• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trumps Childcare Wealth Redisribution Program

jonny5

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
27,581
Reaction score
4,664
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Facts:

-available to tax filers with income up to 250k single/500k married
-deduct 100% of child care cost up to 12k from income
-deductions for employers who provide childcare
-expanded EITC for poor, equaling half of payroll tax paid
-6 weeks federally funded maternity leave
-matching funding for dependent savings account $1000 gets you $500

Which means those of us without children get to pay more taxes, so those who have them can pay less, or get a credit if youre poor. This is not conservative, and its exactly why the Republican party is in civil war. Bush did exactly the same kind of things, though his came from his compassion, not his narcissm. Regardless its unfair, increases the complexity of the tax system, encourages irresponsible behavior, and is a form of wealth redistribution.

Which is all bad.
 
Some of this is smart and some of it isn't.

jonny5 said:
-deduct 100% of child care cost up to 12k from income
Click to expand...

My understanding is that this is nonrefundable, meaning that it will mostly help those who are already in the upper income brackets.

-deductions for employers who provide childcare
Click to expand...

While a simpler tax code is preferable, this could be beneficial.

-expanded EITC for poor, equaling half of payroll tax paid
Click to expand...

This could be good policy, the problem becoming how to pay for it.

-6 weeks federally funded maternity leave
Click to expand...

This raises the risk and cost of hiring child-bearing women, reducing the incentive to do so.

-matching funding for dependent savings account $1000 gets you $500
Click to expand...

This is going to help those who are best positioned to save that money, and I would want to know what the limits on it are. Do I have to drop $1K into an account with each of their names attached and leave it there for 12 months?

Which means those of us without children get to pay more taxes, so those who have them can pay less, or get a credit if youre poor. This is not conservative, and its exactly why the Republican party is in civil war.
Click to expand...

Broadly, so long as we maintain a pay-go old age security structure, the costs of child-rearing represent a tragedy of the commons, which can legitimize (wise) government intervention. Additionally, conservatives have recognized since Burke that strong families represent the basis for a healthy society. So no, some of this isn't necessarily unconservative, though I think some of it is poorly thought out.
 
A couple of likely paths kicking around:

Plan A: Republicans mostly: The way this is like to be formulated in congress is to create a bank of sick leave for child care only.

Plan B: Democrats mostly: Create an additional deduction like Social Security, or include it in SSA deductions and create a fund that way.

It all comes down to funding.

Plan A: What happens when an employee quits? Does the business keep the money they put in?
Plan B: It will be tempting to "poach" child care money to pad SS.

Personally, I'd keep it in the elementary schools. They are already there, they are close, they have parking and infrastructure.
 
cpwill said:
Some of this is smart and some of it isn't.

Broadly, so long as we maintain a pay-go old age security structure, the costs of child-rearing represent a tragedy of the commons, which can legitimize (wise) government intervention. Additionally, conservatives have recognized since Burke that strong families represent the basis for a healthy society. So no, some of this isn't necessarily unconservative, though I think some of it is poorly thought out.
Click to expand...

What isnt conservative is the way you go about making strong familes. The conservative way is not by encouraging dependence on govt.
 
chuckiechan said:
A couple of likely paths kicking around:

Plan A: Republicans mostly: The way this is like to be formulated in congress is to create a bank of sick leave for child care only.

Plan B: Democrats mostly: Create an additional deduction like Social Security, or include it in SSA deductions and create a fund that way.

It all comes down to funding.

Plan A: What happens when an employee quits? Does the business keep the money they put in?
Plan B: It will be tempting to "poach" child care money to pad SS.

Personally, I'd keep it in the elementary schools. They are already there, they are close, they have parking and infrastructure.
Click to expand...

It sounds as if its a private savings plan.
 
jonny5 said:
What isnt conservative is the way you go about making strong familes. The conservative way is not by encouraging dependence on govt.
Click to expand...

Encouraging dependence on government is achieved by creating incentive structures that encourage self-destructive decisions in service of rent-seeking, or discouraging positive decisions for the same reason (My own contribution and preference is located here and modified in order to improve those incentive structures here).

As a single example, matching 50% of savings up to $1,000 does not incentivize self-destructive behavior in order to seek rents, but it does incentivize positive behavior.

You are conflating "government program" with "encouraging dependence". The two have significant overlap, but are not the same.
 
cpwill said:
Encouraging dependence on government is achieved by creating incentive structures that encourage self-destructive decisions in service of rent-seeking, or discouraging positive decisions for the same reason (My own contribution and preference is located here and modified in order to improve those incentive structures here).

As a single example, matching 50% of savings up to $1,000 does not incentivize self-destructive behavior in order to seek rents, but it does incentivize positive behavior.

You are conflating "government program" with "encouraging dependence". The two have significant overlap, but are not the same.
Click to expand...

Its encouraging dependence on me to provide that $500. Without which they wouldnt save. And its discouraging me from ever helping anyone who is taking the money I might have saved. Maybe I should go have a couple kids, quit my job and live off the govt too.
 
jonny5 said:
Its encouraging dependence on me to provide that $500. Without which they wouldnt save.
Click to expand...

In which case, you have it precisely backwards, and it is encouraging independence instead.

And its discouraging me from ever helping anyone who is taking the money I might have saved. Maybe I should go have a couple kids, quit my job and live off the govt too.
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing anything in this proposal that would allow you to do so.
 
