President Biden's Infrastructure Plans

[Derec]

Seems like a political shift in the making. Though for the front-line Reps, they want to seem like they delivered something big to potential voters.

I sure hope not! If this passes, it will be the child free like me that shoulder most of the tax burden, with those with children (esp. those with many children!) mostly having no net federal income tax liability thanks to myriad subsidies in the tax code.

 

[Derec]

I think if the Labor Force Participation Rate doesn't pick up, this subsidy has a real shot.

Or maybe we need to stop subsidizing lazy fucks who tasted idleness during the glory days of the pandemic (expanded unemployment and child tax credit, stimulus payments, don't even have to pay rent) and have liked it so much they don't want to go back to work again.

 

[Derec]

I disagree: Health care and child care ARE infrastructure in the same way that highways and bridges are infrastructure: Both ensure that people can get to and from work. They are vital to the health of our economy and our society.

Upthread, Swammerdami was incredulous that any Dems still called the $3.5T bill "infrastructure". I guess you are one of those who still do.

Btw, he edited his post and my reply to him to remove that bit. Hmm.

In any case, you are wrong. Infrastructure is not defined as "whatever people need to get to work". I need a car to get to work. Does that mean the federal government should pass a law to give me a car? And not even mean-test it like some Dems want to do with free childcare? Definitely not.

 

[Derec]

Rep. Pramila Jayapal on Twitter: "
Paid leave is infrastructure.
Child care is infrastructure.
Health care is infrastructure.
Climate action is infrastructure.
Affordable housing is infrastructure.
" / Twitter

So Toni is not the only one who is still trying to redefine infrastructure. From that Twitter thread:

 

[TV and credit cards]

If he could at least recognize that words [like "infrastructure"] evolve, definitions expand, it would be a step in the right direction. It’s not a great leap to consider human capital as infrastructure.

This is not an organic evolution of a term. It's the political party in power cynically trying to redefine the term to use its popularity among the electorate to pass an extremely expensive and irresponsible bill that has nothing to do with actual infrastructure.

I got there from the Wikipedia definition, “services and facilities necessary for its economy to function.” Childcare is a service necessary for momma to participate in the labor force. And there’s no point in participating if most of that paycheck has to go to childcare.

In fact I think it dovetails rather nicely; a well trained, healthy, and ready workforce along with the facilities needed for society to function.

Breeding subsidies do not "dovetail" nicely with any idea of infrastructure.

Yeah, if you keep calling them “breeding subsidies”. But they are not that. Actually it’s kind of odd in that increased female participation in the labor force decreases the fertility rate.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I think if the Labor Force Participation Rate doesn't pick up, this subsidy has a real shot.

Or maybe we need to stop subsidizing lazy fucks who tasted idleness during the glory days of the pandemic (expanded unemployment and child tax credit, stimulus payments, don't even have to pay rent) and have liked it so much they don't want to go back to work again.

No, what I think happened is we have generations of women now that do not decide between work and stay at home, but just assume work is a given. They never experienced being stay at home moms. The pandemic forced this and they got to assess weather the extra income they were bringing in is worth it. I think some just rediscovered the importance of raising children.

 

[lpetrich]

Seems like a political shift in the making. Though for the front-line Reps, they want to seem like they delivered something big to potential voters.

I sure hope not! If this passes, it will be the child free like me that shoulder most of the tax burden, with those with children (esp. those with many children!) mostly having no net federal income tax liability thanks to myriad subsidies in the tax code.

That's just too bad.

Right-wingers alternate between acting as if children are some frivolous indulgence, like yachts or avocado toast, and moaning and groaning about the low birthrate. Which is it?

I think if the Labor Force Participation Rate doesn't pick up, this subsidy has a real shot.

Or maybe we need to stop subsidizing lazy fucks who tasted idleness during the glory days of the pandemic (expanded unemployment and child tax credit, stimulus payments, don't even have to pay rent) and have liked it so much they don't want to go back to work again.

Why not join these aristocrats?

Derec, here's what you can do. Once you get that big income, be careful not to spend all of it, and instead save some of it so that you will eventually have enough money to start your own business.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think if the Labor Force Participation Rate doesn't pick up, this subsidy has a real shot.

Or maybe we need to stop subsidizing lazy fucks who tasted idleness during the glory days of the pandemic (expanded unemployment and child tax credit, stimulus payments, don't even have to pay rent) and have liked it so much they don't want to go back to work again.

