The truth about welfare

[Derec]

Do you have any disinterested evidence to support your hypothesis that these gov't programs induce some people to get pregnant and give birth?

I showed how much a mother of three can get through EITC and CTC alone (> $9k, or < -60% effective tax rate), not even counting benefits like food stamps or housing assistance. Sounds like a clear motivating factor to me.

And again, my main point here is to counter Athena's ignoring of tax credits and only ever mentioning TANF. A refundable tax credit is as much cash assistance as TANF and should really be included in any considerations and calculations.

 

[laughing dog]

Do you have any disinterested evidence to support your hypothesis that these gov't programs induce some people to get pregnant and give birth?

I showed how much a mother of three can get through EITC and CTC alone (> $9k, or < -60% effective tax rate), not even counting benefits like food stamps or housing assistance. Sounds like a clear motivating factor to me. =

What motivates you may not motivate others. To my knowledge, there is no research that indicates these programs induce people on them to have more children.

And again, my main point here is to counter Athena's ignoring of tax credits and only ever mentioning TANF. A refundable tax credit is as much cash assistance as TANF and should really be included in any considerations and calculations.

A refundable tax credit is not as much as cash assistance for a number of reasons. 1st, it requires someone to file a tax return. 2nd, it does not come at convenient regular intervals like direct cash assistance - you have to wait over a year to get it.

 

[bilby]

I cannot afford a Ferrari. I can't afford to buy one; and if I could, I wouldn't be able to afford to run it.

By Derec's logic, if the government gave me $1,000 every time I bought a Ferrari, I would rush out and buy three.

The entire argument that welfare encourages people to have children is fucking stupid. The reality is that NOT having sufficient welfare punishes children for not having rich parents. How terribly foolish of them.

Only the insane and the religious (apologies for the repetition) think that punishing babies for the actions of their parents is in any way acceptable. Sadly, many of them are quite vehement in their self-centred insanity.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

You are pretending that TANF is the only form of public assistance. However there is:
- tax deductions that go up based on number of children you have. This benefit is linear, but marginal cost of raising additional children is not, so that it encourages having more children.
- refundable tax credits like so-called Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax credit. EITC has very low amounts and limits for singles, but they increase substantially as you add children. For example, a single person making mere $15k would not be eligible for any EITC but a single mother of 3 earning the same would get over $6k in EITC. That credit (as well as the separate child tax credit) is "refundable" meaning that if tax liability is less than amount of credits, she gets the money anyway, which gives her an effective negative tax rate. In this case, the single mother of 3 would have $0 federal tax liability, so just through EITC she would have effective -41% tax rate just due to EITC. Child tax credit would add $3,000 to her total take, making her effective tax rate -61%! That is tantamount to cash assistance even if it is not TANF.
- food stamps
- housing assistance, section 8 etc.

You guys do know that what is called welfare is NOT a real life version of the 1970s movie CLAUDINE?

Not familiar with that movie. What is it about? A welfare queen?

Yeah, A welfare queen. Who works scrubbing floors in white folks houses because welfare checks don't take care of her and her children. Stars Diahann Carroll and James Earl Jones. Plays into a lot of stereotypes (subverts a few, but your myopia should keep you from seeing that). You'll love it.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

If the tax code of the USA is to be looked at with regards to welfare, then a mother and child in Mississippi aren't what's costing you money.

The Generals are costing you money

General Electric
General Dynamics
General Motors.

as for SNAP, It's been cut and cut and cut again, and the GOP in congress is set to slash it by over 20 billion dollars in 2017.
The same is true Section 8 housing, cuts cuts and more cuts.

That is no gravy train for the poor. no queens of any kind. just poverty, misery, and certain folks bigotry.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If the tax code of the USA is to be looked at with regards to welfare, then a mother and child in Mississippi aren't what's costing you money.

The Generals are costing you money

General Electric
General Dynamics
General Motors.

as for SNAP, It's been cut and cut and cut again, and the GOP in congress is set to slash it by over 20 billion dollars in 2017.
The same is true Section 8 housing, cuts cuts and more cuts.

That is no gravy train for the poor. no queens of any kind. just poverty, misery, and certain folks bigotry.

Have you considered spending a few trillion dollars on some stupid and pointless war in the Middle East to deal with the issue?

I don't know how much it would help, but there must be some reason that this is your go-to solution for everything.

 

[jonatha]

who just told them that Mountain Dew is a spermicide.

You mean it's not?

There are enough chemicals in it that I figured it would kill damn near anything, from bacteria to elephants...

 

[Derec]

What motivates you may not motivate others. To my knowledge, there is no research that indicates these programs induce people on them to have more children.

Usually what you subsidize you get more of. I don't know of any studies to that effect either, but then most sociologists are on the left and they would not be interested in something that disproves a left wing article of faith.

