Dubious legislation <---- Not Political

Knight

Knight

Well-known Member
Part of an article.
End Child Poverty Act Could Be An Alternative
In addition, Omar, along with Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), and Jesús García (D-Ill.), re-introduced the End Child Poverty Act, which would replace the CTC and the child provisions in the earned income tax credit (EITC) with a Universal Child Benefit, according to a statement.

The three lawmakers said in an April 6 announcement that on the federal level, this program would be universal and include no income phase-ins or phase-outs.

Children would be automatically enrolled at birth, and every family would receive a monthly payment — distributed by the Social Security Administration — for every child they are currently caring for up until the age of 18.


https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/stimulus-proposal-could-americans-monthly-163115730.html

Is this legislation proposal is a good idea?
 

It's not going to happen. Not even come close. It's mostly a symbolic gesture. In the old days it would have been buried in a one inch bit on page 8 of a newspaper.
 
Alligatorob said:
Doesn't Canada already have something like this?
Click to expand...
Yes we do. It is called the "Child benefit payment program ". Monthly payments for kids under age 12, a different amount for teens up to age 18, paid to the Mother. In some Aboriginal families, with 5 or 6 kids, this tax free amount can be upwards of 3 or 4 thousand dollars per month, all year long. Imagine if you got 50K a year of free money, with no strings attached about how you spent it ? The Aboriginal slogan is "Stay home, stay pregnant, be happy ". The Aboriginal sector of the Canadian population ( which is about 5 percent of the 40 million people in Canada ) have the largest number of kids on any group in Canada. JimB.
 
We do have tax exemptions for families with kids, so there is already a provision for kids. I think the question is whether it is necessary and affordable. I can't answer those questions, and I don't know who can. I think it's mostly a matter of whether people approve or don't approve.
 
we have program after program........ and yet the children in poverty numbers grow.... hum
not just a population increase but a reality people either do not want to see or pretend is not happening.... fraud

my son in law's brother never married the mom of his kids................. and she is on every program possible is perfectly capable to work....... but why bother...
he works and claims these child tax credits on any taxes he pays ..........and she lives off the taxpayers ........ the state at one time went after dads etc to get money for support that has not been happening in this case ....

Add up his income and her ' benefits" they do better then you might expect.

"child poverty" is a phrase i find interesting and misleading other then trust fund babies aren't most children without resources ?

it is NOT little john or jane getting a check or deposit ....... it is Mom or dad .... or as was in tidbits of proposed law ... guardians or caregivers .....

do you see the same thing as the foster system? ....... more kids more money....
no accountability the money is spent on child at all. so when kids lives are not improved maybe we should give the parents a raise..
 
Knight said:
Part of an article.
End Child Poverty Act Could Be An Alternative
In addition, Omar, along with Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), and Jesús García (D-Ill.), re-introduced the End Child Poverty Act, which would replace the CTC and the child provisions in the earned income tax credit (EITC) with a Universal Child Benefit, according to a statement.

The three lawmakers said in an April 6 announcement that on the federal level, this program would be universal and include no income phase-ins or phase-outs.

Children would be automatically enrolled at birth, and every family would receive a monthly payment — distributed by the Social Security Administration — for every child they are currently caring for up until the age of 18.


https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/stimulus-proposal-could-americans-monthly-163115730.html

Is this legislation proposal is a good idea?
Click to expand...
Nope nope nope. We already have a generation of entitled brats. I worked and budgeted my money so my kid could have the things they needed. Families today are so messed up. Sky high divorce and single parent families that just dooms people to poverty unless you have a great paying job. Let's get back to solid traditional families. Statistically, these are the most stable and children don't fall into poverty as much. I grew up poor with a traditional family. My parents struggled, never took welfare, but through sensible budgeting, we had food, clothes and a roof over our head, even if it did leak sometimes.
 
Nathan said:
In my mind the key to ending child poverty is to end adult poverty. Education, full employment, decent wages.
Click to expand...
Exactly! But can't elaborate on why without getting political. Much less discuss the affordability for taxpayers without getting political.

