Diapers & wipes, clothing, over the counter meds…
And all the one-time start-up costs that add up even if buying used. Crib & mattress, bottles, burp cloths, blankets, etc.
I guess if you’re having babies to make money though, child neglect is on the table too.
This hypothetical is so dumb.
1 Like
I was lower middle class growing up in a rural area, and grew up around some poor families, some probably churning in and out of poverty. (which is common for poverty situations) Not one of them was doing it to game the system. They simply didn’t have any good options. I’d love to see an example of someone having babies in order to game the system. I’m not convinced this hypothetical exists, and if it does, the people almost surely have very poor standards of living for the US.
4 Likes
Amen
No, not by itself. Add in all the other programs I mentioned though…
This source says that birth through age 17 costs $284,570. That works out to $15,819 a year on average. (No, it’s not evenly spread out, but I’m not going to do 18 separate calculations.)
So federal income tax alone covers over a third of the cost if that’s right, before increasing the CTC.
SNAP is worth roughly $2,900 although at the income I mentioned the person would be right on the cusp of qualifying.
Child support is worth roughly $3,600 assuming the non-custodial parent makes the same.
Section 8 housing is worth around $4,800.
Healthcare was estimated to be $1,424, but I think this person could get Medicaid for free. So reduce the cost to $14,395.
And $16,731 in benefits. That’s not counting anything for WIC or the value of HeadStart, which I think both make a material dent in the expense of raising a kid. And it counts nothing for the higher Child Tax Credit, which is theoretically temporary but may well end up becoming permanent.
Since when is child support a “benefit”? You’re attempting to force the numbers to fit. Your example shows there’s no profit when not counting child support. And childcare from birth to K is going to push the early year numbers higher than the $15,819 average. The costs are very U shaped.
Sorry I haven’t really been able to keep up with the whole thread, but could you maybe summarize what your main argument is here? Usually your posts aren’t that bad, so I feel like I’m missing something here.
1 Like
The whole idea of this American Families Plan is exactly the type of crap that needs to be whole-heartedly and quickly rejected as yet another example of federal government overreach in size, scope and purpose.
It’ll be weakly argued by supporters that it falls under the welfare clause of the Constitution, but in reality it’s nothing more than than an over-bearing and bloated federal government taking away your liberty and telling you that the bureaucracies they’re creating are going to be there to help you. (Thanks, but the country doesn’t need that type of help)
I’m sure the costs of these massive spending AFP programs haven’t been under-estimated, nor have the revenues been over-estimated. It’s truly sad that professionals who make a living out of using the past to predict the future always fail to look at past boondoggles to see the corruption in these efforts of politicians to buy votes by reducing your freedoms and sticking future generations with the bill.
I can’t believe that anyone is even entertaining the idea that anything in this proposal is remotely acceptable.
I weep for the future of this country.
It’s not a government-funded benefit, just that when you take a comprehensive look at all of the programs available to low-income single parents, they can end up richer with a kid than without. And I don’t think that’s a good thing.
Child support is surely the most defensible program out there and certainly not the one I would cut.
Really any one of the programs in isolation is good, but when you put them all together a different picture emerges.
People shouldn’t profit off of kids… I don’t think that’s good for society.
Good lord… I guess I wasn’t missing anything after all.
I guess my main argument is that we don’t need to add to the hodgepodge of social programs aimed at helping parents. Increasing the number of programs out there is most likely not a good idea, no matter how well-intentioned.
Maybe throw them all under one umbrella so that instead of all the weird cliffs you have something more comprehensive and logical.
And maybe look at improving some of the programs we’ve already got. Especially the more cliff-prone ones. There are doubtless people who ought to get more than they’re currently getting and people who ought to get less. But you can’t possibly tease all that out with the current mess of programs out there.
Years ago someone posted on AO a mapping of the value of all the social programs available for a single parent of… I think it was two kids across every income level from $0 to … maybe something like $80,000. In something like $500 increments.
It was insane. I wish I could find the source document for it; I’ve looked and so far I haven’t found it.
WTH???
It’s so nonsensical, I have no words.
1 Like
TIL that a parent paying for their own child’s needs is a government program.
Twig, I can assure you that substantially no one that’s in these situations is doing calculations to determine how much extra marginal income they may make due to having a child. We are talking about people who may or may not have bank accounts and are hoping their next paycheck covers all of their expenses.
I think if anything, they’re more likely to be stressed due to the added psychological strain having a child produces than they are happy about a small number of extra bucks that may come their way that they probably weren’t making calculated moves for.
You definitely knocked that strawman down as that is the precise opposite of what I said.
2 Likes
I certainly hope you are correct.
So you agree it doesn’t count as “profiting” off the government? Good.