Posted on 02/11/2021 8:51:49 AM PST by karpov
Sen. Mitt Romney (R–Utah) recently introduced a universal child allowance in an effort to reform federal welfare programs. That goal is worthy, but his means would be counterproductive.
For all intents and purposes, he's proposing a kid-centric version of entrepreneur and aspiring politician Andrew Yang's "basic income." According to Romney's summary of his own plan, "The Family Security Act would provide a monthly cash benefit for families, amounting to $350 a month for each young child, and $250 a month for each school-aged child."
To his credit, the senator's new proposed entitlement wouldn't be unfunded. Romney would "pay for" the new child allowance plan by eliminating the state and local tax deduction, a tax break that mostly benefits higher-income taxpayers. He would also get rid of the head-of-household filing status and eliminate the Dependent Care Tax Credit, along with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Additionally, Romney's plan would reform the Earned Income Tax Credit and reduce that program's spending from $71 billion to $24.5 billion. The EITC has mixed incentives on work, suffers from large improper payments, and is mainly a spending program, thus financed by taxes on other people.
These offsets explain why the plan is advertised as "deficit neutral." However, it would grow the size of government by increasing both spending and taxes. It increases spending by $66 billion and increases taxes by $46.4 billion, since most of the plan's offsets are actually tax hikes. My objection isn't with these specific tax hikes. It would be better to find additional welfare spending cuts.
Proponents rightfully argue that its universal feature, which pays child allowances regardless of employment status, would limit the high implicit marginal tax rates on work and hence some disincentives to work that exist in the current system.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
A better solution would be to roll back all the laws we have that make getting married and starting families a losing proposition. People naturally want to get together and make babies, so there is no need for the government to subsidize it, they just need to get the hell out of the way.
They are an illegitimate body.
No law they propose or make is legitimate.
That’s the problem.
Talking about them in any other context than they are an illegal assembly that does not represent Americans is the problem.
When is Mitt Romney going to do those things on illegal immigration that he campaigned on in 2012?
According to Romney’s summary of his own plan he’s going to start selling bottled Utopia water the market is ripe for it.
Romney wants to be the GOP’s designated loser in 2024. This is one of his stupid ideas that he thinks is a resume enhancer for the job.
What is wrong with the earned income credit?
Like ever other government program the earned income tax credit is rife with fraud and abuse. I know a gal who spent hers on tatooes.
Does Romney really think his proposal will help marriage? It will encourage more illegitimate births.
The trouble with it is that it was drawn up by a Rat. The rest is just details.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.