Trump is trying to "out democrat" the democrats in hopes of attracting some women voters from Hillary. It makes sense politically. It makes no sense at all in terms policy or restraining government growth. It won't pass congress no matter who is elected. But at least it is entertaining.
 
jonny5 said:
Facts:

-available to tax filers with income up to 250k single/500k married
-deduct 100% of child care cost up to 12k from income
-deductions for employers who provide childcare
-expanded EITC for poor, equaling half of payroll tax paid
-6 weeks federally funded maternity leave
-matching funding for dependent savings account $1000 gets you $500

Which means those of us without children get to pay more taxes, so those who have them can pay less, or get a credit if youre poor. This is not conservative, and its exactly why the Republican party is in civil war. Bush did exactly the same kind of things, though his came from his compassion, not his narcissm. Regardless its unfair, increases the complexity of the tax system, encourages irresponsible behavior, and is a form of wealth redistribution.

Which is all bad.
Click to expand...

It is not all bad (as far as likely outcome) but it is all income redistribution. The problem, as I see it, is that it is the typical ever more federal spending with no "pay as you go" (tax increases or like amount sending cuts in other federal programs). We have a fierce competition between the party for a bigger federal government and the party for a huge federal government - let the good times roll today and pass the debt on to future generations to deal with. ;)
 
If Hillary and democrats offered this plan, liberals and socialist would be behind it 110%.
 
I hate how the tax system increasingly seems to favor the married or those with kids. Create plans that benefit all of us, I mean as it is those of us without kids aren't costing thousands in public education costs.
 
cpwill said:
Broadly, so long as we maintain a pay-go old age security structure, the costs of child-rearing represent a tragedy of the commons.
Click to expand...
Good grief, exactly how "broad" do YOU have to go to characterize child-rearing as a "tragedy of the commons"? How do child rearing parents fit into an analogy of too many cows grazing on common pasture land? What common resource are they over-using that they have unregulated access too.....BROADLY speaking.....as it were.....hmmm?
 
Last edited:
antiquity said:
If Hillary and democrats offered this plan, liberals and socialist would be behind it 110%.
Click to expand...

Dems have been supporting such plans for years. Try perusing ontheissues.org - it's a real eye-opener. For Trump, however, this is a brand new stance...and it's 180-out from what the GOP has traditionally supported.
 
digsbe said:
I hate how the tax system increasingly seems to favor the married or those with kids. Create plans that benefit all of us, I mean as it is those of us without kids aren't costing thousands in public education costs.
Click to expand...

 
cpwill said:
In which case, you have it precisely backwards, and it is encouraging independence instead.



I'm not seeing anything in this proposal that would allow you to do so.
Click to expand...

What about the rest of the govt?
 
digsbe said:
I hate how the tax system increasingly seems to favor the married or those with kids. Create plans that benefit all of us, I mean as it is those of us without kids aren't costing thousands in public education costs.
Click to expand...

That plan would be lower taxes across the board. Then youre free to spend your own money on whatever you need/want, instead of that the govt thinks you need/want.
 
jonny5 said:
What about the rest of the govt?
Click to expand...

:shrug: the rest of our government, especially our social safety net, has deep structural issues. That, however, does not mean that every single program that shifts resources creates dependency on government handouts.
 
digsbe said:
I hate how the tax system increasingly seems to favor the married
Click to expand...

Actually our system currently contains large marriage penalties.

or those with kids. Create plans that benefit all of us, I mean as it is those of us without kids aren't costing thousands in public education costs.
Click to expand...

:shrug: Unless you intend for "all of us" to no longer use the FICA taxes that the next generation will be providing "all of us", the act of raising children remains an incredibly expensive act whose costs are borne by parents but whose benefits are diffused to their entire generation.

Or we could try cost-savings by producing fewer kids. Greece and Italy did that. Turns out it works for.... about 30 years. Then, not so much.
 
Last edited:
Gimmesometruth said:
cpwill said:
Broadly, so long as we maintain a pay-go old age security structure, the costs of child-rearing represent a tragedy of the commons.
Click to expand...
Good grief, exactly how "broad" do YOU have to go to characterize child-rearing as a "tragedy of the commons"? How do child rearing parents fit into an analogy of too many cows grazing on common pasture land? What common resource are they over-using that they have unregulated access too.....BROADLY speaking.....as it were.....hmmm?
Click to expand...

Helped you out there. I'm not interested in spending 10 pages while you pretend not to understand.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Dems have been supporting such plans for years. Try perusing ontheissues.org - it's a real eye-opener. For Trump, however, this is a brand new stance...and it's 180-out from what the GOP has traditionally supported.
Click to expand...

Yup. Watching the Sean Hannity's and Ann Coulter's of the world try to tie themselves in knots trying to figure out how this one is suddenly super duper conservative and wonderful (Breitbart just said whatev's and ran with it) is going to be fun.
 
cpwill said:
Helped you out there. I'm not interested in spending 10 pages while you pretend not to understand.
Click to expand...

I'm not "pretending" anything. The pay-go SS system is NOT a "common ground" upon which child-rearing parents can graze upon, the analogy fails completely, as does your hand waving in attempt to distract. Go on and defend the analogy.....or admit you don't know how to use analogies correctly.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I'm not "pretending" anything. The pay-go SS system is NOT a "common ground" upon which child-rearing parents can graze upon, the analogy fails completely, as does your hand waving in attempt to distract. Go on and defend the analogy.....or admit you don't know how to use analogies correctly.
Click to expand...
Who draws money from the SS system, Gimme.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
jonny5 said:
Facts:

-6 weeks federally funded maternity leave
Click to expand...

Yeah, and the great part (sarcasm) about this is that he pays for this by deducting maternity leave pay out of UI benefits.
 
Gaea said:
Yeah, and the great part (sarcasm) about this is that he pays for this by deducting maternity leave pay out of UI benefits.
Click to expand...

He also says that he pays for it through UI fraud savings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom