American Families Plan, what are your thoughts?

[popmom]

On 4/29/2021 at 9:26 PM, Faith-manor said:

 

Women can not longer build credit based on their husband's income and credit worthiness.

Many people are simply their best versions of themselves by having a career. I sacrificed nineteen years to homemaking and homeschooling and was just barely hanging on by the end. I am infinitely happier and I truly believe, a better me, now that I am slowly building a career however short it may end up being.

To the bolded. I don’t think this is the case. Or at least hasn’t been my experience. My credit score usually runs just a bit higher than my husband’s and my credit limits on revolving accounts in my name are WAY higher than his. If my husband’s income doesn’t factor in to this then how/why does AMEX and VISA keep upping my credit limits? I haven’t had a “career” since 1995.🧐😂

to the last part of your post—I totally agree. This is very true for my dear SIL. It should be every woman’s prerogative. I just disagree that it’s somehow more risky to not have a career while the kids are young. There are risks with pretty much any scenario for moms making this decision. One decision isn’t inherently more risky than another. You’re just trading one risk for another. 

[Condessa]

9 hours ago, Dmmetler said:

On the fix K12 before funding Pre-K, I have taught in a school where the average kindergartner came in with a 2 year old level of verbal skills. While some were due to undiagnosed disabilities, most were simply due to lack of environmental stimulation. Many of these were kids who had a parent who worked nights and slept days while the kids were watched at night by a neighbor or family member. The kids pretty much were on their own all day unless there was a crisis. While I had many 5 yr olds who could change the baby and heat a bottle, many had gotten their early experiences from Sesame Street or Reading Rainbow at best and from Soap Operas and daytime talk shows at worst. Those delays stayed with them, and while we had more kids proficient by grade 5 than at grade 3, and more kids who were on grade level at age 3 than who assessed as having age appropriate skills at age 5, it was just plain a hard road to take. And I was in a school that had every teacher trained in Slingerland Phonics and was Phonics first. I can only imagine how hard it would have been had we been a balanced literacy school or Success for All school, or any of the other models as opposed to a phonics first program. It is far easier to have a good K-12 system when kids come in with a good foundation. I'm not talking about coming in reading, or even coming in knowing the alphabet, but things like being able to speak in complete sentences, knowing how to hold and turn pages of a book, and some experience with scissors, crayons, glue, etc.  During the time I was at that school, we went from one ECED class to five-and often the kids who came through Title I or EI preschool (which means they were in the bottom quartile at age 3-4 when evaluated, or had a disability) were at the top of the class years later. It helped. a lot. 

Yes, preschool makes a huge difference for kids from homes like these.  There's tons of evidence of how much it benefits the lowest financial demographic.  So fully fund Head Start and Early Intervention, maybe enact Biden's plan for funding childcare for even younger kids from this situation--but where does it follow that we should pay for free preschool and cheap daycare for all the other kids who don't need it?  That's a ton of money to hand out for something that isn't necessary and doesn't have the same clear benefits.

[Ausmumof3]

For reference the current gov plan launched here today is to removed the income cap on child care benefits that currently kicks in at $150,000.  I can’t help but feel that money could be better spend helping lower income families.

[Frances]

55 minutes ago, Condessa said:

Yes, preschool makes a huge difference for kids from homes like these.  There's tons of evidence of how much it benefits the lowest financial demographic.  So fully fund Head Start and Early Intervention, maybe enact Biden's plan for funding childcare for even younger kids from this situation--but where does it follow that we should pay for free preschool and cheap daycare for all the other kids who don't need it?  That's a ton of money to hand out for something that isn't necessary and doesn't have the same clear benefits.

I agree. I don’t understand the leap from not fully funding programs like Head Start to free preschool for all children. And how much preschool are we talking about? A few mornings per week or five full days per week?

Already so many kindergartens are not at all developmentally appropriate. I shudder at the thought of so many kids potentially facing two extra years of developmentally inappropriate schooling, especially at such a young age. So much of our public education system in the US is exactly the opposite of research proven best practices and I have little hope this will be much better.

[Frances]

15 hours ago, Condessa said:

Other than public education, none come to mind.  

This is the problem.  This is what keeps driving us toward the cliff. They don’t need to pay for themselves, but the difference needs to be what can be covered by our country’s income.  We have a huge income, but our spending is already so far beyond that.

The wealthiest of men can still drive himself to bankruptcy if he chooses.

As a moderate, I’m equally bothered by the tax and spending plans of both sides and the resulting increasing deficit. Among many other issues, I think both sides should have used more targeted relief during the pandemic, rather than throwing money at almost everyone. Many people, like my family, did fine economically during the pandemic and saved more money than ever, as many of their regular spending outlets weren’t available.
 

Just as I thought the last administration’s tax cuts went too far without corresponding spending cuts and with no real evidence that the losses would ever be recouped through economic growth, I think the current spending plan goes too far rather than being more targeted to those who need it the most. We already have good programs like the EITC and Head Start in place that we could expand and fully fund rather than again giving $ to some who don’t likely need it. While I think many of the proposed tax changes and more enforcement $ for the IRS are long overdue, I’m guessing behavioral changes and new tax minimization strategies will take quite a bite out of the predicted revenue gain.

[Moonhawk]

18 hours ago, frogger said:

Just money is actually way more productive than pushing this program or that program. Dumping money on an outdated system for people to sit through a gen ed class for the third time IS encouraging them to be less productive. I would not want my own child to sit through two more years of gen ed. even if it was free.

7 hours ago, Condessa said:

Yes, preschool makes a huge difference for kids from homes like these.  There's tons of evidence of how much it benefits the lowest financial demographic.  So fully fund Head Start and Early Intervention, maybe enact Biden's plan for funding childcare for even younger kids from this situation--but where does it follow that we should pay for free preschool and cheap daycare for all the other kids who don't need it?  That's a ton of money to hand out for something that isn't necessary and doesn't have the same clear benefits.

