American Families Plan, what are your thoughts?

[Carrie12345]

10 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

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?  

Well, yeah. I think that’s why percentages and scaling them matters. I don’t think every business (or every person) should be taxed at the same rate. A rate might feel like nothing to one, and be nearly everything to another.

That can be said whether it’s from revenue or profits. I could have a house flipping company and focus on buying $70 houses, putting $10k into them, and selling for $100k while another guy focuses on buying $1M houses, putting $200k into them, and selling for $2M.  Whether you’re taxing profit ($20k vs. $800K) or revenue ($100k vs. $2M) taxing both our ventures at the same rate as one another is going to have drastically different impacts.

(And I shouldn’t have used houses when the ACTUAL real estate taxing situation is also in question, but I already typed it, so too bad, lol.)

[Bootsie]

4 minutes ago, Condessa said:

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.

 

This reminds me of a book by economist Alan Blinder entitled "Hard Heads, Soft Hearts" in which he address the issues that come aobut when policies are implemented with good intention but without good, sound economic thinking and the damage that occurs.  Often what is intendeded does not happen, and instead we end up with an even worse situaiton.  He calls for soft hearts--good intentions and compassion--but with well thought out plans.  

[TechWife]

3 minutes ago, Condessa said:

 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.

The middle class is shrinking at an alarming rate at this point. One of the bigger problems is college debt. The idea of the plan is to make the middle class stronger and to narrow the gap between income. Two years of community college would go a long way toward lessening college debt and build a middle class that could actually have a chance at paying off their student loans and then continue to be contributing, educated members of our society. I think the two years of community college would be a great benefit for our society as a whole as long as academic standards aren’t compromised. 

[Bootsie]

4 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

Well, yeah. I think that’s why percentages and scaling them matters. I don’t think every business (or every person) should be taxed at the same rate. A rate might feel like nothing to one, and be nearly everything to another.

That can be said whether it’s from revenue or profits. I could have a house flipping company and focus on buying $70 houses, putting $10k into them, and selling for $100k while another guy focuses on buying $1M houses, putting $200k into them, and selling for $2M.  Whether you’re taxing profit ($20k vs. $800K) or revenue ($100k vs. $2M) taxing both our ventures at the same rate as one another is going to have drastically different impacts.

(And I shouldn’t have used houses when the ACTUAL real estate taxing situation is also in question, but I already typed it, so too bad, lol.)

I am not seeing exactly how your percentages and scaling would work.  

Suppose person A purchases 20 hourses for $70K, puts $10 K in each of those and sells them for $100K each.  That person has revenue of $2M  (and profit of $400,000).  

Person B purchases the $1m house, puts $200K in it, sells it for $2M.   Person B has revenue of $2M (and a profit of $800,000). 

If you tax based on revenue they both pay the same taxes.  

[Carrie12345]

9 minutes ago, Condessa said:

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.

On those basic principles, I’m definitely with you! Nuances get sticky, because of course they do.

WIth the example of college, the circumstances under which my kids were born were drastically different from current circumstances. Both in costs and household income.  To cripple them because of that seems really, really wrong.

[Carrie12345]

47 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I am not seeing exactly how your percentages and scaling would work.  

Suppose person A purchases 20 hourses for $70K, puts $10 K in each of those and sells them for $100K each.  That person has revenue of $2M  (and profit of $400,000).  

Person B purchases the $1m house, puts $200K in it, sells it for $2M.   Person B has revenue of $2M (and a profit of $800,000). 

If you tax based on revenue they both pay the same taxes.  

But that’s a world where there are no small business and big business.  The Jim the corner grocer having equal revenue to a national chain. Bob’s Gold Chains equal to Tiffany. Franny’s Feathers equal to Perdue.

