$3000 per child economic stimulus
-
Falling birth rates are a problem in developed countries. The only reason the US population is not decreasing is because of immigration.
Look at the issues countries like Japan and Italy are facing.
-
Romney's plan is such a bad idea on so many frigging levels. I am embarrassed to say I voted for him if this is his idea of good policy.
The Democrat idea isn't as atrocious if it's a one year expansion of last year's child tax credit. Still don't care for it, but it's not as big of a deal as it looks. If it's a permanent change, however...
-
Falling birth rates are a problem in developed countries. The only reason the US population is not decreasing is because of immigration.
Look at the issues countries like Japan and Italy are facing.
@taiwan_girl said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:
Falling birth rates are a problem in developed countries. The only reason the US population is not decreasing is because of immigration.
Look at the issues countries like Japan and Italy are facing.
Bingo.
-
More details ...
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/09/democrats-include-3000-dollar-child-tax-credit-in-covid-relief.html
The estimated cost to giving $3000 per child is $120 Billion per year (much lower than what I previously estimated), and if that is made “permanent,” is expected to lift 4.1 million children out of poverty.
-
More details ...
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/09/democrats-include-3000-dollar-child-tax-credit-in-covid-relief.html
The estimated cost to giving $3000 per child is $120 Billion per year (much lower than what I previously estimated), and if that is made “permanent,” is expected to lift 4.1 million children out of poverty.
-
More details ...
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/09/democrats-include-3000-dollar-child-tax-credit-in-covid-relief.html
The estimated cost to giving $3000 per child is $120 Billion per year (much lower than what I previously estimated), and if that is made “permanent,” is expected to lift 4.1 million children out of poverty.
@axtremus said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:
More details ...
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/09/democrats-include-3000-dollar-child-tax-credit-in-covid-relief.html
The estimated cost to giving $3000 per child is $120 Billion per year (much lower than what I previously estimated), and if that is made “permanent,” is expected to lift 4.1 million children out of poverty.
It's an increase of $1000 per year. $1000 per year will lift 4.1 million children out of poverty? Color me skeptical.
The Brad
-
@axtremus said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:
More details ...
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/09/democrats-include-3000-dollar-child-tax-credit-in-covid-relief.html
The estimated cost to giving $3000 per child is $120 Billion per year (much lower than what I previously estimated), and if that is made “permanent,” is expected to lift 4.1 million children out of poverty.
It's an increase of $1000 per year. $1000 per year will lift 4.1 million children out of poverty? Color me skeptical.
@lufins-dad said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:
It's an increase of $1000 per year. $1000 per year will lift 4.1 million children out of poverty? Color me skeptical.
Sorta passes the sniff test. The poverty line is a discrete number for a family of a given size.
Look at family of four for example, poverty line is 24k (says google). It makes sense that the number of households making within 23k-24k would be large, probably measuring in the single-digit millions. Then repeat that exercise for families of 2 and 3... and you could see it add up.
Its just that 'lifting you out of poverty' has a life-transforming ring to it, whereas in reality, for a family of 4, going from 23.5k to 24.5k is welcome, but hardly game changing.
You were warned.
-
My wife and I have done well the last few years in terms of income. Not Horace-level, but still pretty good and I recognize we are fortunate to have the employment we do.
While I understand the concept of phasing out all of these stimulus checks once you exceed a certain household income... the one-two punch of us paying a higher % of our income to the IRS than our neighbors and also not getting any of the distribution of cash back really is a weird and disappointing feeling. Disheartening? Unmotivating? Not sure the adjective.
-
My wife and I have done well the last few years in terms of income. Not Horace-level, but still pretty good and I recognize we are fortunate to have the employment we do.
While I understand the concept of phasing out all of these stimulus checks once you exceed a certain household income... the one-two punch of us paying a higher % of our income to the IRS than our neighbors and also not getting any of the distribution of cash back really is a weird and disappointing feeling. Disheartening? Unmotivating? Not sure the adjective.
@89th said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:
My wife and I have done well the last few years in terms of income. Not Horace-level, but still pretty good and I recognize we are fortunate to have the employment we do.
While I understand the concept of phasing out all of these stimulus checks once you exceed a certain household income... the one-two punch of us paying a higher % of our income to the IRS than our neighbors and also not getting any of the distribution of cash back really is a weird and disappointing feeling. Disheartening? Unmotivating? Not sure the adjective.