6 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

For reference the current gov plan launched here today is to removed the income cap on child care benefits that currently kicks in at $150,000.  I can’t help but feel that money could be better spend helping lower income families.

It's as much optics as it is efficiency I think.

Already you have people saying things along the lines of "taking my money to give to those who haven't earned it" and similar ideas that will boil down to the poor don't deserve help. By extending the upper limit of the plan, at least less people will feel like it is targeted to punish them just because they make more money (even if they can't benefit due to no kids or kids ages). 

By tying it to a program, instead of cash in hand, you are potentially (or can plausibly posit to detractors) reducing the overall expense, since you are giving the people the option to use the free service or not, and not everyone will take the option. Whereas, if they gave out cash [or looser-stringed vouchers] the money is gone since any segment of the population willing to waive cash isn't going to be very large.

Plus, it side-steps the knee-jerk reaction a segment of the population will have to any cash-back program [that goes to someone who has paid less taxes than themselves], even if cash would be the most effective plan overall. "How do we know the parents will use this to help their kids and not fund their drug use?" <--- no one on this thread has said this, but when we talk about people being less practical with cash programs, this is what a lot of people are going to think even if they won't say it. With a flat free preschool for all, it eliminates the argument that government funds are going towards someone's cousin's drug and soda and bonbon habits.

I'm not saying I agree with structuring things this way, but I see the tying to a program as a way they are offsetting the higher-income allowance which is necessary for larger population buy-in, and side-stepping cash program concerns.

[stripe]

6 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

For reference the current gov plan launched here today is to removed the income cap on child care benefits that currently kicks in at $150,000.  I can’t help but feel that money could be better spend helping lower income families.

Maybe, but I think virtually all families in the US have a shortage of help beyond grandmas. Crummy family leave, crummy sick pay, crummy health insurance, and crummy child care. There’s been zero action behind this oft-repeated claim that the US is “family friendly” beyond societal concern towards sexuality. Ditto for those who are more interested in stopping abortions than helping pregnant women, babies, or children, including their health problems. 

[stripe]

22 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

Is there really any single gov’t program that covers its “bill” independent of anything else? (Genuine question.)

Can’t we ask the same question about unusual tax breaks and tax avoidance by businesses? For example, these businesses (some of the 55 listed here) that paid $0 in taxes in 2020: Archer Daniels Midland, FedEx, Michaels,  Nike, and a huge list of utilities companies. What about sports teams and stadiums getting a break or even a subsidy? Many corporations are hardly paying much into the tax base. I’m more comfortable with the average family getting a small break than the Pittsburgh Penguins or Nike.

There are government programs that save money in the long run. Most are programs for kids. I would say that the GI Bill had a huge impact on transforming the lives of (mostly white) returning servicemen. And the USPS does cover its own costs, which include a hefty burden in the form of retirement benefits.

[Dmmetler]

13 hours ago, Dmmetler said:

Typically Head start, etc does have lower ratios. That’s one thing that funding can help with. I do think that quality infant care is just plain hard. Having said that, it is easier to spend your days providing language development while caring for multiple infants when you don’t have a house to manage and get a full night’s sleep.  I found one baby at home a lot more exhausting than when I had worked with infants.

 

In the US, group care centers are also two adults, which helps some (in the 5 states that I know the laws for, anyway). 

To piggy back-I chose to stay home with my child (and in fact, have not worked more than part time, and usually not more than 10 hours a week in the last 17 years). Its not that I am saying that group care can equal what is provided at home by a dedicated parent. I am saying that there are many people who do not have the ability to stay home and still pay expenses, and therefore public funding of pre-K can help increase the quality of child care and reduce the impact on parents-and also can help make it so that child care providers can actually live on what they make as well. I would love to see an ECED teacher in a child care center have pay parity with one in a public school, instead of making barely over minimum wage with no benefits, because NO population of teachers are as badly underpaid as those working in child care. 

[Dmmetler]

6 hours ago, Frances said:

I agree. I don’t understand the leap from not fully funding programs like Head Start to free preschool for all children. And how much preschool are we talking about? A few mornings per week or five full days per week?

Already so many kindergartens are not at all developmentally appropriate. I shudder at the thought of so many kids potentially facing two extra years of developmentally inappropriate schooling, especially at such a young age. So much of our public education system in the US is exactly the opposite of research proven best practices and I have little hope this will be much better.

The good news-and it is good news-is that every state has standards for child care, and anything where kids are there more than 4 hours at a time counts as preschool. And those standards are FAR more DAP than what happens in kindergarten. I have NEVER seen a PS K kindergarten classroom that would meet minimum standards for licensed group child care for 5 yr olds. Head Start, and many private centers, use the High/Scope model. You will never see a worksheet in a High/Scope classroom.  There are workbook based preschools, like Abeka schools, but even they will be required to have 50% of the day be gross motor activities, a nap time proportional to the age of the child, and a majority of the day be unstructured exploratory play. As in, there will be examiners coming in and checking the daily schedule and observing in classrooms with stop watches. 

 

At least in the states that have put in VPK, VPK programs still follow child care standards, PLUS usually some additional ones, which tend to be focused more on the teacher keeping records of the child's development and skills, the same as happens in Head Start.  

 

As far as time, usually VPK funds a school day schedule, so 8:00-3:00 or 9:00-4:00. Parents still have to pay for afterschool care. 

Edited May 2, 2021 by Dmmetler

[Ausmumof3]

6 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

To piggy back-I chose to stay home with my child (and in fact, have not worked more than part time, and usually not more than 10 hours a week in the last 17 years). Its not that I am saying that group care can equal what is provided at home by a dedicated parent. I am saying that there are many people who do not have the ability to stay home and still pay expenses, and therefore public funding of pre-K can help increase the quality of child care and reduce the impact on parents-and also can help make it so that child care providers can actually live on what they make as well. I would love to see an ECED teacher in a child care center have pay parity with one in a public school, instead of making barely over minimum wage with no benefits, because NO population of teachers are as badly underpaid as those working in child care. 

