Author Topic: New Gov't Child Benefit?!  (Read 8695 times)

FIRE Realtor

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 82
  • Location: Minneapolis, MN
    • Frugal Vegan Mom
New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« on: March 09, 2021, 09:50:13 AM »
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/09/974830177/what-the-300-a-month-child-benefit-could-mean-for-a-family-on-the-edge

This article profiles some lower income families, but could someone explain to me WHY THE HELL the government would give extra money to a family making $100,000 per year, much less $150K per year which is the cap for this program?!




HPstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2990
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #1 on: March 09, 2021, 09:56:55 AM »
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/09/974830177/what-the-300-a-month-child-benefit-could-mean-for-a-family-on-the-edge

This article profiles some lower income families, but could someone explain to me WHY THE HELL the government would give extra money to a family making $100,000 per year, much less $150K per year which is the cap for this program?!

Because it's extremely difficult to specifically target families who need the extra money the most.  $100-$150K/yr in Kentucky is totally different than $100-$150K in the Bay area.  A family with ongoing medical needs for each of their kids in the $10's of thousands every year vs. one with a stay at home parent for a single healthy child are two completely different stories too.  Don't get me wrong, I think it's way too high as well and that it's really not needed for MOST families, but finding a way to thread that needle and not leave out families truly in need is too difficult so they put a ridiculously high threshold and hope it catches everyone who needs it.

kanga1622

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 438
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #2 on: March 09, 2021, 01:38:32 PM »
Remember that the current $2000 per child benefit is only being raised to $3000 (ages 6-18) or $3600 (ages 0-5). Essentially they are increasing the tax credit and looking at ways to pay it monthly rather than having families wait until tax time to get the benefit. For those families struggling monthly, they may not make great decisions when a large lump sum of cash comes at tax time but would spend it on more essential items if it came every month.

In our case, if they send out a monthly check, we'd have to save 2/3 of it to pay back at tax time. I'm afraid people in a similar tax bracket to us that aren't very money savvy wouldn't understand this is a prepayment on a tax credit and will get a big surprise next April.

YttriumNitrate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #3 on: March 09, 2021, 02:52:59 PM »
This article profiles some lower income families, but could someone explain to me WHY THE HELL the government would give extra money to a family making $100,000 per year, much less $150K per year which is the cap for this program?!
Setting it $150k makes it so roughly 4 out of 5 qualify for the program, which apparently is the level needed to make it palatable to enough people to get it passed.
https://dqydj.com/average-median-top-household-income-percentiles/

englishteacheralex

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4341
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Honolulu, HI
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #4 on: March 09, 2021, 03:07:39 PM »
I'm not an expert on policy, but the reading I've done on the subject suggests that for any kind of benefit to be politically viable in the long-term, it has to apply widely.

Honestly, we've been paying for daycare for two children for the past six years and it has cost around $175k. Until now, we could only take $5k/year total for daycare in our FSA. This relief is very welcome, despite the fact that our combined income is ~$150k.

Sandi_k

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2368
  • Location: California
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #5 on: March 09, 2021, 03:27:19 PM »
It would be a nightmare to administer if you drew it more narrowly.

What about someone who graduates from grad school in June, and is only employed for 6 months? Or someone who was employed January-June, and then got laid off? What proof do you need? Income tax returns are out of date - frequently by the time they're filed!

And fraud - how do you police the fraud?

It actually *costs* *less* to cast a wide net, and need little proof of eligibility, nor any policing force that you have to hire, train and pay.

Peaksandvalleys

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #6 on: March 09, 2021, 05:25:07 PM »
It's difficult to pander for votes if you don't include enough of the population. You are always going to miss segments of the population that could benefit. Waste is waste no matter how you justify it. It's flawed logic to claim that it's worth massive waste to capture a small segment of the population in need that would otherwise be missed. A thoughtful targeted program could be developed to solve this problem.

Our gov is a hammer and everything it sees appears to be a nail. Rather than intelligent solutions, they choose to throw money everywhere and hoping that it concentrates where needed, a result that obviously will not occur.

As a beneficiary of this expanded credit who would likely be cut out by more narrow limits, I completely agree that more targeted parameters should be used.

Also why do I qualify for stimulus checks when my income and financial stability has been unmoved by the pandemic? Why are businesses that are expanding during the pandemic getting free money with PPP loans?

We are all going to be servicing this debt moving forward

Peaksandvalleys

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #7 on: March 09, 2021, 06:12:34 PM »
Honestly, the real outrage was in 2018 when the government started giving money (in the form of tax credits) to families making $400k/year (and that's the start of the phase-out region for modified adjusted gross income). The limit had previously been $110k/year.

Oof that's awful, agreed

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #8 on: March 09, 2021, 07:06:29 PM »
Also, for better or worse, some people are worried about the birth rate. Programs like this encourage people to have kids. I'm not saying that I agree with it, but yea.

