Biden's address to Congress

[Toni]

That's ok. The purpose of posting the topic was to provide Derec with a forum to spew his venomous hate.

What hate? I just think people with children are getting enough benefits as it is.

Part of me wants to ask you what those 'enough benefits' are and part of me wants to say that the joys of raising children are benefit enough but that's not the point of those benefits.

The point of providing benefits to parents is to encourage people to have children. And..also to encourage parents with children to both work which means that they need childcare and decent childcare is hella expensive but if you pull all the women out of the economy to take care of kids, the economy would really collapse. Same if you pull out all of the men to take care of kids.

We need people to have children at at least the replacement rate if we wish to have our society continue. And we need those children to be raised well, with good nutrition, good education, good housing, good health care.

The truth is that having young children is a relatively short period of one's life and it coincides with the part of your life when you are setting the foundation for your career and economic well being--which directly conflicts with raising children. But if one parent stays home full time or mostly full time for 10+ years raising young children and then takes only work with flexible hours and the correspondingly lower pay, you have half of your population unable to provide decently for themselves at age 50 and beyond. Obviously, I'm talking about middle class people here because no one really cares about working class and poor people.

 

[laughing dog]

That's ok. The purpose of posting the topic was to provide Derec with a forum to spew his venomous hate.

What hate? I just think people with children are getting enough benefits as it is.

Part of me wants to ask you what those 'enough benefits' are and part of me wants to say that the joys of raising children are benefit enough but that's not the point of those benefits.

The point of providing benefits to parents is to encourage people to have children. And..also to encourage parents with children to both work which means that they need childcare and decent childcare is hella expensive but if you pull all the women out of the economy to take care of kids, the economy would really collapse. Same if you pull out all of the men to take care of kids.

We need people to have children at at least the replacement rate if we wish to have our society continue. And we need those children to be raised well, with good nutrition, good education, good housing, good health care.

The truth is that having young children is a relatively short period of one's life and it coincides with the part of your life when you are setting the foundation for your career and economic well being--which directly conflicts with raising children. But if one parent stays home full time or mostly full time for 10+ years raising young children and then takes only work with flexible hours and the correspondingly lower pay, you have half of your population unable to provide decently for themselves at age 50 and beyond. Obviously, I'm talking about middle class people here because no one really cares about working class and poor people.

All excellent points that are wasted on an audience that appears incapable of comprehending the situation of anyone who is not a single white male.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The truth is that having young children is a relatively short period of one's life and it coincides with the part of your life when you are setting the foundation for your career and economic well being--which directly conflicts with raising children. But if one parent stays home full time or mostly full time for 10+ years raising young children and then takes only work with flexible hours and the correspondingly lower pay, you have half of your population unable to provide decently for themselves at age 50 and beyond. Obviously, I'm talking about middle class people here because no one really cares about working class and poor people.

Technically speaking 95% of Americans consider themselves "middle class".

It reminds me a bit of Head Start. It benefits children that are either in need of help or provide education options very early on so these kids are ready for K and 1st grade. I think one thing missed is the benefit of Head Start to children who don't need it. As teachers don't have to struggle teaching children who are reading small books and children who don't even know the alphabet!

Some people seem only capable of understanding benefits that directly benefit them... or the exceptions of those who abuse the system. They rarely if ever look at the big picture. And it is beyond me to understand how a person with no children would have any concept of where the middle road for support actually is.

 

[Shadowy Man]

???
Bedrooms are important, bathrooms will also become an issue.

Having more children also means more hand-me-downs and of course, ability to buy food in bulk.

The "ability to buy food in bulk". Do food prices really drop that much in bulk? Also, apartments don't usually have a lot of bulk grocery storage Meanwhile, hand-me-downs? I'd expect not so wealthy to already be starting with hand me downs (consignment, goodwill, garage sale), and clothes don't last forever!

White families voted for Mussolini because America forgot about them, and when Biden announces a plan that'll benefit the forgotten Americans, they whine that this makes blacks want to have more babies. At some point, the racism can't go unnoticed.

But in Biden's plan, you get $3k for your first child and the same amount for your 10th.

Damn Catholics!

Fix your quotes. I didn’t say those things but was arguing against them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

???
Bedrooms are important, bathrooms will also become an issue.
The "ability to buy food in bulk". Do food prices really drop that much in bulk? Also, apartments don't usually have a lot of bulk grocery storage Meanwhile, hand-me-downs? I'd expect not so wealthy to already be starting with hand me downs (consignment, goodwill, garage sale), and clothes don't last forever!

White families voted for Mussolini because America forgot about them, and when Biden announces a plan that'll benefit the forgotten Americans, they whine that this makes blacks want to have more babies. At some point, the racism can't go unnoticed.

Damn Catholics!

Fix your quotes. I didn’t say those things but was arguing against them.

Yup. The problem that happens with Igs. My bad.

 

[Derec]

Some people seem only capable of understanding benefits that directly benefit them...

No, it's not that. There is a difference between not supporting any benefits and thinking that a particular benefit is a bad policy.

 

[Derec]

Part of me wants to ask you what those 'enough benefits' are and part of me wants to say that the joys of raising children are benefit enough but that's not the point of those benefits.

I already explained it - the child tax credit, earned income tax credit, SNAP, rent assistance etc.

The point of providing benefits to parents is to encourage people to have children.

And why should we encourage people with three, four or more children who can't afford the children they already have to have even more?

And..also to encourage parents with children to both work which means that they need childcare and decent childcare is hella expensive but if you pull all the women out of the economy to take care of kids, the economy would really collapse. Same if you pull out all of the men to take care of kids.

With increasing automation of more and more jobs, more people staying out of the workforce may be necessary in the future.