However, i will get near the edge by saying that your suggestion is easily affordable for corporations. Part of why they don't like raising wages is that increases employers' contributions to withholding taxes and they seem to think they should tax exempt like churches tho they use public roads, contribute to
noise, air, and water pollution all of which can contribute to health issues of rest of us.

Capitalism does not have to be as predatory, malignant as it is in America. Unfortunately our economic system has allowed corporations way too much power over many of our politicians ($ power) which makes those legislators more responsive to the wants of CEOs then the needs of majority of regular citizens. It is short sighted for the corporations as well as the country.

Let me know, @Matrix if i've crossed the line and delete this post if you need too. But the greed of large corporations are huge part of reason child poverty still exists in America while we claim to be such a rich country. They don't bwant to pay their share.
 
feywon said:
Exactly! But can't elaborate on why without getting political. Much less discuss the affordability for taxpayers without getting political.

However, i will get near the edge by saying that your suggestion is easily affordable for corporations. Part of why they don't like raising wages is that increases employers' contributions to withholding taxes and they seem to think they should tax exempt like churches tho they use public roads, contribute to
noise, air, and water pollution all of which can contribute to health issues of rest of us.

Capitalism does not have to be as predatory, malignant as it is in America. Unfortunately our economic system has allowed corporations way too much power over many of our politicians ($ power) which makes those legislators more responsive to the wants of CEOs then the needs of majority of regular citizens. It is short sighted for the corporations as well as the country.

Let me know, @Matrix if i've crossed the line and delete this post if you need too. But the greed of large corporations are huge part of reason child poverty still exists in America while we claim to be such a rich country. They don't bwant to pay their share.
Click to expand...
Boy you are spot on. I don't care what your political colors are, we can all agree on this.
 
Nathan said:
In my mind the key to ending child poverty is to end adult poverty. Education, full employment, decent wages.
Click to expand...
Yes, 100%.

But also, not many businesses are giving their employees 40-hr weeks anymore.

My sister is nearly 50, her kids are all over 18, and she's employed, but full-time employment today is only 30 hours. And you have to work for a while before you get "full time" hours, if you can get them at all. Bonnie moved in with me and Michelle early this year because, after taking a job that paid more per hour, she had to wait 3-6 months to get 30-hrs/wk, and she got way behind on her rent.

Ok, she's an unskilled female and nearly 50 who entered the work-force only about 8 yrs ago, after her husband died. Unskilled males and females aged 18 to 35 can get free training in the allied medical field, construction, welding and plumbing, IT - you name it - and every young adult and every teenager who isn't planning to attend college should be told about these opportunities and encouraged to take advantage, and all of it should be free. Social Services and EDD should partner fully with these job training programs. (EDD did up until the early 90s)

But if businesses and corporations actually can't afford to give their employees at least 35-40 hours/wk, then something's wrong there, too. Everyone I know who entered the work-force after around 2012 is working no more than 20 to 28 hours per week and getting bare-bones benefits.
 
Murrmurr said:
Yes, 100%.

But also, not many businesses are giving their employees 40-hr weeks anymore.

My sister is nearly 50, her kids are all over 18, and she's employed, but full-time employment today is only 30 hours. And you have to work for a while before you get "full time" hours, if you can get them at all. Bonnie moved in with me and Michelle early this year because, after taking a job that paid more per hour, she had to wait 3-6 months to get 30-hrs/wk, and she got way behind on her rent.

Ok, she's an unskilled female and nearly 50 who entered the work-force only about 8 yrs ago, after her husband died. Unskilled males and females aged 18 to 35 can get free training in the allied medical field, construction, welding and plumbing, IT - you name it - and every young adult and every teenager who isn't planning to attend college should be told about these opportunities and encouraged to take advantage, and all of it should be free. Social Services and EDD should partner fully with these job training programs. (EDD did up until the early 90s)

But if businesses and corporations actually can't afford to give their employees at leastI dudpec 35-40 hours/wk, then something's wrong there, too. Everyone I know who entered the work-force after around 2012 is working no more than 20 to 28 hours per week and getting bare-bones benefits.
Click to expand...
i suspect for some employers the 30 hrs a week has more to do with not having to grant 15 minute breaks and offer benefits. Plus they have 10 hours a week they can have employee work before having. to pay overtime. And they can leverage people who want a 40 hr week to do so regularly without benefits and OT by reminding them they want 40 hr week.