Paul der Krake

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5892
  • Age: 17
  • Location: UTC-10:00
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #9 on: March 09, 2021, 07:17:25 PM »
I can already guarantee that within the next months. we will get the following types of stories in the press:

- people complaining that some parents are purposely manufacturing kids to get more money
- people complaining that $300 isn't enough and barely covers childcare/diapers/whatever, and it should be more
- people complaining that it's unfair to the child-free millennials
- people complaining that it's not cost-of-living adjusted and those West Virginians and Kentuckians should get less

The complaining never stops.

katsiki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2010
  • Age: 45
  • Location: La.
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #10 on: March 09, 2021, 07:18:40 PM »

- people complaining that some parents are purposely manufacturing kids to get more money


Is that what they're calling it now??!

Paul der Krake

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5892
  • Age: 17
  • Location: UTC-10:00
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #11 on: March 09, 2021, 07:23:35 PM »

- people complaining that some parents are purposely manufacturing kids to get more money


Is that what they're calling it now??!
Yes. Sign up for my seminar where I teach you, for the low price of $999, how to invoke the triplet spirits and scale up production. The course pays for itself in just a few months.

charis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3327
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #12 on: March 09, 2021, 08:57:27 PM »
Two children are in public elementary school and we had to pay over 10k in child care and tutoring in just Sept-Dec 2020 (and only 2 shortened days per week), which we would not have to pay normally. Merely so we could remain employed and keep our (mildly special accommodation needing) children from losing significant ground. It will be more in 2021.

And we are of the limited lucky ones who could wfh partly and were willing and able to take the risk of sending our kids out for childcare when we needed to.  If you don't understand how dramatically this has effected so many families, congrats on your great position.

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #13 on: March 09, 2021, 11:55:51 PM »
Two children are in public elementary school and we had to pay over 10k in child care and tutoring in just Sept-Dec 2020 (and only 2 shortened days per week), which we would not have to pay normally. Merely so we could remain employed and keep our (mildly special accommodation needing) children from losing significant ground. It will be more in 2021.

I'm super supportive of the expanded child tax credit for 2021.

The AP is reporting that they want to extend it forever:

DeLauro and other Democrats on Capitol Hill see the current legislation as laying the groundwork for a permanent expansion of the credit. Indeed, Biden himself told House Democrats during a private call last week that he supports legislation that would permanently increase the child tax credit to $3,000 per child.

Which for parents making $150K/yr seems excessive to me, as a person that voted for Biden.


FrugalToque

  • Administrator
  • Pencil Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 922
  • Location: Canada
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #14 on: March 10, 2021, 07:16:30 AM »
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/09/974830177/what-the-300-a-month-child-benefit-could-mean-for-a-family-on-the-edge

This article profiles some lower income families, but could someone explain to me WHY THE HELL the government would give extra money to a family making $100,000 per year, much less $150K per year which is the cap for this program?!

Not sure, but I think people in your country really look down on poor people.  More so than in other countries.

A policy that targets the poor is often very unpopular and policy debates get dragged down into discussions of supposed "Welfare Queens" and such.  Minimum wage debates often derail into makings long lists of people who don't deserve more than $7 an hour.

If the policy targets "more responsible people" as well as the poor, the policy might pass more easily.

Toque.

charis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3327
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #15 on: March 10, 2021, 07:38:22 AM »
I agree that the 150k cap is unnecessarily high (we are well under that), but we were already saving 50% of income in a fairly lcol area. Most people don't have a funnel of $ that can change direction at any time.  In any event, our stimulus $ is going straight to our children's 529 accounts and toward a large medical bill so I have no qualms about receiving it.

dcheesi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #16 on: March 10, 2021, 07:40:48 AM »
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/09/974830177/what-the-300-a-month-child-benefit-could-mean-for-a-family-on-the-edge

This article profiles some lower income families, but could someone explain to me WHY THE HELL the government would give extra money to a family making $100,000 per year, much less $150K per year which is the cap for this program?!

Not sure, but I think people in your country really look down on poor people.  More so than in other countries.

A policy that targets the poor is often very unpopular and policy debates get dragged down into discussions of supposed "Welfare Queens" and such.  Minimum wage debates often derail into makings long lists of people who don't deserve more than $7 an hour.

If the policy targets "more responsible people" as well as the poor, the policy might pass more easily.

Toque.
Not to mention people who are simply too proud to take poverty benefits, even when they clearly need them. If you make it a credit that wealthy people also get, then the stigma of taking it is removed.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1677
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #17 on: March 10, 2021, 07:48:35 AM »
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/09/974830177/what-the-300-a-month-child-benefit-could-mean-for-a-family-on-the-edge

This article profiles some lower income families, but could someone explain to me WHY THE HELL the government would give extra money to a family making $100,000 per year, much less $150K per year which is the cap for this program?!

Not sure, but I think people in your country really look down on poor people.  More so than in other countries.

A policy that targets the poor is often very unpopular and policy debates get dragged down into discussions of supposed "Welfare Queens" and such.  Minimum wage debates often derail into makings long lists of people who don't deserve more than $7 an hour.