[Condessa]

1 hour ago, TechWife said:

The middle class is shrinking at an alarming rate at this point. One of the bigger problems is college debt. The idea of the plan is to make the middle class stronger and to narrow the gap between income. Two years of community college would go a long way toward lessening college debt and build a middle class that could actually have a chance at paying off their student loans and then continue to be contributing, educated members of our society. I think the two years of community college would be a great benefit for our society as a whole as long as academic standards aren’t compromised. 

I am skeptical of how helpful two years of community college will be.  Will it have real, significant net value to the majority of those who receive it?  My first inclination to approach this problem is to look at the causes of climbing tuition prices and tackle those, rather than providing an even greater supply of students that don’t necessarily all really need or want a college education to meet their goals.
At the same time, I feel that my opinions on this are not informed enough to know whether my gut reaction is in line with the research or not.

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, Carrie12345 said:

But that’s a world where there are no small business and big business.  The Jim the corner grocer having equal revenue to a national chain. Bob’s Gold Chains equal to Tiffany. Franny’s Feathers equal to Perdue.

No, it is not a world where there are no small and big businesses.  It is a specific example and a question of how those two businesses would be handled.  There could also be big and small businesses and everything in between.  But, a plan would have to have some way to address specifics, and starting with a simple example and thinking through how it would be handled and the implications of it might be a good place to start.

If scaling is the issue if Jim the Grocer has revenue of 100,000 and employees 3 people and a national chain has revenue of 1000 times more but employees 3000 people the big chain is really simply the same as 1000 Jim the Grocers.  

[Frances]

3 hours ago, Bootsie said:

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?  

We would likely need something like the business and occupation gross receipts tax in Washington state which has different rates for different business classifications if we wanted to go after revenue rather than profit. That’s why I don’t think a true flat tax is really feasible for all types of income. You can’t tax business revenue at the same rate as wages or other income or even all businesses at the same rate. And if you want to tax business profit instead, then you have now introduced some complexity to the system and it’s not so simple and straightforward anymore. 

Edited May 3, 2021 by Frances

[KungFuPanda]

7 hours 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. 😉

 

Oh, wow.  Ok.  I'm sorry.  I didn't realize you thought we were discussing you specifically.   I was speaking about women and families in general. I have NOTHING against SAH homeschooling moms.  (I've completed my 19th year of being just that right when the pandemic began.)  It's really really great for you that you have your financial ducks in a row.  You must know that there are people who can't do that on one income because it's not even enough to house and feed themselves, much less fund an IRA.  There are single parents out there who are shouldering all of the family responsibilities themselves.  I recognize that I have been extremely privileged to live the life I have and to be able to homeschool for as long as I did without having to work to pay our bills or provide our health insurance or put our daughter through college .  

My kids are grown.  I don't need preschool.  I can still recognize how it can be beneficial to families who can't afford to have a parent at home AND pay their bills AND educate their children.  I am comfortable sitting here in suburbia with my educated, white collar husband paying the bills and providing all of the insurance we need to be able to sleep at night.  I am still able to see that a lot of things work because women are hustling to make it work and many are being compensated very little or not at all.  It helps everyone if more families can make ends meet and educate their kids.  

If my daughter needs to use a preschool one day, it would be ideal if she didn't go broke trying to pay for it.  I hope she can advance in her career as long as she wants to and provide a comfortable retirement for herself.  Her job is important and benefits society, but she just doesn't make the kind of money her father does and she lives in a HCOL area.  I hope that if she has children she can send them to college without it feeling like she's paying a second mortgage every month. 

So you see, I wasn't attacking you or homeschooling.  I was trying to discuss the American Families Plan and how it can get MORE families to a level of financial comfort that many of us take for granted.  When families live on the edge and are worried about how they're going to feed their kids today they don't always have the money to make long term plans for their financial futures. As parents, seeing to your personal financial security is a much greater service to your children's lives than keeping them out of preschool when they're little. They'll barely remember preschool, but they will experience a great deal of unforgettable stress if their elderly parents can't provide for themselves.  

