Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend
Lobby General Discussion topic #13423118

Subject: "What do you think of Romney's Plan to give parents up to $15k/Year" Previous topic | Next topic
mista k5
Member since Feb 01st 2006
13879 posts
Fri Feb-05-21 05:30 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
"What do you think of Romney's Plan to give parents up to $15k/Year"


  

          

Seems to be getting universal praise with little criticism. I'm not on Twitter so I'm probably not aware of some takes on it.

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

Romney’s plan would replace the child tax credit, currently worth up to $2,000 per child and restricted to parents with substantial income (it doesn’t fully kick in until you reach an income of over $11,000), with a flat monthly allowance paid out to all parents:

Parents of kids ages 0 to 5 would get $350 per month, or $4,200 a year
Parents of kids ages 6 to 17 would get $250 per month, or $3,000 a year
Parents with multiple kids could get a maximum of $1,250 per month or $15,000 a year; that translates to five kids between the ages of 6 and 17. Very large families would be somewhat penalized, but many families with three or four kids will get the full benefit.

Just like the current child tax credit, Romney’s proposal would phase out for wealthy parents — the benefits begin phasing out for single filers with $200,000 and joint filers with $400,000 in annual income. But the phaseout would be implemented on the back end, through the tax code — even the richest parents would still get their $250-$350 per-kid checks in the mail every month; they’d just return the money on April 15. That helps ensure the benefit is truly available to all eligible people and not delayed due to concerns of “overpayment.”

The short answer is the pay-fors. Romney’s plan is deficit-neutral at least through 2025 (when many Trump tax breaks expire, making analysis beyond that year tough), and to do that he pairs his remarkably generous child allowance plan with some cuts to other tax breaks and spending programs.

Romney’s proposal would eliminate:

Head-of-household filing status, which gives income tax breaks to some single parents and caregivers)
The child and dependent care tax credit, which offers tax breaks for parents paying for child care services so they can work
The temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) welfare program, which replaced traditional “cash welfare” after the 1996 welfare reforms and is run as a state block grant
The state and local tax deduction (SALT) in the income tax, which critics decry as regressive but also provides a subsidy for blue states with high income and property taxes
Romney would also replace the earned income tax credit (EITC), which currently offers more benefits to families with more kids, with a flat credit worth up to $1,000 per working adult, with no child-related component. The EITC for adult dependents, however, would be unchanged.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top


Topic Outline
Subject Author Message Date ID
i think they do something like that in Germany
Feb 05th 2021
1
Fuck that dude and his broodmare
Feb 06th 2021
2
I agree with a lot of this
Feb 06th 2021
3
why does every plan have to help all people or its bashed?
Feb 15th 2021
6
      Re: Tuition. Doesn't have to help all. Just don't help wealthy dispropor...
Feb 15th 2021
10
           no, I wasnt a fan of the tax cuts..
Feb 15th 2021
12
                No the problem was that they *did* work as intended lol.
Feb 15th 2021
19
                     true
Feb 15th 2021
23
As someone with two kids and paying for childcare, I support it
Feb 06th 2021
4
We are almost out of the weeds with daycare
Feb 15th 2021
7
Republicans are marketing geniuses cuz how is this Mitt Romney's Plan!?!...
Feb 14th 2021
5
hes not the first to propose the benifits
Feb 15th 2021
11
Are there any obligations on the parents end?
Feb 15th 2021
8
ehh.. next thing you know you child belongs to the state
Feb 15th 2021
9
      Not at all. It's already a helping hand from the govt
Feb 15th 2021
13
           if its directly to daycare how does that help with bad parenting?
Feb 15th 2021
16
He wants to eliminate welfare/TANF (among other programs) to pay for it.
Feb 15th 2021
14
yeah thats the yangs ubi part that has me squinting
Feb 15th 2021
15
      dbl post
Feb 15th 2021
      It's nothing like Yang's UBI plan lol, what are you talking abt.
Feb 15th 2021
17
           somewhat in jest
Feb 15th 2021
18
                Yang's UBI proposal didn't *take away* any existing benefits tho lol
Feb 15th 2021
20
                     Yang's is Republican lite with better marketing
Feb 15th 2021
21
                          Lol I already know you only fuck with pure universal
Feb 15th 2021
22

luminous
Charter member
11640 posts
Fri Feb-05-21 06:04 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
1. "i think they do something like that in Germany"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

--
Sometimes you have to look reality in the face and say 'No!'
-Ben (Reaper)

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

handle
Charter member
17127 posts
Sat Feb-06-21 11:54 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
2. "Fuck that dude and his broodmare"
In response to Reply # 0
Sat Feb-06-21 12:02 PM by handle

          

He wants to pay people with kids to help - but he doesn't want to help ANYONE else.

