Family Security Act

[Au165]

While I disagree with Mitt Romney on a lot of things, this is actually a really well thought out proposal. I think the idea of actually getting money out to help with raising kids rather than relying on tax credits is a much better approach. As the article notes, it probably doesn't pass in this form but with some tweaking, I think it would nice to see a real bi-partisan solution to this.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22264520/mitt-romney-checks-parents-4200

[*Nately120*]

Now if the government can just make me emotionally secure enough to raise kids I can stop pulling out.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-04-2021, 02:32 PM)Au165 Wrote: While I disagree with Mitt Romney on a lot of things, this is actually a really well thought out proposal. I think the idea of actually getting money out to help with raising kids rather than relying on tax credits is a much better approach. As the article notes, it probably doesn't pass in this form but with some tweaking, I think it would nice to see a real bi-partisan solution to this.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22264520/mitt-romney-checks-parents-4200

Working frequently with people on welfare who have 5+ children, and continue to have more, I think adding more financial incentive to irresponsibly have children is a horrifyingly bad idea.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

An interesting article on Politico about the ongoing discussion over this, and similar, bills.

EDIT:
Thought it might be a good idea to actually post the link.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/08/democrats-work-requirement-child-poverty-467322

[Belsnickel]

(02-08-2021, 06:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: An interesting article on Politico about the ongoing discussion over this, and similar, bills.

EDIT:
Thought it might be a good idea to actually post the link.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/08/democrats-work-requirement-child-poverty-467322

So, after reading that over, I definitely have some thoughts. First, this isn't replacing TANF, which is a horrible policy to be quite frank, so the clutching of pearls over a return to AFDC is a gross over-reaction. So then I got curious about things. Under AFDC in 1994, the average need for help was $688/month (or $8256/year) while payouts were averaging $420/month (or $5040/year), hardly an incentive to not work considering, now let me check my math, here...yep. Expenses are most than income. My accounting degree at work, folks.

TANF wasn't about helping people, it was about balancing the budget. It was about making things look better by having fewer people on welfare. In that measure, it succeeded. It doesn't seem like TANF had much of an effect on child poverty, though, which is both good and bad. It's good in that it didn't increase the rates in a measurable way, but it's bad in that the goal of any program like this should be to decrease child poverty rates.

Now, if the need in 1994 averaged $8256/year and the average benefit was $5040/year, after years of stripping the AFDC program down to bare bones, I fail to see how 25 years later a $3k or $3600 benefit per kid is going to be much of an incentive to not work given that the cost of having kids, and therefore the need, has certainly increased with inflation, at the very least, and that would mean that the average benefit would be even less effective (assuming an average around $6200, compared to the $8858 that the $5040 from 1994 would be in today's dollars).

Anyway, I'm just highly skeptical of the whole "welfare queen" argument. Are there people that will abuse the system? Sure. Does that make up a significant amount of abuse to justify not helping out the millions that need it? No way. If we want to save money, we really need to look at the fraud and abuse in the DoD, because we have lost several trillions of dollars (I do mean lost, as in literally lost, unaccounted for, etc.) in that money pit than not helping lift children out of poverty.

Sources:
AFDC backstory: https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/public-welfare/aid-to-dependent-children-the-legal-history/
Child poverty rates: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/30/prior-to-covid-19-child-poverty-rates-had-reached-record-lows-in-u-s/
Inflation adjustment: https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1994?amount=5040

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-08-2021, 07:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Anyway, I'm just highly skeptical of the whole "welfare queen" argument. Are there people that will abuse the system? Sure. Does that make up a significant amount of abuse to justify not helping out the millions that need it? No way. If we want to save money, we really need to look at the fraud and abuse in the DoD, because we have lost several trillions of dollars (I do mean lost, as in literally lost, unaccounted for, etc.) in that money pit than not helping lift children out of poverty.

Maybe California colors my perception on this point, but I see constant abuse of the system.  I know you're aware of this, but for those who are not, it's not like this is the only kind of financial government assistance you can receive.  Section 8 housing can get you a 2k a month apartment for around $400.  Throw in SNAP, Calfresh, SSI (which a lot of people receive), and this and you're talking 3k+ a month easy in benefits.  Not to mention MediCal.  I deal with families all the time where the mother does not work and has not worked in years, if ever, and they live quite comfortably.  Granted, not in a condition you or I would like, but still.