I think you are misunderstanding how much that credit would be. Can't live off it.

My sister probably qualifies for your "lazy fucks" category. Though she works anywhere from one to three jobs at a time, trying to get hours in an area not saturated with jobs to help pay for life and her two children she can't afford, like many poor people. The existing EITC and child credit is definitely a windfall, but in general, it props her back up to just above the black, before receding back into the red mid-year. She make mistakes? Heck yeah, but she isn't living someone sort of utopian off the Government lifestyle you seem to think exists.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think if the Labor Force Participation Rate doesn't pick up, this subsidy has a real shot.

Or maybe we need to stop subsidizing lazy fucks who tasted idleness during the glory days of the pandemic (expanded unemployment and child tax credit, stimulus payments, don't even have to pay rent) and have liked it so much they don't want to go back to work again.

I think you are misunderstanding how much that credit would be. Can't live off it.

My sister probably qualifies for your "lazy fucks" category. Though she works anywhere from one to three jobs at a time, trying to get hours in an area not saturated with jobs to help pay for life and her two children she can't afford, like many poor people. The existing EITC and child credit is definitely a windfall, but in general, it props her back up to just above the black, before receding back into the red mid-year. She make mistakes? Heck yeah, but she isn't living someone sort of utopian off the Government lifestyle you seem to think exists.

I always wondered why people who think like Derec don't just adopt the same lifestyle they think is so wonderful.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I got there from the Wikipedia definition, “services and facilities necessary for its economy to function.” Childcare is a service necessary for momma to participate in the labor force. And there’s no point in participating if most of that paycheck has to go to childcare.

In fact I think it dovetails rather nicely; a well trained, healthy, and ready workforce along with the facilities needed for society to function.

Breeding subsidies do not "dovetail" nicely with any idea of infrastructure.

Yeah, if you keep calling them “breeding subsidies”. But they are not that. Actually it’s kind of odd in that increased female participation in the labor force decreases the fertility rate.

Government doesn’t pay for sex workers.

 

[Derec]

Government doesn’t pay for sex workers.

Now that would be a sensible subsidy!

 

[Derec]

I got there from the Wikipedia definition, “services and facilities necessary for its economy to function.” Childcare is a service necessary for momma to participate in the labor force. And there’s no point in participating if most of that paycheck has to go to childcare.

Not everything one needs to "participate in the labor force" is infrastructure.

Yeah, if you keep calling them “breeding subsidies”. But they are not that. Actually it’s kind of odd in that increased female participation in the labor force decreases the fertility rate.

It is a subsidy for those who have children. The most expensive part of the $3.5T is actually not the free childcare but rather the expanded child tax credit ($1.6T) which does not incentivize female participation in the labor force anyway.

 

[Derec]

No, what I think happened is we have generations of women now that do not decide between work and stay at home, but just assume work is a given. They never experienced being stay at home moms. The pandemic forced this and they got to assess weather the extra income they were bringing in is worth it. I think some just rediscovered the importance of raising children.

Not buying that. Children past 6 spend most of the regular working hours in school anyway. It's more like that some rediscovered the joys of sitting on one's ass all day. Expanded unemployment, which pays more than many jobs and which AOC et al want to reinstate, had a lot to do with it too.

AOC to introduce bill to extend pandemic unemployment insurance to 2022

 

[Derec]

That's just too bad.
Right-wingers alternate between acting as if children are some frivolous indulgence, like yachts or avocado toast, and moaning and groaning about the low birthrate. Which is it?

I am not a right-winger, so I would not know about them, but as for me, I do not think a high birth rate is desirable any more than a very low one. Replacement rate should be the goal.
Marginal costs of nth child also decreases with n. That's why I think any tax breaks for children should decrease with n and go away entirely for n>4.

Why not join these aristocrats?

What would you have me do? Rawdog a hooker?

Otherwise ...


Seriously though, I am not saying that parents will generally run profits with all these subsidies (although it is possible with large n for parents who care to spend the bare minimum on their kids!) but they are still very large subsidies that greatly reduce the cost of raising children - and people like me pay for these subsidies!
The expanded tax credit alone - just one of the subsidies - is $3-3.6k per year per child with no reduction or cap on number of children.

 

[Derec]

I think you are misunderstanding how much that credit would be. Can't live off it.

No, you can't live of it. Still, $3-3.6k for each child is still quite a lot, as refundable tax credit credits go.