Put in some basic social safety nets for EVERYONE first - that'll help people with children and people without.

Medicare for all. Paid sick leave. Raise the minimum wage. Head-start. Universal dental care.

Dude's religion says to have a LOT of kids (and a lot of wives) so he can imagine helping folks in this way. He lacks imagination to actually help all folks.

I bet he thinks that a lot of folks will use the money for private religious schooling for their kids.


Yes, I don't have kids.

------------


Gone: My Discogs collection for The Roots:
http://www.discogs.com/user/tomhayes-roots/collection

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Mgmt
Member since Feb 17th 2005
21363 posts
Sat Feb-06-21 12:59 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
3. "I agree with a lot of this"
In response to Reply # 2


  

          

>He wants to pay people with kids to help - but he doesn't
>want to help ANYONE else.
>
>Put in some basic social safety nets for EVERYONE first -
>that'll help people with children and people without.
>
>Medicare for all. Paid sick leave. Raise the minimum wage.
>Head-start. Universal dental care.
>
>Dude's religion says to have a LOT of kids (and a lot of
>wives) so he can imagine helping folks in this way. He lacks
>imagination to actually help all folks.
>
>I bet he thinks that a lot of folks will use the money for
>private religious schooling for their kids.
>
>
>Yes, I don't have kids.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
legsdiamond
Member since May 05th 2011
69182 posts
Mon Feb-15-21 09:00 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
6. "why does every plan have to help all people or its bashed? "
In response to Reply # 2


          

I see it with college tuition

I see it with free tuition

I see it with childcare plans

I see it with low income plans or tax free plans for people below a certain income level


someone is always going to be left out of a plan.. there is no one side fits all.

not saying I agree with Romneys plan (don’t know enough about it) but every time there is a plan someone says its shit because it doesn’t help this group or that group.

there can be more than one plan tho right?

I’m getting a “white lives matter too” vibe from some of the criticism with a plan that doesn’t include them or a group they pick at random to bash the idea.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
PimpTrickGangstaClik
Member since Oct 06th 2005
15219 posts
Mon Feb-15-21 10:26 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
10. "Re: Tuition. Doesn't have to help all. Just don't help wealthy dispropor..."
In response to Reply # 6


  

          

Were you okay with the last tax cuts giving the poorer folks (on average) an additional $200 per year (.7% increase in take home income) and the richer folks an additional $6000 per year (a 2% increase in take home pay)?


Why are you okay with the poorer folks getting crumbs while richer folks get whole slices of cake?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
legsdiamond
Member since May 05th 2011
69182 posts
Mon Feb-15-21 10:38 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
12. "no, I wasnt a fan of the tax cuts.. "
In response to Reply # 10
Mon Feb-15-21 10:44 AM by legsdiamond

          

and thats mainly because we know they dont work as intended.

but I’m also not opposed to plans that just help the poor.



****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
Brew
Member since Nov 23rd 2002
20938 posts
Mon Feb-15-21 12:55 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
19. "No the problem was that they *did* work as intended lol."
In response to Reply # 12


          

>and thats mainly because we know they dont work as intended.

----------------------------------------

"Fuck aliens." © WarriorPoet415

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
legsdiamond
Member since May 05th 2011
69182 posts
Mon Feb-15-21 03:06 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
23. "true"
In response to Reply # 19


          

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

calij81
Member since Jan 17th 2007
12392 posts
Sat Feb-06-21 01:08 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
4. "As someone with two kids and paying for childcare, I support it"
In response to Reply # 0


          

It isn’t perfect but it is a good start and would provide some immediate assistance to families, especially poorer families.