I hear you.  For Australia basic teacher salary is $75k.  If we paid that to day care workers at a ratio of 1:4 for the baby room that is around $16k per baby.  And that’s not thinking about centre costs - insurance, food, nappies, maintenance etc.  I just can’t help wondering how many people could actually afford to make the choice to stay home for the first year with Bub if they had that in pocket or as a maternity leave payment.  Things get slightly better in the toddler room with a ratio of 1:6.  
 

the way society is structured is pretty rough for low to medium income families and something needs to change but I’m not sure that childcare is the best way.  In general I don’t think age segregation is a good thing and childcare is just one more part of that.

[KungFuPanda]

10 hours ago, popmom said:

That’s quite a sacrifice for a handful of hypotheticals. 

 I get the insurance thing though. 

You think your need for retirement is hypothetical? Many many women have been put into a head of household roll when they never planned to do so. I get that it takes a lot of hope and optimism to be a SAHM and bring small children into the world. It’s a gamble.
 

Your kids will benefit from you staying home. Your husband and his career will definitely benefit from never having to think about childcare. It’s the mother that can find herself paying a hefty price for never establishing her own career. I think it’s wise to have a plan for keeping the balls in the air should your husband’s income disappear or become greatly reduced. If you have no safeguard for that possibility then you’re in a precarious financial position. 
 

I get that emotionally you have to trust that your husband will never get in an accident or have a midlife crisis, but financially you need to plan like he will.  

[Dmmetler]

4 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I hear you.  For Australia basic teacher salary is $75k.  If we paid that to day care workers at a ratio of 1:4 for the baby room that is around $16k per baby.  And that’s not thinking about centre costs - insurance, food, nappies, maintenance etc.  I just can’t help wondering how many people could actually afford to make the choice to stay home for the first year with Bub if they had that in pocket or as a maternity leave payment.  Things get slightly better in the toddler room with a ratio of 1:6.  
 

the way society is structured is pretty rough for low to medium income families and something needs to change but I’m not sure that childcare is the best way.  In general I don’t think age segregation is a good thing and childcare is just one more part of that.

In the USA, a child care teacher average wage is $25K, and I'm guessing that includes administration. From what I've seen, $8.25-$12.00/hour is pretty typical, often with no benefits. 

 

Elementary and secondary teachers average 60K, which, again, includes a lot of people who have had step increases and have been around awhile (if I had stayed in the classroom vs staying home with my child, I'd be looking at about 85K now-and still have another 15 years before I'd have been eligible to retire), but 35-40K is pretty common for people who aren't tenured yet and don't have advanced degrees.   And elementary school teachers get benefits, and, while breaks are not explicitly paid, usually have vacation time when their children are out of school and that follow holidays. Child care needs RISE over typical vacation periods, minus maybe a couple of days for the actual holiday. 

 

I would LOVE to see paid leave for parenting purposes for the first 3 years. The gold standard for child development programs is basically "how close can you replicate a good home situation with a full time, loving parent".  But at least in the USA, I think we're a lot more likely to see paid for child care as an option vs giving people money to stay home. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Condessa]

1 hour ago, Moonhawk said:

It's as much optics as it is efficiency I think.

Already you have people saying things along the lines of "taking my money to give to those who haven't earned it" and similar ideas that will boil down to the poor don't deserve help. By extending the upper limit of the plan, at least less people will feel like it is targeted to punish them just because they make more money (even if they can't benefit due to no kids or kids ages). 

By tying it to a program, instead of cash in hand, you are potentially (or can plausibly posit to detractors) reducing the overall expense, since you are giving the people the option to use the free service or not, and not everyone will take the option. Whereas, if they gave out cash [or looser-stringed vouchers] the money is gone since any segment of the population willing to waive cash isn't going to be very large.

Plus, it side-steps the knee-jerk reaction a segment of the population will have to any cash-back program [that goes to someone who has paid less taxes than themselves], even if cash would be the most effective plan overall. "How do we know the parents will use this to help their kids and not fund their drug use?" <--- no one on this thread has said this, but when we talk about people being less practical with cash programs, this is what a lot of people are going to think even if they won't say it. With a flat free preschool for all, it eliminates the argument that government funds are going towards someone's cousin's drug and soda and bonbon habits.

I'm not saying I agree with structuring things this way, but I see the tying to a program as a way they are offsetting the higher-income allowance which is necessary for larger population buy-in, and side-stepping cash program concerns.

Yeah, this is the concern with the "child tax credit" monthly cash payments to all parents, and no longer tied to actually paying any taxes.  I don't think that there is any way to tie it in more for its intended purposes without major government overreach.  But this does indeed happen.  When my foster girls' bio dad received a big stimulus check in the mail (for kids he hadn't lived with for over a year, and hadn't cared for then) he sent his kids a few fancy toys, quit his part-time job at McDonald's, and blew the rest at the pot store.

I think that if you want to help poor children in bad situations, there's a lot more potential for good in expanding targeted programs like Head Start and Title 8 Housing and the EITC than there is in sending out a check every month to all but the most wealthy of families.

Edited May 2, 2021 by Condessa

[Carol in Cal.]

58 minutes ago, stripe said:

Maybe, but I think virtually all families in the US have a shortage of help beyond grandmas. Crummy family leave, crummy sick pay, crummy health insurance, and crummy child care. There’s been zero action behind this oft-repeated claim that the US is “family friendly” beyond societal concern towards sexuality. Ditto for those who are more interested in stopping abortions than helping pregnant women, babies, or children, including their health problems. 