A refundable tax credit is not as much as cash assistance for a number of reasons.

How does that fail to make it cash assistance? It's still cash they get and can spend on anything they want, unlike say food stamps that have to be spent on food and the like.

1st, it requires someone to file a tax return.

Poor babies! I have to file a tax return too, but I don't get $9k for my trouble. Nowadays, there is free e-file so you don't even have to do it on paper.

2nd, it does not come at convenient regular intervals like direct cash assistance - you have to wait over a year to get it.

So you get a lump sum. Is that really a big deal? She can either budget it herself ($750/month, not too shabby), use it for necessary one-time spending like a reliable used car or home repairs etc, or else spend it of frivolities. Since it's cash assistance, there are no strings attached.

- - - Updated - - -

who just told them that Mountain Dew is a spermicide.

You mean it's not?

There are enough chemicals in it that I figured it would kill damn near anything, from bacteria to elephants...

And the girl can't get pregnant if she is on top. That's simple gravity. What goes up must come down.

Wise words ...

 

[Derec]

I cannot afford a Ferrari. I can't afford to buy one;

Not even an 80s one like a 308?

and if I could, I wouldn't be able to afford to run it.

Sure. They are not cheap to run.

By Derec's logic, if the government gave me $1,000 every time I bought a Ferrari, I would rush out and buy three.

The cost of raising a child is much less than running a Ferrari. And making a child is literally free, unlike a Ferrari (or any car).
But if government gave money for people to buy cars, more people would buy more cars. That's what happens with incentives. They increase the behavior they incentivize - in this case, poor people having more children.
There are also economies of scale. A single person has top spend x for basic necessities, food, shelter etc. If that person has a child the expenses are not doubled, if he or she has 2 children they are not tippled. Yet a the n-th tax exemption is as big as the first even though the marginal cost of adding more children goes down as n increases. The Duggars are not spending 10 times as much for their family of 20 as they would if they had no children, yet they get 10x the tax exemptions.
Lastly, the $1000/child is only the child tax credit. There are other benefits such as tax exemptions, EITC, food stamps etc. that are dependent on the number of children, making the overall benefit per child much bigger than you indicate here, in the thousands of dollars each year. In my example above, the woman making $15,000 had a $9000 benefit for 3 children ($3000/child) and I only calculated EITC and CTC, and did not consider any other benefits.

The entire argument that welfare encourages people to have children is fucking stupid.

No, it is not. It's basic economics.

The reality is that NOT having sufficient welfare punishes children for not having rich parents. How terribly foolish of them.

I don't think children should be punished. But they not even have been born had there not been incentives to have more children.

Only the insane and the religious (apologies for the repetition) think that punishing babies for the actions of their parents is in any way acceptable. Sadly, many of them are quite vehement in their self-centred insanity.

So what is your solution? Continuing to incentivize poor people to have children?

 

[Derec]

Yeah, A welfare queen. Who works scrubbing floors in white folks houses because welfare checks don't take care of her and her children. Stars Diahann Carroll and James Earl Jones. Plays into a lot of stereotypes (subverts a few, but your myopia should keep you from seeing that). You'll love it.

Hey, you mentioned that movie in connection to welfare. So is she on welfare or what?

 

[Derec]

If the tax code of the USA is to be looked at with regards to welfare, then a mother and child in Mississippi aren't what's costing you money.

The problem is that there are millions like her. That adds up quickly.

General Electric

The truth about GE's tax bill

General Dynamics

General Dynamics's Annual Effective Tax Rate

General Motors

The only one that has some truth to it because the company got bailed out.

as for SNAP, It's been cut and cut and cut again, and the GOP in congress is set to slash it by over 20 billion dollars in 2017.

Of course Democrats have the filibuster in Senate (if not majority next year) and the presidency.

That is no gravy train for the poor. no queens of any kind. just poverty, misery, and certain folks bigotry.

Really? Misery even with all the various benefits?

 

[LordKiran]

The problem is that there are millions like her. That adds up quickly.

General Electric

The truth about GE's tax bill

General Dynamics

General Dynamics's Annual Effective Tax Rate

General Motors

The only one that has some truth to it because the company got bailed out.

as for SNAP, It's been cut and cut and cut again, and the GOP in congress is set to slash it by over 20 billion dollars in 2017.

Of course Democrats have the filibuster in Senate (if not majority next year) and the presidency.

That is no gravy train for the poor. no queens of any kind. just poverty, misery, and certain folks bigotry.

Really? Misery even with all the various benefits?

Speaking on benefits for the poor namely stamps, the assistance my boyfriend gets from the government was usually just enough to cover his own food expenses, the cost of rent (We live in an appartment in a nicer neighborhood) and utilities. Now imagine if he had a child and didn't have the advantage of living close to a grocery store where quality food for reasonable prices are accessible.

