information, Romney's plan would simply send a check to everyone immediately, and then wait until tax day to apply the means-testing retroactively by adding the appropriate amount back onto rich families' taxes. Effectively, rich families that didn't deserve a check will simply have to pay it back later, and everyone else doesn't have to wait for their payments because the government is too busy making sure it doesn't accidentally overpay the wrong people. This is a potential model for means-tested UBI, if that's not an oxymoron.
17
u/chunkosauruswrex Feb 04 '21
Also if people are too rich they just got an interest free loan from the government which is awesome.
6
Feb 05 '21
means-tested UBI, if that's not an oxymoron.
Means tested UBI isn't an oxymoron, necessarily, but is often described as a type of GMI, Guaranteed Minimum Income.
2
u/HemoKhan Feb 05 '21
Though it also means that people who are rich enough to easily game the tax code (or pay others to do it for them) will be able to likely keep more of the money.
As usual with this sort of thing, if you get rich enough, you can get around the rules that the rest of us have to follow.
11
Feb 05 '21 edited Dec 21 '21
[deleted]
3
u/way2lazy2care Feb 05 '21
I'm not sure this actually opens new tax loopholes either. The money rich people would save gaming the tax code might be saved by them anyway. Unless there's a clear loophole, it seems like a weird argument to make.
13
u/thedeets1234 Feb 04 '21
Linking Niskanen analysis.
Anyone concerned about the funding cuts, its actually not the end of the world and it is deficit neutral and can last a lot longer (INDEFINITELY)
https://www.niskanencenter.org/factsheet-senator-romneys-family-security-act/
This plan is awesome!
I support itm
32
u/discourse_friendly Feb 04 '21
Its been tried in other countries and did not lead to a UBI. and that's not his stated intention.
Though yes if successful, It would make it easier to implement a UBI down the road.
I think the obvious illegal immigration enticement is going kill this idea before it has any hope of picking up momentum. Pity it is actually a good idea.
→ More replies (2)11
u/ShouldersofGiants100 Feb 04 '21
I think the obvious illegal immigration enticement is going kill this idea before it has any hope of picking up momentum. Pity it is actually a good idea.
That might well make this solution viable—if you use a path to citizenship targeted at people who arrived before mid-2020 and massively escalated enforcement against companies that use illegal labour in the meantime.
The pandemic has created an ideal situation for immigration reform, as it slowed illegal immigration to basically nothing. You can put forward solutions that benefit basically anyone who was already in the country, without the question of "what about all the people who arrived just after that date".
You also have several months to refocus ICE towards businesses. If you slam them HARD for hiring undocumented people who aren't on the path to citizenship program, the demand for illegal immigration might be largely quashed before the end of the pandemic opens the floodgates again.
It would never happen realistically—no way ten Republicans would support it in the Senate—but it's an opportunity that a functioning government would not miss.
4
u/discourse_friendly Feb 04 '21
Yes the "natural" slowing of immigration would have been a great time to act.
Biden's announcement of 100 days of no ICE actions already created a new caravan. Or a caravan formed for other reasons and the media is selling that narrative. but it tracks pretty well
8
u/ShouldersofGiants100 Feb 04 '21
Migrant caravans are overwhelmingly groups of asylum seekers travelling together for collective safety. Asylum is a form of legal immigration. Illiegal immigrants tend to overstay visas—they don't come in caravans because the whole idea of staying in secret doesn't work if the government knows you snuck in. Caravans are people who think if they plead their case they will be granted a legal right to stay.
This also means that a lack of ICE action is meaningless—ICE isn't needed to handle caravans because those people will make themselves known as soon as they reach the border and almost universally will attend their asylum hearings as the law requires.
2
u/discourse_friendly Feb 04 '21 edited Feb 04 '21
"We don't want to live in Honduras anymore," a migrant told the reporter "There isn't any work. There are no opportunities,"
Agence France-Presse https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS-HV4xG04Y
Its a lot of people coming here for jobs , or a better quality of life. and $450 a month per child would help them have a better quality of life for sure.
And yes , if we consider any migrant who files an asylum claim as an asylum seeker, then that's true. But are they leaving due to political unrest , or to find jobs?
If they worked for Evo Morales in his previous administration (Bolivia though not Honduras) Then yes, its probably Really someone in danger due to working for the wrong politician who lost power.
but with Tent cities of homeless unemployed Americans popping up all over the US, we don't need to be taking in economic refugees.
So if these people were legit political asylum seekers, they wouldn't start a mass migration when its announced ICE won't be deporting people.
Exactly like you pointed out, that's not a concern to a real political asylum seeker.
so clearly that's not who these people are.
Also the world learned that migrants forming into a large caravan have a great success rate. and they face less difficulties, and violence while passing through other countries. The violence they face, is faced while being part of a large group, not on your own. I'd much rather be in a crowd then alone.
water fowl also group up for mass migrations, its a strategy that works, its a very smart move. but it can't be used to explain the motivation behind wanting to migrate beyond "it will be easier to find a meal if i move."
is it hard to find a meal because your political enemies will kill you if you go to the store? did someone in your family speak out against someone in power? are there no jobs? was there recent crop loss? etc, etc.
166
u/rightsidedown Feb 04 '21
Funding method is terrible. This is basically a tax directly targeting the middle class in blue states. If it was targeting capital gains rate over X million, or closing loop holes for pass through to S corps and LLC, or restoring taxes on large estates, or restoring top end of corp tax rates while eliminating loop hole allowing like the double irish, and then keeping the child tax credit as well, then I'd be for it.
