Changing the Child Tax credit to a monthly payment (and expanding it) (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

wardorican

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
3,624
Reaction score
4,084
Age
41
Location
Ft. Lauderdale
Offline

The proposal comes as many Democrats have similarly expressed interest in providing payments to families with children on a monthly basis.

"This proposal offers a path toward greater security for America’s families by consolidating the many complicated programs to create a monthly cash benefit for them, without adding to the deficit,” Romney said in a news release.

Under Romney's proposal, the existing child tax credit would be replaced with monthly payments of $350 for children ages 5 and under and $250 for children ages 6 to 17. Families would be capped at monthly payments of $1,250.

.....

The payment amounts phase out for single tax filers with income above $200,000 and married couples with income above $400,000 — the same income phaseout thresholds for the current child tax credit. The Social Security Administration would administer the monthly payments, and people would reconcile any overpayments or underpayments with the IRS when they filed their tax returns.

Romney would offset the cost of his proposal by eliminating some federal programs that he argues would be duplicative with his child allowance, including the head-of-household filing status, the child and dependent care tax credit and temporary assistance for needy families.

Interesting proposal. Sort of a UBI, but for kids. Obviously it would be a small amount, but maybe better to dole it out little by little vs all at the end of a tax year?

That would be a $6000 yearly payment for younger kids and a $3000 yearly payment for older kids.

I guess the question is this.. is it better to put money in the hands of people, or allow free access to certain services and aid? like, is he talking about eliminating SNAP? They money may help, but it doesn't address the problem of some urban areas not having close access to a proper grocery store. It also still has what were old concerns about food stamps, of people trading them for drugs and all that. I'm sure the 'drug' issue is very small. But, there is an argument about if money in the public's hands is a good as coordinated usage.

i.e. we'd never have roads if we just let everyone do what they will with their own money. Not sure if this specific issue falls under that concept, but it's within the realm of discussion, I'd think.

As usual, I'm not tied to this idea too tightly, but I think the idea of a monthly automatic payment that doesn't require tax filing (which means, often requires you to hire someone to help you get your money back), would be a good thing.
 

brandon

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,610
Reaction score
2,808
Offline
Some additional relevant info in the article:
Romney would offset the cost of his proposal by eliminating some federal programs that he argues would be duplicative with his child allowance, including the head-of-household filing status, the child and dependent care tax credit and temporary assistance for needy families.

He also proposes reducing the cost of the earned income tax credit. Additionally, he proposes repealing the state and local tax deduction, which was already limited by President Trump's 2017 tax cut law, arguing that most families that previously claimed the deduction will still be better off under his proposal.

So for me, a married guy with a six-figure household income and one child, I get a $1,000/year raise by losing a $2,000 tax credit but gaining a $3,000/year income.

Meanwhile, a single mom in NYC with one kid who just lost her job is going to get destroyed because she gets the same effective $1,000/year raise, but loses head of household filing status, TANF, part of EITC, and SALT.

So sure, I'm all for getting an extra $1,000 per year, but not on the backs of the poor. I don't need an extra $83.33 per month that bad thank you very much.
 

brandon

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,610
Reaction score
2,808
Offline
Some additional relevant info in the article:


So for me, a married guy with a six-figure household income and one child, I get a $1,000/year raise by losing a $2,000 tax credit but gaining a $3,000/year income.

Meanwhile, a single mom in NYC with one kid who just lost her job is going to get destroyed because she gets the same effective $1,000/year raise, but loses head of household filing status, TANF, part of EITC, and SALT.

So sure, I'm all for getting an extra $1,000 per year, but not on the backs of the poor. I don't need an extra $83.33 per month that bad thank you very much.
But I do want to point out that I'm extremely happy to be picking apart policy and philosophical differences with proposed Republican legislation than with the obstructionist, then populist nonsense we've dealth with since Obama's first day in office. I can't even remember the last time a Republican proposed legislation that would, at least on the surface, attempt to make life better for average people.
 

The moose

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,383
Reaction score
1,251
Age
52
Location
New Orleans
Offline
But I do want to point out that I'm extremely happy to be picking apart policy and philosophical differences with proposed Republican legislation than with the obstructionist, then populist nonsense we've dealth with since Obama's first day in office. I can't even remember the last time a Republican proposed legislation that would, at least on the surface, attempt to make life better for average people.


I agree it is the start of something here.

Even the republican senators know that mitch won't be able to just squash everything.

I do think it is a idea and not a great one but not being afraid to put it out there is a really good sign for all of us.
 

JRad

I'm not a cat
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,249
Reaction score
1,845
Age
38
Location
Baton Rouge
Offline
Doesn't France(?) do something like this for child care?
 

Dragon

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
749
Reaction score
1,303
Age
58
Location
Elsinore
Offline
We do actually :)

900$ month for the youngest and 450$ for those 15-17 and several "intermediate steps"
Single parents will get more, as will children who has lost one or both parents.

Also suplements for twins, triplets etc..
 
Last edited:

Goatman saint

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
300
Reaction score
454
Age
50
Location
California
Offline
Honestly had t thought about this, but I’m not sure it’s a bad idea. It would create a more even payment per month to count on for budgeting, and would take away the huge once a year bonus that commonly gets spent on shall we say less than needed things.
His way of paying for it I would have to look at in depth, but on the surface it seems like a pretty decent idea
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #8
OP
wardorican

wardorican

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
3,624
Reaction score
4,084
Age
41
Location
Ft. Lauderdale
Offline
Honestly had t thought about this, but I’m not sure it’s a bad idea. It would create a more even payment per month to count on for budgeting, and would take away the huge once a year bonus that commonly gets spent on shall we say less than needed things.
His way of paying for it I would have to look at in depth, but on the surface it seems like a pretty decent idea
Yeah, for me, like others said, the rub is 'what are the redundant government funded things' to be cut. If it's a net loss or hurts the poor more, then no thanks.
 

Goatman saint

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
300
Reaction score
454
Age
50
Location
California
Offline
This is true. But, if we start with the tax provisions, certainly makes sense. If all that would balance out, not leaving the most needy behind, then as I said sounds good until the Republican boogeyman of making people think they will be better off raises his head. (And ummm sure it’s in there somewhere).
Kinda like with universal coverage. If you take away Medicare, Medicaid, certain aspects of social security, state health benefits, plus add in a bit from what private insurance is paid it could be paid for quite easily. However, getting people to give up those things on an idea of wholesale out with the old in with the new would be problematic.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Top Bottom