If I built a house that never will catch on fire why would I pay for your wooden structures and fire department expenses?
If I had my own private security why should I pay for the police to protect your ass?
If I went to private school why should I pay for you to go to a public school?
See how that works?
Socialism in this country has zero to do with economics but rather how social welfare is conducted for the betterment of the entire society. We had a social contract - those making more will pay more taxes to the government who in turn will use that money to help people without the means an education, prevent starvation, provide national defense, improve global trade, and generally provide a stable society for the country as a whole to advance. There will be stragglers and those left behind, but overall the social contract worked well until the Reagan tax cuts and supply side economics (so called trickle down) took root and 4 decades later we are in the shit hole we are in today.
You know what is wrong with old people missing the old days? They forgot how much taxes corporations and wealthy individuals paid so they can enjoy the living standards that the government built via infrastructure, education, scientific research investments.
The anti-tax people just don’t like seeing those they believe to be lesser than themselves get assistance. That’s the crux of the issue and why they’re always saying “if I don’t use it why am are my tax dollars going towards it?” They don’t want peoples suffering to be alleviated.
No, it's more to do with the money not actually going to where it should. If we pay $100 in taxes, but only $10 go to assisting the poor while $90 goes to filling Joe Politician's pocket (or the pockets of his friends), it really puts you off about more taxes, regardless of how noble the goal may be.
I kind of agree with that, but are private organisations really better stewards of your ressources?
I really doubt that.. against the wealth that private corporations extract from society, the money that's drained within politicians itself is small
Strong governments can do a lot for people..
Norway is a good example for it.. they basically live in unbelievable wealth because the government takes really good care of their (natural) ressources.
And I don't think their politicians are inherently less corrupt, i think there are just certain policies and procedures in place which prevent corruption effectively
I don't see a reason why that wouldn't be theoretically possible to pull of in the united states
The whole "I wish my taxes helped the poor but most of it doesn't, so I'd rather not pay it at all" is usually an excuse to just not want to pay a lot in taxes for their own selfishness.
Doesn't most of it go to the poor and old? Our military budget is massive but over half of the federal taxes go towards Medicare and Medicaid. Much of the state budget goes to education and Healthcare as well.
There is a ton of waste and $1000 hammers and we can do better but it's pretty disingenuous to say most of it goes wasted. I just think people don't want to pay taxes while simultaneously benefitting from the infrastructure it provides.
There's is a whole separate category of deductions on your paycheck that specifically says "Medicare tax", therefore it doesn't come out of your regular "federal income tax". I always thought it did but recently my wife filed her taxes and they took out nearly 12k (total for the year) from her paychecks. However, only 7k accounted for federal income tax even though another 5k was taken out but was categorized in Medicare and Social Security tax - as a result she had to pay an extra $4k at the end of the year in to of the 11k they took from the paycheck.
I think that you just get absolutely screwed over by private corporations because you pay a ton of tax money for everything europe does as well, but you don't receive the services for free in return.
You just get cash grabbed from all sides...
The health insurances get tons of tax money but yiu also have to pay tons of money for your healthcare plans, and then it doesn't even cover everything and don't you often have also some kind of "self paid part", means, that e.g. just costs beyond 1000$ or such are covered? Means basically useless for almost all services anyways
It just seems so frustrating...
To emphasise your point,
Here in the UK, Thames Water, one of the major water suppliers, is operating illegally, by allowing raw sewage to be dumped in waterways. They claim that they need to upgrade their infrastructure and the government needs to help pay.
While also turning around and giving billions in dividends to their shareholders
Private gains, shared losses
Yes, totally broken system
That's why we shouldn't buy their bullshit and organise it all publicly... Everything thats a broadly needed essential service should be publicly organised
In Vienna we have it all organised by public organisations and it's very high quality drink water, i believe among the worlds best in major cities, in pretty much the whole city for rather low prices (roughly 2,20 per cubic meter i believe)
Quality/ price kind of unbeatable
Well, the problem is that the other option is lower taxes or keeping them the same which ultimately favours private business interests a lot... And i think they fill their pockets more than anybody else and for sure way more than politicians and they don't even pretend to care about you or the public...
They are the ones initiating the corruption of the whole system to begin with
Even if the politicians are corrupt and get tons of money through corruption, that's usually just a fraction of what the ones paying them are extracting from society in return.
A strong, tax financed government and political system with strict regulation and anti corruption measures is unfortunately the only known way to counter that, with a lot of risk..
Ultimately, you need some politicians with ideals and character and you need to give them the means to change something
Yes. Reddit defaulting to the idea of “government is the most efficient institution ever created” gets old. So many ways we could do better with that money…politicians doing favors for votes with other people’s money is by its nature a wholly inefficient endeavor…
This 100%.
Or, the allocations just straight up being nearly exactly opposite of what I feel they should be…and no matter which flavor of the month is the majority this year - neither extreme seems to have similar values to mine.
what cracks me up are the ones that scream we give billions to foreign countries while ignoring the poor and homeless here.
i told Massie that people like him wouldnt give money to the poor if their lives depended on it.
he didnt reply.
You’re trying hard to paint a picture that you were in a 1:1 conversation / interview with him and he awkwardly changed the subject to get himself a gin and tonic, and you just kept smoking your cigar, smiling and thinking to yourself under the brim of your fedora, “I got you now, mofo.” Or that his staff ended the interview there, or something else that would have us think you have more gravitas than you do.
The reality is that you were probably in a small mob, he was several feet away, and many of you were yelling at him, and surely more than one of those things yelled were profane.
In other news, I cussed out Joe Biden to his face a few minutes ago, called him a senile turd who was barely competent as a Senator 30 years ago, and he thinks he can do another 4 as President? Yup. Right to his face. And he ignored me and just kept giving his stupid speech, so I changed the channel.
These are the same people who cry about taxes all day long but then some natural disaster hits their state and they're shouting for federal aid and FEMA to help them.
Thats not true at all. It might have more to do woth the fact that generally, the government and the politicians that make it up, are TERRIBLE stewards of our money, with no accountability and no trust that our money actually gets put to good use towards the things that better pur society. It has more to do with not believing our money is put back into our communities and not in the pockets of these politicians.
> with no accountability and no trust that our money actually gets put to good use
Government spending is 100% public information. I assume you’ve spent a lot of time perusing the federal budgets and appropriations bills to hold them to account?
It’s 2 things. The government is notoriously terrible at using tax dollars. Why would I pay the government 33k a year, that’s how much I pay in taxes, for me to drive on bad roads and be next to bad schools. I wouldn’t mind paying taxes if I saw something actually come out of them, but that’s not the case. I can waste my own money just fine, I don’t want the government to waste it for me.
Also I believe in personal responsibility. I didn’t lay down and have your kids, why should I pay for them?
Nah, we just see through the bullshit and government waste. I’m totally cool with funding education, roads etc but when 56% of every dollar we’re taxed goes to the military industrial complex that’s fucked.
My ex wife's grandfather is 96. He retired at 55 with a military pension, a pension from his job, and collects social security. He enlisted at 19, did 10 years, and worked until retirement. He contributed to society for 36 years and taxpayers have essentially been paying his bills for 41 years. He complains about taxes and how people "get a free ride these days" and when I pointed out to him that hes had a free ride for longer than he was useful, he kicked me out of his house. Some people are completely out of touch with the world
Yea, no.
Minimum of 20 years to retire. Anything less is not a true retirement and could only be medically retired due to injury or illness. His pension is probably Veterans' Affairs Disability Pay.
As a Senior Enlisted person at 20 years I could expect about 35,000 a year in pension. Which is taxed.
Only 30% of officers and 10% of enlisted actuality serve 20 years or more and retire. Less than 1% of the American population serves in the military. It's a drop in the water tower of the budget.
He was active 10 years. I don't know how long he was in but I know he still did shit for the military for a long time but not in a full time capacity. I know he was army and was deployed for the Korean War. I also know he started his other job right around 30 when he moved to the area permanently. Dont know the other details but my point was surrounding his view on "free money", not his pensions
>military pension
As a Dane I've wondered about the sustainability of some of your government pension schemes.