 

 

[popmom]

1 hour ago, KungFuPanda said:

Oh, wow.  Ok.  I'm sorry.  I didn't realize you thought we were discussing you specifically.   I was speaking about women and families in general. I have NOTHING against SAH homeschooling moms.  (I've completed my 19th year of being just that right when the pandemic began.)  It's really really great for you that you have your financial ducks in a row.  You must know that there are people who can't do that on one income because it's not even enough to house and feed themselves, much less fund an IRA.  There are single parents out there who are shouldering all of the family responsibilities themselves.  I recognize that I have been extremely privileged to live the life I have and to be able to homeschool for as long as I did without having to work to pay our bills or provide our health insurance or put our daughter through college .  

My kids are grown.  I don't need preschool.  I can still recognize how it can be beneficial to families who can't afford to have a parent at home AND pay their bills AND educate their children.  I am comfortable sitting here in suburbia with my educated, white collar husband paying the bills and providing all of the insurance we need to be able to sleep at night.  I am still able to see that a lot of things work because women are hustling to make it work and many are being compensated very little or not at all.  It helps everyone if more families can make ends meet and educate their kids.  

If my daughter needs to use a preschool one day, it would be ideal if she didn't go broke trying to pay for it.  I hope she can advance in her career as long as she wants to and provide a comfortable retirement for herself.  Her job is important and benefits society, but she just doesn't make the kind of money her father does and she lives in a HCOL area.  I hope that if she has children she can send them to college without it feeling like she's paying a second mortgage every month. 

So you see, I wasn't attacking you or homeschooling.  I was trying to discuss the American Families Plan and how it can get MORE families to a level of financial comfort that many of us take for granted.  When families live on the edge and are worried about how they're going to feed their kids today they don't always have the money to make long term plans for their financial futures. As parents, seeing to your personal financial security is a much greater service to your children's lives than keeping them out of preschool when they're little. They'll barely remember preschool, but they will experience a great deal of unforgettable stress if their elderly parents can't provide for themselves.  

 

 

I didn’t feel like you were attacking me personally—I promise. It felt like an attack on the choice to be a sahm, I think???? Or maybe that it’s not okay for a woman to depend on a man financially?? That women who do are foolish? I’m not exactly sure what I was trying to defend. 😂 You don’t owe me an apology at all. I shared my personal experience not because I was so vain as to think it was about me, but to say it’s absolutely possible for a woman to prepare for the future without a career and a matching 401k—to expand on my position that there are inherent risks for women either way (earlier comment). My apologies for misunderstanding your intent. 

Deleted. Never mind. 🙂

I also have a dd in a situation very similar to what you described about your own dd. And I agree with most of your thoughts there. I mean I want the same things—although I’m not sure the American Families Plan is going to solve it. The discussion is interesting, and I hope it’s successful if it passes. 

Glad I’m not one responsible for making these policies. 😅

Edited May 3, 2021 by popmom

[regentrude]

Coming late to the party...

As someone whose home country has free college, subsidized child care, universal health insurance, maternity and sick leave, and is doing well economically,  all I can say is: high time, America. 

[regentrude]

4 hours ago, Condessa said:

I am skeptical of how helpful two years of community college will be.  Will it have real, significant net value to the majority of those who receive it? 

The people who will benefit most will be those who otherwise would be unable to afford any college education. First generation students,  low income families, for whom this is the ticket out of generational poverty.

I see the greatest value in accessibility. I see how incredibly hard some kids have to work to make it through CC without family support. And how many kids think "college is only for others but not for the likes of me because we're poor". I hear that often from nontraditional students who don't attend college until in their 30s/40s because they thought that dream was impossible for them at 18.

I see how different their live trajectories could have been if they had been encouraged to pursue their education they dreamed of after high school. 

[frogger]

39 minutes ago, regentrude said:

Coming late to the party...

As someone whose home country has free college, subsidized child care, universal health insurance, maternity and sick leave, and is doing well economically,  all I can say is: high time, America. 

