4 ms·

If people can't work, they aren't earning income. If they don't have extra income, they aren't buying anything. So the state isn't getting tax income from these

by dfxm12 3y ago

If people can't work, they aren't earning income. If they don't have extra income, they aren't buying anything. So the state isn't getting tax income from these folks. In fact, they are probably paying them welfare. God forbid they can't make rent... It's almost impossible for children who grow up in this situation to escape it themselves. If the economy wanted to extract anything from these people, it would make sure they were working. On the subject of policy, things like the expanded child tax credit and school lunches pay the government back incredibly well, so support for stuff like that isn't just helping your neighbor, it's helping yourself, too.

p1esk 3y ago
Why is this downvoted?
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  because it's assuming that a family that can't afford child care is on welfare.
- michaelt 3y ago
  Some people become stay-at-home parents because they can't afford childcare, have to get welfare, maybe can't make rent, and maybe their children grow up in poverty. Other people become stay-at-home parents because their partner earns a six-figure salary, they've decided to have 4-6 kids which they can afford, and with that many kids a stay-at-home parent just makes economic sense for a few years. Their household income is substantially above the national median, despite being a single-earner household. Their children do not grow up in poverty - in fact quite the opposite. Guess which type of person the average HN reader meets more often?
- rootlocus 3y ago
  > If the economy wanted to extract anything from these people, it would make sure they were working. If people don't raise people, there soon won't be people to economy. You have to invest in people (education, welfare, etc.) before they invest into the economy. These black-and-white deductions only make sense for spherical cows in void.
- HumblyTossed 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    Did you even read the comment you are replying to? > On the subject of policy, things like the expanded child tax credit and school lunches pay the government back incredibly well, so support for stuff like that isn't just helping your neighbor, it's helping yourself, too.
    - HumblyTossed 3y ago
      I replied to: > Why is this downvoted? And that comment is downvoted because rich people (even on HN) don't want to support free lunches for kids.
- bryanrasmussen 3y ago
  it looks like some people have interpreted it as being written from a conservative point of view blaming the poor for their own problems, and definitely some phrasing suggests this but there is other phrasing that suggests otherwise so I would say it is probably downvoted because people have decided to take the least forgiving interpretation of the comment. on edit: looks like I'm getting downvoted now! How exciting!!
  - r00fus 3y ago
    > some people have interpreted it as being written from a conservative point of view Well, the comment in question uses a lot of conservative tropes: a) ppl not earning = on welfare b) victim blaming c) GDP uber alles
    - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
      things that are not particular conservative tropes. > It's almost impossible for children who grow up in this situation to escape it themselves. Understanding that people cannot escape poverty by 'themselves' >On the subject of policy, things like the expanded child tax credit and school lunches pay the government back incredibly well, so support for stuff like that isn't just helping your neighbor, it's helping yourself, too. seem to support paying more taxes to help less fortunate people. These things taken together makes me think the parts that sound uncaring are maybe just poorly phrased. > a) ppl not earning = on welfare "probably on welfare" is what they say, which if you "can't afford child care" it might be that you need some government assistance of some sort when one of the partners drops out of the workforce to take care of the children. This is of course different than "the benefit of the partner working in comparison to paying for child care is negligible", which would be another reason for one to drop out and take care of the children. For some reason everybody came with the example of "the benefit of the partner working in comparison is negligible" examples in contrast to "can't afford child care", which would be understandable if they said well there's another reason than just not being able to afford why people drop - but they didn't make that comment. So for these various reasons I think the comment was reasonable compassionate but did have a GDP viewpoint on why the system should be changed to allow people to continue working and afford childcare.
Justsignedup 3y ago
Furthermore, if we care about a growing population, we need to encourage people to have children. Seeing children as a massive burden and a trap away from your ability to work (because of childcare needs) leads to people just not having kids. All the talk about "we need more kids" is completely moot, if you want people to have kids, give them a reason not to fear it. I am thankfully in a position where a phone call from the school means I'll work the rest of the day from home. My neighbor has limited options because she can't afford to work and childcare while her husband is at work. So her only options are: Don't work, work such that she never shares any off time with her husband, and thus is effectively living alone and basically that's it. And her job prospects aren't such that most jobs will cover daycare + more. In fact most jobs will barely pay above the cost of daycare.
- dfxm12 3y ago
  The policy of forced child birth in many states also looms large over this conversation.
  - Justsignedup 3y ago
    Exactly. Because their solution is the whip, not the carrot. They are describing a very real need, people having kids, but they are absolutely going about it in both the worst possible way AND in the most malicious way. They are not solving the problem, they are just pushing the problem onto people who's future will be destroyed. And it is causing many secondary catastrophes in our economy. And this article points out exactly one such. Healthcare is another. And food security is a third. There are others.
r00fus 3y ago
> So the state isn't getting tax income from these folks. So perhaps resting our a bulk of taxation on income tax may not be a sustainable model. Especially when the corporate and high income wealth is so tax preferred (or evading taxes). Refactoring our tax system to a less extraction model may be the better approach. Wealth taxes, financial transaction taxes, more effective property taxes (ie, land value tax) could result in a more livable country for the vast majority of people (numbers will go down a bit for the billionaires).

by dfxm12 3y ago

p1esk 3y ago

Why is this downvoted?