[Belsnickel]

(02-08-2021, 07:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Maybe California colors my perception on this point, but I see constant abuse of the system.  I know you're aware of this, but for those who are not, it's not like this is the only kind of financial government assistance you can receive.  Section 8 housing can get you a 2k a month apartment for around $400.  Throw in SNAP, Calfresh, SSI (which a lot of people receive), and this and you're talking 3k+ a month easy in benefits.  Not to mention MediCal.  I deal with families all the time where the mother does not work and has not worked in years, if ever, and they live quite comfortably.  Granted, not in a condition you or I would like, but still.

But what is the abuse rate, really? Even in your area, this may make up just a tiny fraction. You're in a profession that is going to result in you interacting with people more likely to be exploitative of the system, already. Your sample set is going to skew your results. If abuse rates are 2%, but you engage primarily with that 2%, that's what your perception will be.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-08-2021, 08:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But what is the abuse rate, really? Even in your area, this may make up just a tiny fraction. You're in a profession that is going to result in you interacting with people more likely to be exploitative of the system, already. Your sample set is going to skew your results. If abuse rates are 2%, but you engage primarily with that 2%, that's what your perception will be.

That's an excellent question, and I will absolutely allow for the "clientele" I interact with not exactly being the norm.  I'd honestly like to see a legit, down to the floorboards, audit of the welfare system in this regard to give us some raw data to look at.  I just really don't like financially incentivizing having children when you're already on public assistance.

I will add this.  One of my biggest issues with the welfare state is that, one, it devalues the concept of money and the work it takes to actually earn it.  If you get everything for free, then how much can you actually appreciate the worth of a dollar?  My father helped my buy my first car, and while I took good care of it it was nothing compared to the attention I lavished on the first car I bought solely with my own money.  You don't appreciate what you didn't earn.  

The second point rather piggybacks off that, but how much self value and worth can you feel if you know that your existence is solely dependent on other people's money?  I can't, obviously, speak personally to this, but how much self esteem can one really have knowing that everything you have wasn't earned by you or your family?  Obviously both of these problems are better than children going hungry or wearing rags, I just think there's a middle ground between the GOP and Dem positions on this subject that can hit the sweet spot.

[Belsnickel]

(02-08-2021, 09:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's an excellent question, and I will absolutely allow for the "clientele" I interact with not exactly being the norm.  I'd honestly like to see a legit, down to the floorboards, audit of the welfare system in this regard to give us some raw data to look at.  I just really don't like financially incentivizing having children when you're already on public assistance.

I will add this.  One of my biggest issues with the welfare state is that, one, it devalues the concept of money and the work it takes to actually earn it.  If you get everything for free, then how much can you actually appreciate the worth of a dollar?  My father helped my buy my first car, and while I took good care of it it was nothing compared to the attention I lavished on the first car I bought solely with my own money.  You don't appreciate what you didn't earn.  

The second point rather piggybacks off that, but how much self value and worth can you feel if you know that your existence is solely dependent on other people's money?  I can't, obviously, speak personally to this, but how much self esteem can one really have knowing that everything you have wasn't earned by you or your family?  Obviously both of these problems are better than children going hungry or wearing rags, I just think there's a middle ground between the GOP and Dem positions on this subject that can hit the sweet spot.

Obviously I will have to counter these.

So what we know from research is that people do not function well when they are in a state of financial uncertainty. I think that we could all agree that the goal of social programs is to give people a hand getting their lives together. To have some sense of security be it for themselves or their children. We want to see them in the job market or working on getting into the job market by improving their skillset. What we know is that if a person has concerns like where the next meal is coming from, whether for themselves or their kids, then they are in a stressed state that makes it difficult to do much of anything. Providing some stability helps people improve their lives.

This isn't directly related, but it is indirectly. One of the best arguments for single-payer healthcare is that it removes the barrier for people that stay in their job for the benefits. It provides a sense of security that allows people to put themselves out there and it increases entrepreneurship. For the majority of people, if you provide that safety net then they are going to be able to put themselves out there and not focus solely on where the next meal is coming from, but instead finding substantial employment that will be adequate to support themselves in the long run.