If the policy targets "more responsible people" as well as the poor, the policy might pass more easily.

Toque.

100% agree.

63 freaking % of lower income Republican (general public) supported the new Covid relief bill. How many Republicans in Congress (of 261!) voted for it? *crickets sound*

The country hates poor people, and Republican representatives REALLY hate poor people. Shit that just helps lower income folks always gets villified.

And raising kids in the United States, without the funding other countries provide for daycare/childcare/health insurance is super expensive. We spent over $100K in childcare and that's in a MCOL area at a very "middle of the road" facility.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2021, 07:52:06 AM by Nick_Miller »

OtherJen

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5267
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #18 on: March 10, 2021, 10:09:54 AM »
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/09/974830177/what-the-300-a-month-child-benefit-could-mean-for-a-family-on-the-edge

This article profiles some lower income families, but could someone explain to me WHY THE HELL the government would give extra money to a family making $100,000 per year, much less $150K per year which is the cap for this program?!

Not sure, but I think people in your country really look down on poor people.  More so than in other countries.

A policy that targets the poor is often very unpopular and policy debates get dragged down into discussions of supposed "Welfare Queens" and such.  Minimum wage debates often derail into makings long lists of people who don't deserve more than $7 an hour.

If the policy targets "more responsible people" as well as the poor, the policy might pass more easily.

Toque.

It sure seems that way, doesn't it?

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 18174
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #19 on: March 10, 2021, 10:53:31 AM »
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/09/974830177/what-the-300-a-month-child-benefit-could-mean-for-a-family-on-the-edge

This article profiles some lower income families, but could someone explain to me WHY THE HELL the government would give extra money to a family making $100,000 per year, much less $150K per year which is the cap for this program?!

Not sure, but I think people in your country really look down on poor people.  More so than in other countries.

A policy that targets the poor is often very unpopular and policy debates get dragged down into discussions of supposed "Welfare Queens" and such.  Minimum wage debates often derail into makings long lists of people who don't deserve more than $7 an hour.

If the policy targets "more responsible people" as well as the poor, the policy might pass more easily.

Lost in the public discussion about where the threshold should be for getting stimulus checks is a robust discussion of how poor our publicly-funded social network is in the United States.  With random exceptions, there is no child care for children under 6. College is expensive and increasingly necessary.  Health-insurance for a family costs 5 figures, and if you aren't fortunate enough to have an employer-sponsored plan that's all out of pocket. And as Frugal Toque pointed out the minimum wage is abnormally low for a developed country.

If we were closer to other nations where child care, health care, college and a higher minimum wage were the norm, it's very likely that we could largely forego this conversation about the "struggling middle class" and "working class poverty". Relative to middle-class families in other developed nations, people from the US are burdened with the full cost of these (often inescapable) costs. All for the illusion of "lower taxes" and "greater economic growth".

dougules

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2886
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #20 on: March 10, 2021, 11:10:05 AM »
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/09/974830177/what-the-300-a-month-child-benefit-could-mean-for-a-family-on-the-edge

This article profiles some lower income families, but could someone explain to me WHY THE HELL the government would give extra money to a family making $100,000 per year, much less $150K per year which is the cap for this program?!

Not sure, but I think people in your country really look down on poor people.  More so than in other countries.

A policy that targets the poor is often very unpopular and policy debates get dragged down into discussions of supposed "Welfare Queens" and such.  Minimum wage debates often derail into makings long lists of people who don't deserve more than $7 an hour.

If the policy targets "more responsible people" as well as the poor, the policy might pass more easily.

Toque.

The hatred for poor people is unfortunately predictable if you understand a few false assumptions common in US culture.

1.  Anybody can get rich.  People in the US think anybody has the opportunity and capability to get rich if they live in the US.  Therefore, if you’re poor it must mean you are lazy.
2. Socialism is always bad.  A lot of people here have the notion that the slightest amount of government involvement in the economy will lead to the US turning into the Soviet Union. 
3. Racism.  A decent number of people who are against “socialism” picture someone of a racial minority mooching off the system.  Sometimes it’s explicit, but sometimes it’s subconscious, and people don’t realize they have that bias.

charis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3327
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #21 on: March 10, 2021, 11:39:45 AM »
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/09/974830177/what-the-300-a-month-child-benefit-could-mean-for-a-family-on-the-edge

This article profiles some lower income families, but could someone explain to me WHY THE HELL the government would give extra money to a family making $100,000 per year, much less $150K per year which is the cap for this program?!

Not sure, but I think people in your country really look down on poor people.  More so than in other countries.

A policy that targets the poor is often very unpopular and policy debates get dragged down into discussions of supposed "Welfare Queens" and such.  Minimum wage debates often derail into makings long lists of people who don't deserve more than $7 an hour.

If the policy targets "more responsible people" as well as the poor, the policy might pass more easily.

Lost in the public discussion about where the threshold should be for getting stimulus checks is a robust discussion of how poor our publicly-funded social network is in the United States.  With random exceptions, there is no child care for children under 6. College is expensive and increasingly necessary.  Health-insurance for a family costs 5 figures, and if you aren't fortunate enough to have an employer-sponsored plan that's all out of pocket. And as Frugal Toque pointed out the minimum wage is abnormally low for a developed country.