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
because it's assuming that a family that can't afford child care is on welfare.
michaelt 3y ago
Some people become stay-at-home parents because they can't afford childcare, have to get welfare, maybe can't make rent, and maybe their children grow up in poverty. Other people become stay-at-home parents because their partner earns a six-figure salary, they've decided to have 4-6 kids which they can afford, and with that many kids a stay-at-home parent just makes economic sense for a few years. Their household income is substantially above the national median, despite being a single-earner household. Their children do not grow up in poverty - in fact quite the opposite. Guess which type of person the average HN reader meets more often?
rootlocus 3y ago
> If the economy wanted to extract anything from these people, it would make sure they were working. If people don't raise people, there soon won't be people to economy. You have to invest in people (education, welfare, etc.) before they invest into the economy. These black-and-white deductions only make sense for spherical cows in void.
HumblyTossed 3y ago
[flagged]
- scarface_74 3y ago
  Did you even read the comment you are replying to? > On the subject of policy, things like the expanded child tax credit and school lunches pay the government back incredibly well, so support for stuff like that isn't just helping your neighbor, it's helping yourself, too.
  - HumblyTossed 3y ago
    I replied to: > Why is this downvoted? And that comment is downvoted because rich people (even on HN) don't want to support free lunches for kids.
bryanrasmussen 3y ago
it looks like some people have interpreted it as being written from a conservative point of view blaming the poor for their own problems, and definitely some phrasing suggests this but there is other phrasing that suggests otherwise so I would say it is probably downvoted because people have decided to take the least forgiving interpretation of the comment. on edit: looks like I'm getting downvoted now! How exciting!!
- r00fus 3y ago
  > some people have interpreted it as being written from a conservative point of view Well, the comment in question uses a lot of conservative tropes: a) ppl not earning = on welfare b) victim blaming c) GDP uber alles
  - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
    things that are not particular conservative tropes. > It's almost impossible for children who grow up in this situation to escape it themselves. Understanding that people cannot escape poverty by 'themselves' >On the subject of policy, things like the expanded child tax credit and school lunches pay the government back incredibly well, so support for stuff like that isn't just helping your neighbor, it's helping yourself, too. seem to support paying more taxes to help less fortunate people. These things taken together makes me think the parts that sound uncaring are maybe just poorly phrased. > a) ppl not earning = on welfare "probably on welfare" is what they say, which if you "can't afford child care" it might be that you need some government assistance of some sort when one of the partners drops out of the workforce to take care of the children. This is of course different than "the benefit of the partner working in comparison to paying for child care is negligible", which would be another reason for one to drop out and take care of the children. For some reason everybody came with the example of "the benefit of the partner working in comparison is negligible" examples in contrast to "can't afford child care", which would be understandable if they said well there's another reason than just not being able to afford why people drop - but they didn't make that comment. So for these various reasons I think the comment was reasonable compassionate but did have a GDP viewpoint on why the system should be changed to allow people to continue working and afford childcare.

Justsignedup 3y ago

Furthermore, if we care about a growing population, we need to encourage people to have children. Seeing children as a massive burden and a trap away from your ability to work (because of childcare needs) leads to people just not having kids. All the talk about "we need more kids" is completely moot, if you want people to have kids, give them a reason not to fear it. I am thankfully in a position where a phone call from the school means I'll work the rest of the day from home. My neighbor has limited options because she can't afford to work and childcare while her husband is at work. So her only options are: Don't work, work such that she never shares any off time with her husband, and thus is effectively living alone and basically that's it. And her job prospects aren't such that most jobs will cover daycare + more. In fact most jobs will barely pay above the cost of daycare.

dfxm12 3y ago
The policy of forced child birth in many states also looms large over this conversation.
- Justsignedup 3y ago
  Exactly. Because their solution is the whip, not the carrot. They are describing a very real need, people having kids, but they are absolutely going about it in both the worst possible way AND in the most malicious way. They are not solving the problem, they are just pushing the problem onto people who's future will be destroyed. And it is causing many secondary catastrophes in our economy. And this article points out exactly one such. Healthcare is another. And food security is a third. There are others.

r00fus 3y ago

> So the state isn't getting tax income from these folks. So perhaps resting our a bulk of taxation on income tax may not be a sustainable model. Especially when the corporate and high income wealth is so tax preferred (or evading taxes). Refactoring our tax system to a less extraction model may be the better approach. Wealth taxes, financial transaction taxes, more effective property taxes (ie, land value tax) could result in a more livable country for the vast majority of people (numbers will go down a bit for the billionaires).