Gov. Assistance is meant to keep you going, not living necessarily comfortably.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The problem is that there are millions like her. That adds up quickly.

General Electric

The truth about GE's tax bill

General Dynamics

General Dynamics's Annual Effective Tax Rate

General Motors

The only one that has some truth to it because the company got bailed out.

as for SNAP, It's been cut and cut and cut again, and the GOP in congress is set to slash it by over 20 billion dollars in 2017.

Of course Democrats have the filibuster in Senate (if not majority next year) and the presidency.

That is no gravy train for the poor. no queens of any kind. just poverty, misery, and certain folks bigotry.

Really? Misery even with all the various benefits?

If welfare were as great as you say white men like you would have kept it all for yourself. So when I see you driving a welfare Cadillac, I'll believe you.

 

[whichphilosophy]

What long term? What rewards? Be specific.

The big example is having babies.

This is something that only affects women.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The problem is that there are millions like her. That adds up quickly.

The truth about GE's tax bill

General Dynamics

General Dynamics's Annual Effective Tax Rate

General Motors

The only one that has some truth to it because the company got bailed out.

as for SNAP, It's been cut and cut and cut again, and the GOP in congress is set to slash it by over 20 billion dollars in 2017.

Of course Democrats have the filibuster in Senate (if not majority next year) and the presidency.

That is no gravy train for the poor. no queens of any kind. just poverty, misery, and certain folks bigotry.

Really? Misery even with all the various benefits?

If welfare were as great as you say white men like you would have kept it all for yourself. So when I see you driving a welfare Cadillac, I'll believe you.

I've always cautioned against welfare for anyone, but then if the US can rack up trillions of dollars in military spending to guarantee it will ensure it can replace a authoritarian regime with one that is much worse, so what if a few dollars are given to the needy.

 

[laughing dog]

Usually what you subsidize you get more of. I don't know of any studies to that effect either, but then most sociologists are on the left and they would not be interested in something that disproves a left wing article of faith.

TANF does not subsidize child birth. But thank you for admitting you have no evidence to support your claim. Economists, political scientists and statisticians might also study such programs, so there is no need for you to appear ignorant with a gratuitous attack of sociology and sociologists.

How does that fail to make it cash assistance?...

I did not say it wasn't but is not quite the same. It comes in a lump once a year which makes it much more difficult for the poor or the "liquidity constrained" (a nice economics term) to survive and use.

 

[laughing dog]

The problem is that there are millions like her. That adds up quickly.

I have included a link to a recent (2015) report of the Congressional Research Service on TANF. In 2015, there were around 1.6 million families receiving TANF with the bulk of the people children.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32760.pdf). Educate yourself about the size, scope and expense of the program instead of repeating the usual ignorant lies spouted by conservative, bigots and racists.

 

[LordKiran]

The problem is that there are millions like her. That adds up quickly.

I have included a link to a recent (2015) report of the Congressional Research Service on TANF. In 2015, there were around 1.6 million families receiving TANF with the bulk of the people children.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32760.pdf). Educate yourself about the size, scope and expense of the program instead of repeating the usual ignorant lies spouted by conservative, bigots and racists.

That would require actual work though, it's much easier to just spout talking points that your grandma repeats ad nauseam each time she sits down for the evening to watch the O'Rielly factor with her glass of gin.

 

[skepticalbip]

For a serious discussion of government assistance, it seems pointless to only consider TANF. There are well over fifty assistance programs ranging from cash, housing, health care, utilities, child care, food, etc. etc.

I don't think anyone would seriously claim that those on assistance live a life of luxury but such a claim wouldn't be any more absurd than trying to claim that TANE constituted the total of assistance available.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

For a serious discussion of government assistance, it seems pointless to only consider TANF. There are well over fifty assistance programs ranging from cash, housing, utilities, child care, food, etc. etc.

I don't think anyone would seriously claim that those on assistance live a life of luxury but such a claim wouldn't be any more absurd than trying to claim that TANE constituted the total of assistance available.

When people speak if welfare, they aren't talking about 50 programs. They are talking about a check. Now they may include housing and food stamps, but it's always the check. Federal programs, or programs believed to be Federal, are more likely to be included than state or local programs. Medicaid has yet to be tainted with the welfare smear, probably because too many senior citizens need it.

now if you want to start expanding the definition, then include farm subsidies, oil subsidies, the fact that big business gets to withhold state taxes from workers and keep it for themselves, include it all. And before you come after poor folk, go after the big boys.

Make subsidies dependent on CEOs peeing in a cup, and once you cleanup the McMansions, then beat up on poor people for whom a big mac is a treat.