If we were closer to other nations where child care, health care, college and a higher minimum wage were the norm, it's very likely that we could largely forego this conversation about the "struggling middle class" and "working class poverty". Relative to middle-class families in other developed nations, people from the US are burdened with the full cost of these (often inescapable) costs. All for the illusion of "lower taxes" and "greater economic growth".

This is what I was trying to get at. Child and health care is a huge part of our budget, even though we have good coverage and healthy grandparents willing to babysit and good work hours. We can certainly "afford" it as we are mustachian and on the road to FI (though still meager college savings) but many people cannot. 

Often I feel like we've figured out how to, in a sense, "game the system" by pursuing FI, whereas most others are trapped; yes, mostly by their own decisions but also by the system in important ways.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 18174
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #22 on: March 10, 2021, 12:16:07 PM »
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/09/974830177/what-the-300-a-month-child-benefit-could-mean-for-a-family-on-the-edge

This article profiles some lower income families, but could someone explain to me WHY THE HELL the government would give extra money to a family making $100,000 per year, much less $150K per year which is the cap for this program?!

Not sure, but I think people in your country really look down on poor people.  More so than in other countries.

A policy that targets the poor is often very unpopular and policy debates get dragged down into discussions of supposed "Welfare Queens" and such.  Minimum wage debates often derail into makings long lists of people who don't deserve more than $7 an hour.

If the policy targets "more responsible people" as well as the poor, the policy might pass more easily.

Lost in the public discussion about where the threshold should be for getting stimulus checks is a robust discussion of how poor our publicly-funded social network is in the United States.  With random exceptions, there is no child care for children under 6. College is expensive and increasingly necessary.  Health-insurance for a family costs 5 figures, and if you aren't fortunate enough to have an employer-sponsored plan that's all out of pocket. And as Frugal Toque pointed out the minimum wage is abnormally low for a developed country.

If we were closer to other nations where child care, health care, college and a higher minimum wage were the norm, it's very likely that we could largely forego this conversation about the "struggling middle class" and "working class poverty". Relative to middle-class families in other developed nations, people from the US are burdened with the full cost of these (often inescapable) costs. All for the illusion of "lower taxes" and "greater economic growth".

This is what I was trying to get at. Child and health care is a huge part of our budget, even though we have good coverage and healthy grandparents willing to babysit and good work hours. We can certainly "afford" it as we are mustachian and on the road to FI (though still meager college savings) but many people cannot. 

Often I feel like we've figured out how to, in a sense, "game the system" by pursuing FI, whereas most others are trapped; yes, mostly by their own decisions but also by the system in important ways.

Absolutely.  If you are an independent contractor, work for a small business or otherwise aren't provided with benefits the expenses can be considerable.  Two young children can cost $30k/year in daycare even without special needs. A typical family of four can cost $25k to insure under the ACA. If you plan on paying for your children's college it's recommended that you start saving a few $k each year as early as possible.  All of that is without any chronic or severe challenges to address.  In most countries part or all of those expenses are covered by governmental programs and funding.  But that's anathema to a large swath of our electorate.

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2426
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #23 on: March 10, 2021, 12:17:54 PM »
I'm kind of past this stage in life (mostly) where I would think about having kids or worry about childcare, but if you want to incentivize having kids or make sure kids that people have anyway have enough to eat and so forth, you absolutely need to do something like this.  When I was in my twenties and thirties, there was zero upside for me having kids.  It's expensive to go through labor and delivery, yes, and why you want to do that and pay through the nose for that painful experience and then have little to no paid leave I have no idea, but then there's the hit to your career on top of that and the costs for daycare too.  So I have no idea why anyone has them under these conditions. 

jehovasfitness23

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 257
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #24 on: March 10, 2021, 01:13:57 PM »
I'm kind of past this stage in life (mostly) where I would think about having kids or worry about childcare, but if you want to incentivize having kids or make sure kids that people have anyway have enough to eat and so forth, you absolutely need to do something like this.  When I was in my twenties and thirties, there was zero upside for me having kids.  It's expensive to go through labor and delivery, yes, and why you want to do that and pay through the nose for that painful experience and then have little to no paid leave I have no idea, but then there's the hit to your career on top of that and the costs for daycare too.  So I have no idea why anyone has them under these conditions.

Big reason I haven't yet. The cost of a child is on one hand expected to not be cheap but also ridiculous cost in a world where both parents typically need to work.

Heck, I'm 15 yrs post grad, and been in my position for 10 yrs. We couldn't make ends meet on just my salary alone, and we have no kids and no debt other than mortgage.

waltworks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5881
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #25 on: March 10, 2021, 01:49:21 PM »
IMO, we will see more and more of this kind of policy. The US is (like most developed countries) in a demographic trap of sorts. A stable replacement level birthrate is one thing - but a below-replacement level (which the US has been at for a while, exacerbated by Covid recently) causes all kinds of problems keeping various parts of society functioning down the line. 