I always hear about those hypothetical anti-abortion folks who don’t help pregnant women, babies, or children, but I have never met one.  And I’ve met a lot of prolifers who actually do help pregnant women, babies, children, and their parents, often sacrificially.  It’s time to retire this logical but inaccurate stereotype.

[Condessa]

7 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

In the USA, a child care teacher average wage is $25K, and I'm guessing that includes administration. From what I've seen, $8.25-$12.00/hour is pretty typical, often with no benefits. 

Yeah, when I was pregnant with my second and working part-time at Kindercare in the baby room, I often was asked by the parents why I didn't have my dd there with me.  It was somewhat embarrassing to explain that we couldn't afford it; my income from the job was nowhere near the cost of her attending part-time would have been.

[Condessa]

12 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I always hear about those hypothetical anti-abortion folks who don’t help pregnant women, babies, or children, but I have never met one.  And I’ve met a lot of prolifers who actually do help pregnant women, babies, children, and their parents, often sacrificially.  It’s time to retire this logical but inaccurate stereotype.

It's a red herring and ad hominem that has become the go-to attack on the anti-abortion stance.  Guess that's easier than discussing the issue directly.

Edited May 2, 2021 by Condessa

[Dmmetler]

8 minutes ago, Condessa said:

Yeah, when I was pregnant with my second and working part-time at Kindercare in the baby room, I often was asked by the parents why I didn't have my dd there with me.  It was somewhat embarrassing to explain that we couldn't afford it; my income from the job was nowhere near the cost of her attending part-time would have been.

And I will also say this-most child care programs, even for profit ones like KinderCare, are operating with very narrow margins.  The amount you can charge parents reasonably in most settings compared to the amount it costs to run a program that meets the required licensing standards just doesn't offer a lot of slack.  It helps if a community group has space and there isn't rent to be paid-churches running child care programs, or allowing community groups to run a program in their space and not charging rent beyond basic upkeep can be a major benefit to the community, and one of the best ways churches can support parents and families. And many, many do. If it weren't for religious groups, child care in this country would be even a bigger mess than it is. 

And in the states that have adopted VPK programs, or that have income based child care vouchers, church based programs are permitted, and have not had to alter their curriculum or mission. 

[Carrie12345]

19 minutes ago, stripe said:

Can’t we ask the same question about unusual tax breaks and tax avoidance by businesses? For example, these businesses (some of the 55 listed here) that paid $0 in taxes in 2020: Archer Daniels Midland, FedEx, Michaels,  Nike, and a huge list of utilities companies. What about sports teams and stadiums getting a break or even a subsidy? Many corporations are hardly paying much into the tax base. I’m more comfortable with the average family getting a small break than the Pittsburgh Penguins or Nike.

There are government programs that save money in the long run. Most are programs for kids. I would say that the GI Bill had a huge impact on transforming the lives of (mostly white) returning servicemen. And the USPS does cover its own costs, which include a hefty burden in the form of retirement benefits.

Ab. So. Lutely.

I don’t think I’ll ever be able to wrap my brain around the concept of giant companies that have the obvious ability to fund their own growth without any special financial arrangements. I understand the intent/purpose of many of these breaks, but how can anyone continue to argue they’re needed when you can hand out multiple +/-$6M cash bonuses in a single year (in addition to other, larger compensations)?

[Carrie12345]

48 minutes ago, Condessa said:

It's a red herring and ad hominem that has become the go-to attack on the anti-abortion stance.  Guess that's easier than discussing the issue directly.

I don’t know if those are the precise fallacies to put on it.  Maybe?

It’s incredibly difficult (for me, at least) to separate what individuals claim/do from the policies of an enormous group that claims to be devoted to the stance while promoting the slashing of near-all to all programs that prevent and mitigate the impact of that stance.

I don’t see any way to change that perception before electing representatives who stand by policies to take care of the families in question.  Because, if there were enough individuals doing the work themselves, we wouldn’t have the problems we have.

[Carol in Cal.]

14 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

I don’t know if those are the precise fallacies to put on it.  Maybe?

It’s incredibly difficult (for me, at least) to separate what individuals claim/do from the policies of an enormous group that claims to be devoted to the stance while promoting the slashing of near-all to all programs that prevent and mitigate the impact of that stance.

I don’t see any way to change that perception before electing representatives who stand by policies to take care of the families in question.  Because, if there were enough individuals doing the work themselves, we wouldn’t have the problems we have.

What ‘enormous group’ is that?  And what does it propose instead?  

If the ‘enormous group’ is, for instance, the Catholic Church (which BTW I am not part of), they oppose abortion and tend to favor social support policies as well as massively providing social support privately.

Furthermore, if they opposed social support in public policy, I’d suggest digging deeper and seeing why that is and what they propose instead to prevent and mitigate impacts from that stance.  Maybe they propose private care instead of the immense, bloated inefficiency of public care.  Or not.  I don’t know.  

But blanket statements like you’re making above are overly simplistic and largely inaccurate.  Your last paragraph talks about not enough individuals doing the work themselves, but abortion rights have been the national law of the land for about 50 years now, and so I don’t see how you can argue that there are not enough folks making up for opposing them by caring for those who would be effected by changing the law.  The truth is, there are lots of people who care for families in need in many ways, and who encourage mothers not to kill their babies and work and donate to make it feasible for this to be a viable decision.  

[Carrie12345]

3 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

.  The truth is, there are lots of people who care for families in need in many ways

Yes. 
But not enough. If there were, wouldn’t it be a non-issue by now?

No, I wasn’t referring to any official religious organization. 

[TechWife]

19 hours ago, Frances said:

Sure, for wage earners this would be very easy. You could get rid of all the deductions, exclusions, etc and use regressive, flat, or progressive rates. All would be extremely simple to administer. The difficulty lies with all of the non-wage sources of income which already represent the majority of the tax gap in the US and much of the wealth. Accurately measuring, capturing, and taxing that is much more difficult.