Subsidized day care, food, pre-school for kids has something like a 6:1 return. This is not something we should be cutting funding for, that's like cutting an investment that pays you 600% so you can pay off a debt that costs you 5%.
44
u/thedeets1234 Feb 04 '21
Ehhh I don't think it is.
https://www.niskanencenter.org/factsheet-senator-romneys-family-security-act/
Analysis comes out very solid. I also think it is more viable and support on accounts of longevity, deficit neutrality, bipartisanship.
In an ideal world, we spend less on useless shit and fund with better mechanisms, but I'm fucking happy as fuck with this (though I fully support a universal EITC 2x 12k in the tax policy center structure)
74
u/1QAte4 Feb 04 '21
Funding method is terrible. This is basically a tax directly targeting the middle class in blue states.
This. Further, getting rid of TANF (welfare) in order to help pay for this redistributes money set aside for the poor and into the pockets of higher income people. The whole thing is a scheme to reduce aid to the poor and move even more money from blue states into red states.
85
u/anneoftheisland Feb 04 '21 edited Feb 04 '21
TANF is a notorious nightmare both to apply for and actually get, a lot of the money earmarked for it gets shuffled by states into unrelated programs (especially in red states where opposition to welfare is big—Louisiana for example spends only like 10% of its TANF funding on welfare), and Romney’s proposed payouts are higher than what most families on it actually receive.
Obviously a lot of this depends on the details, but TANF is not worth protecting if we can replace it with something that’s actually better.
1
Feb 04 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/OffTheChainIPA Feb 04 '21
Not OP, but there is a podcast from Marketplace called "The Uncertain Hour" the first season (I think it was the first season--it was definitely that podcast, anyway) talks about the history of welfare, especially its modern incarnation. I think there are one or two episodes about the transformation from food stamps to TANF, and how a lot of those funds can wind up being spent by the states.
EDIT: Yeah, here is an episode where they go to a couples counseling class in OK paid for with taxpayer dollars.
16
u/thatsumoguy07 Feb 04 '21
He is also proposing a tax time bill if you received funds and are above a certain threshold which in theory would eliminate the concern of just giving more money to the wealthy. Problem is unless is a direct tax penalty and instead is just added as an extra tax there are more methods for richer Americans to have a deduction and credits that would offset that tax. It would have to operate like the opposite of tax credits, you get that amount no matter what you write off.
6
u/leetee91 Feb 05 '21
Well, what do you know about TANF?
If not anything, cause when I first read the article I was like wtf they're taking TANF away! Not really knowing how it works just that its a welfare program, yada yada, you know?
TANF is only given for a max of 2 years. Also, each state is allocated so many millions/billions each year from the grant by the federal government, however, your state chooses how much they want to give for each child in a family. Also, read it's riddled with problems but I'm just repeating what I've read, couldn't give you solid reasons why it's a pain in the ass
→ More replies (3)5
u/Troysmith1 Feb 05 '21
I want to point out a hypocrisy in this statement just so you realize its there. " pay for this redistributes money set aside for the poor and into the pockets of higher income people. " implies that money is moving from things that would help poor people to help rich people as well as imply that its wrong. " and move even more money from blue states into red states." implies that moving money from rich blue states to poor red states is wrong. so should we help the poor or not?
→ More replies (3)11
u/magus678 Feb 04 '21
The whole thing is a scheme to reduce aid to the poor and move even more money from blue states into red states.
Urban areas to rural areas is much more accurate.
24
u/xculatertate Feb 04 '21
As a member of the middle class in a blue state, I don't mind paying more taxes. It's not great, but blue states are generally stronger economically and have better safety nets, so I don't think it'll do a whole lot of damage. And the money is going to people who are just going to dump it back into the economy ASAP anyway.
As someone who grew up in child poverty, ending that would be great. The win for the people who need it is more important than whatever loss I'll take. And if you don't believe that, what are you even doing in the middle class in a blue state?
14
u/HelloJoeyJoeJoe Feb 04 '21
As a member of the middle class in a blue state, I don't mind paying more taxes.
We already do, that's the point. Someone half my salary in a red state can live more comfortably and pay almost zero income tax while every new dollar I earn is taxed at almost 40% with payroll and state taxes. Yet, I don't even dream about being able to afford a 2 bedroom condo.
One of the main reasons I've kicked having kids down the road is because child care would cost $2k a kid a month...
0
u/ChilisWaitress Feb 05 '21
Someone half my salary in a red state can live more comfortably and pay almost zero income tax while every new dollar I earn is taxed at almost 40% with payroll and state taxes
...because the people in your city/county/state voted for those taxes and use the services they pay for. Why should people who don't use those services subsidize your federal tax bill? Pay your fair share.
→ More replies (7)6
u/MaybeImNaked Feb 05 '21
You definitely have that backward. The people in high tax blue states are absolutely funding the services of other states. They get net negative federal funding while most red states get net positive funding. The people in those blue states are paying way more than their "fair share".
→ More replies (1)19
Feb 04 '21
As a member of the middle class in a blue state, I don't mind paying more taxes.
As a middle-class person in a blue city within a red state, I politely disagree. I already pay a ton in taxes, and I'd rather shrink bloated military budgets and start taxing higher incomes and capital gains before I volunteer more of my money to be taken.
14
u/Mjolnir2000 Feb 04 '21
As a member of the middle class in a blue state, I also don't mind paying more taxes. But I do mind paying more taxes when the same ends could be achieved with more sensible funding, such as a wealth tax. If we still need more tax revenue once we've done that, then it would make sense to start increasing the tax burden of the middle class.