There's widespread concern about this among social conservatives, and social liberals tend to be in favor of better family support/social safety net stuff as well. It's one of the rare issues where both sides of the political aisle pretty much see eye to eye.

I'd personally prefer to see stuff like universal daycare/preschool but handing out cash accomplishes the same thing to at least some extent.

-W


Paul der Krake

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5892
  • Age: 17
  • Location: UTC-10:00
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #26 on: March 10, 2021, 01:51:31 PM »
The US doesn't have a birth problem so long it continues to import people. No sign of that stopping anytime soon.

dougules

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2886
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #27 on: March 10, 2021, 02:03:44 PM »
The US doesn't have a birth problem so long it continues to import people. No sign of that stopping anytime soon.

True, although the majority of countries where immigrants originate are seeing their birth rates fall off, too.

waltworks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5881
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #28 on: March 10, 2021, 02:04:54 PM »
The US doesn't have a birth problem so long it continues to import people. No sign of that stopping anytime soon.

Sure, but one side would prefer native born 'Mericans to immigrants, and the other side is pro-family leave more social services and such. So there's widespread agreement on this sort of policy.

The track record of paying for kids at actually making more kids isn't great where it's been tried, though.

-W

zolotiyeruki

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5830
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #29 on: March 10, 2021, 02:11:06 PM »
63 freaking % of lower income Republican (general public) supported the new Covid relief bill. How many Republicans in Congress (of 261!) voted for it? *crickets sound*

The country hates poor people, and Republican representatives REALLY hate poor people. Shit that just helps lower income folks always gets villified.

And raising kids in the United States, without the funding other countries provide for daycare/childcare/health insurance is super expensive. We spent over $100K in childcare and that's in a MCOL area at a very "middle of the road" facility.
I realize that by posting in this thread, I'm basically throwing myself into a rushing torrent and trying to swim upstream, but if you'll hear me out...

There's no hatred for the poor.  Ok, fine, there are *some* people who do, but they are vanishingly few.  Just because a congresscritter opposes a bill that has *a* provision that would benefit those with low income doesn't mean they hate the poor.  Take the recently-passed COVID relief bill for $1.9 Trillion.  I'm opposed to it.  Sure, it'll send out $1400 checks to everyone, including the poor.  But for every dollar sent to the maybe 10% of people who actually need it, we're borrowing $38 for other stuff.  It's stupendously wasteful and inefficient, and we all (including people with low incomes) will pay the price down the road, either via inflation or increased taxes.  The extended supplementary unemployment benefits?  Yeah, I watched last summer as my employer (a small business) struggled to find people to hire.  When people are getting paid $600/week to sit at home rather than work, there's little incentive.  When someone disagrees with you on where to draw the line between a "hand up" vs a "handout," it doesn't mean they hate the poor.

"The funding other countries provide" - that money doesn't come out of thin air.  As with all government programs, it comes out of somebody else's pocket.

waltworks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5881
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #30 on: March 10, 2021, 03:50:48 PM »
Yup, I'm ok with increased taxation either directly or inflation (more likely). We throw enough money at old people and the military, time to throw some at young people if we're going to throw money around wildly.

-W

fuzzy math

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1860
  • Age: 43
  • Location: PNW
  • Trying to stay FIREd
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #31 on: March 10, 2021, 05:47:02 PM »
That's it, I'm starting all over and going to have more kids!

Nah. But I'd like to back bill for the 31 years of combined child credits at the lower level for my kids. I could have really used that before they were school age.

I am also really worried that I'll have to re-pay a good portion of anything that gets sent. I believe I read I can opt out of it. Ill have to look at the particulars again. A previous commenter mentioned that this could really bite some poorer families who somehow will end up owing it back.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #32 on: March 10, 2021, 05:56:45 PM »
"The funding other countries provide" - that money doesn't come out of thin air.  As with all government programs, it comes out of somebody else's pocket.
That's very true and sort of goes toward the "hate the poor" narrative.

People in other countries are generally happy to pay a moderately higher amount of tax to ensure a decent social safety net and that the poor are taken care of.  People in the USA are generally against that idea and have more of a "I have mine and can fend for myself so I don't want to pay any higher takes just to take care of the poor" attitude.

Sure, technically it isn't that anyone hates the poor, it's just many don't actually give a crap about them one way or the other.

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #33 on: March 10, 2021, 05:59:12 PM »
"The funding other countries provide" - that money doesn't come out of thin air.  As with all government programs, it comes out of somebody else's pocket.
That's very true and sort of goes toward the "hate the poor" narrative.

People in other countries are generally happy to pay a moderately higher amount of tax to ensure a decent social safety net and that the poor are taken care of.  People in the USA are generally against that idea and have more of a "I have mine and can fend for myself so I don't want to pay any higher takes just to take care of the poor" attitude.