Is there a particular reason these other sources of income could not also be in the flat tax system? Capturing & measuring profits on stock sales, real estate sales, capital sales, contract income, and higher dollar bank deposits and transfers is already done. These transactions are already reported to the IRS. In short, the IRS knows when people make money if they have made it legally and been paid through legal means. This would not change with a flat tax - the system isn't going to become ignorant of the assets people hold. From experience I can tell you that if the IRS has income reported to them and you don't report it for any reason, they will know immediately. We have already had to deal with missing forms from our 2020 tax return that were caused by our move last year and the expiration of the USPS forwarding order, so I speak from experience. There have always been people who do things illegally, and I don't expect a change in the tax system to correct immoral behavior.

[Bootsie]

51 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

Ab. So. Lutely.

I don’t think I’ll ever be able to wrap my brain around the concept of giant companies that have the obvious ability to fund their own growth without any special financial arrangements. I understand the intent/purpose of many of these breaks, but how can anyone continue to argue they’re needed when you can hand out multiple +/-$6M cash bonuses in a single year (in addition to other, larger compensations)?

I am in favor a much simpler tax structure without a lot of tax breaks, loopholes, and other distortions at both the personal and at the corporate tax level.  

If a company makes $6 million and pays it to an employee, who pays taxes on the $6 million, the earnings are being taxed.  If we had a more straightforward tax structure for individuals, perhaps it would make sense to have a much lower and simpler corporate tax structure (like most of the world does). 

[Carol in Cal.]

15 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

 

No, I wasn’t referring to any official religious organization. 

What enormous group then?  You’re postulating an enormous group organized enough to have consistent stances/lobbying on public policy. What group is this?  I can’t think of one.  Seems like a straw man/stereotype to me, and not an accurate one as demonstrated.

[TechWife]

16 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

What enormous group then?  You’re postulating an enormous group organized enough to have consistent stances/lobbying on public policy. What group is this?  I can’t think of one.  Seems like a straw man/stereotype to me, and not an accurate one as demonstrated.

We are treading deeper into political territory here and I am hesitant to get too specific. You will likely find a trove of information if you google the names of the major political parties + abortion rates. The information is there to be found and has been widely reported.

ETA: Once you recognize the connection, think through which groups lobby on either side of that particular issue, then connect that with their stance on social support programs.

Edited May 2, 2021 by TechWife

[Frances]

21 minutes ago, TechWife said:

Is there a particular reason these other sources of income could not also be in the flat tax system? Capturing & measuring profits on stock sales, real estate sales, capital sales, contract income, and higher dollar bank deposits and transfers is already done. These transactions are already reported to the IRS. In short, the IRS knows when people make money if they have made it legally and been paid through legal means. This would not change with a flat tax - the system isn't going to become ignorant of the assets people hold. From experience I can tell you that if the IRS has income reported to them and you don't report it for any reason, they will know immediately. We have already had to deal with missing forms from our 2020 tax return that were caused by our move last year and the expiration of the USPS forwarding order, so I speak from experience. There have always been people who do things illegally, and I don't expect a change in the tax system to correct immoral behavior.

You are correct that wages are the not the only income that is relatively easy to track and tax. But income from businesses, whether sole proprietorships, farms, or pass through entities is not as straightforward as capital gains or wages. It’s also where much of the tax gap lies in the country. There are also always new and evolving complex tax schemes being developed and tested to help the wealthy avoid taxation. That’s why I welcome the increased funding for the IRS portion of the plan. It has been woefully underfunded for years while continually being given more work.

[Carol in Cal.]

18 minutes ago, TechWife said:

We are treading deeper into political territory here and I am hesitant to get too specific. You will likely find a trove of information if you google the names of the major political parties + abortion rates. The information is there to be found and has been widely reported.

ETA: Once you recognize the connection, think through which groups lobby on either side of that particular issue, then connect that with their stance on social support programs.

So you’re assuming that the OP is talking about a political party?  That doesn’t seem consistent with her wording to me.  

Look, I’m aware that this type of accusation is so commonly made that it has become a truism, but my observation is that it’s not actually factual, and I think that that is worth some thought.  It would not be the first time that a frequently stated opinion turns out not to be true after all.  I’m in no way accusing the OP of lying but rather suggesting thinking through whether this truism is in fact true.

[Bootsie]

4 minutes ago, Frances said:

You are correct that wages are the not the only income that is relatively easy to track and tax. But income from businesses, whether sole proprietorships, farms, or pass through entities is not as straightforward as capital gains or wages. It’s also where much of the tax gap lies in the country. There are also always new and evolving complex tax schemes being developed and tested to help the wealthy avoid taxation. That’s why I welcome the increased funding for the IRS portion of the plan. It has been woefully underfunded for years while continually being given more work.

Having a more complicated tax structure does not address the issue of it being difficult to track and tax income from certain entities.  I would argue that the complicated tax structure intensifies this problem, rather than making it better. Pass through entities, for example, as a result of our tax structure.  

I am not sure what you are referring to as the "tax gap"?  Are you saying that sole proprietors and farmers are paying significantly less taxes than their fair share?  

[Frances]

12 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

Having a more complicated tax structure does not address the issue of it being difficult to track and tax income from certain entities.  I would argue that the complicated tax structure intensifies this problem, rather than making it better. Pass through entities, for example, as a result of our tax structure.  

I am not sure what you are referring to as the "tax gap"?  Are you saying that sole proprietors and farmers are paying significantly less taxes than their fair share?  

I agree that our tax system is too complicated. But in my view, a flat tax does little to simplify it. While everyone might not completely understand a progressive rate structure, it is not the main source of complexity.

The tax gap is the difference between total taxes owed and paid on time. I’m not arguing about fair share. I’m saying that it is much easier to underreport certain income as opposed to wages or other easily tracked items like capital gains from real estate or stock sales.