And tell me, in your home country is it structured like this? Where kids can finally get their high school education but doesn't cover higher level learning found in 4 year schools? And in your original country does everyone go? 

[regentrude]

7 minutes ago, frogger said:

And tell me, in your home country is it structured like this? Where kids can finally get their high school education but doesn't cover higher level learning found in 4 year schools? And in your original country does everyone go? 

Our school system has tracks. College prep high school through 12th grade, or non-college prep where students graduate after 10th grade and complete the compulsory education until 18 through votech/trade school/apprenticeship system.

Students completing the 10 grade school can do a 3 year program to reach the level of college prep (my niece did), so no, a child's destiny is not decided at age 10 as some claim.

But not sure how this is relevant to the discussion since all university is free back home - even med school. So it actually goes much further than just 2 years of CC.

Edited May 3, 2021 by regentrude

[Carrie12345]

8 hours ago, Bootsie said:

No, it is not a world where there are no small and big businesses.  It is a specific example and a question of how those two businesses would be handled.  There could also be big and small businesses and everything in between.  But, a plan would have to have some way to address specifics, and starting with a simple example and thinking through how it would be handled and the implications of it might be a good place to start.

If scaling is the issue if Jim the Grocer has revenue of 100,000 and employees 3 people and a national chain has revenue of 1000 times more but employees 3000 people the big chain is really simply the same as 1000 Jim the Grocers.  

My position, business or person, remains that the real impact is drastically different. Jim taxed X% and BigChainFoods taxed at X% impact sustainability and growth to much different depths. BigChainFoods may be able to continue opening new locations with their Y% remainder, while Jim’s Y% could leave so little he can’t adapt to the ever changing needs of his community. 

Just as if Jill gets taxed 15% on 100,000 and it cuts into her disposable income while Jane gets taxed 15% on 32,100 and leaves her with no disposable income.

And that’s why I’m not on board with flat taxes.

[frogger]

8 hours ago, regentrude said:

Our school system has tracks. College prep high school through 12th grade, or non-college prep where students graduate after 10th grade and complete the compulsory education until 18 through votech/trade school/apprenticeship system.

Students completing the 10 grade school can do a 3 year program to reach the level of college prep (my niece did), so no, a child's destiny is not decided at age 10 as some claim.

But not sure how this is relevant to the discussion since all university is free back home - even med school. So it actually goes much further than just 2 years of CC.

Of course it's relevant. Our system is broken. Not to mention, Germany's debt is closer to 50% gdp rather than over 100%.

Does Germany make sure those with learning disabilities get through college? Does Germany have the immense support staffs? Are older people allowed to go back to change careers? Is that paid for too? 

 

But Americans want that. I want at least the freedom to do go if you can get in. I don't want age restrictions but at some point you can just keep funding going eternally. I don't want kids with learning disabilities shut out of careers they are perfectly capable of because of no supports in some general ed class. At some point though,  you have to decide who or what will restrict funds. 

 

To me we need a major overhaul, but instead we are just going to tack on a room to the top floor of a building without much of a foundation. That foundation would be the primary education of course, the secondary system is even worse making the first floor of the building like a long played Jenga game. We ought to be saying that schools need equal funding but instead rich area codes get a lot more because property taxes are higher but nope, we will just make kids sit in classrooms longer. One can totally be for more equitable funding, support for higher education and still be against this bill. 

 

 

Edited May 3, 2021 by frogger

[Dmmetler]

10 hours ago, regentrude said:

The people who will benefit most will be those who otherwise would be unable to afford any college education. First generation students,  low income families, for whom this is the ticket out of generational poverty.

I see the greatest value in accessibility. I see how incredibly hard some kids have to work to make it through CC without family support. And how many kids think "college is only for others but not for the likes of me because we're poor". I hear that often from nontraditional students who don't attend college until in their 30s/40s because they thought that dream was impossible for them at 18.

I see how different their live trajectories could have been if they had been encouraged to pursue their education they dreamed of after high school. 