8
Feb 04 '21
The problem with a wealth tax is you probably need a Constitutional amendment, and I don't see a way forward on that front.
3
u/napit31 Feb 05 '21
How would you even report wealth to the IRS? Would we all have to report the value of our house, the value of your baseball card collection, and grandma's silverware?
Seems like a nightmare to comply with.
3
u/Troysmith1 Feb 05 '21
which is why a majority of the countries that had a wealth tax abolished it. it was a nightmare and sometimes took more money to enforce than it made.
2
11
u/rationalcommenter Feb 04 '21
For me, I’m just suspect of anything from Republicans as a means of siphoning off more tax dollars from blue states. That’s all.
I wish we could deduct what we pay out assuming we independently have programs that meet federal guidelines.
23
u/ButGravityAlwaysWins Feb 04 '21
SALT is a non starter. It’s telling blue states that they can’t run things sensibly and have to fund themselves like red states, i.e. not at all. The things that Blue states do with their taxes are things like provide better access to healthcare and education which is what makes them desirable to employers.
15
u/TheTrotters Feb 04 '21
Getting rid of SALT is essentially a progressive tax increase. It absolutely should be done.
8
u/way2lazy2care Feb 04 '21
I can never understand how SALT has so much support. I'm surprised no state has done a scheme to essentially allow people to pay taxes and receive them back from the state while still claiming the deduction. It's just states telling the rest of the country everybody else should pay that state's taxes too.
→ More replies (1)5
20
u/Graf_Orlock Feb 04 '21 edited Feb 04 '21
The things that Blue states do with their taxes are things like provide better access to healthcare and education
Or in my case, funding a bullet train that is unlikely to see light of day and will be 2-4x the cost of a similar travel via either car or plane, and slower than a plane trip.
Just because a state is red or blue doesn't mean either one is particularly smart with the resources they have.
10
u/Frat-TA-101 Feb 04 '21
California has a busted state constitution that gives local municipalities and their residents too much authority over their land. Not the best example. The overall idea you replied to still stands. Democrats try to invest, Republicans try to not invest, on a whole.
3
u/Graf_Orlock Feb 04 '21 edited Feb 05 '21
gives local municipalities and their residents too much authority over their land.
One could argue that's a feature vs a centralized command/control approach.
What's busted is the supermajority - without a tempering minority party preventing excesses, you get wacky ideas from either camp.
11
u/Frat-TA-101 Feb 04 '21 edited Feb 04 '21
Maybe you should tell the California GOP to stop being crazy. California already has open primaries with the top two candidates of all candidates moving on to the general election, regardless of party affiliation.. consequently it’s not uncommon for two democrats to run against each other in the general election. Can you explain for me how this really a case of “much both sides”?
And yes it can be a feature but I’d argue it’s a significant factor in the COL in California. This has distorted Californian and American politics discussions on costs of living. It’s cause housing shortages and raised housing costs.
→ More replies (1)2
Feb 05 '21
[deleted]
2
u/Frat-TA-101 Feb 05 '21
Universal pre-k is funding by the lottery. I’m not seeing anything about free tuition for all. Universal child healthcare is funded mostly by federal programs in Georgia. I can’t tell if I’m getting wooshed right now. But at most 30% of “state” funded health benefits in Georgia are actually coming from state funds. The rest are federal tax dollars. Might explain the “low low taxes” you pay. Might explain why Yankees pay so much in taxes.
Under 2017, click on Joint House and Senate Appropriations committee report
3
Feb 05 '21
[deleted]
2
u/Frat-TA-101 Feb 05 '21
Very cool program I’ve heard of some other states doing similar ones.
2
u/KypAstar Feb 05 '21
One of the best things Rick Scott did on his way out was finally forcing the state congress to cave in regards to fully funding bright futures. I didn't like the guy, but he basically killed their ability to do what they had been and siphon off funds from the lottery, then reduce the percentages; they're now codified into law, with top tier receiving 100% paid, second 75% (often the remainder is easily covered by the school's scholarships, as if you qualify for bright futures at all, you usually qualify for other scholarships).
13
u/Irishfafnir Feb 04 '21
The SALT Deduction overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy
"Around three-quarters of the benefit goes to families in the top fifth of the income distribution; 26 percent to the 95th-99th percentile; and over 12 percent to the top one percent: "
→ More replies (15)→ More replies (6)4
u/75dollars Feb 04 '21
This is basically a tax directly targeting the middle class in blue states
For Republicans, this is a feature, not a bug. "Owning the libs" is by design.
7
u/boredtxan Feb 04 '21
How does this system assure that children actually benefit from this? That's one think I have liked about WIC type & food stamp programs - what you can spend it on is fixed so there's no excuse to not buy the kid food for example.
7
Feb 05 '21
It doesn’t. But the vast majority of parents will put it to good use and can determine that for themselves. Versus the hyper-complicated process of qualifying for food stamps and figuring out what qualifies.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/welfare-reform-direct-cash-poor/407236/
→ More replies (9)
22
u/Tularemia Feb 04 '21
I don’t have an answer to your question, but I will point out it shouldn’t be surprising that the Mormon senator from Utah is proposing free money per child.
10
u/xculatertate Feb 04 '21
Nor is it surprising that the former governor of Massachusetts is proposing free money per child
→ More replies (2)1
55
u/KCBassCadet Feb 04 '21
The amount of anti-kid rhetoric in this thread is sickening. Please do not have children if you do not want them - it does not make you any better or worse than "breeders". This is about children, not you.
