$3000 per child economic stimulus
-
wrote on 7 Feb 2021, 14:36 last edited by
@george-k said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:
Wow, that money tree in the backyard of the White House sure grew quickly!
Actually it grew last year. The problem with this proposal is they're assuming it doesn't have to shrink back.
-
Maybe they're setting a high amount so as to allow themselves to "compromise" at a lower amount?
I'm with George on this. What will the bill-due look like?
wrote on 7 Feb 2021, 14:40 last edited by@catseye3 said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:
What will the bill-due look like?
I estimate $200B to $250B for a full year, a bit over 1% of US GDP.
-
wrote on 7 Feb 2021, 14:41 last edited by jon-nyc 2 Jul 2021, 14:42
In fact this program would cost "only" 200B a year or so. Compare that to three separate trillion dollar+ bailouts last year.
Considering that even pre-covid, federal spending was ~4T, this is only 5% of that.
And it's probably a better use of funds than many other similar expenses in the budget.
-
wrote on 7 Feb 2021, 15:13 last edited by Mik 2 Jul 2021, 15:15
That it has merit in terms of effect on people is clear. But its borrowed money. Money we don’t have. If you can cut out other programs to find it then maybe.
-
wrote on 7 Feb 2021, 15:29 last edited by
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/06/opinion/sunday/mitt-romney-family-plan.html
Ross Douthat on Romney’s plan, focusing on its objective to boost birth rates.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/06/opinion/sunday/mitt-romney-family-plan.html
Ross Douthat on Romney’s plan, focusing on its objective to boost birth rates.
wrote on 7 Feb 2021, 15:31 last edited by@axtremus said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:
its objective to boost birth rates
Another generation of "Welfare Mamas."
-
That it has merit in terms of effect on people is clear. But its borrowed money. Money we don’t have. If you can cut out other programs to find it then maybe.
wrote on 7 Feb 2021, 15:36 last edited by@mik said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:
If you can cut out other programs to find it then maybe.
Silly Mik.
-
@axtremus said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:
its objective to boost birth rates
Another generation of "Welfare Mamas."
wrote on 7 Feb 2021, 15:40 last edited by@george-k said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:
@axtremus said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:
its objective to boost birth rates
Another generation of "Welfare Mamas."
Planned Parenthood is going to demand inclusion and equity.
-
@axtremus said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:
its objective to boost birth rates
Another generation of "Welfare Mamas."
wrote on 7 Feb 2021, 15:55 last edited by@george-k said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:
Another generation of "Welfare Mamas."
When the high income folks don’t reproduce (or do so at a pace significantly below the population replacement rate) and leave the burden of population replenishment to the lower income folks, it’s only fair that some of the resources get redistributed to help with raising the replacement population under the care of the lower income folks. With that rationale, I would argue that the means testing for such welfare to also take the # of children as an input. So the more kids you raise, meaning the more you contribute to the care for the nation’s replacement population, the more wealth gets redistributed your way.
What’s in it for the high income folks? New blood to continue paying into their Social Security and Medicare trust funds, able bodies to care for them in healthcare facilities, to maintain their senior living infrastructures, to maintain civilization for these old rich people to live out the rest of their lives.
-
wrote on 7 Feb 2021, 16:07 last edited by
Romney’s two-page brochure for his proposed “Family Security Act”:
https://www.romney.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2021-02/family security act_one pager.pdf -
wrote on 7 Feb 2021, 17:45 last edited by
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.
-
wrote on 7 Feb 2021, 18:04 last edited by
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.
wrote on 7 Feb 2021, 20:53 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 9 Feb 2021, 21:58 last edited by
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.
wrote on 9 Feb 2021, 22:22 last edited by jon-nyc 2 Sept 2021, 22:23@axtremus said in $3000 per child economic stimulus:
(much lower than what I previously estimated)
Me too. It's because it includes the already existing 2k child tax credit.
This adds 1k, and makes it refundable and 'advanceable'.
-
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.
wrote on 9 Feb 2021, 22:24 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 9 Feb 2021, 22:37 last edited by
The crack dealers are very excited about the prospect.
-
@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.
wrote on 9 Feb 2021, 22:46 last edited by jon-nyc 2 Sept 2021, 23:10@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.
-
wrote on 9 Feb 2021, 23:27 last edited by
-
wrote on 10 Feb 2021, 02:39 last edited by
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.
