(September 12, 2021 at 8:03 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: Setting limits isn' t the answer.


Promoting voluntary sterilization and getting rid of child rearing subsidies might go further.



But nobody will go along with practical solutions. (Neither the SO or I have kids - BY CHOICE.)


So we are doomed as a species.....


Keep churning out babies you happy breeders.....

I've been an advocate of ending child subsidies for decades but of course when I speak about this to virtually any other human I get eviscerated.  Americans are indoctrinated to believe that child tax credits are a birthright.  And the more children you have, the more credits you get.  This makes absolutely no sense in a country that isn't hurting for population.  At the very least we should stop any credits at 2 kids.  And btw, when you state is like that, a child subsidy, it makes people really mad because they believe they deserve it just for being a citizen.  But it's not going to change in my lifetime.  No political will.

(September 12, 2021 at 10:30 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Apparently we can only subsidize oil - not child rearing.

Yup welfare for billionaires 

(September 12, 2021 at 10:36 pm)Spongebob Wrote: I've been an advocate of ending child subsidies for decades but of course when I speak about this to virtually any other human I get eviscerated.  Americans are indoctrinated to believe that child tax credits are a birthright.  And the more children you have, the more credits you get.  This makes absolutely no sense in a country that isn't hurting for population.

I think it makes all kinds of sense in a country full of poor children.  

Quote:At the very least we should stop any credits at 2 kids. 

What reason would you give to help two poor people that didn't apply to three poor people?

No one is having children to get tax credits.  It's not a thing. Cutting tax credits won't stop people from having kids anymore than birth control can save our ass on the climate front. The cost to raise them (to some nebulous standard) is calculated to be about a quarter million dollars. That's a grand a month per head - not tax credits. It seems obvious, but if we have to say it...states take a keen interest in the welfare of children in their borders.

---

(September 12, 2021 at 10:37 pm)Helios Wrote:

(September 12, 2021 at 10:30 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Apparently we can only subsidize oil - not child rearing.

Yup welfare for billionaires 

If you give the money to the filthy poors they'll just go buy food that's too good for them with it - like saltwater cockroaches and stuff.

(September 12, 2021 at 10:40 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(September 12, 2021 at 10:36 pm)Spongebob Wrote: I've been an advocate of ending child subsidies for decades but of course when I speak about this to virtually any other human I get eviscerated.  Americans are indoctrinated to believe that child tax credits are a birthright.  And the more children you have, the more credits you get.  This makes absolutely no sense in a country that isn't hurting for population.

I think it makes all kinds of sense in a country full of poor children.  

Quote:At the very least we should stop any credits at 2 kids. 

What reason would you give to help two poor people that didn't apply to three poor people?

No one is having children to get tax credits.  It's not a thing.  Cutting tax credits won't stop people from having kids anymore than birth control can save our ass on the climate front.  The cost to raise them (to some nebulous standard) is calculated to be about a quarter million dollars.  That's a grand a month per head - not tax credits.  It seems obvious, but if we have to say it...states take a keen interest in the welfare of children in their borders.

---

(September 12, 2021 at 10:37 pm)Helios Wrote: Yup welfare for billionaires 

If you give the money to the filthy poors they'll just go buy food that's too good for them with it - like saltwater cockroaches and stuff.

Yes, how dare they enjoy decent food. Stale bread and water that's what those freeloaders deserve. Stealing from those poor billionaires. Now they can't afford their next sports car 

(September 12, 2021 at 10:40 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(September 12, 2021 at 10:36 pm)Spongebob Wrote: I've been an advocate of ending child subsidies for decades but of course when I speak about this to virtually any other human I get eviscerated.  Americans are indoctrinated to believe that child tax credits are a birthright.  And the more children you have, the more credits you get.  This makes absolutely no sense in a country that isn't hurting for population.

I think it makes all kinds of sense in a country full of poor children.  

Quote:At the very least we should stop any credits at 2 kids. 

What reason would you give to help two poor people that didn't apply to three poor people?

No one is having children to get tax credits.  It's not a thing.  Cutting tax credits won't stop people from having kids anymore than birth control can save our ass on the climate front.  The cost to raise them (to some nebulous standard) is calculated to be about a quarter million dollars.  That's a grand a month per head - not tax credits.  It seems obvious, but if we have to say it...states take a keen interest in the welfare of children in their borders.

---

Let me be more specific.  The vast majority of people in the US don't actually need this child tax subsidies.  As you said, people don't have children just to collect tax subsidies.  This supports my case.  Most of us don't need this extra money.  It doesn't make that much difference, but hey, we'll take it.  Child tax subsidies, like many things, is a political football.  Both parties like to dole out a few extra hundies for the rugrats whenever their poll numbers are down and the economy sucks, and that's on top of the usual annual deduction.  All of this has conditioned Americans to expect tax breaks for having children and regardless of reason, it factors into their decision making.  Even Republicans don't get how nonsensical this is.  

Poor people should consider postponing children until they can properly provide for them.  That's just simple human math.  It makes no sense to give people a monetary incentive to reproduce, especially when our country does not have a low population problem.  Taxes are used all the time to incentivize behaviors and in this case it's incentivizing the wrong behavior, whether the people believe it is necessary or not.