It sounds like you're in favor of government handouts.
Please love yourself.
-
@lufins-dad said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:
It's an increase of $1000 per year. $1000 per year will lift 4.1 million children out of poverty? Color me skeptical.
Sorta passes the sniff test. The poverty line is a discrete number for a family of a given size.
Look at family of four for example, poverty line is 24k (says google). It makes sense that the number of households making within 23k-24k would be large, probably measuring in the single-digit millions. Then repeat that exercise for families of 2 and 3... and you could see it add up.
Its just that 'lifting you out of poverty' has a life-transforming ring to it, whereas in reality, for a family of 4, going from 23.5k to 24.5k is welcome, but hardly game changing.
@mik said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:
The crack dealers are very excited about the prospect.
More likely meth and heroine. For a significant number of these kids, their lives are likely going to get worse from this.
-
@89th said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:
My wife and I have done well the last few years in terms of income. Not Horace-level, but still pretty good and I recognize we are fortunate to have the employment we do.
While I understand the concept of phasing out all of these stimulus checks once you exceed a certain household income... the one-two punch of us paying a higher % of our income to the IRS than our neighbors and also not getting any of the distribution of cash back really is a weird and disappointing feeling. Disheartening? Unmotivating? Not sure the adjective.
It sounds like you're in favor of government handouts.
@aqua-letifer said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:
@89th said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:
My wife and I have done well the last few years in terms of income. Not Horace-level, but still pretty good and I recognize we are fortunate to have the employment we do.
While I understand the concept of phasing out all of these stimulus checks once you exceed a certain household income... the one-two punch of us paying a higher % of our income to the IRS than our neighbors and also not getting any of the distribution of cash back really is a weird and disappointing feeling. Disheartening? Unmotivating? Not sure the adjective.
It sounds like you're in favor of government handouts.
Nailed it!
My view on taxes and government support, etc... is basically, the government should help those below the poverty line (for a finite period) and those who truly cannot help themselves, whether through tax breaks or smart government benefit programs. But once you reach a certain level, treat all citizens the same. Same benefits. Same tax %. Keeps it fair.
-
@aqua-letifer said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:
@89th said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:
My wife and I have done well the last few years in terms of income. Not Horace-level, but still pretty good and I recognize we are fortunate to have the employment we do.
While I understand the concept of phasing out all of these stimulus checks once you exceed a certain household income... the one-two punch of us paying a higher % of our income to the IRS than our neighbors and also not getting any of the distribution of cash back really is a weird and disappointing feeling. Disheartening? Unmotivating? Not sure the adjective.
It sounds like you're in favor of government handouts.
Nailed it!
My view on taxes and government support, etc... is basically, the government should help those below the poverty line (for a finite period) and those who truly cannot help themselves, whether through tax breaks or smart government benefit programs. But once you reach a certain level, treat all citizens the same. Same benefits. Same tax %. Keeps it fair.
@89th said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:
My view on taxes and government support, etc... is basically, the government should help those below the poverty line (for a finite period) and those who truly cannot help themselves, whether through tax breaks or smart government benefit programs.
That's why they're able to send the amount they can to those in lower brackets. If they gave the same amount to everybody, including government contractors, then those who could really use the assistance would get much less, at the "benefit" of giving that same amount to those who don't need it.
-
@89th said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:
My view on taxes and government support, etc... is basically, the government should help those below the poverty line (for a finite period) and those who truly cannot help themselves, whether through tax breaks or smart government benefit programs.
That's why they're able to send the amount they can to those in lower brackets. If they gave the same amount to everybody, including government contractors, then those who could really use the assistance would get much less, at the "benefit" of giving that same amount to those who don't need it.
@aqua-letifer said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:
@89th said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:
My view on taxes and government support, etc... is basically, the government should help those below the poverty line (for a finite period) and those who truly cannot help themselves, whether through tax breaks or smart government benefit programs.
That's why they're able to send the amount they can to those in lower brackets. If they gave the same amount to everybody, including government contractors, then those who could really use the assistance would get much less, at the "benefit" of giving that same amount to those who don't need it.