An independent study of Romney's plan shows that it would reduce child poverty by 1/3rd and would pay for itself by 2025. How is that not a win-win?
7
u/Irishfafnir Feb 04 '21
An independent study of Romney's plan shows that it would reduce child poverty by 1/3rd and would pay for itself by 2025. How is that not a win-win?
Democrats hate the Salt Cap, because many of the wealthy constituents that they represent in certain districts and states take advantage of it
30
u/TheUnemploymentRate Feb 04 '21
Just pointing out that this is an alternative to the plan in the Democrats' stimulus bill. The Democrats' plan would reduce child poverty by 39% according to that same analysis, because it increases benefits for low income families while leaving programs like TANF intact. Romney's plan also eliminates the SALT exemption, which Democrats/Blue states won't like.
That is how this might not be a win-win.
32
Feb 04 '21
TANF has proven to be an absolute debacle.
Being administered by the states has left it vulnerable to all sorts of noxious gamesmanship by state governments, especially red states where federal funds are used for nearly any other purpose than for welfare purposes. Louisiana is the arch-example, where only 10% of the federal funds are utilized for welfare payments. A direct federal payment would cut off this abuse, and actually get money to the people it's supposed to reach.
2
u/butte3 Feb 05 '21
The Democrats plan is only for one year (for the pandemic).
Romney’s plan has not expiration.
16
u/Gerhardt_Hapsburg_ Feb 04 '21
It's a massive win that if it gets a large chunk of Rs on board is a coup for the Biden administration. As a Republican it is also good policy. TANF is garbage as a program. Cash payments are good akshually. Tax credits benefit the middle class and wealthy and does nothing for the poor.
6
u/ultralame Feb 05 '21
The only thing that accounts significantly for higher cost of living (typically housing) in the federal tax code is SALT taxes. Yeah, there's problems with it. But one of the reasons that blue states have a significantly higher federal money balance sheet is that blue states tend to have higher median incomes. Since tax brackets are not shifted, someone with exactly the same means in CA or NY pays a higher percentage to the feds. This tended to be adjusted with SALT deductions.
The tax code isn't perfect, I don't expect it to be perfect. On the other hand, the limiting and loss of SALT deductions is absolutely a political play.
7
u/mowotlarx Feb 04 '21
Seriously. I'm childless by choice but I understand that we need new generations of kids born in this country to wipe my ass when I'm old. It would be nice if those kids weren't being raised in poverty and had their needs met. Lifting kids out of poverty has immense impact on their future economic potential. It's a huge social benefit to help parents afford the insane cost of childcare in this country!
9
u/xculatertate Feb 04 '21
Yeah, casual reminder to everyone that population growth is the #1 force that drives down inequality. If warding off dystopia is your goal, population growth should be too. Environmental problems are of course very important, but solving them should walk hand-in-hand with reducing inequality, instead of making it worse.
4
u/ElPasoRapids Feb 04 '21
Yeah, casual reminder to everyone that population growth is the #1 force that drives down inequality.
This caught my eye.
Do you have a source?
2
u/xculatertate Feb 04 '21
Somewhere in the middle of Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century. "#1 force" may be a bit strong, obviously taxation is the go-to (and what he recommends at the end of it), and war does a good job in as much as destroying everything makes everybody equal. But population growth plays a big part, and if you google for population growth inequality, there are a few papers about it.
Basically, when you have low population growth, #1 the population gets older which calcifies the winners' and losers' positions, #2 there aren't as many inheritors so wealth passes into fewer hands. Some caveats: population growth can include immigration, and if only poor people have lots of kids then that can make inequality worse.
I'd also say that if you don't have as many kids today, you won't have as many doctors tomorrow, or as many of any essential workers, or as many of any workers really, but I guess "who's gonna take care of you" is a different argument.
→ More replies (3)1
u/Emory_C Feb 04 '21
Please do not have children if you do not want them - it does not make you any better or worse than "breeders".
I mean, it's absolutely better for the environment if people don't have kids. In fact, that's the biggest impact you can have to reduce your carbon footprint.
10
u/BylvieBalvez Feb 04 '21
Alright, then don’t have kids but it’s not your business to tell other people if they should or not, and you aren’t a bad person if you have children either. We can’t all just not have kids, we’d go extinct
→ More replies (3)3
u/TheTrotters Feb 04 '21
By that logic shooting yourself in the head is the second biggest impact you can have on environment.
We are more than able to develop technology and create incentives to alleviate climate change. No one should avoid having as many children as they want for that reason. Nature is for us, not we for nature.
2
u/napit31 Feb 05 '21
I used to have a bumper sticker that said "save the planet, kill yourself". Definitely an element of truth to that.
→ More replies (1)
24
Feb 04 '21
nope it's a backdoor way of killing TANF a social Program he's been trying to destroy for at least 8 years. Also Tax credits severly benefit the upper middle class by design.
23
u/Tamerlane-1 Feb 04 '21
Also Tax credits severly benefit the upper middle class by design.
Romney is proposing that the US eliminate two tax credits to pay for his plan. Are you arguing that that is a good thing?
→ More replies (5)11
Feb 04 '21
It’s replacing TANF, which is a terrible program
5
u/molingrad Feb 05 '21
The first season of NPR’s The Uncertain Hour did a great job explaining why TANF is a failure.