Think about it unless most businesses these days are open 12- 18 hrs and some 24/7. They have pay to pay to cover those hrs, but more employees at 30 or under hrs weekly saves them $$ other ways especially now whre even small businesses can afford payroll software.
So it doesn't require paying someone for the hours or days figuring it all out. A job i used for company of 30 people back in late 1960s, i did other bookkeeping work on other days because that was more cost effective for them than paying an individual accountant or firm to just.do payroll.
 
Knight said:
Part of an article.
End Child Poverty Act Could Be An Alternative
In addition, Omar, along with Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), and Jesús García (D-Ill.), re-introduced the End Child Poverty Act, which would replace the CTC and the child provisions in the earned income tax credit (EITC) with a Universal Child Benefit, according to a statement.

The three lawmakers said in an April 6 announcement that on the federal level, this program would be universal and include no income phase-ins or phase-outs.

Children would be automatically enrolled at birth, and every family would receive a monthly payment — distributed by the Social Security Administration — for every child they are currently caring for up until the age of 18.


https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/stimulus-proposal-could-americans-monthly-163115730.html

Is this legislation proposal is a good idea?
Click to expand...
We need to fully fund and protect Social Security. My feeling is if you have a child you should be able to support them yourself. I have one child because that is what I could afford. I did not keep having more and more and expect someone else, the taxpayer to pay for it. Live within your means.
You don't pay people to have babies, how ridiculous. Instead, let's make birth control completely free for everyone.
 
Last edited:
Murrmurr said:
But if businesses and corporations actually can't afford to give their employees at least 35-40 hours/wk, then something's wrong there, too. Everyone I know who entered the work-force after around 2012 is working no more than 20 to 28 hours per week and getting bare-bones benefits.
Click to expand...
Yup
Had to work three parttime jobs to keep a roof over my young family's heads
No handouts
Work is out there
Parttime only? Get two or three of those

Tough times?
Get tough
 
Yeah. If there is nowhere to put a handout program, Social Security gets the call. No friggen wonder the system is broke.

Like Gary O' above, I was working a full-time job plus two part-time jobs in the 1970s. Oh, and yeah, re-roofing the house at the same time. So, when I read about all these crybabies that 'no-can-do', I don't have much sympathy.
 
feywon said:
i suspect for some employers the 30 hrs a week has more to do with not having to grant 15 minute breaks and offer benefits. Plus they have 10 hours a week they can have employee work before having. to pay overtime. And they can leverage people who want a 40 hr week to do so regularly without benefits and OT by reminding them they want 40 hr week.

Think about it unless most businesses these days are open 12- 18 hrs and some 24/7. They have pay to pay to cover those hrs, but more employees at 30 or under hrs weekly saves them $$ other ways especially now whre even small businesses can afford payroll software.
So it doesn't require paying someone for the hours or days figuring it all out. A job i used for company of 30 people back in late 1960s, i did other bookkeeping work on other days because that was more cost effective for them than paying an individual accountant or firm to just.do payroll.
Click to expand...
I don't think 15-minute breaks is the issue. Two-week vacations, maybe....for some.

Major employers have been hit with major changes in how they're taxed and what is taxed, and they've had to increase dividend and benefit offers to seduce investors, with a need for more investors to satisfy both parties. And the number of employees that classifies an employer as "major" keeps getting smaller as well. The IRS used to primarily focus on companies with 500 or more on the payroll. Now it's something like 50.

IOW, taxes for a business employing 50 is as complex as one employing 500. (note I'm saying "as complex" not "as much")

If all your employees work under 30 hours, doing your business taxes, just the paperwork alone, gets a whole lot simpler. A whole lot. Small businesses with a couple dozen employees can't do it themselves anymore; they have to pay an agency just to help them meet their obligations to the IRS, FICA, the state, an insurance company, etc. etc.