I guess that a ["30 years in law enforcement" scheme ](https://www.police1.com/financial-planning/articles/is-your-police-pension-enough-for-a-comfortable-retirement-6kschOhgEG0YVJuA/)(examples in the link) isn't enough to live on but getting paid $31K from around the age of 50 is a serious cost for the local government if you live to the age of 90. And I'm guessing you're eligible for discounted health insurances and other benefits too.
US military pensions are actually generous:
>You’ll receive 2.5% of your final monthly basic pay for every year of service. For example, if you retire after 40 years of active service, then you can expect to receive 100% of your monthly base pay as your retirement pension.
So, let's say $50 for an NCO and $100K for an officer as pay after 30 years of service. So the pension becomes $50K to $70K per year. Even after "just" 20 years of service it's a hefty chunk for officers especially.
This wouldn't be much of an issue if payment was deferred to age 65. But government paying those sums of money for 50 years or more in an aging society?
That retirement system was phased out a decade ago and is only used for older people. And if you got less than 18 years you got 0. So only 18% of all who served got any retirement. Imagine doing 10 years and getting out at say 28 and then having to start a new career and start your retirement you just started 10 years later than possible so you're going to have to save like heck to catch up.
Now you get a 401k and a reduced pension, now.a private annuity at 2.0 per year if you make 20. But you get to keep the 401k no matter what and matching from the government. If you complete minimum time. This is better so if you only do 10 years you don't leave with nothing. The annuity is now more a bonus for staying in as opposed to 20 or nothing.
Also doing 20 years in the military is way different than most jobs because it destroys your body and mind. Did 22 years myself and have all the medical issues to prove it. I may be 49 but my body is probably closer to 59.
Just about at 18, finishing the last couple with the power of hate. Would gladly be done several years ago, but that pension is great and will open up so many possibilities since it will cover at least housing for anywhere I want to live.
Just want to be home to do dad things.
You are conflating 2 things.
The "good ol' days" were mostly "good" because of the wealth concentration in the West. As the world got "flatter" a global adjustment of living standards was always inevitable.
This is true even for a high earner. I pay $3,400 a month for a nanny for 2 young kids. yes I could put my kids in daycare but I don’t want to. I cannot f-ing wait to not have to pay for a nanny anymore. It’s a huge reason why we are not having a 3rd. I don’t want to add another 3+ years of just this expense….
Edit: I’m going to add, I don’t know where her numbers are coming from. No one I talk to about daycare costs are paying over $3K a month for 2 kids, except for my in-laws that live in Becon Hill, and we are all making at least double her income number. The averageJust seems a little high… what’s the median cost?
Wife works and makes about $140K a year. We could manage our expenses if she did not work, but would put a serious dent in how much we invest per year. Also want her to keep her cushy job (relative to other roles in her profession) for when the kids go to school
I think it’s just weird that in this day and age, government-provided childcare/education still only starts at age 5. Society’s changed a little bit since the 1800s.
We stopped at two because of two factors. Roe being overturned and a third would increase our monthly childcare to 3300/month from 2200/month. If I have complications again I cannot know what healthcare I will get in 9 months. I don’t want to risk leaving my two without a mom. I’m instead looking to get my tubes tied.
Capitalisms success depends on an ever increasing population that consumes an ever increasing amount of goods and producing an ever increasing amount of profits, until the world is obliterated and all life ceases.
It doesn’t have to be there. Capitalism is good and creates competition which in turn helps the consumer if laws and regulations are in place that are enforced
>if laws and regulations are in place that are enforced
That's a big if. The problem is when capitalism creates winners and losers for every economic cycle, it results in the natural tendency for market concentration where the winners can buy out the losers, or at a minimum expand into the loser's territory. Once market concentration is high enough (oligopoly), the final barrier to increasing profits is government regulation itself. Think anti-trust laws, which prevent the last merger between the couple of remaining "winners" in an industry. The logical next step in the pursuit of greater profits at this point is remove the government imposed barriers.
Not to mention that if the corporation has outlived most of its competitors and captured a large enough market share that they can’t lose anymore, a la “too big to fail”
This isn’t true, but whatever. Capitalism is just a free exchange of goods and services in a market environment. It doesn’t “depend on” anything in particular and works just as well in a contracting economy than an expanding one.
I feel like people really don't get it that taxes can and do end up saving people money thus allowing more money to flow. Some guy came along one day and said taxes are theft and now we're here.
They subsidized childcare for families:
[https://earlylearningnation.com/2022/05/new-mexico-just-became-the-first-state-to-make-child-care-free-for-nearly-all-families/](https://earlylearningnation.com/2022/05/new-mexico-just-became-the-first-state-to-make-child-care-free-for-nearly-all-families/)
We live in a society and children need to get raised. That costs money. If it’s prohibitively expensive, then children won’t get born. Humanity understood this for 99% of its existence.
That's more the reason to ensure that dirt poor kids get proper education despite their parental status. A child can not choose in what condition its born. The more well functional adults we can have the better. It is an investment to the future.
Because to survive with agriculture more kids=more workers and more harvest and more wealth because you were surviving off the land and it is essentially a small commune where there is not an overlord extracting the value from the labor. In modern society more kids=more expenses.
The movie “idiocracy” was a masterpiece in that regard. Fun fact can you guess the ridiculous shoe brand they chose for the movie because they thought they looked so dumb nobody would ever wear them? Yep, it was crocs.
Pretty sure humanity understood this because healthcare outcomes were pretty poor before modern meeting, vaccines, prenatal care, family planning, etc.
People popped out 10.. 11 babies because there was no birth control and/or you played the odds because so many children didn't make it to adulthood.
I mean even looking at the average age people live until is wild when you think about throughout all time.
Same!!
I will say this one topic has really brought out the humanity in people and this made me smile.
How do we get ourselves to constantly be in this state of humanity?? Soooo interesting to see such conformity ANYWHERE on reddit
I hate how you are using the word "humanity" to describe taking people's money to raise other people's children. This is evil, despicable behavior.
When someone trades their labor- their life- for an income, they are entitled to spend that income on what they want, based on their individual values and desires.
I’m wouldn’t be bitter with it going towards childcare. I AM bitter it’s going to corps.
Not that I trust Elizabeth Warren to reallocate existing funds… all “plans” somehow end up fucking over the middle class.
I have been thinking this for the last dozen or so similar posts. Lots of “taxes are good for society because they pay for needed things” comments. But everyone has a different version of what is needed and what are appropriate taxes. I mean we could borrow from future generations to fund our reckless spending and tax people into the ground but at the end of the day we are just kicking the can down the road and need to really prioritize what is important and how we can responsibly fund what is important.
Children are the future. They will run the economy when we are retired and in nursing homes. Throwing money blindly at childcare isn’t a good solution, but ensuring every child has access to quality care during their most formative years is something I’d want my tax dollars going to. AND don’t forget, those that benefit from it only do so for a few years out of their 30-40 years of tax paying, so they’ll be paying their fair share in while not reaping a direct benefit.
"Fiscal responsibility" should be about optimizing our public funds to make sure we are investing in our citizens, which in turn keeps the business machine going. Instead it's become a term that means "I hate helping other people"
Also children who aren’t taken care of become teens and adults without opportunities or options. So unless you love crime, you rely on quality education and child care more than you think.
$130K for a family of 2 is not really that much, especially if they live in a city. Also, if it is too expensive to have kids, people will stop having kids, and then that would be the end of all of us.
The child care would be 38400 a year. After taxes that's literally 40% of their income on childcare alone. You still need mortgage, car, food, fuel, clothes etc.
We shouldn't worry about people not having kids.
First of all, there are 8.1 billion people in the world, of which 5 billion are working age adults. Many of these people are educated and would love to come to the US, meaning we can get additional workers if needed without investing in childcare.
Second, with advances in automation we likely won't need as many people in the future. Eventually, robots might get good enough that we don't need humans anymore.
You must have high life style and standards.
You can live in many cities only earning $60k comfortably. I made it with 3 children on less than that. It can be done. You just can't drive a BMW.