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-tax-gap

[TechWife]

2 hours ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I always hear about those hypothetical anti-abortion folks who don’t help pregnant women, babies, or children, but I have never met one.  And I’ve met a lot of prolifers who actually do help pregnant women, babies, children, and their parents, often sacrificially.  It’s time to retire this logical but inaccurate stereotype.

16 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

So you’re assuming that the OP is talking about a political party?  That doesn’t seem consistent with her wording to me.  

Look, I’m aware that this type of accusation is so commonly made that it has become a truism, but my observation is that it’s not actually factual, and I think that that is worth some thought.  It would not be the first time that a frequently stated opinion turns out not to be true after all.  I’m in no way accusing the OP of lying but rather suggesting thinking through whether this truism is in fact true.

As I said in my post, you will need to think through which lobbying organizations/special interests groups/whatever you want to call them lobby which political parties and their positions on social supports. To clarify, look at both the positions of the lobbying organizations and the positions of the political parties.

This is not an accusation. It is a fact that is backed up through data and other research that is available to everyone. The people who have reported on this cite original sources, not their opinions. You can go to the original sources yourself if you choose to. Otherwise, you are only stating your opinion, which you admit is based on your experience, which is limited (all of us have limited experience).

The need for assistance for all groups of people far outweighs the number of people willing or able to help on a private basis. This is why it is called the  "general welfare" - everyone looks out for everyone. They are synonymous.  It's written into the Constitution. To fail to look out for each other is to fail to uphold the Constitution (but mostly the underlying ethical and moral reasons that it is in the Constitution in the first place).

general welfare - The concern of the government for the health, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens.

Preamble

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Article 1, Section 8

"The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

 

 

[TechWife]

6 minutes ago, Frances said:

I agree that our tax system is too complicated. But in my view, a flat tax does little to simplify it. While everyone might not completely understand a progressive rate structure, it is not the main source of complexity.

The tax gap is the difference between total taxes owed and paid on time. I’m not arguing about fair share. I’m saying that it is much easier to underreport certain income as opposed to wages or other easily tracked items like capital gains from real estate or stock sales.

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-tax-gap

I agree. As I said, a flat tax will not fix moral problems, which are the cause of the under-reporting . However, the current system doesn't fix them either. We as a country need to be careful of allowing our desires for a perfect solution to distract us from a good solution.

[TechWife]

39 minutes ago, Frances said:

You are correct that wages are the not the only income that is relatively easy to track and tax. But income from businesses, whether sole proprietorships, farms, or pass through entities is not as straightforward as capital gains or wages. It’s also where much of the tax gap lies in the country. There are also always new and evolving complex tax schemes being developed and tested to help the wealthy avoid taxation. That’s why I welcome the increased funding for the IRS portion of the plan. It has been woefully underfunded for years while continually being given more work.

The responsibility for accurate reporting will always lie with businesses, as it does now. This they have to track revenue and expenses as always, but the type of tax system will not change the skill set possessed by business owners to do this, nor will it affect moral decisions regarding how they do or don't do this & the subsequent reporting. That's why the IRS conducts audits - it's an attempt to keep people honest through leveraging various penalties. I, too, am in favor of increased funding for the IRS so that they can do this effectively.

In regard to the evolving tax schemes to help the wealthy avoid taxation - I think a flat tax would make schemes a moot point. There would be no tax shelters, no deductions, etc. - it is much harder to work around, in my opinion. We can easily tax all entities - all trust funds, business, all types of corporations, non-profits, etc.. Flat tax means flat for everyone and to me, every entity.

All of this is to say, I think flat tax is a good idea worth exploring, but I also think that it's a pipe dream.

[Bootsie]

19 minutes ago, Frances said:

I agree that our tax system is too complicated. But in my view, a flat tax does little to simplify it. While everyone might not completely understand a progressive rate structure, it is not the main source of complexity.

The tax gap is the difference between total taxes owed and paid on time. I’m not arguing about fair share. I’m saying that it is much easier to underreport certain income as opposed to wages or other easily tracked items like capital gains from real estate or stock sales.

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-tax-gap

A progressive tax structure that is designed by having higher marginal tax rates for higher incomes is not necessarily more complex than a flat tax.  It is when a lot of deductions and complications are used to build in the progressivity that the progressive tax structure becomes more complex.  

I wonder how the underreporting of income varies across countries.  Is this an argument to tax consumption more in that it is easily tracked?  

[popmom]

4 hours ago, KungFuPanda said:

You think your need for retirement is hypothetical? Many many women have been put into a head of household roll when they never planned to do so. I get that it takes a lot of hope and optimism to be a SAHM and bring small children into the world. It’s a gamble.
 

Your kids will benefit from you staying home. Your husband and his career will definitely benefit from never having to think about childcare. It’s the mother that can find herself paying a hefty price for never establishing her own career. I think it’s wise to have a plan for keeping the balls in the air should your husband’s income disappear or become greatly reduced. If you have no safeguard for that possibility then you’re in a precarious financial position. 
 

I get that emotionally you have to trust that your husband will never get in an accident or have a midlife crisis, but financially you need to plan like he will.  

I don’t have to have a career to plan for retirement. I have my own retirement account (and separate brokerage account only in my name) that has been funded by my husband’s income.

Also life insurance is a thing.

And attorneys in the case of that mid life crisis.

And I do have a plan(s) in the event that suddenly dh disappears along with his income. None of it required me to have a career while my kids were young.

Also, this IS a HOME SCHOOLING community or am I in the wrong place because it suddenly seems to have become very home schooling unfriendly. 😉

 

Edited May 2, 2021 by popmom

[Frances]

1 minute ago, TechWife said:

I agree. As I said, a flat tax will not fix moral problems, which are the cause of the under-reporting . However, the current system doesn't fix them either. We as a country need to be careful of allowing our desires for a perfect solution to distract us from a good solution.