Now, to address your question of people in poverty, we should continue to provide food and monetary support for those who fall on hard times.  This should always be considered a temporary situation unless the person is physically or mentally incapacitated.  But again, do the math.  What sense does it make to incentivize poor people to reproduce when they can't provide for themselves?  We do, in fact, have more effective and better targeted programs like earned tax credits and early learning that puts money in the hands of the poor and helps children but doesn't incentivize reproduction.  But, as you like to point out, the elite class likes to have a large body of penniless drones to do the work that no one else wants to do and maybe that's the reason we still have these subsidies.  And as you've also pointed out, many such subsidies like this are actually the government masking poor wages paid by companies.  Many of those poor people are working poor.  They have jobs, sometimes multiple, but they don't pay enough.  So the government steps in and shuffles out a few coins.  It's embarrassing.

I suggested stopping at 2 just as a compromise because that's how we've typically gotten things done in the US.  I'm pragmatic, after all.

But, as I've said, this is all rhetorical because nothing will change, so I'm not going to defend this philosophy.  The second a politician supports this idea, his/her career is over.

I think that it's career ending for a number of reasons. One..that stuff about kids yanks heartstrings..for sure, but also because it's a positively horrible idea on it's own merits.

There is no monetary incentive to reproduce. None. You don't make money by having kids, it's not a thing - and it's not even the purpose of those funds - which are to very explicitly address poverty. Kids are expensive...and, tbt, there's never any real number where you can say "ah, I know I can do this now". I have five, they don't make me a dime and never will.

Poverty exists, and maybe it's embarrassing, but it's a relevant fact of social welfare programs. Cutting those programs will not reduce poverty for the same reason that having fewer children will not address global warming. We already stop lower than your suggested number, by choice...and neither problem has been alleviated by that fact because they literally can't be. Increasing child subsidies and social welfare programs..in contrast, can demonstrably alleviate at least the one thing - and who knows..many hands make light work...wouldn't be the first time some poor kid who got a break from having been so foolish as to be born to poor parents solved the problems created by their betters.

(September 13, 2021 at 11:32 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I think that it's career ending for a number of reasons.  One..that stuff about kids yanks heartstrings..for sure, but also because it's a positively horrible idea on it's own merits.

There is no monetary incentive to reproduce.  None.  You don't make money by having kids, it's not a thing - and it's not even the purpose of those funds - which are to very explicitly address poverty.  Kids are expensive...and, tbt, there's never any real number where you can say "ah, I know I can do this now".  I have five, they don't make me a dime and never will.

Poverty exists, and maybe it's embarrassing, but it's a relevant fact of social welfare programs.  Cutting those programs will not reduce poverty for the same reason that having fewer children will not address global warming.

The subsidies do not by any stretch compensate what it costs to have children, but don't tell me that some people don't take that into consideration.  I know people who scheduled the birth of their children around it.

I'm not embarrassed by poverty because I didn't create it.  Tax subsidies is not a "program" but it is an incentive.  Note that I did not advocate cutting social welfare programs.  That is a separate issue.

Look, you can carry on your whole life believing that breeders are out there gaming some lucrative system - but they just aren't. If that's your objection..the hill you'd die on..that's probably why you get ripped to shreds when you bring it up. It's not a thing..but poverty is...and the way we do it is pretty horrid..but -that- is what compromise over social welfare looked like. Cant just hand people cash, even though that demonstrably works. Nope..tax breaks and voucher programs.

We'll probably not end up seeing eye to eye here..so, tldr version. Those tax breaks don't exist for the reason you think they do, people don't take them for the reason you think they do, and taking them away will not do anything that you imagine they would do. You don't have to take my word for any of this, you can look it up for yourself. Start with something simple, like how birth rates declined while child subsidies and poverty increased. Seems that we weren't incentivized.

(September 13, 2021 at 11:49 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Look, you can carry on your whole life believing that breeders are out there gaming some lucrative system - but they just aren't.  If that's your objection..the hill you'd die on..that's probably why you get ripped to shreds when you bring it up.  It's not a thing..but poverty is...and the way we do it is pretty horrid..but -that- is what compromise over social welfare looked like.  Cant just hand people cash, even though that demonstrably works.  Nope..tax breaks and voucher programs.  

I never said any of that and you know absolutely well I didn't say any of that.  So stop it with the dishonesty; just stop it.  I said this is my opinion but I'm not doing anything to change anyone's mind on it so you can rest easy that any rugrats you generate won't get defunded by my doing.  Believe whatever you like, but I would appreciate it if you stopped misrepresenting what I say.  It's intellectually dishonest and you know it.

Quote:We'll probably not end up seeing eye to eye here..so, tldr version.  Those tax breaks don't exist for the reason you think they do, people don't take them for the reason you think they do, and taking them away will not do anything that you imagine they would do.  You don't have to take my word for any of this, you can look it up for yourself.  Start with something simple, like how birth rates declined while child subsidies and poverty increased.  Seems that we weren't incentivized.

That's not really evidence of anything, you know.  Tax rates change often and for somewhat arbitrary reasons.  There's also the homeowners tax subsidy that should probably go away as well, but please don't start with me, I can see you are emotionally attached to these subjects.

We can disagree, but you don't have to call me a liar for pointing out what your suggestion would do, couldn't do, and isn't doing, lol.

We can have a general compliant with subsidies in general (and perhaps we both do?), but that probably wont fly as an argument to cut child subsidies while we continue to pay out others..nor...if we cut all subsidies of any kind, would the present need not continue and worsen while providing absolutely no beneficial effects whatsoever - and...just an fyi..again, we already stop at two and this is what that looks like. You wanna tax somebody harder...I think we can both come up with better suggestions than poor parents with poor kids. It's not like there's alot of blood to squeeze from that stone in the first place.

I'll suggest, again, that this is probably why it gets trashed. Not, as you keep insisting, due to some emotional investment.