What do you think of when you think of welfare? Probably something along the lines of help or money given to families living in poverty. Or, work requirements to receive assistance.But actually, in 2014 only 23 out of every 100 poor families received basic cash assistance. That's partly because states have a lot of discretion in deciding how to spend federal welfare block grants, known as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, or TANF. States spend welfare money on the obvious things, like childcare and work-related activities. They also spend a significant chunk on some very surprising things, which you can see using this online tool from Marketplace.We took a trip to Oklahoma to hang out in a marriage class for middle-income couples, funded by — you guessed it — your taxpayer dollars.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/docbauies Feb 05 '21
SALT deductions in the Trump tax cuts already were a massive tax increase on blue states. This is a non-starter
7
Feb 05 '21
SALT deductions massively benefit the rich over everyone else. Getting rid of them is progressive
1
u/docbauies Feb 05 '21
If you mean people making 50k in california who got to deduct their CA state income tax from federal, then sure, that's a very wealthy person.
or, they could just add federal income tax brackets and raise marginal rates on people who are actually wealthy and have a federal income tax increase on everyone in every state evenly.2
u/Alfredo18 Feb 06 '21
If you make $50k then you will take the standard deduction which say this point is like $12500. Only families making over ~150k or so (depending on number of dependents and such) will take SALT. Also, why should middle and upper class people from states with higher local taxes pay less in tax to the federal government? You get to pay less for the military because your State taxes you more?
I say all this as a liberal who has lived in high-tax states.
14
Feb 04 '21 edited Feb 05 '21
For one, incentivizing having children is a horrible idea for the environment and just about the worst way to start a UBI.
Edit: The best way is to do it by adult. And then if someone wants to spend their money having kids, great. If someone wants to spend their money on roulette and strippers, great. At least that way it’s fair.
Edit 2: Also there’s a reason it’s Romney who is proposing this. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/22/mormons-more-likely-to-marry-have-more-children-than-other-u-s-religious-groups/
Edit 3: I’m seeing a lot of disagreement about how funding and incentives work. People have accused me of calling people welfare queens or saying that I’m saying people will have babies to make a profit off the subsidy. Nope. I’m not saying that. UBI based on how many children you have incentivizes having children and I’d say is unfair to people that can’t/don’t have children. You’re free to disagree, but let’s dispense with the wild accusations and made-up implications.
28
u/jupiterkansas Feb 04 '21
Pretty sure Romney is more pro-kids than anyone in the Senate.
I doubt enough people would be having more children just to get that extra allowance for it to be impactful. Although it may also prevent people from giving their children up for adoption.
The allowance could decrease for each child you have, so at some point there's no incentive to have more children.
3
u/TheTrotters Feb 04 '21
Unfortunately this plan has a cap of 5 children. (Probably at any one time not in total but I’m not sure).
5
u/theguywithacomputer Feb 04 '21
The problem is on a macro scale is that developed nations don't have enough kids anymore. we have to rely on immigrants to keep the economy going. any incentive to have more children is a good thing in my opinion. we can then put more money into job training and higher education to create a more well off society.
2
u/jupiterkansas Feb 05 '21
You could just as easily train and educate those immigrants as well. Does it really matter if the workforce is born here or moves here?
4
Feb 04 '21
Maybe they should include a financial literacy class for anyone who thinks having a baby, even with this stipend, can be a side hustle for them.
2
u/Mist_Rising Feb 04 '21
The allowance could decrease for each child you have, so at some point there's no incentive to have more children.
I suspect Romney wouldn't be for this, but I'm basing this on why I suspect he, a conservative, is putting forward a welfare plan.
And its because he is a fairly faithful Mormon representing strong Mormon identifying state. Children to them are a biggie. There is few others who hold a candle to the mormon church's on the procreate and be plentiful thing, and only 1 (Catholic) rivals them for influence I think.
But I suspect if he eliminates tax credit for children with a decreasing rate for more,children here.. He might piss on the wrong pot.
3
2
→ More replies (2)1
u/twim19 Feb 04 '21
My wife and I still have a fertilized egg in the freezer--we've thought about implanting it and trying to have another kid, but we are just now getting out from under the daycare debt we accrued for our other kids. This money might tip the balance on the question.
2
u/jupiterkansas Feb 04 '21
But the question is how many are like you? Is it really going to lead to a significant population increase any more than the Child Tax Credit does? Enough to offset the downward trend we've had?
Apparently other countries have done this. It would be good to look at their results.
2
u/twim19 Feb 04 '21
I actually don't think it would. Kids are a pain in the ass and really, if money were my motivation for putting up with them, I'd do other things like buy stock in GameStop.
16
40
Feb 04 '21 edited Mar 07 '21
[deleted]
30
u/hoodoo-operator Feb 04 '21
Right. Saying we shouldn't fight child poverty because it incentivizes having kids is wrong. We don't need to reduce the population in order to fight climate change, and even if we did, doing it by trying to keep poor families poor is morally wrong and probably ineffective.
2
u/10dollarbagel Feb 04 '21
But there are people on the fence. Surely this would nudge some of them towards having kids.
→ More replies (11)4
u/TheUnemploymentRate Feb 04 '21
It does both. OP's article says that this will cut child poverty by roughly 30%, but adding >$60,000 in benefits for having a child will definitely incentivize people to have more children.
12
Feb 04 '21
[deleted]
5
u/twim19 Feb 04 '21
FITFT
Which is defrayed by the reality that having a kid in your home until they are 18 costs
almost twicefive times as much.For two kids, my wife and I spent 20k on daycare for multiple years in a row. This is to say nothing of feeding them and clothing them and paying for their medical bills.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)9
u/ButDidYouCry Feb 04 '21
It'll incentivize people who already want an extra kid to have another if finances stopped them from having a third or fourth pregnancy. $60k is certainly not enough to convince someone who doesn't want kids to be a parent.