Well, I don't think they picked the amount based on how much they could afford, but I get your point and I understand that.
You've known me for a while, I think even when I made minimum wage at the movie theater until now...I'm a simpleton and just think taxes should be fair (and to me that means use the percentage, the more you make the more you pay in dollars, but it's the same % for everyone).
Meh, I know this is a blackhole of a topic...
-
@89th I'm fine with a flat tax, but every time I look into the definition of "what you make" should be, it looks impossible to implement.
Related: A fun thing I like to try to puzzle out all the time, because I find it impossible, is the inequality Pareto curve. The more you get the more you get, and the less you have the less you have. The stupid rich have more and more of the total share of wealth in every Western country with each passing decade. And it's a fact that no matter how fair you think the system is, once enough people at the bottom feel like the system is no longer fair to them, they flip the board and people get shot or hung regardless.
To be clear, I have no idea what the answer to that should be. "Take more money from rich people" is a non-solution. UBI would create a nightmare. But the fact remains that the degree of inequality is directly tied to the degree of violent crime. Saying that shouldn't be so doesn't fix it and every solution, including do nothing, seems destined to fail.
On the lighter side of things, I recently learned that wombats poop cubes.
Please love yourself.
-
@mik said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:
The crack dealers are very excited about the prospect.
True story...
When the last stimulus checks came out, I worked that weekend. I did multiple drug screens from the ED, two or three times as many as usual.
I didn't have a single negative panel.
-
@89th I'm fine with a flat tax, but every time I look into the definition of "what you make" should be, it looks impossible to implement.
Related: A fun thing I like to try to puzzle out all the time, because I find it impossible, is the inequality Pareto curve. The more you get the more you get, and the less you have the less you have. The stupid rich have more and more of the total share of wealth in every Western country with each passing decade. And it's a fact that no matter how fair you think the system is, once enough people at the bottom feel like the system is no longer fair to them, they flip the board and people get shot or hung regardless.
To be clear, I have no idea what the answer to that should be. "Take more money from rich people" is a non-solution. UBI would create a nightmare. But the fact remains that the degree of inequality is directly tied to the degree of violent crime. Saying that shouldn't be so doesn't fix it and every solution, including do nothing, seems destined to fail.
On the lighter side of things, I recently learned that wombats poop cubes.
@aqua-letifer said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:
@89th I'm fine with a flat tax, but every time I look into the definition of "what you make" should be, it looks impossible to implement.
Related: A fun thing I like to try to puzzle out all the time, because I find it impossible, is the inequality Pareto curve. The more you get the more you get, and the less you have the less you have. The stupid rich have more and more of the total share of wealth in every Western country with each passing decade. And it's a fact that no matter how fair you think the system is, once enough people at the bottom feel like the system is no longer fair to them, they flip the board and people get shot or hung regardless.
To be clear, I have no idea what the answer to that should be. "Take more money from rich people" is a non-solution. UBI would create a nightmare. But the fact remains that the degree of inequality is directly tied to the degree of violent crime. Saying that shouldn't be so doesn't fix it and every solution, including do nothing, seems destined to fail.
On the lighter side of things, I recently learned that wombats poop cubes.
LOL - and good post/reply. Good chit.
-
@89th I'm fine with a flat tax, but every time I look into the definition of "what you make" should be, it looks impossible to implement.
Related: A fun thing I like to try to puzzle out all the time, because I find it impossible, is the inequality Pareto curve. The more you get the more you get, and the less you have the less you have. The stupid rich have more and more of the total share of wealth in every Western country with each passing decade. And it's a fact that no matter how fair you think the system is, once enough people at the bottom feel like the system is no longer fair to them, they flip the board and people get shot or hung regardless.
To be clear, I have no idea what the answer to that should be. "Take more money from rich people" is a non-solution. UBI would create a nightmare. But the fact remains that the degree of inequality is directly tied to the degree of violent crime. Saying that shouldn't be so doesn't fix it and every solution, including do nothing, seems destined to fail.
On the lighter side of things, I recently learned that wombats poop cubes.
@aqua-letifer said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:
The more you get the more you get, and the less you have the less you have.
Yup. If you have $1 million, and get a 5% return on that, you are still getting a lot of money $50,000.
If you have $10,000, get a 10% return, you only have $1000 extra.