And my comment about "lazy fucks who tasted idleness during the glory days of the pandemic" included extended unemployment which one definitely can life off and which just expired (although AOC et al want to reinstate it).

My sister probably qualifies for your "lazy fucks" category. Though she works anywhere from one to three jobs at a time, trying to get hours in an area not saturated with jobs to help pay for life and her two children she can't afford, like many poor people.

No, she would not qualify for that category if she works. The "lazy fucks" was the reference to TV&CC post about labor participation rate staying low even as unfilled jobs keep going up.

The existing EITC and child credit is definitely a windfall, but in general, it props her back up to just above the black, before receding back into the red mid-year. She make mistakes? Heck yeah, but she isn't living someone sort of utopian off the Government lifestyle you seem to think exists.

Utopian lifestyle no, but with 2 children she is probably getting north of $10k when you add up all the subsidies. The expanded child tax credit alone is worth $6-7.2k/a.

 

[lpetrich]

That's just too bad.
Right-wingers alternate between acting as if children are some frivolous indulgence, like yachts or avocado toast, and moaning and groaning about the low birthrate. Which is it?

I am not a right-winger, ...

Derec, why do you state that you are not a right-winger? Where do you differ from the right wing?

 

[Bomb#20]

That's just too bad.
Right-wingers alternate between acting as if children are some frivolous indulgence, like yachts or avocado toast, and moaning and groaning about the low birthrate. Which is it?

I am not a right-winger, ...

Derec, why do you state that you are not a right-winger? Where do you differ from the right wing?

Derec doesn't differ from the right wing -- how could he, when you're defining "the right wing" as "everyone not as far left as myself"? Which you evidently are, since when one of your political opponents is acting as if children are some frivolous indulgence like yachts or avocado toast while another of your political opponents is moaning and groaning about the low birthrate, you perceive that as "Right-wingers alternate". Disagreeing with you does not magically turn people into interchangeable parts.

Now, if you could point out one and the same person alternating between acting as if children are some frivolous indulgence and moaning and groaning about the low birthrate, then you'd be saying something substantive.

 

[Derec]

Derec, why do you state that you are not a right-winger? Where do you differ from the right wing?

Plenty of stuff:
- legalizing weed
- legalizing adult sex work
- abortion should be legal for the first 2 trimesters
- I support gay marriage etc.
- I am against the right wing notions that "taxation is theft" or that the "government should be small enough to drown in a tub". At the same time (and relevant to this thread) governments need to spend money sensibly.

It is only because this forum is so heavily left-wing that I appear right, but that is just a perspective illusion. I voted for Obama twice and zero times for Trump. Some right winger!

Now, do you have any thoughts about the rest of my post?

 

[Gun Nut]

It is only because this forum is so heavily left-wing that I appear right, but that is just a perspective illusion.

I used to be Liberal. What it means to be Liberal today has changed. I have remained essentially the same. The Left has moved FAR to the Left and the Right has also moved VERY FAR Right (into hell). Now, With similar views as I always have had, I am apparently a Centrist / Moderate.

Now, do you have any thoughts about the rest of my post?

Yes. Fuck your and everyone else's snot-nosed pieces-of-shit useless kids. I oppose reward or any government support for simply HAVING children. Enrole them in college and get support... join them into the military or other public service and get support... but just poop the litter turds out your ass and get a subsidy? I oppose. I even oppose all existing tax credits and dependent deductions... more kids means you should pay MORE not less in taxes.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is only because this forum is so heavily left-wing that I appear right, but that is just a perspective illusion.

I used to be Liberal. What it means to be Liberal today has changed. I have remained essentially the same. The Left has moved FAR to the Left and the Right has also moved VERY FAR Right (into hell).

Yeah! The Dems have 5 socialists in the House... and the GOP had well over 100 vote to overthrow the election. They be both just as bad. The Left tried to legalize gay marriage, the right is trying to legalize voting impairment. Moore-Coulter!

Yes. Fuck your and everyone else's snot-nosed pieces-of-shit useless kids. I oppose reward or any government support for simply HAVING children. Enrole them in college and get support... join them into the military or other public service and get support... but just poop the litter turds out your ass and get a subsidy? I oppose. I even oppose all existing tax credits and dependent deductions... more kids means you should pay MORE not less in taxes.

Wanna hear my thoughts on tax subsidies for other things?