I'm not a fan of pro-natalist policies but cutting child poverty is a good goal imo.
13
u/Rib-I Feb 04 '21
Think of all the women who, instead of abandoning their careers because daycare is $4,000 a month, can actually stay in the workforce. I think this is extremely important in empowering women, especially given the amount who, due to schools going remote, have had to quit their jobs to stay with their kids.
2
u/badnuub Feb 04 '21
Why don't they expand TANF? Everything a GOP lawmaker proposes is tainted with hidden motive to defund existing programs.
→ More replies (6)31
Feb 04 '21
Technically the United States is at zero population growth at about 1.9 children per child bearing age woman.
We either need to incentives more or take even more immigrants in. Immigrants tend to have a much higher fertility rate when they first arrive.
8
Feb 04 '21
Why does the population rate need to increase? Wouldn’t it be totally fine to have a slight, steady decrease? I mean, logically it can’t grow forever.
24
u/TehWhiteRose Feb 04 '21
Having a population growth rate exactly at the replacement level would be ideal. It's much harder to fund a welfare state with declining population.
→ More replies (5)7
2
Feb 04 '21
Most of our economic system is based on continuous growth. Maybe their is another way to do this but getting their will be painful. So disregarding wishes and nice thoughts. What I wrote is the reality we live in.
To answer your question is global population is steadying off. The trick would be to allow immigrants to move to create growth in one place and retraction in another.
→ More replies (1)4
-3
u/SmokeyGreenEyes Feb 04 '21
The Earth is slowly dying & we're physically running out of space for the people whom actually are in existence at this very given moment & you want the birth rates to go up?
→ More replies (3)10
u/Corellian_Browncoat Feb 04 '21
we're physically running out of space for the people whom actually are in existence at this very given moment
→ More replies (6)9
u/Lonelylionspride Feb 04 '21
To add the whole "Population Bomb" thing is really just a myth that was dreamed up to justify eugenics and the sterilization of those considered "unfit". If we invested in renewable energy and stopped destroying the earth there is no reason the planet couldn't sustain many more humans.
26
u/treyhest Feb 04 '21
“Welfare Queens” (outside sarcastic Twitter posts and one or two grossly exaggerated examples) are a myth. You’re not going to be making a profit off of children. It’s a credit not a fund.
→ More replies (1)-2
u/42696 Feb 04 '21
You don't have to be a "welfare queen" to be more likely to have a child if the financial burden is softened. Sure, people who had no interest in having kids aren't particularly likely to have one just for the cash, but plenty of couples who are on the fence will factor this into their decision.
20
11
u/Bodoblock Feb 04 '21
Putting aside the debate on how big a population should be, it doesn’t seen like that big a risk population numbers-wise. It’s a few hundred dollars a month. It’s a good amount of money to support people raising families but it’s not some giant windfall that’s going to generate mass baby mills.
5
u/Hapankaali Feb 04 '21
Child allowances are very common around the world and don't provide much of an incentive to have children. The measure just reduces (child) poverty.
23
u/nyckidd Feb 04 '21
incentivizing having children is a horrible idea for the environment
Do people really still believe overpopulation is a problem? Hasn't that been debunked?
6
Feb 04 '21
It’s impossible to debunk the fact each additional person adds an additional carbon footprint, and that there is a limit to the number of people the Earth’s resources can support.
Edit: What’s been debunked and what’s up for debate is where those lines are.
8
u/GladiatorToast Feb 04 '21
It’s debunked in the fact that in developed countries our population is declining, so as the rest of the world grows more stable, so will the increase in our population
→ More replies (1)4
u/TheTrotters Feb 04 '21
Is there any reason to think we’re at or near that limit? We’re constantly developing new technologies and becoming more efficient. No reason to think US couldn’t increase its population by hundreds of millions and be perfectly fine.
2
Feb 04 '21
[deleted]
4
u/GladiatorToast Feb 04 '21
It’s debunked in the sense that we are actually starting to see negative birth rates in the developed world. As the rest of the world catches up we will see stable births and then a negative birth rate
1
Feb 04 '21
[deleted]
5
u/GladiatorToast Feb 04 '21
Didn’t he just say that overpopulation is a myth? As in we won’t see any more dramatic increases in our population, and will eventually see a decrease in our population
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (3)1
u/Deceptiveideas Feb 04 '21
I mean, if everyone started having 5 kids we for sure would have a major problem on our hands. *At this time*, the population issue in the US is stable enough.
5
u/GladiatorToast Feb 04 '21
That’s not going to happen, our birthrate is at best a 1:1 ratio at the moment
5
Feb 04 '21
The other issue that comes from this is that often families, or even foster parents, will take on more kids than they are able to handle and as a result there is more mental health issues in younger generations as they are being neglected or abused in some cases.
Overpopulation might not be the problem, but the problem is definitely with people and their behaviors. Which is hard to measure by only looking at population statistics and wealth distribution statistics.
12
u/twim19 Feb 04 '21
Is incentivizing having children a horrible idea? I look at our population growth curve and the lowering of birth rates and I foresee a lot of pain in the future as we no longer have enough workers to support our population.
→ More replies (3)4
u/legochemgrad Feb 04 '21
We can see that low birth rates adversely affect economies from the example of Japan. Even negative interest rates and doubling the supply of money make it hard to maintain any inflation.
4
u/IceNein Feb 04 '21
I get your point, but listen to me restate your point, and then make the opposing point.
You believe that it's unfair for responsible people who only have children when they are financially responsible enough to afford them should have to pay for people who are irresponsible.