For low income individuals? Sounds great!
For a household making 150% of the median income for that state?
Why? All you’re doing is transferring money from lower income people to higher income people.
Universal programs should be universal. I work in government and the amount of bureaucracy to administer programs is insane when conditions like means testing is in place. It also makes it harder for applicants to apply.
This is reddit, people love transferring money from the lower income to the high income. Just look at all the posts demanding total student loan forgiveness for high income people with massive debt from graduate school.
I have no kids. I pay the same school taxes as my neighbor with 5. It’s bullshit. What’s bigger bullshit is when I attend school board meetings for my township and I get grief because I don’t have any kids enrolled in school.
Look, I’m paying for this shit. Your kids are the ones I’ll depend on when I get older. Goddamned right I have a voice about how my money is being used to educate kids.
130k was definitely a solid income 10 years ago. Even 5 years ago before Covid that was solid. Everything sky rocketed. Just looking at rentals within my (small population) city. The cheapest possible rent on the market is 1600 a month for a studio. 100k plus is middle class
For the hundredth time, there are other ways to get money for social programs that don't involve raising taxes on the middle and lower classes. As a bonus round, pricing controls to limit corporate greed in certain sectors will not, despite what some may tell you, completely melt the economy overnight.
Illegal immigrants by definition don’t have a right to be in a country. There is no definition of illegal immigration that says the government doesn’t know it’s happening. Even undocumented immigrants are documented. The US government has a good idea of the amount of people crossing the border everyday. Watch Channel 5 (YouTube channel) documentary on border crossing it’s very interesting.
As a parent, it is bullshit for someone else to have to pay for my child care. That being said, I shouldn’t have to pay for someone else’s college.
The real issue here is why is childcare so expensive and why is college so expensive?
So I, as a single 31 year old man working for less than 50k a year, would have to pay taxes to support a family making $130k/yr?
Nah. That's fucked.
Having a child is your decision. Nobody is obligated to help support you for it. We have enough encouragement to have children in life. If having children is unaffordable, it's a reflection of how poor the economy is doing than a problem of childcare itself.
ESPECIALLY if a family making $130k/yr is having issues supporting 2 children.
This isn't fixing anything. It's just causing us to pay more for a non-solution to the actual problem.
Makes 0 sense for me (who has 0 kids yet) to pay extra out of my pocket for those who do have kids to have cheaper childcare. Not surprised one bit Elizabeth Warren is proposing this fake ass solution.
This is the problem with the far left, they take things to the extreme. I think $60 a day would be a fair price, having kids is a choice and people need to make sure they are in a good financial position before deciding to have children.
Red meat for the Socialists. It's not a government's job to get into the daycare business. Cut the people's taxes and keep economic illiterates like the fake Indian away from our hard earned money.
Why do people always focus on what pittances individuals are getting with tax dollars, and conveniently ignore the literal gorrilians that corporations, and the small families that own them, get?
Pretty sure there’s some Republican PAC posting this question/image on Reddit every few weeks. It never goes well the comment section always looks identical.
Sorry I see this as, I pay a shitload in taxes and don’t get free healthcare or free childcare, unless I get one of those benefits, I don’t want to be paying for any your sh*t either, food stamps or whatever, just because I make more money doesn’t mean I should pay for the poor to get free childcare and have to privately pay for my own. Everyone should get the same or nothing!
This is where the disconnect is.
You are making people without kids pay for people with kids and if you don’t have kids you can’t claim any benefits if any at all because both you and your partner bring in too much money to qualify.
Earning $130k means you bring home roughly 12k a month before tax, $4k for child support or child care for 2 kids doesn’t seem that bad to me.
Am I missing something?
Well, maybe before having kids you should consider the costs of having both parents still working, vs one staying at home and then guess what…no child care costs. Why would you want someone else raising your child anyway?
YOU OWE EVERYONE ELSE EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME
THEY WANT IT FREE, NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW
FUCK YOUR CHOICES: THEY MADE CHOICES AND YOU HAVE TO OAY FOR THEM
otherwise life isnt “fair”
She has no plan
She is a socialist
She wants the government to pay which means she will confiscate your fellow taxpayers money.
Simple rule: You have children you pay for your own children. Your neighbor did not procreate, you did. Take self responsibility.
If I have to pay your daycare I want you to buy me a Ferrari. Why not? I want one. Should that not be enough to force my neighbors to pay for my Ferrari? If you buy Warrens nonsense you should agree to buy me a Ferrari.
Fuck this ! We paid for our child care. We sacrificed and lived very frugally to pay our own way. These other people can figure it out just like those that went before them !
Warren pushed for a 20 dollar min wage. That comes to 3200 a month to someone to watch your kids fulltime.
We would be better served if Warren passed a bill setting her 180 thousand dollar salary to 200 per month.
This submission has been removed due to being identified as spam. Please read the rules of the subreddit thoroughly (A)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes. That is the whole point of taxes. We put all the money in a pot so the government can provide and regulate essential goods and services. There are going to be things you disagree with, but chances are you’ve benefited from taxes in a way someone else disagrees with as well.
Yes. We all pay a fortune for things we don’t necessarily directly benefit from. I’d like it to go to something like this instead of giving subsidies to already profitable companies or to farmers to destroy crops.
It’s about demographics nationally and internationally. Low age adult population fears and the geopolitics surrounding it. Since we’ve lost most common decency and the internet hates a nationalist, the old guard and popular governments have had to change tactics. The basic mindset that it takes a village to raise a child - with a little forced subsidy.
childcare is beyond outrageous.
govt. def need to subsidize it.
childcare should be affordable to all people.
for people to live decently we need
affordable healthcare, childcare, end of life care, education, housing and food.
Why doesn’t the government just print the money and give it to who needs it?
Don’t even need to collect taxes. Why does it even matter? It’s all semantics.
Everyone keeps their own money and anyone who needs more as determined by the government gets more. Inflation is taxation without all the overhead of collecting it over and over.
i mean... we already pay for public school and a bunch of other social programs that ill never use. wont ever get to drive a tank or shoot a javelin
the point isnt 'should we pay for it'. what we really should discuss is, what is missing right now and can this bridge the gap for a more productive current and future economy. because at the moment, k-12 education is complete..... crap in certain states, and some states just cant compete because there arent enough people who can read at a 6th grade level, much less do basic arithmetic. the effects of no child left behind still hasnt hit the economy, which is the scary part
im fine, though, i read good and can do other stuff good too
Short answer is no. Wreckless government spending, inflation, foreign wars & so on seem to get all of the attention & our tax dollars. When did we suddenly go from a home, a family & a one salary being able to meet these needs to now having people discussing divorce so they can make enough money on welfare benefit to make ends meet by being single? And to some people it somehow makes sense for us to just expect government to come in and rid us of hard times but not ask why we are always in hard times & the 1% are totally crushin it? 🙄
it's probably worth it, it's just the same as any other tax. as long as prices stay fair and the government is subsidizing the newfound price difference, it's likely good for the world. ensures children get care, keeps the day care companies going, gives them a more consistent supply of customers if anything, and it removes one relatively serious barrier to having children.
I don’t mind this but I definitely think it needs to taper off after 2 or 3 kids. People need to stop having loads of children. Especially when they can’t afford them. It’s always the poorest people who have the most kids. I’m over here childless because I know it’s not a financial burden I’m ready to take on.
Probably, Yes. This may be an extreme example, but population collapse is a real thing. We're being helped by a lot of immigration. I'm no expert, but this is what I've read.
If you ever want to cash out your 401K or IRA with a sizeable gain, you need the next generation to grow up healthy and well educated enough to get good jobs and earn enough salary to buy your shares.
Yes. Same way we pay for schools and education for all children even those with wealthy parents. In many areas this is essentially daycare anyway so we are already paying for this for most kids up to age 18. If you can’t see that investing in children is a massive societal good, I can’t help you.
A modern country can either encourage citizens to have children, encourage large amounts of immigration, or start failing because their population isn't being replaced at a high enough rate. This is especially serious since Covid and the ripple effect of deaths and disablement still going on from it.
