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.

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

If you need any help, don't. Hesitate to ask.

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

>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.

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*

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?

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*

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

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

"Fuck aliens." © WarriorPoet415

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

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.

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*

**********
"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"

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.

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.

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*

>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.

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*

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.

would definitely like to see some numbers on it

.

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

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.

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.
>

>
>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.

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