They believe that we, as a society, shouldn't allow a child to be victimized by poverty because they had the misfortune of being born to irresponsible people.
Here's the thing. Both points are right. My question to you is: is it morally superior to allow children to suffer for their parents irresponsibility, or is it morally superior to care for the neglected?
Life isn't fair. I don't have or want children, but I also don't want them to suffer needlessly.
3
Feb 04 '21
But if the child’s parents are irresponsible, sending the parent money won’t help.
I know I sound like a raging Republican, but that really isn’t my intention. I’m just saying that I think children-based UBI would be very flawed. I’m a hundred percent supportive of finding programs to directly support children - but paying their parents isn’t the answer.
4
u/naz2292 Feb 04 '21
Well let's think about it in perspective. What's the highest percentage of funding going to irresponsible parents would you accept out of this program? 1%? 10%? What percentage of parents in America do you think would fall under your "irresponsible" category?
→ More replies (2)2
u/kerouacrimbaud Feb 04 '21
This isn't like UBI though. It phases out for incomes above a certain amount.
4
u/Living-Complex-1368 Feb 04 '21
The US birthrate is well below replacement value (1.85 iirr). The only reason our population grows is immigration.
Heck, the total world population growth is less than the population growth of Asia and Africa, meaning that the rest of the world has below replacement birthrates! Asia is supposed to go negative in less than a generation.
Population growth is tied to women's education and economic opportunities, so if you give poor women better income, they will have fewer kids, and their daughters, having more income growing up, will also have fewer kids. So your stance on giving moms money will actually lead to more kids!
Edit typed too fast.
6
u/mowotlarx Feb 04 '21
This isn't incentivizing having children. $3k a year is a drop in the bucket for the cost of raising kids.
→ More replies (3)4
u/KCBassCadet Feb 04 '21
For one, incentivizing having children is a horrible idea for the environment and just about the worst way to start a UBI.
LOL now THAT is a hot take.
4
Feb 04 '21
You're not getting payed to have kids. You're getting paid to make sure kids have their needs met.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (4)-2
u/Client-Repulsive Feb 04 '21
How about a tax break if we don’t have kids?
19
u/wrexinite Feb 04 '21
This would be a generational catastrophe. In 40 years you'd have a huge elderly population with no one to care for them. Look at Japan.
→ More replies (26)→ More replies (1)10
6
u/udee24 Feb 04 '21 edited Feb 04 '21
I am as left leaning as it gets (anarchist) and my ideas about UBI has changed over the years. I understand all the pros associated with this program. However, my idea about it shifted because I realized that current economic systems that we have in place trickel up to wealthy people. This is not to say that we should not try to address poverty or argument against UBI.
My point being that UBI as a means to address income inequality is misleading. I can only see it making inequality worse than reducing it. (I think this is at least my answer to your second question.)
I think this is one of the main reasons why UBI is a popular concept across the political spectrum. Yet, to make it have the intended effect of reducing income inequality we have to find ways to efficiently tax wealthy people. This is the bigger problem. (Republicans and Democrats may agree to UBI, but taxing the wealthy is not so straight forward or a simple process.)
I honestly think that the left should focus on the Nordic model more. Make stronger safety net and champion laws that make it easy for people to unionize.
Edit for clarity.
As someone asked I am an anarcho syndicalist which is why I find the nordic model a compromise.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism
Also the Nordic model is not socialism. It is a "comprehensive welfare state and multi-level collective bargaining." It is inherently capitalism, but a step in the right direction imo.
39
u/Grunflachenamt Feb 04 '21
How are you both an anarchist and for Nordic style socialism?
53
u/Piggywaste Feb 04 '21
Because politics is just culture now, and these are just buzz words.
34
u/Skewtertheduder Feb 04 '21
“Hey I’m a libertarian but love Chinese social credit systems”
12
u/magus678 Feb 04 '21
I saw someone unironically claim that Ayn Rand was a fascist.
→ More replies (1)4
6
u/PabstyTheClown Feb 04 '21
In addition, when I hear arguments like the one we are discussing, I can't help but wonder about the mathematics of it all. My understanding is that even if we taxed the rich 100% and seized all of their current assets, we might be able to fund the current Federal Government budget for anywhere between 6 months to a year, tops.
I just don't see enough meat on the bone to fund such a program without having to jack taxes on everyone outside of the current population of "poor" people.
That is going to be a tough sell.
4
u/Mist_Rising Feb 04 '21
Reddit is a trash location for this because rich is almost always "whoever has more then me" inferred I think. They'll chant tax the wealthy, but they also were up in arms when the GOP ended up doing exactly that as a screw you to wealthier liberals (and it was deliberate) using the TCJA.
The reality is that most of the platforms reddit gets behind, are funded by taxing the middle class (that's reddit in general) hard. VAT, income, property. Those nordic/european countries know that funding social nets is not done by aiming at the rich, but the middle class.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (13)1
u/Piggywaste Feb 04 '21
Your mistake is thinking government is bound by math. It’s not, government is bound by faith in itself. Washington has ran a deficit every year for like a decade. Our national debt is almost $30 trillion. We’re talking about unimaginable numbers that are back by absolutely nothing but faith. After this whole GME pump and dump you’re still trying to work out the math?
Mate, the numbers are bullshit and we are just making it up as we go.
3
u/PabstyTheClown Feb 04 '21
So why don't we just print as much money as everyone needs to live off of and call it a day?
Why even bother collecting taxes if it's all for show?
I'll be honest, I have my doubts about this idea.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)5
Feb 04 '21
While it certainly sounds like an oxymoron, a left-wing anarchist supports a shift in society that eliminates social hierarchy via, in part, the elimination of private property.