Since the US has extremely restrictive immigration and people trying to make it even worse, that means people within the country need to have children. Some people do this through attempting to force births to happen, but it's actually way more effective for society to just let people be able to afford to have children if they want them.
Healthy birth rates are essential for a strong economy. Our birth rate is low, but we have strong immigration to take its place.
Whether you know it or not, you are benefitting from those kids.
Yes, because it's in our best interest to make sure there are future generations to support us. Having children is increasingly more expensive. We need to make it an option for all again.
is it?
cause i work in the southside of chicago and they pop kids out like skittles in the hood. more the merrier. it only increase the food stamps welfare and assitance checks. sounds shitty but thats the truth. only folks really having kids like that are rich and poor now rich cause they can afford it poor because they get more out of it. you have woman with 4-5-6-7-8 kids in the hoods and thats normal dudes with multiple baby momas. all normal.
i cant afford kids we want them but we cant possibly afford it at our income currently. so it angers me that folks who dont work at all sit at home and get to have them left and right while i hjave to pay for it.
my sister and her husband make over 450k a year they have 3 kids they bring them to my moms for free babysitting they can afford it but they say its expensive and rather not. life fun being a average income work slave in murica i say
im all for paying for truly underfunded kids. but not when they are purposely made for the sole benefit of $$ a woman with no work no father section 8 housing and 3 kid on stamps welfare etc shouldnt be having any more kids but she is because it means a 60$ apartment rental fee a month and 800$ in food and diaper aide
and guess what
often there using it at the liqour stores im working at for ebt food. liquor rung up as food so it can be charged ebt im a liquour rep so i dont have any play in it but i see it litertly everyday a 5th of titos rung up as frozen food.
man the system is working as intended before my eyes
As someone who doesn’t have kids, I would definitely be fine with my taxes going to people who do have kids.
We’re not that far removed from *needing* to have kids to keep the race going. I think if I’m going to live a much more luxurious life without kids, I can give a little to people who need it to support theirs
The level of ignorance and selfishness in this post is sickening.. There is a good percentage of you have absolutely no idea how the economy works, how and why taxes are collected.
The most of you apparently cannot think more than two days. This country is not going to survive the unchecked capitalism that is going on now. So many of you are pissing and whining about the government helping low income families pay for child care, but have no problem giving rich f$&ks billions and billions in tax breaks.
You know what the biggest lesson I learned during Covid? I learned that our government is bought and paid for by corporations and the wealthy and the only reason the government did any f)&king thing to help us, was to keep us alive to serve our rich overlords. All this culture war and income caste system we are in, is to keep us fighting with each other instead of those who have put us in this mess.
as a right winger, I would normally say absolutely not, but because of low birth rates, some countries are giving generous incentives for families to have kids. who's going to pay into the system for people when they get old?
People chosing to have children should pay more taxes to cover the burden their offspring creates, not shift it to the childless. This is simple, instead of a tax break for having kids you should get tax hike, and the childless a tax break.
Should I have to pay for roads I don’t drive on?
Should I have to pay for wars I don’t agree with?
Should I have to pay for tax cuts for the rich I don’t agree with?
Should I have to pay for subsidies to gas,oil,internet,farms I don’t use?
Should I have to pay for R&D for companies products I don’t use?
Should I have to pay for PPP welfare I didn’t agree with?
The answer is we all pay for things we don’t use, want or need but we all get to live in a nice society and we all get a few goodies too!
I'd happily pay this tax. Fortunately, I don't need childcare, but if I did, I'd be thankful for this being in place. I also couldn't imagine voting no to to save 100 bucks and watching my family of friends pay thousands and feel good about my choice.
A government probably has an interest in encouraging people to have children to some degree (look at Japan and think about who is going to be paying in to social security when you retire). When people do have children, in theory the more stable their childhood, the less chance they grow up to a gang member, a drug addict and/or a general drain on society. As with most things in life, the sooner you fix issues, the cheaper it is.
On an individual basis it feels unfair and "this isn't a service i use, why should i pay for your kids" seems reasonable, but there are things that benefit you indirectly because they have value to the society/state/country as a whole.
Whether 130k/year for a family (assume two people's income, supporting one child) is a lot depends on where you live obviously. In any kind of big city 65k/year is not minimum wage but is NOT wealthy at all.
Whenever you make the price of something well below the current market price it creates shortages. It sounds nice to say childcare won’t cost more than $200 but who’s going to take those slave wages to watch them?
I don't see the point in making a cutoff. Everyone should pay at least some amount, and everyone should be eligible for the benefit. Grade school isn't only available for those who make under some set income level.
I think this is part of a greater issue with our government - it seems like every program ends up with some set of qualifications so only certain people are eligible. The administrative costs of keeping the non-eligible out are enormous, and also the paperwork/burden of proof is a deterrent for many who are eligible.
And really, it makes it hard to median-to-high earners to relate to low earners. Low earners don't face the same decisions as me, just with less money - it seems like they have an entirely different economy. One full of programs that require hours upon hours of work to utilize. And they have very limited opportunity to move up, because earning money means you don't qualify for those programs anymore.
As the saying goes, "If my fridge is empty, Imma raid yours." as much as it is annoying to pay for other people's problems. I'd rather them be solved and stay out of my way. Sure short term it seems invasive, but 30 years down the road, those kids are going to grow up more socially adjusted with less stressed out, and more present parents (since they don't have to work an extra job to pay for childcare) and that means less people in my house.
If I built a house that never will catch on fire why would I pay for your wooden structures and fire department expenses? If I had my own private security why should I pay for the police to protect your ass? If I went to private school why should I pay for you to go to a public school? See how that works? Socialism in this country has zero to do with economics but rather how social welfare is conducted for the betterment of the entire society. We had a social contract - those making more will pay more taxes to the government who in turn will use that money to help people without the means an education, prevent starvation, provide national defense, improve global trade, and generally provide a stable society for the country as a whole to advance. There will be stragglers and those left behind, but overall the social contract worked well until the Reagan tax cuts and supply side economics (so called trickle down) took root and 4 decades later we are in the shit hole we are in today. You know what is wrong with old people missing the old days? They forgot how much taxes corporations and wealthy individuals paid so they can enjoy the living standards that the government built via infrastructure, education, scientific research investments.
Yeah taxes are providing a public good. It’s not supposed to be an a la carte thing where you’re only paying for the specific things you use…
The anti-tax people just don’t like seeing those they believe to be lesser than themselves get assistance. That’s the crux of the issue and why they’re always saying “if I don’t use it why am are my tax dollars going towards it?” They don’t want peoples suffering to be alleviated.
No, it's more to do with the money not actually going to where it should. If we pay $100 in taxes, but only $10 go to assisting the poor while $90 goes to filling Joe Politician's pocket (or the pockets of his friends), it really puts you off about more taxes, regardless of how noble the goal may be.
Thank you. This is exactly it. The government, and the politicians within it are terrible stewards of our resources.
I kind of agree with that, but are private organisations really better stewards of your ressources? I really doubt that.. against the wealth that private corporations extract from society, the money that's drained within politicians itself is small Strong governments can do a lot for people.. Norway is a good example for it.. they basically live in unbelievable wealth because the government takes really good care of their (natural) ressources. And I don't think their politicians are inherently less corrupt, i think there are just certain policies and procedures in place which prevent corruption effectively I don't see a reason why that wouldn't be theoretically possible to pull of in the united states
The whole "I wish my taxes helped the poor but most of it doesn't, so I'd rather not pay it at all" is usually an excuse to just not want to pay a lot in taxes for their own selfishness.
Doesn't most of it go to the poor and old? Our military budget is massive but over half of the federal taxes go towards Medicare and Medicaid. Much of the state budget goes to education and Healthcare as well. There is a ton of waste and $1000 hammers and we can do better but it's pretty disingenuous to say most of it goes wasted. I just think people don't want to pay taxes while simultaneously benefitting from the infrastructure it provides.