Yes, but it is also what you choose to spend those tax dollars on. Depending on how much you make, USA+Oregon and UK+Scotland will tax you a similar amount, but you get way more services in Scotland.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2021, 06:02:15 PM by PDXTabs »

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 18174
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #34 on: March 10, 2021, 06:18:28 PM »
"The funding other countries provide" - that money doesn't come out of thin air.  As with all government programs, it comes out of somebody else's pocket.
That's very true and sort of goes toward the "hate the poor" narrative.

People in other countries are generally happy to pay a moderately higher amount of tax to ensure a decent social safety net and that the poor are taken care of.  People in the USA are generally against that idea and have more of a "I have mine and can fend for myself so I don't want to pay any higher takes just to take care of the poor" attitude.

Sure, technically it isn't that anyone hates the poor, it's just many don't actually give a crap about them one way or the other.

Ironically providing child-care is one of those programs that, on net, makes an enormous amount of economic sense. One can even charge it doesn’t come out of “someone else’s pocket” at all. Simply put, providing child-care increases the worker participation rate, which boosts both GDP and tax revenue.  Just as (nearly) everyone goes to school early on, the overwhelming majority of citizens had some form of childcare during their early years.
Similar arguments can be made about health care. We are already spending all that money on health care, and currently health insurance is overwhelmingly fronted by employers. On average a company-sponsored family health care plan costs over $14k to the company, plus more to the worker.

 

zolotiyeruki

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5830
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #35 on: March 10, 2021, 07:18:08 PM »
"The funding other countries provide" - that money doesn't come out of thin air.  As with all government programs, it comes out of somebody else's pocket.
People in other countries are generally happy to pay a moderately higher amount of tax to ensure a decent social safety net and that the poor are taken care of.  People in the USA are generally against that idea and have more of a "I have mine and can fend for myself so I don't want to pay any higher takes just to take care of the poor" attitude.

Sure, technically it isn't that anyone hates the poor, it's just many don't actually give a crap about them one way or the other.
Or, maybe, perhaps, they see the US government's extensive extant social welfare programs and see the moral hazard and welfare trap that has metastasized.  Once you count up medicaid, food stamps/WIC/SNAP/TANF/etc, section 8, free public education, subsidized child care, a generous standard deduction, all sorts of credits and refundable credits, need-based scholarships and federal financial aid, social security bend points, progressive tax brackets, and a host of other benefits, you start to wonder "what else do you want!?"

It's worth pointing out that the US effectively subsidizes the free world's militaries, and I believe Trump was trying to work on fixing that situation.  US military procurement and spending is, indeed, wildly inefficient, and a lot of housecleaning is in order.  But whenever anyone mentions welfare work requirements as a way to encourage the able-bodied to contribute to society, there's an outcry.

waltworks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5881
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #36 on: March 10, 2021, 07:57:28 PM »
We spend at least 20 bucks on old people and bombs for every dollar we spend on kids. But yeah, moral hazard... how dare someone stay home with their toddler for a few years and teach them to read instead of heading in to the office 10 hours a day!

Childcare is the most valuable work we perform as a society. We should value it accordingly.

-W

Paul der Krake

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5892
  • Age: 17
  • Location: UTC-10:00
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #37 on: March 10, 2021, 07:59:58 PM »
Yeah the idea that the US (and state, and local) government hates the poor doesn't stand up to any serious scrutiny. Sometimes it is inefficient, sometimes it is difficult to navigate, sometimes conservative governments will screw with one program or two on purpose, sure. But the idea that there is no help available is downright laughable.

OtherJen

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5267
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #38 on: March 11, 2021, 02:02:02 AM »
What else do we want?

A healthcare/insurance system that doesn't cause situations like this would be a good start: A $22,368 Bill That Dodged and Weaved to Find a Gap in America’s Health System (NY Times)

zolotiyeruki

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5830
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #39 on: March 11, 2021, 09:23:57 AM »
What else do we want?

A healthcare/insurance system that doesn't cause situations like this would be a good start: A $22,368 Bill That Dodged and Weaved to Find a Gap in America’s Health System (NY Times)
I absolutely agree that there are big problems in the US health insurance and healthcare industries (and yes, I consider them separately).  Surprise 5-figure (or more!) bills shouldn't be a thing.  It sounds like the patient didn't have any health insurance at all?  He's retired at 65 but isn't on Medicare?
« Last Edit: March 11, 2021, 09:26:06 AM by zolotiyeruki »

OtherJen

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5267
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #40 on: March 11, 2021, 09:45:40 AM »
What else do we want?

A healthcare/insurance system that doesn't cause situations like this would be a good start: A $22,368 Bill That Dodged and Weaved to Find a Gap in America’s Health System (NY Times)
I absolutely agree that there are big problems in the US health insurance and healthcare industries (and yes, I consider them separately).  Surprise 5-figure (or more!) bills shouldn't be a thing.  It sounds like the patient didn't have any health insurance at all?  He's retired at 65 but isn't on Medicare?