This effects business growth and starting up a new business. And that's a problem.
 
Sadly, a lot of able bodied people aren't willing to work even though there are jobs out there. There is no incentive for them to get a job when they are handed things for nothing. Using children as an excuse to give them more money isn't right. The kids sure aren't getting the money spent on them. Then this cycle repeats itself in the next generation.

Maybe it's time that if you want welfare, food stamps or what ever sources your non-working a$$ is getting money from, you should have to report to an office where you are sent to where work needs to be done. Everyone is capable of doing some type of work. In turn, you are given money for your work. They did a program like this during the depression for the unemployed. Why aren't we doing it again?

Social Security shouldn't be used to fund anyone who didn't put into it themselves by working.

Just my thoughts...
 
I don't feel like parents who have a lot of income should get money for each child, but I think it would be great if parents with financial need got a credit toward daycare. I think younger women would have children if daycare were more affordable or even if it was an interest free loan that they could pay back later when their income is higher. When I was doing foster care I was paying $1000 a month for daycare and even when the kid wasn't little they still needed to be in full time child care at the same price during summer months when school was out. And the foster care system (at least in the Colorado county I lived in at the time) did NOT pay for it.

Our birthrate is down, but I don't know how much it is due to the expense. In my late twenties I would have loved to have a kid even though I wasn't married (and I was going to singles things all the time but sadly did not find love) but there just was no financial way to be off work for a while and then try to afford day care. The most promising child-bearing time of life coincides with low income. Retrospectively I think if there were programs that funded being off work for a few months and then daycare, even if I had to pay them back like student loans later on, it would have been perfect.

The world has changed and I do think we need to find ways for young people to have children even if the traditional family timing and structure is not working out for everyone now.
 
Murrmurr said:
.

But also, not many businesses are giving their employees 40-hr weeks anymore.

But if businesses and corporations actually can't afford to give their employees at least 35-40 hours/wk, then something's wrong there, too. Everyone I know who entered the work-force after around 2012 is working no more than 20 to 28 hours per week and getting bare-bones benefits.
Click to expand...
Here is the answer for all those who wonder why so many places are hiring......
people are changing jobs regularly.( grass is greener) ...... hoping to get better hours either amount of hours or schedule considerations.

looks good until you look close...... new jobs created as people are always boasting about .................but if they are part time unskilled not an improvement ........ imagine a business with 120 hours to use .... per week 3 full time or 4-5 part time...... maybe tax breaks if employ over x amount and under certain amount of hours person may only qualify for some benefits and not others

the new jobs are calculated by new payroll ....... with constant turnover you get a lot more "new" on payroll stats even if it was just trading one part time for the next one or is a second job etc....

hard to work other jobs when the place tells you they could call you in or if you take a late shift not set hours to find another job to work around....
people fell for this all the time in retail and sooner or later figured it was bait and switch and left.
Always hiring is not a sign of busy but perhaps more a sign of bad employer
 
Gary O' said:
Yup
Had to work three parttime jobs to keep a roof over my young family's heads
No handouts
Work is out there
Parttime only? Get two or three of those

Tough times?
Get tough
Click to expand...
Just taking a guess, I bet 50% of all unemployed people don't want to work. And they'll take all the benefits they're eligible for, and some they aren't.

I forget when that federal farmers program started that cut a $50,000 check to anyone who claimed they were unable to be a farmer due to discrimination (mainly racial). Suddenly, there were thousands and thousands of farmers in America who couldn't farm due to discrimination....by the Dept of Agriculture and affiliate agencies, I suppose.

Making matters worse, the criteria was downgraded to include anyone who "attempted to farm." Whatever in the hell that means. You didn't even have to own a farm, or any property at all.

So, a bunch of people got $50,000 for not being a farmer, and attorneys who did the paperwork raked in millions.

I wish I could remember more about that program. And for all I know, it's still active.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top