Correct. Child support is not profiting off the government. That would be a rather absurd claim to make.
When I do SNAP for a family of two and a $2,000 monthly income, I get a benefit of exactly zero.
Expected family spending = [($2,000 x .80) - $167] x .30 = $1,433 x .30 = $430.
Maximum SNAP benefit = $430.
$430 - $430 = $0.
If the income were $1,900 instead of $2,000, the monthly benefit would be $24, or an annual benefit of $288. I donât know how you got $2,900.
I mean weâve got public schools. Safe to say weâre better off with public schools than without public schools?
One proposal is for public pre school.
Iâm sure it will pay for itself the way trickle down tax cuts pay for themselves!
That said at least these programs are aimed at improving the prospects for large chucks of Americans as opposed to sheltering wealth for a lucky few.
So I feel the exact opposite. I canât believe that anyone is even entertaining the idea that anything in this proposal is remotely unacceptable.
3 Likes
Thatâs a little dramatic
I wouldnât say itâs unacceptable, but it is pretty weak. Good enough for a start though, we can continue the work with more bills in the future.
I guess you didnât read and digest NPâs link above to the Penn Wharton Budget Model analysis.
Hereâs the link again. Read it and then get back to me about how this atrocity âimproves the prospects for large chunks of Americansâ. Spending trillions of dollars to increase government debt and reduce GDP doesnât seem like a very good idea to me. As a matter of fact- itâs a stoopid idea.
And thatâs looking at things only on a dollar basis. It completely ignores the subjugation of your efforts, productivity and life to more taxes, rules and regulations. Iâm sure life will be much better after the government bureaucrats get in charge of more aspects of your life and the lives of our fellow citizens. Liberty and freedom are over-rated. (Just ask the millions of recent immigrants to this country why they came (hint: it wasnât free community college).)
We liberty the shit out of not sending poor kids to preschool in America
I am not convinced the net effect of providing free preschool is a reduction in hours worked given a reduction in child care availability during COVID took millions out of the labor force. Also, assuming that the child care provider is just swapping jobs for the job of a parent who can now go to work with no net effect seems like a further stretch to justify a predetermined conclusion.
I read the summary at the beginning of the Wharton report. I donât see anything there that subjugates me to more taxes, rules, and regulations.
Of course, thatâs just the summary for an economic model. Maybe youâve got some specifics that apply to higher income working people like actuaries.
If the new obscene expansion of taxes, rules and regulations donât directly apply to @Indy, then itâs a-ok to pass. Somebody notify the congress. Move along here folks. Thereâs noting to see hereâŚ
I wonder how many people felt that way about the income tax when it was created to finance a war that was ended over 100 years ago. I wonder how many people felt that way when⌠(name your favorite federal government pork barrel spending spree) was passed. Iâm sure none of those programs have tentacles which have expanded way beyond their original boundaries and created layers of bureaucracies bloated with bureaucrats and perverted incentives twisting the original intent (however well intended) of the original program. You can sleep comfortably knowing that the federal government also has a great track record of terminating programs after theyâve accomplished their goal and/or the program isnât working as expected.
Nope, this type of stuff never happens in the government and the AFP doesnât directly impact @Indy, so feel free to pass each and every part of it without any hesitation.
You specified âyourâ, so I thought you meant people who post here. Mark Zuckerberg probably doesnât read this forum.
âSlippery Slopeâ usually appears as âThe Slippery Slope Fallacyâ for good reason.
Weâve had a long term trend of more govât because weâve gotten richer and can afford more govât services, because the gap between rich and poor has grown and it takes more govât to keep it merely outrageous, because businesses have gotten bigger (better communication and transportation) so it takes more govât to keep them from running our lives, and because we have a more complex society and more ways for the con artists to con.
Iâll complain about cases where the govât really does get over-bearing (mj anyone?), but I donât see it in the summaries Iâve seen of this bill.
Yes, wealthy people âshouldâ pay more taxes, and the govât should spend the money to enforce tax laws. Iâm fine with that.
If you want to specify certain parts of the federal govât we should eliminate, name them. I might agree. But, I think an income tax is the best way to fund the federal govât so Iâm glad they passed that, and I think Medicare (as one example of a big program) is an okay solution to a real problem.
2 Likes
I think the current iteration of the income tax was passed to pave the way for Prohibition, since tax on liquor was the primary mechanism for funding the federal government prior to the income tax. A funding source that would obviously go away with Prohibition.
Prohibition ended, but the tax stuck around.
That said, I believe there was a temporary income tax to fund the Civil War. But once the bulk of Reconstruction was paid for the tax was repealed. (Veterans benefits continued to be paid out until last year when the last Civil War widow died⌠155 years after the war ended.)
ETA: Nope. The US closed the books on paying for the Civil War in 2003 when the second-to-last Union widow died. The last to die never actually claimed the $73.13 monthly pension to which she was legally entitled. So it only took 138 years to finish paying for the war, not 155.
Social Security has done more to end elderly poverty and homelessness than anything else.
Medicare has done more for elder care than any private insurance ever has and was largely responsible for the strong jump in US mortality gains in the period from 1970 - 1982
2 Likes
Just some of the tax loophole closures in the American Families Plan make it a winner winner chicken dinner.
Itâs all in the spinâŚI will play this back to you.
A healthy society doesnât incent people to have children. Having more children is not a good thing.
I mean, if the goal is âpoor people can care for their kids and hold a jobâ, thatâs not a goal that is going to be âaccomplishedâ in a way that lets you remove the government programs supporting it.
Programs that arenât working as expected do tend to be changed, although government moves slowly.
What are some examples of this?
The military stopped using cavalry
A healthy society doesnât incentivise people to not have children. Having no children is not a good thing.