What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

117th Congress: DEMS IN DISARRAY!!!111!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Handyman said:
Manchin is now screwing with the Child Tax Credit...gotta keep protecting him though!
Click to expand...

The one article I had a chance to read on this said he wanted a cap at $60,000 for the family income, which basically means this is a pure red state money grab.


"I don't care if my people get this thing, the important thing is that you don't."
 
Swansong said:
The one article I had a chance to read on this said he wanted a cap at $60,000 for the family income, which basically means this is a pure red state money grab.


"I don't care if my people get this thing, the important thing is that you don't."
Click to expand...

Sure, and then instead of a tax credit it becomes a welfare program, which the next Repub Congress kills entirely.
 
No point in means testing it. If you're taxing people correctly the money they get back in the child tax credit won't matter no matter how much they're making.

As usual, Manchin is an idiot.
 
I do think there's some merit to requiring good faith efforts on working, however if you're receiving unemployment you have to show evidence of looking for work anyway, and I'd want to make sure that we carve out people that don't work due to being caretakers/kid raisers (i.e. parents)/whatever other legitimate reason we have not to work. And then we get into the quagmire of enforcement/adherence costing more than simply not having any of these requirements.


I seem to say this a lot, in a lot of very different contexts, but we spend far too much time making sure that people we don't want don't get (benefit at issue) and nowhere near enough time making sure that people we do want to get that benefit ... actually get it.

https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-does-drug-testing-welfare-recipients-save-money.html
https://www.clasp.org/press-room/ne...ands-drug-testing-welfare-have-little-show-it (counter argument is that people aren't applying if they know they'll fail, however welfare roles didn't materially drop when these policies were enacted. Further, shutting addicts off from welfare does absolutely nothing to help the addition problem)


https://www.politifact.com/factchec...ays-profits-traffic-cameras-go-private-compa/
https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local...-traffic-cameras-costing-more-than-11-million


Those are just the two things off the top of my head. I'm certain there are dozens more examples.
 
In addition, we make everything some kind of Rube Goldberg device as to who qualifies, the hoops they have to jump through to prove qualification and receive whatever it is, and how they receive it, how it's administered, instead of just giving people the benefit, and then clawing it back from the people who don't really need it with higher taxes.

Everything doesn't have to be so complicated.
 
rufus said:
In addition, we make everything some kind of Rube Goldberg device as to who qualifies, the hoops they have to jump through to prove qualification and receive whatever it is, and how they receive it, how it's administered, instead of just giving people the benefit, and then clawing it back from the people who don't really need it with higher taxes.

Everything doesn't have to be so complicated.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, but you have an unhealthy mix of the honest folks who would prefer a smaller door than a longer hook and the disingenuous assholes who will cling to any bs excuse to close that same door.


I admit I spent most of my life in that first group who was just... completely turned off by the second group. And then when the receipts started showing up indicating that less enforcement saves money in the aggregate... well. If we're going to follow the data, let's follow the data.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
The only way I'd reconsider is based on simple cutoffs like SS taxes. But even then you get stupid cutoffs that don't make sense and never move.
Click to expand...

You have to cap benefits, but that's different than means testing. You can't have Richie Rich walking off with $20M a year in Social Security. But you can certainly cap benefits at something insane like $1M/yr, just so you never pinch a fat white middle class as-s in the door, which is what always brings it all down.

And, obviously, uncap the tax. Indeed, progressively tax everything above a fairly high personal exemption (say $50k a person and $20k/kid) and general fund everything on the collection side.
 
Last edited:
Kepler said:
You have to cap benefits, but that's different than means testing. You can't have Richie Rich walking off with $20M a year in Social Security. But you can certainly cap benefits at something insane like $1M/yr, just so you never pinch a fat white middle class as-s in the door, which is what always brings it all down.

And, obviously, uncap the tax. Indeed, progressively tax everything above a fairly high personal exemption (say $50k a person and $20k/kid) and general fund everything on the collection side.
Click to expand...

This will never work because Cletus thinks he will make enough to be s-c-r-e-w-e-d by it. Uncapped taxation!?!?!?!?!??!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Dem Warshinton Libruls!?!?!?!?!?!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top