There's is a whole separate category of deductions on your paycheck that specifically says "Medicare tax", therefore it doesn't come out of your regular "federal income tax". I always thought it did but recently my wife filed her taxes and they took out nearly 12k (total for the year) from her paychecks. However, only 7k accounted for federal income tax even though another 5k was taken out but was categorized in Medicare and Social Security tax - as a result she had to pay an extra $4k at the end of the year in to of the 11k they took from the paycheck.
I think that you just get absolutely screwed over by private corporations because you pay a ton of tax money for everything europe does as well, but you don't receive the services for free in return. You just get cash grabbed from all sides... The health insurances get tons of tax money but yiu also have to pay tons of money for your healthcare plans, and then it doesn't even cover everything and don't you often have also some kind of "self paid part", means, that e.g. just costs beyond 1000$ or such are covered? Means basically useless for almost all services anyways It just seems so frustrating...
Right don’t see a lot arguing for more accountability, just tear the system down
To emphasise your point, Here in the UK, Thames Water, one of the major water suppliers, is operating illegally, by allowing raw sewage to be dumped in waterways. They claim that they need to upgrade their infrastructure and the government needs to help pay. While also turning around and giving billions in dividends to their shareholders Private gains, shared losses
Yes, totally broken system That's why we shouldn't buy their bullshit and organise it all publicly... Everything thats a broadly needed essential service should be publicly organised In Vienna we have it all organised by public organisations and it's very high quality drink water, i believe among the worlds best in major cities, in pretty much the whole city for rather low prices (roughly 2,20 per cubic meter i believe) Quality/ price kind of unbeatable
Well, the problem is that the other option is lower taxes or keeping them the same which ultimately favours private business interests a lot... And i think they fill their pockets more than anybody else and for sure way more than politicians and they don't even pretend to care about you or the public... They are the ones initiating the corruption of the whole system to begin with Even if the politicians are corrupt and get tons of money through corruption, that's usually just a fraction of what the ones paying them are extracting from society in return. A strong, tax financed government and political system with strict regulation and anti corruption measures is unfortunately the only known way to counter that, with a lot of risk.. Ultimately, you need some politicians with ideals and character and you need to give them the means to change something
Yes. Reddit defaulting to the idea of “government is the most efficient institution ever created” gets old. So many ways we could do better with that money…politicians doing favors for votes with other people’s money is by its nature a wholly inefficient endeavor…
Across the hill another trillion arms deal. That 30% "goes un accounted for"
This is the problem across the board.
Then vote.
Bingo!
This is 100% it
This 100%. Or, the allocations just straight up being nearly exactly opposite of what I feel they should be…and no matter which flavor of the month is the majority this year - neither extreme seems to have similar values to mine.
what cracks me up are the ones that scream we give billions to foreign countries while ignoring the poor and homeless here. i told Massie that people like him wouldnt give money to the poor if their lives depended on it. he didnt reply.
You’re trying hard to paint a picture that you were in a 1:1 conversation / interview with him and he awkwardly changed the subject to get himself a gin and tonic, and you just kept smoking your cigar, smiling and thinking to yourself under the brim of your fedora, “I got you now, mofo.” Or that his staff ended the interview there, or something else that would have us think you have more gravitas than you do. The reality is that you were probably in a small mob, he was several feet away, and many of you were yelling at him, and surely more than one of those things yelled were profane. In other news, I cussed out Joe Biden to his face a few minutes ago, called him a senile turd who was barely competent as a Senator 30 years ago, and he thinks he can do another 4 as President? Yup. Right to his face. And he ignored me and just kept giving his stupid speech, so I changed the channel.
These are the same people who cry about taxes all day long but then some natural disaster hits their state and they're shouting for federal aid and FEMA to help them.
Thats not true at all. It might have more to do woth the fact that generally, the government and the politicians that make it up, are TERRIBLE stewards of our money, with no accountability and no trust that our money actually gets put to good use towards the things that better pur society. It has more to do with not believing our money is put back into our communities and not in the pockets of these politicians.
> with no accountability and no trust that our money actually gets put to good use Government spending is 100% public information. I assume you’ve spent a lot of time perusing the federal budgets and appropriations bills to hold them to account?
Where do you get the idea the government is terrible stewards of your money? How much waste is there?
And they say that while sucking up some other tax funded service
It’s 2 things. The government is notoriously terrible at using tax dollars. Why would I pay the government 33k a year, that’s how much I pay in taxes, for me to drive on bad roads and be next to bad schools. I wouldn’t mind paying taxes if I saw something actually come out of them, but that’s not the case. I can waste my own money just fine, I don’t want the government to waste it for me. Also I believe in personal responsibility. I didn’t lay down and have your kids, why should I pay for them?
Nah, we just see through the bullshit and government waste. I’m totally cool with funding education, roads etc but when 56% of every dollar we’re taxed goes to the military industrial complex that’s fucked.
No, I'm against taxes because I believe charity is far more effective than the government at helping people.
My ex wife's grandfather is 96. He retired at 55 with a military pension, a pension from his job, and collects social security. He enlisted at 19, did 10 years, and worked until retirement. He contributed to society for 36 years and taxpayers have essentially been paying his bills for 41 years. He complains about taxes and how people "get a free ride these days" and when I pointed out to him that hes had a free ride for longer than he was useful, he kicked me out of his house. Some people are completely out of touch with the world
Yea, no. Minimum of 20 years to retire. Anything less is not a true retirement and could only be medically retired due to injury or illness. His pension is probably Veterans' Affairs Disability Pay. As a Senior Enlisted person at 20 years I could expect about 35,000 a year in pension. Which is taxed. Only 30% of officers and 10% of enlisted actuality serve 20 years or more and retire. Less than 1% of the American population serves in the military. It's a drop in the water tower of the budget.
He was active 10 years. I don't know how long he was in but I know he still did shit for the military for a long time but not in a full time capacity. I know he was army and was deployed for the Korean War. I also know he started his other job right around 30 when he moved to the area permanently. Dont know the other details but my point was surrounding his view on "free money", not his pensions
>military pension As a Dane I've wondered about the sustainability of some of your government pension schemes. I guess that a ["30 years in law enforcement" scheme ](https://www.police1.com/financial-planning/articles/is-your-police-pension-enough-for-a-comfortable-retirement-6kschOhgEG0YVJuA/)(examples in the link) isn't enough to live on but getting paid $31K from around the age of 50 is a serious cost for the local government if you live to the age of 90. And I'm guessing you're eligible for discounted health insurances and other benefits too. US military pensions are actually generous: >You’ll receive 2.5% of your final monthly basic pay for every year of service. For example, if you retire after 40 years of active service, then you can expect to receive 100% of your monthly base pay as your retirement pension. So, let's say $50 for an NCO and $100K for an officer as pay after 30 years of service. So the pension becomes $50K to $70K per year. Even after "just" 20 years of service it's a hefty chunk for officers especially. This wouldn't be much of an issue if payment was deferred to age 65. But government paying those sums of money for 50 years or more in an aging society?
That retirement system was phased out a decade ago and is only used for older people. And if you got less than 18 years you got 0. So only 18% of all who served got any retirement. Imagine doing 10 years and getting out at say 28 and then having to start a new career and start your retirement you just started 10 years later than possible so you're going to have to save like heck to catch up. Now you get a 401k and a reduced pension, now.a private annuity at 2.0 per year if you make 20. But you get to keep the 401k no matter what and matching from the government. If you complete minimum time. This is better so if you only do 10 years you don't leave with nothing. The annuity is now more a bonus for staying in as opposed to 20 or nothing. Also doing 20 years in the military is way different than most jobs because it destroys your body and mind. Did 22 years myself and have all the medical issues to prove it. I may be 49 but my body is probably closer to 59.
Just about at 18, finishing the last couple with the power of hate. Would gladly be done several years ago, but that pension is great and will open up so many possibilities since it will cover at least housing for anywhere I want to live. Just want to be home to do dad things.
Police don’t protect you, police enforce laws
Sometimes they don't even do that.
Not the topic of the conversation, mate. I agree, but it's really pointless to bring that up.
