Timex
1769
I feel like Pete would be almost a sort of honey pot, in that Trump and the GOP couldn’t resist devolving into overt homophobia. And while that would be effective with the GOP base, it would backfire among a large portion of the moderate center, and push them to the Democrats.
And i literally don’t think Trump could avoid doing it.
With proposals like these, Pete isn’t going to burn anyone’s house down.
“What if we had a child care support proposal that would be totally irrelevant to the poorest people. You know, the ones who actually need child care support?”
Oghier
1771
Exactly like when they fell for overt racism. And I’m not sure whether that means it’ll work for them or it’ll doom them. I suppose it depends on how many homophobes live in the handful of states that determine the Presidency.
CraigM
1772
The headlines would be glorious too, after the election.
‘Trump takes it in the Buttigeig’
‘Electorate to Trump: Butigeig out’
‘How yo say ‘go away’ in 7 languages and one ballot box? Buttigeig’
Oghier
1773
It sounds like a proposal aimed at the working poor, who are most in need of childcare. I’m not sure we know enough about this specific proposal or his policy approach in general to immediately assume he’s ready to shove the poor out on an ice floe to die.
You have our attention, Pete. Now step it up as this ain’t gonna cut it.
Everyfuckingbody needs child care support. We spent over $20k on child care last year, and it’s not like we flew an au pair in from Naples.
If you want to give poor people money for child care, or for anything else, then the way to do that is to give them the damned money, not give them a bunch of forms to fill in so that if they choose child care they can’t afford, they’ll save $1 out of every $3 they spend (that they don’t have.)
What I assume is that it isn’t a serious proposal. It isn’t going to help people, except accidentally helping some moderately rich people. It isn’t the sort of thing he should be shooting for. It isn’t the sort of thing any person on the left should be shooting for. It’s a conservative proposal.
Any many people cannot afford to front much, if any, money to get it. So the kids stay with family, friends or the parents have to work less or not work at all or some other option. They don’t have the funds to pay for something now in the hopes of getting a percentage of it back in a year.
They need actual child care. Now.
KevinC
1778
Can you just imagine him coming up with a nickname for him? You’re right, there’s no way he could avoid stepping in it.
Oghier
1779
Only if you work, or plan to work. I assume you work, and I get that it’s expensive.
Well, not ‘only,’ as even full-time parents need support. But they won’t generally need 40+ hours of childcare per week. For the working poor, I’m sure we agree that’s critical.
I must not understand your point here. For people who are not employed and who do not plan to be employed, why exactly do they need significant help with childcare? And for those who are employed, what’s wrong with tax credits? I assume Pete is smart enough to make them refundable, like the EIC, so the poorest of those workers would still benefit.
What am I missing?
Yes, exactly. Only people who can afford child care benefit from a tax credit for buying child care. It’s pretty much built into the idea.
That it’s weak Bob Dole sauce?
Oghier
1781
Doesn’t that depend on the size of the credit? I guess there’s a timing issue, too, with cash flow.
That’s some Klobachar levels of weaksauce.
Honeymoon’s over I guess!
kerzain
1784
I don’t have kids. Can I get a tax credit allowance for video games?
Oghier
1785
I think we all understand that you can’t alleviate poverty through tax policy. But a refundable tax credit aimed at the working poor, to help cover their childcare, seems quite likely to make a real difference for those most in need of help with exactly that expense.
I’m assuming 1) That it’s a significant credit, 2) That it is refundable (like the EITC) and 3) That one could adjust withholding to mitigate the cash-flow impact. Those seem reasonable assumptions, but they’re still assumptions.
What’s the more progressive alternative? I don’t think we have a mechanism to “just send them money,” unless you want the states involved. Red states would screw it up.
Well here’s what Warren proposes:
She’ll always have my buttmentum.
Why not? A refundable child care tax credit that piggy backed of the Earned Income Tax credit, is actually one of the most efficient ways of getting money into the hands of poor people.
