I specifically mentioned Head Start, which is free. So that expense is $0 for my hypothetical person.
And I very carefully did NOT suggest the Dependent Care Expense Credit because you have to have actual Dependent Care expenses to qualify.
I have a very good friend who was a taco bell assistant manager actually.
But more to your point, I donāt know why I would be less likely to be exposed to that kind of person that would have kids for money than I would be around those that wouldnāt. I definitely know a lot of people I could imagine gaming other kinds of benefits, even they most people i know make enough money to not need those benefits.
Also, it would take a peculiar kind of intelligence to be smart enough to carefully weigh out the financial incentives of having children, but then not recognize the high non-financial costs, or the other, easier ways to game the system. Fostering a lot of children for example.
We could never deduct childcare expenses because my husband doesnāt work. Logically I get it, but my husband likes to volunteer at my sonās school and has a lot of responsibility around our home so acting like heās not contributing enough to society to justify a tax deduction because he doesnāt bring in an income is silly.
We stopped sending our kids to daycare in part because of it.
Need to read the whole thing but Penn Wharton has released some analysis.
They are measuring in $'s and the net economic impact would be lower than if this plan was not passed.
1 Like
Like to help pay for college or as a career? Very different.
Because I assumed that
would be true.
I donāt think having money makes you more moral. And I donāt think being less moral makes you less likely to have money.
So I disagree that my sample of people is biased in that sense.
I donāt either. If anything, save extremely poor people resorting to crime to meet basic needs, there might be an inverse relationship.
I do think having money makes you unlikely to take advantage of programs for the poor. Because unless you commit fraud you literally cannot.
Therefore the only people who could possibly take advantage of these programs are fraudsters and actual poor people.
I wasnāt talking about fraudsters. Thatās an interesting topic, but not what I was talking about.
So your sample of people is biased because they mostly or exclusively are prevented from benefiting from these programs due to their incomes.
An income sufficiently low to qualify is a pre-requisite here.
When I wonder about whether anybody i know would hypothetically have children for money, iām including in this hypothetical situation that they make much less money and therefore would qualify for it.
Note too that I donāt think the issue is whether somebody would take advantage of a system for the poor. If you have kids, then you qualify for it.
I think the issue instead is having kids to get money. That is a really bad reason to have kids. It is a trespass on the children being born, not on the program for the poor. I donāt think anybody I know would do it, no matter what their income was.
Maybe iām naive.
To me, Head Start and Dependent Care Credit are similar. Both of them offset some of the incremental childcare expenses working people incur by having a child. So itās worth mentioning both or neither.
Head Start does not cover 100% of child care in my community. I see the Obama administration expanded the minimum required length from 3.5 hours to 6 hours in 2016. Allowing for travel and unpaid lunch, a typical parent needs more than 9 hours of child care in order to work full time.
I donāt think you can possibly know what will motivate someone when placed in a much more dire situation than they are currently in. Even when they are in the dire situation, you canāt really know their motives. They might not even know themselves.
Look at how ugly divorces often are if you want examples of otherwise decent people behaving badly. Divorce certainly brings out the worst in people, but the promise of money can do the same. Just look at what people are willing to go through and put others through on Survivor and similar just for the chance to win money.
And it doesnāt need to be a million dollars either. Blood banks no longer pay people to donate because they donāt want people lying about their eligibility to donate just to get paid and then they blow their resources to get tainted blood they must discard.
Now none of that involves the same commitment as a child, but if someone was in the āmaybe Iāll have kids someday after I get married and am a little more financially stableā camp and then they realize what theyāre leaving on the table by waitingā¦ who knows.
Not sure about naivety, but I grew up in Eastern KY. Those payments go a long way there and can certainly create incentive. I also know a few single mothers who have been involved in our church, one with 5 kids and one with 7 who subsist entirely on government assistance. At that point there is certainly incentive as well.
I think childcare would help working adults have children. I am thinking salaries in the range of teachers, police, nurses, etc. That $40,000-$60,000 range of early career earners. I think a productive society needs couples like that having children. I am not sure a poor mother raising multiple children by herself is good for society. That is certainly a subjective moral judgment of my own.
On a side note I think the adverse incentives welfare creates are more easily seen in in low cost of living areas in rural America which stokes a lot of Trumpism. I think by and large urban folks from the coast do not understand this as they see the $'s and think there couldnāt possibly be anyone that would reasonably choose to live on that meager amount of money.
2 Likes
All this is true.
Itās just that in my experience, when people have kids for the wrong reasons, itās either because they are not acting deliberately at all, or because they want to live out some fantasy that is disconnected from the reality of having kids (eg having a baby to save a marriage.)
Psychologically, I have trouble imagining people doing it for money, at least as a rule. But I may be wrong.
Iād consider this simply an example of wanting kids, and being able to have them because they are now affordable. Maybe iām splitting hairs.
I donāt think anything you said in this post is unreasonable. Itās not my best guess but i canāt say itās wrong.
Agree
I just did a classmateās taxes (roughly $20K income as a career waitress) and she was auto-enrolled in her employerās 401K. But only at 5%, I will grant you.
So change it from 10% to 5%. Taxable income is now $22,800.
BTW, by my calculations with an income of $24,000 and 5% going to 401K Iām getting the following federal tax liabilities:
Single no kids: owe $934 (liability of $1,054 reduced by $120 Savers Credit)
HOH, 1 kid: refund $4,425 (liability of $418 reduced to $0 by Savers Credit plus $3,025 EITC and $1,400 ACTC)
Difference: $5,359
If you wipe out the 401K completely then we have:
Single no kids: owe $1,198
HOH, 1 kid: refund $4,233 (tax wiped out by CTC, EITC down to only $2,833 plus $1,400 ACTC)
Difference: $5,431
Thatās just federal income tax and Iām ignoring the stimulus which presumably isnāt an ongoing thing.
Iām also ignoring that for 2021 the CTC is up to $3,000, I believe fully refundable. I went with 2018-2020 rules of $2,000 of which $1,400 is refundable.
Shamefull small.
Anyone that thinks a child costs $100/week is woefully uninformed. This is not a money maker.
Using my $1,320 above, full time daycare for one infant is $300/wk. So, yes, $100 isnāt nearly enough.
The topic of the thread is whether the govāt should provide that care āfreeā to the parents. If so, what are the additional costs of a child?
Medical care: the govāt provides CHIP
Incremental housing: Section 8 vouchers
Food: the govāt provides WIC
IF Section 8 works, I think I can get under $100/wk. What else am I spending?