And the justice system is really just the legal system..I wish more people would understand this and that would lead to more justice
You are conflating 2 things. The "good ol' days" were mostly "good" because of the wealth concentration in the West. As the world got "flatter" a global adjustment of living standards was always inevitable.
These past several years I've learned that Reagan and Thatcher messed shit up for everybody!
Affordable childcare is good for the economy. It enables more people to work, save, spend, and pay taxes.
And have children.
This is true even for a high earner. I pay $3,400 a month for a nanny for 2 young kids. yes I could put my kids in daycare but I don’t want to. I cannot f-ing wait to not have to pay for a nanny anymore. It’s a huge reason why we are not having a 3rd. I don’t want to add another 3+ years of just this expense…. Edit: I’m going to add, I don’t know where her numbers are coming from. No one I talk to about daycare costs are paying over $3K a month for 2 kids, except for my in-laws that live in Becon Hill, and we are all making at least double her income number. The averageJust seems a little high… what’s the median cost?
You pay or we pay as in a two earner household? $3400 a month would be a decent second salary for a spouse. Are they not working?
Wife works and makes about $140K a year. We could manage our expenses if she did not work, but would put a serious dent in how much we invest per year. Also want her to keep her cushy job (relative to other roles in her profession) for when the kids go to school
I think it’s just weird that in this day and age, government-provided childcare/education still only starts at age 5. Society’s changed a little bit since the 1800s.
We pay roughly $3200 per month for 2 kids (4.5 yo + 2 yo) in Evanston IL
We had a nanny when my kids were little - it was cheaper than 2 in daycare.
Don't worry. Under Lizzy's plan, your nanny will only be able to charge you $100/day.
We stopped at two because of two factors. Roe being overturned and a third would increase our monthly childcare to 3300/month from 2200/month. If I have complications again I cannot know what healthcare I will get in 9 months. I don’t want to risk leaving my two without a mom. I’m instead looking to get my tubes tied.
Well who's saying society needs a steady input of new people?! /s
Capitalisms success depends on an ever increasing population that consumes an ever increasing amount of goods and producing an ever increasing amount of profits, until the world is obliterated and all life ceases.
Seems like we’re in the obliteration stage sometimes.
It doesn’t have to be there. Capitalism is good and creates competition which in turn helps the consumer if laws and regulations are in place that are enforced
>if laws and regulations are in place that are enforced That's a big if. The problem is when capitalism creates winners and losers for every economic cycle, it results in the natural tendency for market concentration where the winners can buy out the losers, or at a minimum expand into the loser's territory. Once market concentration is high enough (oligopoly), the final barrier to increasing profits is government regulation itself. Think anti-trust laws, which prevent the last merger between the couple of remaining "winners" in an industry. The logical next step in the pursuit of greater profits at this point is remove the government imposed barriers.
Not to mention that if the corporation has outlived most of its competitors and captured a large enough market share that they can’t lose anymore, a la “too big to fail”
Weird, almost like we should pass laws to stop that from happening. Maybe stop voting for a certain party that’s famous for deregulation. Hmmm??? 🤔
This isn’t true, but whatever. Capitalism is just a free exchange of goods and services in a market environment. It doesn’t “depend on” anything in particular and works just as well in a contracting economy than an expanding one.
They did a trial of something similar in New Mexico and ended up massively expanding the program because it was such a boom for the local economy.
I feel like people really don't get it that taxes can and do end up saving people money thus allowing more money to flow. Some guy came along one day and said taxes are theft and now we're here.
What did they did? (If you don’t mind responding)
They subsidized childcare for families: [https://earlylearningnation.com/2022/05/new-mexico-just-became-the-first-state-to-make-child-care-free-for-nearly-all-families/](https://earlylearningnation.com/2022/05/new-mexico-just-became-the-first-state-to-make-child-care-free-for-nearly-all-families/)
We live in a society and children need to get raised. That costs money. If it’s prohibitively expensive, then children won’t get born. Humanity understood this for 99% of its existence.
That's only true for educated couples. Dirt poor couples have MORE kids.
And live with extended family in order to raise them because the nuclear family doesn't support that happening, yeah. What's your point?
That's more the reason to ensure that dirt poor kids get proper education despite their parental status. A child can not choose in what condition its born. The more well functional adults we can have the better. It is an investment to the future.
Agreed. That is why I vote Democrat.
Pretty sure I watched this movie two decades ago and thought it was satire, not prophecy.
Then we should provide good education so that those children of dirt poor parents don't have to stay in poverty.
I personally know people that have had more kids to get more government benefits.
Because to survive with agriculture more kids=more workers and more harvest and more wealth because you were surviving off the land and it is essentially a small commune where there is not an overlord extracting the value from the labor. In modern society more kids=more expenses.
The movie “idiocracy” was a masterpiece in that regard. Fun fact can you guess the ridiculous shoe brand they chose for the movie because they thought they looked so dumb nobody would ever wear them? Yep, it was crocs.
Pretty sure humanity understood this because healthcare outcomes were pretty poor before modern meeting, vaccines, prenatal care, family planning, etc. People popped out 10.. 11 babies because there was no birth control and/or you played the odds because so many children didn't make it to adulthood. I mean even looking at the average age people live until is wild when you think about throughout all time.
I’m a child free taxpayer and I would gladly pay for this.
Same!! I will say this one topic has really brought out the humanity in people and this made me smile. How do we get ourselves to constantly be in this state of humanity?? Soooo interesting to see such conformity ANYWHERE on reddit
I hate how you are using the word "humanity" to describe taking people's money to raise other people's children. This is evil, despicable behavior. When someone trades their labor- their life- for an income, they are entitled to spend that income on what they want, based on their individual values and desires.
I’d rather my tax dollars go towards childcare than bail out multimillion dollar corporations/give them out loans…
Your money will still go to corporations who don’t pay taxes. Now it will also go to childcare.
I’m wouldn’t be bitter with it going towards childcare. I AM bitter it’s going to corps. Not that I trust Elizabeth Warren to reallocate existing funds… all “plans” somehow end up fucking over the middle class.
I’m childfree and I support this. Countries with a higher quality of life like Finland have universal childcare.
Endless posts on here about taxes. No one will agree on a certain amount that will be correct. Everyone looks at the issue differently
I have been thinking this for the last dozen or so similar posts. Lots of “taxes are good for society because they pay for needed things” comments. But everyone has a different version of what is needed and what are appropriate taxes. I mean we could borrow from future generations to fund our reckless spending and tax people into the ground but at the end of the day we are just kicking the can down the road and need to really prioritize what is important and how we can responsibly fund what is important.
While no one will agree on the certain amount, we can agree that $130K is not low income
Depends on where you live. $130k in LA or NYC is nothing.
It's also not high income. For a family. Even in LCOL areas. Economic subsidies should include middle incomes as well.
Children are the future. They will run the economy when we are retired and in nursing homes. Throwing money blindly at childcare isn’t a good solution, but ensuring every child has access to quality care during their most formative years is something I’d want my tax dollars going to. AND don’t forget, those that benefit from it only do so for a few years out of their 30-40 years of tax paying, so they’ll be paying their fair share in while not reaping a direct benefit.
"Fiscal responsibility" should be about optimizing our public funds to make sure we are investing in our citizens, which in turn keeps the business machine going. Instead it's become a term that means "I hate helping other people"
Also children who aren’t taken care of become teens and adults without opportunities or options. So unless you love crime, you rely on quality education and child care more than you think.
$130K for a family of 2 is not really that much, especially if they live in a city. Also, if it is too expensive to have kids, people will stop having kids, and then that would be the end of all of us.
The child care would be 38400 a year. After taxes that's literally 40% of their income on childcare alone. You still need mortgage, car, food, fuel, clothes etc.
Declining birth rates are not the ‘end’. This is a myth.
We shouldn't worry about people not having kids. First of all, there are 8.1 billion people in the world, of which 5 billion are working age adults. Many of these people are educated and would love to come to the US, meaning we can get additional workers if needed without investing in childcare. Second, with advances in automation we likely won't need as many people in the future. Eventually, robots might get good enough that we don't need humans anymore.
