But it could be made permanent whereas Biden's can't
Edit: Actually, I think it is just permanent? Last bulletin:
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Mitt Romney (!) unveils Family Security Act, plan to give parents up to $350 per month
- Thread starter Uncle at Nintendo
- Start date
Edit: Actually, I think it is just permanent? Last bulletin:
I'm fine if we get rid of the SALT deduction or phase it out with higher incomes, but killing TANF and Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit ain't the way to pay for this if the problem really is that families don't have enough.
I mean, Biden's can but it would require more paygo offset in another reconciliation. That being said I don't think that cutting a tax adjustment that is specifically beneficial to blue states with higher taxes is gonna be an easy sell to Senators from those states. Among the other things. Like, you're asking for welfare cuts for this.
Romney is an opportunist, so how does this benefit him, his wealthy donors/constituents, and who does it harm the most long term?
reapportioned program for the poor and spreads them out to everyone. Who has kids.
He gets to look like the $300/month per child was his idea, he gets to rid of a welfare program and SAALT taxes that benefit dem states disproportionately and since he does that, he gets to be upset that the dems didn't take him up on his generous offer.
A policy that massively, disproportionately benefits the rich is not worth saving.
I agree they could do it better, but to say that SALT only benefits the rich is disingenuous. If you have a married couple and each of them are making $28/hour, the household is earning $120,000/year. They are going to be in the 2nd column on your chart. I wouldn't consider them rich especially in certain areas of the country where $20k/year property taxes is not uncommon. If you're making between $120k per year as a household, you're spending $20k on property taxes, $7.5k on state taxes, and $33k on federal taxes alone.
Better but still feels like a Trojan horse to kill good benefit programs
It can be permanent in the same way ACA is and we all know how close that came to be killed.
Basically it's a nonstarter +$50 per month on the dem proposal disguised as good policy.
I'm fine with stopping the tax credit if more money comes. We need to stop doing aid through the tax code. Just fucking give people money. Too many people that need help don't file taxes or can't figure out how to access this money
I would need to see how the net effects stack up from the cbo, but just in a vacuum this is a serious improvement because doing family support through the tax code is clunky and slow.
I understand the fear here, but getting rid of badly designed programs (which TANF and the CTC absolutely are) and replacing them with more universal, more accessible programs is a good tradeoff. Lots of people (especially poorer people) don't collect the benefits they're owed from tax credits because they're so bureaucratic and inaccessible. (Only 78% of people get what they're eligible for from the EITC! https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2021/01/14/now-is-the-time-for-an-american-child-benefit/)
Any program can be killed off, what makes the CTC and TANF bulletproof?
Do we know when this is possibly going to possibly kick in?
The only major difference is Romney's plan is permanent while the dem's proposal was temporary
Improve those programs then.
Optics makes it harder though not bulletproof as nothing really is. This proposal is to get Dems to kill CTC and TANF so Republicans can get the dual benefit of having those programs killed and throw the blame mainly on Dems.
How about we replace it with an actually progressive program rather than keeping it because it very slightly helps some poorer people in addition to massively benefiting the rich?
There's so many rich people crap benefits and shit they could get the money from.
It's permanent because it gets rid of welfare, SALT and other child money.
Yea ultimately it would be end up much worse if Romney is killing other benefits.
True, the other plans should absolutely go away (besides SALT) then we can go to a normal UBI system instead of all the other random stuff people have no clue what they do/don't qualify for. Maybe dems can push for a higher amount instead with the credit being reduced at tax time the higher your income.
A policy that massively, disproportionately benefits the rich is not worth saving.
Wasn't SALT changed to cap out at 10k anyway in Trump tax overhaul, which severely limits middle and upper class' ability to utilize it?
Or will Biden revert to uncapped SALT deductions?
I get it, but establishing permanent direct monthly payments is a huge deal. Especially since it applies to everyone with kids regardless of need. Once the population gets a taste of that Republicans will never be able to take it away. It'll pave the way for larger payments and expansion to childless people and others.
*much better
Niskanen's research is factoring in the cuts:
You're right, but Schumer is pushing to eliminate the cap
The plus side is that there's already $300/month in the bill. Maybe it can be up by $50 bucks but I'm convinced that the only reason Mitt Romney upped it was to grab the headline.
We can establish direct payments and not get rid of TANF. TANF can eventually be moved to a direct monthly payment program as well.
Well there you go.
My family takes the standard so this is a win for us.
Nope:
You guys can keep repeating this, it's not going to make it more true. If we cut some programs but replace them with better programs, that's a net win.
Truly. It should be obvious.
A monthly benefit would be more beneficial than a yearly tax benefit, and would eliminate the need for any of the tax credits.
The money for state aid and TANF would still likely be necessary, but the programs could probably be repurposed.
Romney's proposal is actually really exciting. Huh. I've never said that about a Republican proposal...
The think tank is very right leaning so I would wait for more analysis before claiming so (edit: see post below for another source). At the same time, this might be a good way to push for UBI if it ends up being successful. The fact is couples up to 400k would qualify under Romney's plan. That's as close to UBI as your going to get (yes I know that's the current limits for the child care credit)
Here's an analysis from a left leaning think tank run by a socialist: https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2021/02/04/romneys-child-allowance-improves-on-biden-proposal/
Awesome, thank you! I couldn't find anything searching and was hoping there would be some out there already
I'm sure Dems aren't going to stick exactly to Romney's proposal and would try to find cuts in other places. But even if they didn't, it's still a net win
Romney is a chud but he is a Chud that believes in his nation and not one who is out for their own neck Like Mitch or the rest.
Mitt Romney has a plan to give parents up to $15,000 a year
The Family Security Act would offer up to $350 per month, per kid, to help parents raise their children.www.vox.com
Obviously just a start but it's surprising Mittens is the one doing this
I guess I'm failing to see how an extra 50 a month from Biden's plan is going to offset the other cuts. I mean yes it's better than what we have now but how is it much better than Biden's plan
1) It's permanent
2) It's permanent
3) I recommend you read the Niskanen analysis I linked that explains why it's better in great detail
30% of the total deductions for SALT are going to people that make less than $200,000 which is not a small amount. Can a more progressive policy do it better? Maybe. But it's hyperbole to say SALT is a tax break for the rich. Making a more progressive policy should build up on the strengths of the existing policy. I also think SALT should take into account the part of the country you live in. Cost of living varies so much by geography that it doesn't make sense to have the same SALT caps for everyone.