We need people to have children at at least the replacement rate if we wish to have our society continue.

Of course. But replacement rate is 2.2 or so. Not four or five.
Note also that exponential growth - which means a constant percentage annual growth - is not sustainable. Even a 2% annual growth rate means a >7x increase in population within a century - which means more than 2 billion people in the US.

And we need those children to be raised well, with good nutrition, good education, good housing, good health care.

Blindly throwing more and more money at the parents does not guarantee that.

 

[Derec]

All excellent points that are wasted on an audience that appears incapable of comprehending the situation of anyone who is not a single white male.

Not at all. But I fail to see how giving parents more and more taxpayer money - and not have that benefit phase out with more children - is sound policy.
Neither you nor Toni managed to defend this policy, but at least Toni tried. All you have to offer are tired ad hominems.

 

[none]

All excellent points that are wasted on an audience that appears incapable of comprehending the situation of anyone who is not a single white male.

Not at all. But I fail to see how giving parents more and more taxpayer money - and not have that benefit phase out with more children - is sound policy.
Neither you nor Toni managed to defend this policy, but at least Toni tried. All you have to offer are tired ad hominems.

because it keeps the parents from bickering over money?

 

[Derec]

because it keeps the parents from bickering over money?

How does that justify even more "free" (to them) money?
I think parents already get plenty of benefits for their progeny. No need for $3-3.6k/(child*a) more.

 

[none]

because it keeps the parents from bickering over money?

How does that justify even more "free" (to them) money?
I think parents already get plenty of benefits for their progeny. No need for $3-3.6k/(child*a) more.

more money less hostility better environment for children?
you might think that, I don't know why you would think that but you are entitled to think that. lol

 

[Derec]

more money less hostility better environment for children?
you might think that, I don't know why you would think that but you are entitled to think that. lol

Yes, I do think that. The tax system is already very biased in favor of those with children. Adding children already gives you thousands in tax benefits.

 

[none]

more money less hostility better environment for children?
you might think that, I don't know why you would think that but you are entitled to think that. lol

Yes, I do think that. The tax system is already very biased in favor of those with children. Adding children already gives you thousands in tax benefits.

welp having healthy content productive society kinda needs healthy children, don't cha think?

 

[laughing dog]

more money less hostility better environment for children?
you might think that, I don't know why you would think that but you are entitled to think that. lol

Yes, I do think that. The tax system is already very biased in favor of those with children. Adding children already gives you thousands in tax benefits.

welp having healthy content productive society kinda needs healthy children, don't cha think?

Anyone familiar with households with children knows that in most circumstances
1) the expenses if raising a child exceed $3,000 for year, and
2) the decision to have a child is not based on favorable tax treatment.

A country that aspires to be civilized tries to eliminate childhood poverty.

The notion that US tax policy is already biased in favor of children is a value judgment unsupported by the facts.

 

[Shadowy Man]

welp having healthy content productive society kinda needs healthy children, don't cha think?

Anyone familiar with households with children knows that in most circumstances
1) the expenses if raising a child exceed $3,000 for year, and
2) the decision to have a child is not based on favorable tax treatment.

A country that aspires to be civilized tries to eliminate childhood poverty.

The notion that US tax policy is already biased in favor of children is a value judgment unsupported by the facts.

Logically, the tax code incentivizes being poor, because poor people pay less taxes. Sometimes even none!

Kind of like how having handicapped parking spots that are close to the places you want to go incentivizes being handicapped.

I still contend that people are not *making* money by having children. If the idea is to save money it’s best to not have more children. But I guess I could be wrong.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

welp having healthy content productive society kinda needs healthy children, don't cha think?

Anyone familiar with households with children knows that in most circumstances
1) the expenses if raising a child exceed $3,000 for year, and
2) the decision to have a child is not based on favorable tax treatment.

A country that aspires to be civilized tries to eliminate childhood poverty.

The notion that US tax policy is already biased in favor of children is a value judgment unsupported by the facts.

Logically, the tax code incentivizes being poor, because poor people pay less taxes. Sometimes even none!

Kind of like how having handicapped parking spots that are close to the places you want to go incentivizes being handicapped.

I still contend that people are not *making* money by having children. If the idea is to save money it’s best to not have more children. But I guess I could be wrong.

There are people that abuse the tax code. The loopholes used by Donald Trump alone have created a dispute with the IRS over $73 million. Or on average about 29,000 homes that got the Earned Income Tax Credit.

The money in the earned income tax credit or the additional child tax credit is going in large portion into the economy, and all across it. Not merely paying interest for loans at a German bank. The US Economy benefits in one situation, not the other, and that ignores the benefits the people who receive it get as well.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'd much rather pay taxes to eliminate childhood poverty than to pay taxes to subsidize already wealthy corporations that pay no taxes themselves.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Logically, the tax code incentivizes being poor, because poor people pay less taxes. Sometimes even none!

Kind of like how having handicapped parking spots that are close to the places you want to go incentivizes being handicapped.

I still contend that people are not *making* money by having children. If the idea is to save money it’s best to not have more children. But I guess I could be wrong.

There are people that abuse the tax code. The loopholes used by Donald Trump alone have created a dispute with the IRS over $73 million. Or on average about 29,000 homes that got the Earned Income Tax Credit.

The money in the earned income tax credit or the additional child tax credit is going in large portion into the economy, and all across it. Not merely paying interest for loans at a German bank. The US Economy benefits in one situation, not the other, and that ignores the benefits the people who receive it get as well.

I understand that. I was just trying to follow Derec’s logic to a conclusion after he seemed to say that the tax code is incentivizing people to have more children because of the money it would save them.