Or earlier. One common thing reported by parents on my early college forum is having conversations on campus when we're picking up our kids or waiting for our young student to get out of class because the college was nervous about having a pre-teen on campus alone:

"You're that little kid's mom, right?"

Yes, 

So, did they finish high school or what?

No, they're homeschooled and are taking college classes as part of high school. There's no reason to take classes that aren't the right level just due to age or year of school. 

Wow! I wish I had known I could do that!!!

 

And almost invariably, the story was the same-the individual had done well in elementary and middle school and sometimes early high school, gotten bored, gotten into some trouble, grades plummeted, and either not graduated or barely graduated, got a job, worked, got a GED if they hadn't graduated, and are now back in CC trying to pull things together, with a LOT of obstacles.  

 

I think in many ways the best mentoring and lesson my kid could have gotten was ALL of these adults stating that "You are SO lucky to be able to go to college now when your parents are here to support you and all you have to do is study. Don't take it for granted. "

 

 

[Bootsie]

5 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

My position, business or person, remains that the real impact is drastically different. Jim taxed X% and BigChainFoods taxed at X% impact sustainability and growth to much different depths. BigChainFoods may be able to continue opening new locations with their Y% remainder, while Jim’s Y% could leave so little he can’t adapt to the ever changing needs of his community. 

Just as if Jill gets taxed 15% on 100,000 and it cuts into her disposable income while Jane gets taxed 15% on 32,100 and leaves her with no disposable income.

And that’s why I’m not on board with flat taxes.

But these two situations are not the same.  Jill is one person and Jane is one person.  Just because a business is scaled bigger does not mean that it is making more moeny per employee, per square foot, per owner, or per item sold.  

[Carrie12345]

50 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

But these two situations are not the same.  Jill is one person and Jane is one person.  Just because a business is scaled bigger does not mean that it is making more moeny per employee, per square foot, per owner, or per item sold.  

OMG.  That’s. Why. I. Support. Scale.  Make a bagillion dollars, pay a higher tax rate. Cover you butt and hopefully a little extra for a “treat”, pay a lower tax rate. Give those close to, on, or below the edge the opportunity to continue to reach goals, and quit cutting breaks for people who have the resources to do so already.

[Bootsie]

2 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

OMG.  That’s. Why. I. Support. Scale.  Make a bagillion dollars, pay a higher tax rate. Cover you butt and hopefully a little extra for a “treat”, pay a lower tax rate. Give those close to, on, or below the edge the opportunity to continue to reach goals, and quit cutting breaks for people who have the resources to do so already.

I am really trying to understand what your scale is.  Is it totally based upon the revenue of a company?  (regardless of how many workers are being supported by the revenue or how many items are being sold?)  Or is the scaling revenue per worker?  Or revenue per something else?  

If there are two grocery stores--one with $1,000,000 in revenue and one with $100,000 revenue, would you support the one with the larger revenue, not only having to pay more taxes, but also a higher percentage of the revenue?  Would it matter if the larger grocery store had 10 employees and the smaller one only had one employ?

[frogger]

4 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

OMG.  That’s. Why. I. Support. Scale.  Make a bagillion dollars, pay a higher tax rate. Cover you butt and hopefully a little extra for a “treat”, pay a lower tax rate. Give those close to, on, or below the edge the opportunity to continue to reach goals, and quit cutting breaks for people who have the resources to do so already.

I don't think the logistics work out like you think they do but since you don't appear to be using technical terms I may be misunderstanding you.

Are you are saying to divide up the overall profits by every shareholder and employee etc and tax that the same as the amount one sole proprietor would make? 

[Carrie12345]

2 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I am really trying to understand what your scale is.  Is it totally based upon the revenue of a company?  (regardless of how many workers are being supported by the revenue or how many items are being sold?)  Or is the scaling revenue per worker?  Or revenue per something else?  