I interpreted it to mean that he is 65 now but wasn't last April when he was hospitalized, and probably retired as soon as he was able to use Medicare (like my dad, who turned 65 on a Monday and retired on Friday of the same week). If he was on an employer plan and received out of network care, that sort of bill is completely understandable.

chemistk

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Location: Mid-Atlantic
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #41 on: March 11, 2021, 12:33:33 PM »
Yeah the idea that the US (and state, and local) government hates the poor doesn't stand up to any serious scrutiny. Sometimes it is inefficient, sometimes it is difficult to navigate, sometimes conservative governments will screw with one program or two on purpose, sure. But the idea that there is no help available is downright laughable.

America (Americans) certainly doesn't hate the poor but they sure as heck don't want to deal with them.

My and my wife's families are, generally, conservative and all at least middle class, and there's a real-deal resentment and disgust toward those who are receiving government benefits.

While the poor aren't hated, they aren't exactly welcomed with open arms either. Many would rather them be someone else's problem.

And while we do have a whole stable of social safety net programs, many are laughably underfunded and unrealistically difficult to navigate.

Arcane and arbitrary zoning, the war on drugs, the housing crisis, police attitudes toward homeless and toward minorities, mass incarceration, the lack of real mental health support, the cost of healthcare, and other policies and attitudes have created a whole class of people who are perpetually stuck oscillating in and out of poverty.

None of these things are issues that a good majority of people want to address, so we may not hate the poor but we sure as shit neglect the poor.

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #42 on: March 15, 2021, 08:50:04 AM »
Yeah the idea that the US (and state, and local) government hates the poor doesn't stand up to any serious scrutiny. Sometimes it is inefficient, sometimes it is difficult to navigate, sometimes conservative governments will screw with one program or two on purpose, sure. But the idea that there is no help available is downright laughable.

So if you area childless person in a state that doesn't have medicaid expansion, what do you have? Not much, some food aid if you are working.

Then go look at the UK.The USA hates the poor, the UK isn't even liberal by European standards.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2021, 08:51:35 AM by PDXTabs »

zolotiyeruki

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5830
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #43 on: March 15, 2021, 09:55:16 AM »
Yeah the idea that the US (and state, and local) government hates the poor doesn't stand up to any serious scrutiny. Sometimes it is inefficient, sometimes it is difficult to navigate, sometimes conservative governments will screw with one program or two on purpose, sure. But the idea that there is no help available is downright laughable.

So if you area childless person in a state that doesn't have medicaid expansion, what do you have? Not much, some food aid if you are working.

Then go look at the UK.The USA hates the poor, the UK isn't even liberal by European standards.
I'm not sure where you're getting that information, and I'm sure it varies from state to state, but earlier in this thread, I answered the "what do you have?" with an extensive, yet not even exhaustive, list of benefits low-income people can receive.  Lack of a Medicaid expansion doesn't mean there's no medicaid available.

To save you the trouble, here's a copy/paste from that post: medicaid, food stamps/WIC/SNAP/TANF/etc, section 8 vouchers, free public education, subsidized child care, a generous standard deduction, all sorts of credits and refundable credits, need-based scholarships and federal financial aid, social security bend points, progressive tax brackets, etc.

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #44 on: March 15, 2021, 11:45:57 AM »
medicaid, food stamps/WIC/SNAP/TANF/etc, section 8 vouchers, free public education, subsidized child care, a generous standard deduction, all sorts of credits and refundable credits, need-based scholarships and federal financial aid, social security bend points, progressive tax brackets, etc.

I specifically said child free so that means no WIC or TANF, and in my area the waiting list for section 8 has a lottery. That's right, you have to win the lottery to get on the waiting list which is approximately 10 years long, in stark contrast to the UK. I also made it very clear that single people with no kids can be denied SNAP for failing to find employment.

Progressive tax brackets, except when negative, can not possibly be considered aid. I'm not sure that social security should count either, since the poor person in question may or may not live long enough to ever see it.

EDITed to add - can you find a developed western democracy with less aid than the USA? We're the bottom of the barrel.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2021, 11:49:54 AM by PDXTabs »

zolotiyeruki

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5830
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #45 on: March 15, 2021, 12:18:55 PM »
medicaid, food stamps/WIC/SNAP/TANF/etc, section 8 vouchers, free public education, subsidized child care, a generous standard deduction, all sorts of credits and refundable credits, need-based scholarships and federal financial aid, social security bend points, progressive tax brackets, etc.

I specifically said child free so that means no WIC or TANF, and in my area the waiting list for section 8 has a lottery. That's right, you have to win the lottery to get on the waiting list which is approximately 10 years long, in stark contrast to the UK. I also made it very clear that single people with no kids can be denied SNAP for failing to find employment.

Progressive tax brackets, except when negative, can not possibly be considered aid. I'm not sure that social security should count either, since the poor person in question may or may not live long enough to ever see it.

EDITed to add - can you find a developed western democracy with less aid than the USA? We're the bottom of the barrel.
It may depend on your area, because I've got a single, adult, childless friend who's getting food stamps.