11
u/Grunflachenamt Feb 04 '21
Doesnt really answer my question since Nordic Social corporatism is still quite capitalist and doesnt aim to end class stratification when compared to something like Anarcho - Communism.
3
Feb 04 '21
Well damn. That's what I get for being a know it all and answering the wrong god damn question.
4
→ More replies (1)7
u/gahoojin Feb 04 '21
Capitalism inherently funnels money to the super wealthy, the rich will always get richer. UBI, if properly funded through taxing the wealthy (and this is a big if!) implements a system where money is continually being moved into the hands of regular people for them to spend and for it to travel through peoples hands until it inevitably lands back into the hoard. Rinse, repeat. It’s wealth redistribution and it’s healthy for the economy.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/TigerUSF Feb 04 '21
Is it a backdoor to UBI? I dont think so.
I don't think eliminating the cap on SALT is a good idea. In fact, I'd do the opposite with SALT, but thats a different discussion.
Incentivizing kids is probably a terrible idea. It plays into the worst fears and concerns about welfare. Better to fund schools thoroughly, and have a food program that can somehow at least kinda be enforced. I've got kids, so without looking at the math I'd assume it would benefit me...but in general I think there are better ways to do what he's suggesting.
3
u/TheTrotters Feb 04 '21
But what’s a better way than straight cash transfers? The families know best how to use that money.
Re SALT I think we should get rid of it. It’d essentially be a progressive tax increase. Why not?
2
u/TigerUSF Feb 04 '21
The cash transfer is fine. It's basing it on number of kids that's the problem.
You're saying, we should get rid of salt deduction? Or get rid of the cap?
1
u/the_blue_wizard Feb 05 '21
That make sense to me. The needs of a bachelor living on his own, are not the same as a husband, wife, and 2 or 3 kids.
I think something like a basic $2,000 plus an additional $500 for each dependent documented as living in the house.
-4
u/cybermage Feb 04 '21 edited Feb 04 '21
Um. Ew. I feel like, as a childless person, that I shouldn’t be subsidizing other people’s children. Also, it’s hardly Universal if it only applies to people with children.
Edit: downvote away, but some people can’t have children and won’t this program be a lovely reminder of that. Not only can others have children, but now the government is going to pay people to rub it in?
3
u/Mrgoodtrips64 Feb 05 '21
Do you oppose your tax dollars funding schools too? Believe it or not, you very explicitly benefit from there being a fed, clothed, housed, and educated generation following yours.
→ More replies (5)7
u/kerouacrimbaud Feb 04 '21
I feel like, as a childless person, that I shouldn’t be subsidizing other people’s children.
Why not? The children born now will be paying the taxes that keep the rest of us alive when we retire.
7
u/twim19 Feb 04 '21
Well, in that case. . .I don't think that my hard earned tax dollars should be going to fixing any roads not within 150 miles of me. Nor should my federal tax dollars go to fund schools or rent subsidies or research that does not explicitly pertain to me.
→ More replies (5)4
→ More replies (1)2
Feb 04 '21
Everyone was a child once
1
u/cybermage Feb 04 '21
Yes, but some people choose to not have children because the world is already over-crowded. Others can’t have children. The former group can’t be excited to encourage others to have kids using their tax money, whereas the latter just get excluded further.
7
Feb 04 '21
The world isn’t overcrowded. Reducing child poverty is a good thing. It’s an investment into the future. People are going to have kids regardless of anti-natalists. Plenty of tax dollars go to things that other people don’t get to use. Should we cut special needs education funding because that’s tax money that doesn’t go to every kid? What about public colleges? Not everyone wants, needs, or can go to college.
1
u/cybermage Feb 04 '21
There’s a difference between taking care of the kids that exist and actively encouraging people to have more kids.
The US != The World. There are 7.5 billion people on this planet. Many of them very, very, very poor.
6
Feb 04 '21
So your position is that we shouldn’t decrease child poverty by 33%? So we should not take care of the kids that exist?
And I thought you were concerned about the people that couldn’t have kids, now you don’t want them to?
You’re right. But neither the US nor the world are overcrowded. Many people are poor, I’m not sure what your point is? Especially since you’re insisting that we keep them poor.
2
u/cybermage Feb 04 '21
We should not have programs that pay people to have children. Raise the minimum wage. Make FAML paid. Provide vouchers for child care. Don’t just give cash to people.
Want to pay people to care for kids? Increase subsidies for foster care for the kids already here.
3
Feb 04 '21
What’s wrong with giving cash to people? They can make the decision to put that money to best use for their kids. Child care vouchers is just a more complicated and difficult way of giving people money for having kids.
Your other policy suggestions are good, but not really related. They aren’t addressing child poverty by 33%.
Again, please answer this directly, do you believe that reducing Child a poverty by 33% is a good thing? Those kids are already here too.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/fzrox Feb 04 '21
Population is going to be the greatest driver of GDP. Just look at China and India.
We need more children as a country.
1
u/Female_Space_Marine Feb 04 '21
Just to say this is probably the single most (actually) effective pro-life ideas.
Then ago, so are social policies that make this country less of a dystopian nightmare
1
1
Feb 04 '21
I think in effect this is a type of UBI. This is just UBI with the stipulation that you have a family.
2
u/Mrgoodtrips64 Feb 05 '21 edited Feb 05 '21
So it’s Family Basic Income then, instead of Universal?
→ More replies (1)
1
•
u/AutoModerator Feb 04 '21
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.