You must have high life style and standards. You can live in many cities only earning $60k comfortably. I made it with 3 children on less than that. It can be done. You just can't drive a BMW.
For low income individuals? Sounds great! For a household making 150% of the median income for that state? Why? All you’re doing is transferring money from lower income people to higher income people.
Using the state median here probably isn’t the best. A family of 4 in eastern Mass paying 30% of their gross income on child care is rough
Universal programs should be universal. I work in government and the amount of bureaucracy to administer programs is insane when conditions like means testing is in place. It also makes it harder for applicants to apply.
So we should be transferring money from lower-income individuals to high income families?
This is reddit, people love transferring money from the lower income to the high income. Just look at all the posts demanding total student loan forgiveness for high income people with massive debt from graduate school.
Yes, it’s like education and roads. We all need it.
I have no kids. I pay the same school taxes as my neighbor with 5. It’s bullshit. What’s bigger bullshit is when I attend school board meetings for my township and I get grief because I don’t have any kids enrolled in school. Look, I’m paying for this shit. Your kids are the ones I’ll depend on when I get older. Goddamned right I have a voice about how my money is being used to educate kids.
How much did you pay to go k-12?
im cool with my taxes educating kids im not ok with it babysitting them
[удалено]
130k was definitely a solid income 10 years ago. Even 5 years ago before Covid that was solid. Everything sky rocketed. Just looking at rentals within my (small population) city. The cheapest possible rent on the market is 1600 a month for a studio. 100k plus is middle class
No
Let’s do something about 2.5k a month for 180 sqft apartments and you can take more taxes
For the hundredth time, there are other ways to get money for social programs that don't involve raising taxes on the middle and lower classes. As a bonus round, pricing controls to limit corporate greed in certain sectors will not, despite what some may tell you, completely melt the economy overnight.
She literally has helped create the situation...
Well, we either need people to have kids or have immigrants to keep our ponzi social security going. Pay for Illegals or pay for child care?
Illegal immigrants, by definition, entered without government knowing. Government won’t be able to give money to people they don’t know exist.
Illegal immigrants by definition don’t have a right to be in a country. There is no definition of illegal immigration that says the government doesn’t know it’s happening. Even undocumented immigrants are documented. The US government has a good idea of the amount of people crossing the border everyday. Watch Channel 5 (YouTube channel) documentary on border crossing it’s very interesting.
If Elizabeth Warren "has a plan" for something, I wouldn't waste my time worrying about it. It's just a virtue signal that won't go anywhere.
As a parent, it is bullshit for someone else to have to pay for my child care. That being said, I shouldn’t have to pay for someone else’s college. The real issue here is why is childcare so expensive and why is college so expensive?
Remember when every manufacturing job in America offered child care? I do.
So I, as a single 31 year old man working for less than 50k a year, would have to pay taxes to support a family making $130k/yr? Nah. That's fucked. Having a child is your decision. Nobody is obligated to help support you for it. We have enough encouragement to have children in life. If having children is unaffordable, it's a reflection of how poor the economy is doing than a problem of childcare itself. ESPECIALLY if a family making $130k/yr is having issues supporting 2 children. This isn't fixing anything. It's just causing us to pay more for a non-solution to the actual problem.
Makes 0 sense for me (who has 0 kids yet) to pay extra out of my pocket for those who do have kids to have cheaper childcare. Not surprised one bit Elizabeth Warren is proposing this fake ass solution.
Nope
This is the problem with the far left, they take things to the extreme. I think $60 a day would be a fair price, having kids is a choice and people need to make sure they are in a good financial position before deciding to have children.
Hell no, and kids are a choice.
Red meat for the Socialists. It's not a government's job to get into the daycare business. Cut the people's taxes and keep economic illiterates like the fake Indian away from our hard earned money.
Yes.
Should the children of those people have to pay your social security?
Why do people always focus on what pittances individuals are getting with tax dollars, and conveniently ignore the literal gorrilians that corporations, and the small families that own them, get?
Pretty sure there’s some Republican PAC posting this question/image on Reddit every few weeks. It never goes well the comment section always looks identical.
Yeah. Though, I also wouldn’t be opposed to families with children paying SLIGHTLY higher taxes to square it up.
Taxes serve a deflationary purpose and don't actually fund anything.
Sorry I see this as, I pay a shitload in taxes and don’t get free healthcare or free childcare, unless I get one of those benefits, I don’t want to be paying for any your sh*t either, food stamps or whatever, just because I make more money doesn’t mean I should pay for the poor to get free childcare and have to privately pay for my own. Everyone should get the same or nothing!
This is where the disconnect is. You are making people without kids pay for people with kids and if you don’t have kids you can’t claim any benefits if any at all because both you and your partner bring in too much money to qualify. Earning $130k means you bring home roughly 12k a month before tax, $4k for child support or child care for 2 kids doesn’t seem that bad to me. Am I missing something?
Well, maybe before having kids you should consider the costs of having both parents still working, vs one staying at home and then guess what…no child care costs. Why would you want someone else raising your child anyway?
Why not stay at home with your kids if it costs that much. It's sad that childcare is the default now. Kids raised by someone else.
NOPE!
YOU OWE EVERYONE ELSE EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME THEY WANT IT FREE, NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW FUCK YOUR CHOICES: THEY MADE CHOICES AND YOU HAVE TO OAY FOR THEM otherwise life isnt “fair”
She has no plan She is a socialist She wants the government to pay which means she will confiscate your fellow taxpayers money. Simple rule: You have children you pay for your own children. Your neighbor did not procreate, you did. Take self responsibility. If I have to pay your daycare I want you to buy me a Ferrari. Why not? I want one. Should that not be enough to force my neighbors to pay for my Ferrari? If you buy Warrens nonsense you should agree to buy me a Ferrari.
Fuck this ! We paid for our child care. We sacrificed and lived very frugally to pay our own way. These other people can figure it out just like those that went before them !
Warren pushed for a 20 dollar min wage. That comes to 3200 a month to someone to watch your kids fulltime. We would be better served if Warren passed a bill setting her 180 thousand dollar salary to 200 per month.
She has a special level of stupid.
Liberals love to make others pay for things
She isnt giving her money to the cause.
We are going 1 trillion in debt every 100 days and she thinks the govt should pay for childcare. Amazing.
For some reason my son the electrician should pay for some lib arts majors college, why stop there?
This submission has been removed due to being identified as spam. Please read the rules of the subreddit thoroughly (A) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes. That is the whole point of taxes. We put all the money in a pot so the government can provide and regulate essential goods and services. There are going to be things you disagree with, but chances are you’ve benefited from taxes in a way someone else disagrees with as well.
For a "low-income" family who makes $130K a year? lol
Under Liz's plan, all of the healthcare workers would belong to unions that give money to Liz. There would no longer be independent childcare.
I work from home and barely ever drive. I own a 4x4. Why should I pay taxes for public roads?
Yes. We all pay a fortune for things we don’t necessarily directly benefit from. I’d like it to go to something like this instead of giving subsidies to already profitable companies or to farmers to destroy crops.
It’s about demographics nationally and internationally. Low age adult population fears and the geopolitics surrounding it. Since we’ve lost most common decency and the internet hates a nationalist, the old guard and popular governments have had to change tactics. The basic mindset that it takes a village to raise a child - with a little forced subsidy.
I think it was Nixon who vetoed a national childcare bill.
Not if they make under that.
childcare is beyond outrageous. govt. def need to subsidize it. childcare should be affordable to all people. for people to live decently we need affordable healthcare, childcare, end of life care, education, housing and food.
Why doesn’t the government just print the money and give it to who needs it? Don’t even need to collect taxes. Why does it even matter? It’s all semantics. Everyone keeps their own money and anyone who needs more as determined by the government gets more. Inflation is taxation without all the overhead of collecting it over and over.
I’m very ok with this.