I don’t think it is an entirely moral problem. The complexity, especially for small businesses, also contributes to under reporting  of income. But you have to somehow come to a measure of income for businesses. I doubt most of them would be onboard with something like gross income, as businesses in different industries have very different costs and operate on very different margins. 

 I’m very skeptical that we will ever have a flat tax if by that you mean just a flat rate on income (however it is measured) with no deductions, exclusions, reporting of dependents, etc. At both the state and national level, our leaders are constantly using the tax system to incentivize or reward (or punish) certain behaviors and also as a way to distribute money, including to those who pay little or no taxes. Is there really any difference between having a refundable child tax credit on a return and instead having a program that sends money to almost everyone with a child (with some income limits)? One could argue the latter is likely costlier since it would mean a new system to collect information and distribute the money. Do we stop doing all of the things currently handled by the tax system (e.g. EITC, tax credits for higher education, credits for the disabled, etc, etc.) or do we create all new programs to distribute that money?

[Moonhawk]

1 hour ago, popmom said:

I don’t have to have a career to plan for retirement. I have my own retirement account (and separate brokerage account only in my name) that has been funded by my husband’s income.

Also life insurance is a thing.

And attorneys in the case of that mid life crisis.

And I do have a plan(s) in the event that suddenly dh disappears along with his income. None of it required me to have a career while my kids were young.

Also, this IS a HOME SCHOOLING community or am I in the wrong place because it suddenly seems to have become very home schooling unfriendly. 😉

 

It is not "home schooling unfriendly" to acknowledge not every family (and woman) has the option to stay home and live off her husband's income with no worries about how to pay the bills, let alone future planning. I don't know how this is becoming such a big tangent in the thread. The fact that many boardies work in some capacity to help make ends meet does not diminish their homeschooling, or their commitment to their kids. Rather it should be even more admired the commitment made.

And all power to those that don't have to make the choice, and are fortunate enough to be of a financial security they do not have to make alternate plans that do not include their husband's income. It doesn't take away from them, either.

[popmom]

1 hour ago, Moonhawk said:

It is not "home schooling unfriendly" to acknowledge not every family (and woman) has the option to stay home and live off her husband's income with no worries about how to pay the bills, let alone future planning. I don't know how this is becoming such a big tangent in the thread. The fact that many boardies work in some capacity to help make ends meet does not diminish their homeschooling, or their commitment to their kids. Rather it should be even more admired the commitment made.

And all power to those that don't have to make the choice, and are fortunate enough to be of a financial security they do not have to make alternate plans that do not include their husband's income. It doesn't take away from them, either.

This is not at all what I was implying nor is it the reason for the tangent to begin with. No woman should be made to feel less than or foolish or unwise for whatever choice she makes. I’m leaving so the tangent can end. 🙂 I have nothing of value to add to the discussion.

Edited May 2, 2021 by popmom

[Carrie12345]

4 hours ago, Bootsie said:

I am in favor a much simpler tax structure without a lot of tax breaks, loopholes, and other distortions at both the personal and at the corporate tax level.  

If a company makes $6 million and pays it to an employee, who pays taxes on the $6 million, the earnings are being taxed.  If we had a more straightforward tax structure for individuals, perhaps it would make sense to have a much lower and simpler corporate tax structure (like most of the world does). 

I think I have a serious bias against the “it’s already taxed” perspective, particularly when companies want to be treated like people. If I hire a domestic worker, that person has to pay income taxes on the money I pay them with my household income that’s already been taxed.  Unless that person is specifically a child care provider, my understanding is that I don’t get credited for any of the income tax I already paid on their earnings.
It feels like a big double standard to me.

[Bootsie]

7 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

I think I have a serious bias against the “it’s already taxed” perspective, particularly when companies want to be treated like people. If I hire a domestic worker, that person has to pay income taxes on the money I pay them with my household income that’s already been taxed.  Unless that person is specifically a child care provider, my understanding is that I don’t get credited for any of the income tax I already paid on their earnings.
It feels like a big double standard to me.

But in that situation the domestic worker is producing something additional and that additional work is being taxed.   If my work provides $1000 in income to a company, that then pays me $1000, there is only $1000 of work being done.  

 

[Condessa]

5 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

I don’t know if those are the precise fallacies to put on it.  Maybe?

Do I have the fallacies wrong? 

Ad hominem=attacking the person instead of their position.  (Those people are hypocrites, they don't really care!)  Check.

Red Herring=diverts attention from the original question.  (Redirects from whether aborting a human fetus is moral to whether certain individuals are sincere in their motives.)  Check.

Is there a better label I've missed?

5 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

It’s incredibly difficult (for me, at least) to separate what individuals claim/do from the policies of an enormous group that claims to be devoted to the stance while promoting the slashing of near-all to all programs that prevent and mitigate the impact of that stance.

Exactly.  This is precisely why this tactic has become so common.  It works.  It is much easier to direct onlookers into suspecting the motives of a group or an individual than to ask fundamental questions about the worth of human life. 

It's highly effective, and it seems to be more and more common lately to see people throw out this fallacious attack on public media, even when it has little or nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

[Carrie12345]

21 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

But in that situation the domestic worker is producing something additional and that additional work is being taxed.   If my work provides $1000 in income to a company, that then pays me $1000, there is only $1000 of work being done.  

 

Well, crap. I can’t stick to the original argument when now all I can do is laugh at the idea that Nike’s CEO did $7M (or $50-something M) worth of work. 😂 😂 😂   😉 

[Carrie12345]

23 minutes ago, Condessa said:

Do I have the fallacies wrong? 

Ad hominem=attacking the person instead of their position.  (Those people are hypocrites, they don't really care!)  Check.

Red Herring=diverts attention from the original question.  (Redirects from whether aborting a human fetus is moral to whether certain individuals are sincere in their motives.)  Check.

Is there a better label I've missed?