Get this done and then go after raising the minimum wage to further help the working poor and those with and without kids.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
legsdiamond
Member since May 05th 2011
69182 posts
Mon Feb-15-21 09:05 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
7. "We are almost out of the weeds with daycare"
In response to Reply # 4


          

so I guess I should scream “we paid, why can’t you?”


thank goodness I don’t think like that.. lol

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Buddy_Gilapagos
Charter member
45887 posts
Sun Feb-14-21 04:48 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
5. "Republicans are marketing geniuses cuz how is this Mitt Romney's Plan!?!..."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
mista k5
Member since Feb 01st 2006
13879 posts
Mon Feb-15-21 10:36 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
11. "hes not the first to propose the benifits"
In response to Reply # 5


  

          

if anything just the way he intends to pay for it. at the time it was the proposal that seemed like it could be a possibility as part of the reconciliation bill theyre doing for the stimulus. supposedly dems are putting their own version in there. dont know how it will differ from bidens but sounds like it would also be temporary opposed to what romney is proposing. dont know if romneys is even on the table anymore.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

micMajestic
Charter member
22892 posts
Mon Feb-15-21 09:29 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
8. "Are there any obligations on the parents end?"
In response to Reply # 0


          

How about the money go into some sort of childcare or educational fund for the families instead?

Giving everyone who has a child extra cash doesn't automatically improve the quality of life of the children.

And yes, I am a parent.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
legsdiamond
Member since May 05th 2011
69182 posts
Mon Feb-15-21 10:10 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
9. "ehh.. next thing you know you child belongs to the state"
In response to Reply # 8


          

not sure this is a good idea.

sure, some parents will ball out and still be irresponsible with finances but I think financial stress plays a big part in emotional well being.

I’ve seen first hand how being broke and stressed ruins households.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
micMajestic
Charter member
22892 posts
Mon Feb-15-21 10:52 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
13. "Not at all. It's already a helping hand from the govt"
In response to Reply # 9


          

>not sure this is a good idea.
>
>sure, some parents will ball out and still be irresponsible
>with finances but I think financial stress plays a big part
>in emotional well being.
>
>I’ve seen first hand how being broke and stressed ruins
>households.

I say either directly to childcare or a choice of a savings account or investment portfolio similar to a 401k that can be spent on education.

You may think the average American holds themselves to the parenting standards that the people in your social group do. I don't. Giving folks more money for having kids without any proof of active parenting isn't going to help make our country a better place.











  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
legsdiamond
Member since May 05th 2011
69182 posts
Mon Feb-15-21 11:20 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
16. "if its directly to daycare how does that help with bad parenting? "
In response to Reply # 13


          

unless you think parents which pocket the money and also not send their kids to daycare.

which would indeed be terrible.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

kfine
Member since Jan 11th 2009
1862 posts
Mon Feb-15-21 11:08 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
14. "He wants to eliminate welfare/TANF (among other programs) to pay for it."
In response to Reply # 0
Mon Feb-15-21 11:10 AM by kfine

          

Idk... looks like your typical garden-variety sus repub-lite-ness to me honestly lol

It'd be interesting to see some numbers crunched on how the tradeoffs would really shake out for people, especially lower-income families.

But so far, not really impressed *shrug*


>to do that he pairs his remarkably generous child allowance plan
>with some cuts to other tax breaks and spending programs.
>

>Romney’s proposal would eliminate:
>

>Head-of-household filing status, which gives income tax breaks
>to some single parents and caregivers)

>The child and dependent care tax credit, which offers tax
>breaks for parents paying for child care services so they can
>work

>The temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) welfare
>program, which replaced traditional “cash welfare” after
>the 1996 welfare reforms and is run as a state block grant

>The state and local tax deduction (SALT) in the income tax,
>which critics decry as regressive but also provides a subsidy
>for blue states with high income and property taxes

>Romney would also replace the earned income tax credit (EITC),
>which currently offers more benefits to families with more
>kids, with a flat credit worth up to $1,000 per working adult,
>with no child-related component. The EITC for adult
>dependents, however, would be unchanged.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
mista k5
Member since Feb 01st 2006
13879 posts
Mon Feb-15-21 11:14 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
15. "yeah thats the yangs ubi part that has me squinting"
In response to Reply # 14


  

          

would definitely like to see some numbers on it

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
kfine
Member since Jan 11th 2009
1862 posts
Mon Feb-15-21 12:22 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
"dbl post"
Mon Feb-15-21 12:23 PM by kfine

          

.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
kfine
Member since Jan 11th 2009
1862 posts
Mon Feb-15-21 12:22 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
17. "It's nothing like Yang's UBI plan lol, what are you talking abt."
In response to Reply # 15
Mon Feb-15-21 12:29 PM by kfine

          

Yang proposed increasing taxes on corporations and high-earners, capital gains, and introducing a carbon tax to make 1000USD per mth/12000USD per yr available to all Americans 18+ over regardless of parental status.

Romney's explicitly proposing the *ELIMINATION* of welfare/TANF, the EITC, and multiple other benefits to pay for a benefit ranging from 250USD/mth to 1250/mth available to *parents only*.