Bloop Bloop Reloaded

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 757
  • Location: Australia
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #46 on: March 15, 2021, 12:29:46 PM »
I'm kind of past this stage in life (mostly) where I would think about having kids or worry about childcare, but if you want to incentivize having kids or make sure kids that people have anyway have enough to eat and so forth, you absolutely need to do something like this.  When I was in my twenties and thirties, there was zero upside for me having kids.  It's expensive to go through labor and delivery, yes, and why you want to do that and pay through the nose for that painful experience and then have little to no paid leave I have no idea, but then there's the hit to your career on top of that and the costs for daycare too.  So I have no idea why anyone has them under these conditions.

While I'm in favour of better funding childcare and particularly early education/learning (so that we can move towards the meritocratic ideal), I don't generally want to incentivise locals having children. I wouldn't disincentivise it either, but just be neutral. You can import heaps of skilled migrants if you want to build the population or its skill base. Skilled migration is the best thing since sliced bread and we should encourage it even more than we currently do. Think about all the talented people from up-and-coming countries who'd love to have a chance to play the meritocratic game! My parents were two of them.

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #47 on: March 15, 2021, 12:30:05 PM »
It may depend on your area, because I've got a single, adult, childless friend who's getting food stamps.

From time to time (like financial crisis) the work requirement will be suspended. But the normal requirements for the program are listed in black and white on the federal website:

The General Work Requirements
SNAP has two sets of work requirements.  If you are age 16 – 59 and able to work, you will probably need to meet the general work requirements to get SNAP benefits.  The general work requirements include registering for work, participating in SNAP Employment and Training (E&T) or workfare if assigned by your state SNAP agency, taking a suitable job if offered, and not voluntarily quitting a job or reducing your work hours below 30 a week without a good reason.

You are excused from the general work requirements if you are any one of these things:
- Already working at least 30 hours a week (or earning wages at least equal to the federal minimum wage multiplied by 30 hours)
- Meeting work requirements for another program (TANF or unemployment compensation)
- Taking care of a child under 6 or an incapacitated person
- Unable to work due to a physical or mental limitation
- Participating regularly in an alcohol or drug treatment program
- Studying in school or a training program at least half-time (but college students are subject to other eligibility rules).

The Able Bodied Adult Without Dependents (ABAWD) Work Requirement and Time Limit
If you are age 18 – 49, able to work, and don’t have any dependents, you might need to meet both the general work requirements and an additional work requirement for ABAWDs to get SNAP for more than 3 months in 3 years (the time limit).  You can meet the ABAWD work requirement by doing any one of these things:

Work at least 80 hours a month.  Work can be for pay, for goods or services (for something other than money), unpaid, or as a volunteer;
- Participate in a work program at least 80 hours a month.  A work program could be SNAP Employment and Training or another federal, state, or local work - program;
- Participate in a combination of work and work program hours for a total of at least 80 hours a month;
- Participate in workfare for the number of hours assigned to you each month (the number of hours will depend on the amount of your SNAP benefit.)

https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/work-requirements

This is actually more strict than when I was at university in the 2000s.

EDITed to add longer quote.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2021, 02:02:48 PM by PDXTabs »

DadJokes

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2364
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #48 on: March 15, 2021, 12:53:52 PM »
It may depend on your area, because I've got a single, adult, childless friend who's getting food stamps.

From time to time (like financial crisis) the work requirement will be suspended. But the normal requirements for the program are listed in black and white on the federal website:

The General Work Requirements
SNAP has two sets of work requirements.  If you are age 16 – 59 and able to work, you will probably need to meet the general work requirements to get SNAP benefits.  The general work requirements include registering for work, participating in SNAP Employment and Training (E&T) or workfare if assigned by your state SNAP agency, taking a suitable job if offered, and not voluntarily quitting a job or reducing your work hours below 30 a week without a good reason.

You are excused from the general work requirements if you are any one of these things:
- Already working at least 30 hours a week (or earning wages at least equal to the federal minimum wage multiplied by 30 hours)
- Meeting work requirements for another program (TANF or unemployment compensation)
- Taking care of a child under 6 or an incapacitated person
- Unable to work due to a physical or mental limitation
- Participating regularly in an alcohol or drug treatment program
- Studying in school or a training program at least half-time (but college students are subject to other eligibility rules).

https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/work-requirements

This is actually more strict than when I was at university in the 2000s.

You mean we actually require able-bodied people to work to qualify for a government benefit? The humanity!

Maybe this is also a regional thing, but I see help wanted and now hiring signs all over the place. I can't speak for underemployment, but it takes actual laziness to not be employed around here, and you can bet that I'd sooner bag groceries than accept government unemployment benefits.

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: New Gov't Child Benefit?!
« Reply #49 on: March 15, 2021, 01:37:06 PM »
You mean we actually require able-bodied people to work to qualify for a government benefit? The humanity!

And if you can't find a job in 90 days... fuck you. At which point, you might well stab me for a sandwich. Great, so I get stabbed for some stupid moral argument about how everyone better find a job in 90 days or else.