Exactly.  This is precisely why this tactic has become so common.  It works.  It is much easier to direct onlookers into suspecting the motives of a group or an individual than to ask fundamental questions about the worth of human life. 

It's highly effective, and it seems to be more and more common lately to see people throw out this fallacious attack on public media, even when it has little or nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

I cannot speak for any other poster or person.  I never attributed any moral standing or motive to any part of this argument in this thread.

I have tried to very carefully point out the policy positions that act in opposition to one another. No suspicions. Public information.

I fully support a DRASTIC reduction in abortions, if you must know. I never want for there to be a need for one.  I will continue to stand by proven methods to work toward that ideal.

[Bootsie]

2 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

Well, crap. I can’t stick to the original argument when now all I can do is laugh at the idea that Nike’s CEO did $7M (or $50-something M) worth of work. 😂 😂 😂   😉 

The double taxation argument has nothing to do with employees being taxed on earned income (whether it is the worker making $8 per hour or a CEO making millions or anything in between).  It has to do with PROFITS of the company being taxed at the corporate level and at the distribution level.  

CEO pay may be a concern, but it is an entirely different concern and should not get confused with and mixed into a discussion of double taxation of profits.  

Would you be in favor of companies paying taxes on revenue rather than on profits (net income)?

[Condessa]

5 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

I cannot speak for any other poster or person.  I never attributed any moral standing or motive to any part of this argument in this thread.

I have tried to very carefully point out the policy positions that act in opposition to one another. No suspicions. Public information.

I fully support a DRASTIC reduction in abortions, if you must know. I never want for there to be a need for one.  I will continue to stand by proven methods to work toward that ideal.

Oh, no, I didn’t think you did.  You weren’t the poster who made the statements against people who are anti-abortion, out of the blue.

But have I got the logic right?  I have been trying to self-teach it ahead of my kids, as I never learned logic in school, and I think I am interpreting the fallacies right.  But if not, I would appreciate someone explaining.

[Carrie12345]

1 minute ago, Bootsie said:

Would you be in favor of companies paying taxes on revenue rather than on profits (net income)?

Fair question.
I suppose I’d want to know the hypothetical rates.  I think I decided not to post my thoughts on (individual) flat tax rates in which case I believe there’s also the matter of real impact.  So, with pretend numbers, if NIKE and the comparatively small company my husband works for had their entire revenues taxed at the same rate, dh’s would be MUCH more limited in their ability to provide more jobs and services. The same could technically be said of profits. But, again, I suppose it’d come down to what percentage on revenue vs. what percentage on profits?

Frankly, I’m not as invested (har har) in which of the very many ways we could codify some progress. I know that optics matter in gaining acceptance, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it, lol. 

[Carrie12345]

6 minutes ago, Condessa said:

 

But have I got the logic right?  I have been trying to self-teach it ahead of my kids, as I never learned logic in school, and I think I am interpreting the fallacies right.  But if not, I would appreciate someone explaining.

I genuinely don’t know, which is why I threw in a maybe. I didn’t feel I witnessed any true fallacies, but that could have been my bias. Your follow up examples don’t really match what I see.

[Bootsie]

3 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

Fair question.
I suppose I’d want to know the hypothetical rates.  I think I decided not to post my thoughts on (individual) flat tax rates in which case I believe there’s also the matter of real impact.  So, with pretend numbers, if NIKE and the comparatively small company my husband works for had their entire revenues taxed at the same rate, dh’s would be MUCH more limited in their ability to provide more jobs and services. The same could technically be said of profits. But, again, I suppose it’d come down to what percentage on revenue vs. what percentage on profits?

Frankly, I’m not as invested (har har) in which of the very many ways we could codify some progress. I know that optics matter in gaining acceptance, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it, lol. 

From a business and overall economic standpoint the difference between taxing a company's revenuee and taxing a company's profits is major.  In some industries, such as grocery stores, the cost of goods sold are relatively high, resulting in low profit margins.  For grocery stores, every $1 you spend, only about 3 cents is profit to the corporate owners of the store (which is what is taxed).  In other industries, such as the jewelry industry, for every $1 spent in the store, the number of cents left for the coporate owners after all of the expenses paid is much higher.  

So, by taxing revenue, a grocery store would pay the same percentage of revenue as the jewerly store, although the profit potential is much different in the two industries.  So, why would anyone want to continue to be a grocery store owner?  

[Condessa]

 

15 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

I genuinely don’t know, which is why I threw in a maybe. I didn’t feel I witnessed any true fallacies, but that could have been my bias. Your follow up examples don’t really match what I see.

I guess I wasn’t very clear in my post.  I didn’t give my own examples, just rephrased the underlying argument of the prior poster to emphasize how the fallacies applied to it.

Edited May 2, 2021 by Condessa

[Condessa]

On the American Families Plan in general, I think it has a lot of good intentions, and a lot of potential to do more harm than good in many areas with its extreme deficit spending.  Our spending is already so out of control, and the long-term economic consequences of our skyrocketing debt have the potential to be so severe for the families this plan is supposed to help.

 I think each piece of the plan should be looked at individually with these questions in mind: Does it address a real, significant problem? Is there scientific evidence to suggest that this approach will be effective in solving this problem? Does it cover its own costs, or can we designate another area to cut in order to cover it?

 I don’t see a real need to supply all these free/reduced programs and money to the middle and low-upper class.  Sure, it would be nice to have, and we can all find a use for more money, but that is not a reasonable standard.  Use funds judiciously to help those with real need, and let people who are doing fine taking care of themselves continue to do so.

I support the free preschool for the lower economic demographic, and potentially either free childcare or financial help for kids in this group younger than preschool age.  
I also support bringing the capital gains tax in line with the income tax, and think we should consider doing so across the board, other than retirement savings which are already tax advantaged.

I think sending out monthly checks to all families but the very wealthy is pure lunacy.