I hope all that made sense. I feel like it was rambly, but I'm very tired right now.

[BigPapaKain]

Hey look - America is finally trying to do something a bunch of other developed countries have been doing for decades. Leaders of the free world GO!!

But it won't pass. Makes too much sense.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-09-2021, 08:53 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Hey look - America is finally trying to do something a bunch of other developed countries have been doing for decades. Leaders of the free world GO!!

But it won't pass. Makes too much sense.

Except there are compelling arguments that it doesn't make sense.  Just ignoring them doesn't make them go away.

[BigPapaKain]

(02-09-2021, 12:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except there are compelling arguments that it doesn't make sense.  Just ignoring them doesn't make them go away.

It's only a compelling argument if you ignore societal needs.

People with kids are gonna get that money, either at the end of the fiscal year with their taxes or spread out over the year (as in other parts of the world). One method keeps families suckling at that government handout teet. The other one puts a lot of struggling families over the monthly income threshold to recieve government assistance (outside of the child tax credit). 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-09-2021, 12:33 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: It's only a compelling argument if you ignore societal needs.

Explain.

Quote:People with kids are gonna get that money, either at the end of the fiscal year with their taxes or spread out over the year (as in other parts of the world). One method keeps families suckling at that government handout teet. The other one puts a lot of struggling families over the monthly income threshold to recieve government assistance (outside of the child tax credit). 

So how is this proposed legislation, which is, as you put it, "suckling at the government handout teat", going to prevent "suckling at the government handout teat"?

[BigPapaKain]

(02-09-2021, 12:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Explain.


So how is this proposed legislation, which is, as you put it, "suckling at the government handout teat", going to prevent "suckling at the government handout teat"?

Thought I made that clear.

It's the yearly tax credit you get for having a child paid out over the course of the year. Since it's not a lump at the end of the year but instead a monthly installment, it'll put people over the monthly income maximums to recieve government assistance, thus cutting them off of government assistance.

Nobody cares about the child tax credit until they decide to make it lower and monthly instead of a bulk payment during tax season. Now it's suddenly a big deal?

As to the societal needs comment; children from impoverished homes tend to act out more and do worse in school. Putting the home over the poverty line means the parents can spend less time worrying about everything else and spend more time with their kids, thus creating better students, thus better adults, and on and on and on.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-09-2021, 03:21 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Thought I made that clear.

It's the yearly tax credit you get for having a child paid out over the course of the year. Since it's not a lump at the end of the year but instead a monthly installment, it'll put people over the monthly income maximums to recieve government assistance, thus cutting them off of government assistance.

Nobody cares about the child tax credit until they decide to make it lower and monthly instead of a bulk payment during tax season. Now it's suddenly a big deal?

As to the societal needs comment; children from impoverished homes tend to act out more and do worse in school. Putting the home over the poverty line means the parents can spend less time worrying about everything else and spend more time with their kids, thus creating better students, thus better adults, and on and on and on.

I think a major point that you're missing here is that you actually have to work to pay income tax.  

[Belsnickel]

(02-10-2021, 01:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think a major point that you're missing here is that you actually have to work to pay income tax.  

Not to be pedantic, but no you don't.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-10-2021, 01:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not to be pedantic, but no you don't.

How exactly do you pay income taxes if you have no income?  Are you talking about sales tax?

[Au165]

(02-10-2021, 01:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: How exactly do you pay income taxes if you have no income?  Are you talking about sales tax?

You said you have to work to pay income taxes in your post he replied to, it's more of how you phrased it I am guessing. For instance, you have to pay taxes on unemployment benefits which would be paying taxes while not working. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-10-2021, 01:51 PM)Au165 Wrote: You said you have to work to pay income taxes in your post he replied to, it's more of how you phrased it I am guessing. For instance, you have to pay taxes on unemployment benefits which would be paying taxes while not working. 

I see, an issue with phrasing.  The point I made still stands.

[Belsnickel]

(02-10-2021, 01:51 PM)Au165 Wrote: You said you have to work to pay income taxes in your post he replied to, it's more of how you phrased it I am guessing. For instance, you have to pay taxes on unemployment benefits which would be paying taxes while not working. 

Well, not just that. Investment income, retirement income, etc. If you receive money, there are taxes involved, whether you worked for it or not.