If there are two grocery stores--one with $1,000,000 in revenue and one with $100,000 revenue, would you support the one with the larger revenue, not only having to pay more taxes, but also a higher percentage of the revenue?  Would it matter if the larger grocery store had 10 employees and the smaller one only had one employ?

 

1 minute ago, frogger said:

I don't think the logistics work out like you think they do but since you don't appear to be using technical terms I may be misunderstanding you.

Are you are saying to divide up the overall profits by every shareholder and employee etc and tax that the same as the amount one sole proprietor would make? 

Because I’m not a tax accountant and I’m not looking at the books of every possible scenario.  I elect people to work and hire/consult with workers to determine the specifics that best suit the concept.

[frogger]

It honestly makes no sense to tax revenue rather than profit. The business doesn't even get the revenue, a lot of the value goes to the consumer. 

In a very basic example, if my son built custom bikes for sale, bought $400 worth of parts and sold it to a customer for $500 he only gets $100 but you are saying tax him off of the $500. 

There is also a huge difference in fixed costs versus marginal costs. Economic efficiency would require us to optimize the balance of the fixed costs versus the marginal costs. Different business models do this differently. 

[Bootsie]

3 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

 

Because I’m not a tax accountant and I’m not looking at the books of every possible scenario.  I elect people to work and hire/consult with workers to determine the specifics that best suit the concept.

IMO the people that we have elected to do this are not doing a good job. And I don't think the job should be left to tax accountants.  Their job is to account for things under the current tax laws.  It is not their job to make policy. 

I am really having difficulty in this situation of what the "concept" is.  It seems to be "tax people who have gazillions of dollars because they already have a lot, but don't tax those I think should be helped." But where the rubber meets the road some of that has to be defined.  

[Carrie12345]

40 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

IMO the people that we have elected to do this are not doing a good job. And I don't think the job should be left to tax accountants.  Their job is to account for things under the current tax laws.  It is not their job to make policy. 

I am really having difficulty in this situation of what the "concept" is.  It seems to be "tax people who have gazillions of dollars because they already have a lot, but don't tax those I think should be helped." But where the rubber meets the road some of that has to be defined.  

And feed people who need to be fed, but don’t worry about those making $400,000.  Where is the precise cut off? I don’t know. If you think everyone else sucks at doing it, why would I have the magical answer?  And why are you saying I said accountants’ job is to make policy? It’s a complicated enough topic and you seem to be obsessed not only getting me to fix the world, but twisting my words as well.

[Bootsie]

21 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

And feed people who need to be fed, but don’t worry about those making $400,000.  Where is the precise cut off? I don’t know. If you think everyone else sucks at doing it, why would I have the magical answer?  And why are you saying I said accountants’ job is to make policy? It’s a complicated enough topic and you seem to be obsessed not only getting me to fix the world, but twisting my words as well.

I do not expect you to fix the world.  And as far as twisting words, where did I say that you said the bolded?

I do try to engage in meandingful discussions about public policy issues.  I think that as a voter that is important.  I learn a lot from other people's experiences, knowledge, and insight.   Sometimes other posters provide a new point of view, an angle, or a side effect I had not considered.  I hope that occassionally I am able to provide some insight or food for thought for others.  

[LucyStoner]

On 4/29/2021 at 6:10 PM, BlsdMama said:

So I admit we had this conversation today... so the value of an invested and actively engage mother surpasses a daycare or preschool worker, paid too low of a wage,  is incredibly valuable. I don’t understand why so many choose two incomes when it isn’t value added? I think I’m missing something.  Medical insurance?

I think for a lot of people, it's not a choice.  Either it's a situation where there is only 1 parent or a situation where a second income isn't a nice to have, it's a need to have. 

I stayed home due to my sons having special needs and the cost of that has been enormous- in a HCOL area, forgoing a second income for even just 6 years has been the difference between us owning a home vs. not and that's just for starters.  My sons are 17 and 12 now.  We don't live extravagantly and never have (either before I stayed home, during or now).