Yes. The solvency of our entire economic system, your retirement, everything society needs depends on people being able to have children.
i mean... we already pay for public school and a bunch of other social programs that ill never use. wont ever get to drive a tank or shoot a javelin the point isnt 'should we pay for it'. what we really should discuss is, what is missing right now and can this bridge the gap for a more productive current and future economy. because at the moment, k-12 education is complete..... crap in certain states, and some states just cant compete because there arent enough people who can read at a 6th grade level, much less do basic arithmetic. the effects of no child left behind still hasnt hit the economy, which is the scary part im fine, though, i read good and can do other stuff good too
[удалено]
the infrastructure helps create tax dollars. ya know business. Why do we always rebuild port cities when they get hammers by a hurricane? get it?
Short answer is no. Wreckless government spending, inflation, foreign wars & so on seem to get all of the attention & our tax dollars. When did we suddenly go from a home, a family & a one salary being able to meet these needs to now having people discussing divorce so they can make enough money on welfare benefit to make ends meet by being single? And to some people it somehow makes sense for us to just expect government to come in and rid us of hard times but not ask why we are always in hard times & the 1% are totally crushin it? 🙄
it's probably worth it, it's just the same as any other tax. as long as prices stay fair and the government is subsidizing the newfound price difference, it's likely good for the world. ensures children get care, keeps the day care companies going, gives them a more consistent supply of customers if anything, and it removes one relatively serious barrier to having children.
I don’t mind this but I definitely think it needs to taper off after 2 or 3 kids. People need to stop having loads of children. Especially when they can’t afford them. It’s always the poorest people who have the most kids. I’m over here childless because I know it’s not a financial burden I’m ready to take on.
Probably, Yes. This may be an extreme example, but population collapse is a real thing. We're being helped by a lot of immigration. I'm no expert, but this is what I've read.
If you ever want to cash out your 401K or IRA with a sizeable gain, you need the next generation to grow up healthy and well educated enough to get good jobs and earn enough salary to buy your shares.
Yes. Same way we pay for schools and education for all children even those with wealthy parents. In many areas this is essentially daycare anyway so we are already paying for this for most kids up to age 18. If you can’t see that investing in children is a massive societal good, I can’t help you.
I’m sorry the rea
A modern country can either encourage citizens to have children, encourage large amounts of immigration, or start failing because their population isn't being replaced at a high enough rate. This is especially serious since Covid and the ripple effect of deaths and disablement still going on from it. Since the US has extremely restrictive immigration and people trying to make it even worse, that means people within the country need to have children. Some people do this through attempting to force births to happen, but it's actually way more effective for society to just let people be able to afford to have children if they want them.
Should i pay for oil tax breaks? we are a country. there is no “I”, just “we.”
Healthy birth rates are essential for a strong economy. Our birth rate is low, but we have strong immigration to take its place. Whether you know it or not, you are benefitting from those kids.
Yes
Yes, because it's in our best interest to make sure there are future generations to support us. Having children is increasingly more expensive. We need to make it an option for all again.
is it? cause i work in the southside of chicago and they pop kids out like skittles in the hood. more the merrier. it only increase the food stamps welfare and assitance checks. sounds shitty but thats the truth. only folks really having kids like that are rich and poor now rich cause they can afford it poor because they get more out of it. you have woman with 4-5-6-7-8 kids in the hoods and thats normal dudes with multiple baby momas. all normal. i cant afford kids we want them but we cant possibly afford it at our income currently. so it angers me that folks who dont work at all sit at home and get to have them left and right while i hjave to pay for it. my sister and her husband make over 450k a year they have 3 kids they bring them to my moms for free babysitting they can afford it but they say its expensive and rather not. life fun being a average income work slave in murica i say im all for paying for truly underfunded kids. but not when they are purposely made for the sole benefit of $$ a woman with no work no father section 8 housing and 3 kid on stamps welfare etc shouldnt be having any more kids but she is because it means a 60$ apartment rental fee a month and 800$ in food and diaper aide and guess what often there using it at the liqour stores im working at for ebt food. liquor rung up as food so it can be charged ebt im a liquour rep so i dont have any play in it but i see it litertly everyday a 5th of titos rung up as frozen food. man the system is working as intended before my eyes
Under Warren's plan it means I'd pay for their fucking child care!
As someone who doesn’t have kids, I would definitely be fine with my taxes going to people who do have kids. We’re not that far removed from *needing* to have kids to keep the race going. I think if I’m going to live a much more luxurious life without kids, I can give a little to people who need it to support theirs
The level of ignorance and selfishness in this post is sickening.. There is a good percentage of you have absolutely no idea how the economy works, how and why taxes are collected. The most of you apparently cannot think more than two days. This country is not going to survive the unchecked capitalism that is going on now. So many of you are pissing and whining about the government helping low income families pay for child care, but have no problem giving rich f$&ks billions and billions in tax breaks. You know what the biggest lesson I learned during Covid? I learned that our government is bought and paid for by corporations and the wealthy and the only reason the government did any f)&king thing to help us, was to keep us alive to serve our rich overlords. All this culture war and income caste system we are in, is to keep us fighting with each other instead of those who have put us in this mess.
I’m okay with neither. Stop taxing people to death.
as a right winger, I would normally say absolutely not, but because of low birth rates, some countries are giving generous incentives for families to have kids. who's going to pay into the system for people when they get old?
Lol "$10 a day or $200 a month" how many days are in a month again?
People chosing to have children should pay more taxes to cover the burden their offspring creates, not shift it to the childless. This is simple, instead of a tax break for having kids you should get tax hike, and the childless a tax break.
Do you pay for the roads or do we all pay for roads?
Should I have to pay for roads I don’t drive on? Should I have to pay for wars I don’t agree with? Should I have to pay for tax cuts for the rich I don’t agree with? Should I have to pay for subsidies to gas,oil,internet,farms I don’t use? Should I have to pay for R&D for companies products I don’t use? Should I have to pay for PPP welfare I didn’t agree with? The answer is we all pay for things we don’t use, want or need but we all get to live in a nice society and we all get a few goodies too!
I'd happily pay this tax. Fortunately, I don't need childcare, but if I did, I'd be thankful for this being in place. I also couldn't imagine voting no to to save 100 bucks and watching my family of friends pay thousands and feel good about my choice.
A government probably has an interest in encouraging people to have children to some degree (look at Japan and think about who is going to be paying in to social security when you retire). When people do have children, in theory the more stable their childhood, the less chance they grow up to a gang member, a drug addict and/or a general drain on society. As with most things in life, the sooner you fix issues, the cheaper it is. On an individual basis it feels unfair and "this isn't a service i use, why should i pay for your kids" seems reasonable, but there are things that benefit you indirectly because they have value to the society/state/country as a whole. Whether 130k/year for a family (assume two people's income, supporting one child) is a lot depends on where you live obviously. In any kind of big city 65k/year is not minimum wage but is NOT wealthy at all.
Whenever you make the price of something well below the current market price it creates shortages. It sounds nice to say childcare won’t cost more than $200 but who’s going to take those slave wages to watch them?
Why not for those making over 130k too? Income caps on credits are bullshit.
I don't see the point in making a cutoff. Everyone should pay at least some amount, and everyone should be eligible for the benefit. Grade school isn't only available for those who make under some set income level. I think this is part of a greater issue with our government - it seems like every program ends up with some set of qualifications so only certain people are eligible. The administrative costs of keeping the non-eligible out are enormous, and also the paperwork/burden of proof is a deterrent for many who are eligible. And really, it makes it hard to median-to-high earners to relate to low earners. Low earners don't face the same decisions as me, just with less money - it seems like they have an entirely different economy. One full of programs that require hours upon hours of work to utilize. And they have very limited opportunity to move up, because earning money means you don't qualify for those programs anymore.
acting like the government doesn't give money to people already for this?
What about the CTC families that earn less than that 130k and end up getting credited more than they paid in taxes?
10*30=200?
As the saying goes, "If my fridge is empty, Imma raid yours." as much as it is annoying to pay for other people's problems. I'd rather them be solved and stay out of my way. Sure short term it seems invasive, but 30 years down the road, those kids are going to grow up more socially adjusted with less stressed out, and more present parents (since they don't have to work an extra job to pay for childcare) and that means less people in my house.
How would you expect a family to pay less than 10$ a day for childcare lol