I remember you saying you wish there was a way for wealthy people to opt out of Yang's UBI, which I conceded was a fair point, and I'm sure you like Romney's suggestion that wealthy parents who don't need their checks can just *return* their money to the gov by tax day (tho personally, I don't think as many wealthy people would do this as ppl think lol). But if you're talking abt the choice thing you guys hate i.e. Yang's suggestion that folks currently on TANF etc *choose* whether they want to stay on it or go on UBI, that is categorically different than Romney dismantling such programs for funds to pay for his benefit.

Nah. One proposal targets the most capitalized coroporations on the planet (eg. big tech, financial transactions) and high-earners for *new sources of revenue* to pay for it's benefit, the other proposal *redirects funds* from current welfare programs and tax credits for revenue with the explicit aim of cancelling them. Saving programs money isn't the same as eliminating them. Romney's plan is the actual plan you guys (mistakenly) thought Yang's plan was lol come on

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
mista k5
Member since Feb 01st 2006
13879 posts
Mon Feb-15-21 12:48 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
18. "somewhat in jest"
In response to Reply # 17


  

          

but yeah i just meant that both are providing benefits which on their face are good. they both are also taking away existing benefits as part of the plan. in both scenarios i have to doubt why its necessary to do so.

you are right that at least yang was also looking to increase taxes on corporations and high-earners. this was part of my initial reaction to romneys plan, why dont dems counter with doing the same instead of taking away benefits.

as far the wealthy getting the benefit, i guess thats valid. yes i like that in romneys proposal there is a mechanism in place to tax the payout. as you point out, it would be foolish to assume many of them wouldnt find a loophole to avoid paying it back.

your last point is very good. i think the criticisms for yangs plan (regarding taking away benefits) for ubi apply tenfold here.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
kfine
Member since Jan 11th 2009
1862 posts
Mon Feb-15-21 01:08 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
20. "Yang's UBI proposal didn't *take away* any existing benefits tho lol"
In response to Reply # 18
Mon Feb-15-21 01:09 PM by kfine

          


At all.

Ppl could *elect* to either stay on their existing gov assistance or go on UBI. That is a fundamentally different scenario than being booted off assistance.

And similarly, if a sizeable number of beneficiaries opted for UBI instead bc it would be more generous, or strategically went back and forth depending on one's circumstances, yes that would save those assistance programs money... but that is not the same as them being eliminated.

I don't think this is a case of the Yang proposal criticism also applying to Romney's proposal. I think okp incorrectly applies that gutting-social-services/taking-away-benefits criticism to Yang's proposal, but it definitely applies to Romney's proposal.



>but yeah i just meant that both are providing benefits which
>on their face are good. they both are also taking away
>existing benefits as part of the plan. in both scenarios i
>have to doubt why its necessary to do so.
>

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
Stadiq
Member since Dec 21st 2005
4150 posts
Mon Feb-15-21 01:19 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
21. "Yang's is Republican lite with better marketing "
In response to Reply # 20


          


>
>Ppl could *elect* to either stay on their existing gov
>assistance or go on UBI. That is a fundamentally different
>scenario than being booted off assistance.

Different? Yes. Still shitty though.


No one is confused that Yang would eliminate programs. But making people choose is some bootstrap horse shit.


Just give UBI to everyone.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
kfine
Member since Jan 11th 2009
1862 posts
Mon Feb-15-21 02:13 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
22. "Lol I already know you only fuck with pure universal"
In response to Reply # 21
Mon Feb-15-21 02:18 PM by kfine

          

and I don't disagree that would (also, imo) be a good scenario. We've argued on that plenty.

I think that's a different issue than what Mistak5 and I are talkibg about tho.

And I think Romney's plan is the Repub-lite proposal of the three tbh, since he's proposing an alternative benefit to go with his safety net cuts. The true Repub position would be to just cut/boot ppl off on principle eg. https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/presidents-2021-budget-would-cut-food-assistance-for-millions-and-radically , https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/16/trump-budget-wic-women-infants-children-nutrition

In contrast, Yang never proposed or even advocated for cuts to social services, and sought to redistribute funds from corporations and high-earners to make a cash benefit available to all Americans 18+. Which is not only the complete opposite of typical Repub orthodoxy, but by all objective measures progressive lol eg. https://medium.com/ubicenter/distributional-analysis-of-andrew-yangs-freedom-dividend-d8dab818bf1b

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Lobby General Discussion topic #13423118 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.25
Copyright © DCScripts.com