Senator Romney is proposing a $250 to $350 dollar a month "child allowance" for each child in the US.

While this may sound good when looking at his reasoning we see some strong LDS backed influence.

First he states that "marriage and child birth rates are low" so by providing the cash more "parents" can stay at home to raise them.

How would he pay for this? Simple. Remove the head of household tax filing option.

For our non US friends there are three basic tax filing categories. Single, Head of Household and Married.

A single tax filer has approximately the first $12500 in income tax exempt. Married couple get approximately $25000 while head of household filers get $18500 more or less.

So basically under the Senator from Mormondoms plan. Single parents will be taxed at a higher rate. But that's not all. Head of household is not just single parents. Single children that support their parents would also be fined as they can currently claim parents in certain circumstances as dependents.

His goal to make it more affordable to have multiple children may be laudable but at the cost of extra taxes for single parents seems to defeat the main purpose of helping children.

Unless of course his goal is not helping children but as he stated to encourage marriage and childbirth. Of course this has nothing to do with the 15 being worried that members are getting married later and having fewer kids. Nope. No connection here!

Thanks for this analysis. It's helpful.

ETA: I think Romney is also reading the writing on the wall: 40 years of bad times for the middle-class and a future in which technology depresses wages indefinitely. That can't go on without destroying what's left of American democracy.

This is the Romney of Romney-care, the man who is exploring Friedman's UBI schemes. The point--and this inexorably escapes the comprehension of our rightist enthusiasts--is that the generation of wealth and the distribution of it are two different things.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2021 09:22PM by Lot's Wife.

Child allowance has been part of the British system for more than 50 years. Canada has something similar,too if I recall.

I got $10/week child allowance.

And you were overpaid.

What could possibly go wrong.

...don't worry. The Romney proposal stipulates that it requires the Federal funding to be routed through Bain Capital, with oversight by Kirton McConkie...

Think..."skim".

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Flive.staticflickr.com%2F7171%2F6645821967_3a975e4dd1_b.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

In Germany Kindergeld is common ad still the birth rate in Germany is very low.

https://www.howtogermany.com/pages/kindergeld.html

That there are 80 million people in an area slightly smaller than the state of Montana might have something to do with that.

You've got to leave some room for the cows, otherwise there's no schnitzel or bratwurst.

True.

But birth rates the world round fall when women's education improves. So Germany is not unusual in that regard.

The importance of these subsidies is therefore not the encouragement of larger families, despite what the marketing, but rather the need to ensure a basic degree of stability for people in order to keep the system intact.

What we are really talking about is UBI, a concept that conservatives hate in part because they don't know that it has always been a conservative idea--from Thomas Payne through Milton Friedman. Thinking conservatives know that capitalism will not survive if there is not a floor under the suffering of people who are down on their luck.

That's what pragmatic politicians of all stripes are groping towards.

Agree on the UBI. I had a related conversation with a Trump supporting, election-was-a-fraud crying relative and even he could see the peril we're in when we make it so difficult for the younger folks to get started and succeed. College has gotten absurdly expensive and finding a job out of high school that'll pay the bills is nearly impossible. A couple of decades ago, I worked my way through college and made it through with relatively minimal debt. I can't imagine the size of the student loans I would have to carry in order to do that today. Now if I could just convince him that the lack of universal health care leads to the same basic problems...

I don't know why solutions to these crippling problems can't be championed by conservatives. UBI, if done Friedman's way, replaces numerous massive inefficient welfare programs, leading to a smaller, more efficient government. And the value of universal basic health care is recognized even by Singapore, which is constantly rated the most free economy in the world by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative organization. But most conservatives in America today don't seem to want to solve any of these problems. They continue to look for the "trickle down" Reagan promised them, in spite of the ever growing evidence of income inequality staring them in the face. Perhaps Romney has a white horse after all.

My parents used to tell me that they were kids once too, and understood my problems. I don't say that to my kids. It's a totally different world now.

Humberto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Agree on the UBI. I had a related conversation
> with a Trump supporting, election-was-a-fraud
> crying relative and even he could see the peril
> we're in when we make it so difficult for the
> younger folks to get started and succeed.

Not just younger folks. The entire working class and probably half of the middle class is on the verge of disaster. If this continues another generation, those families will have dropped out of the US economy--and that will start with the Trump supporters who represent a disproportionate share of the vulnerable.



-------------------
> College
> has gotten absurdly expensive and finding a job
> out of high school that'll pay the bills is nearly
> impossible. A couple of decades ago, I worked my
> way through college and made it through with
> relatively minimal debt. I can't imagine the size
> of the student loans I would have to carry in
> order to do that today.

My college debts were very high by today's standards but I was one of the lucky ones who started work in a profitable field and hence, frugal, was able to pay them off quickly. As my children approach college/career, I worry deeply about them because the situation is much tighter. In short, the educational institutions now see themselves as profit-maximizing businesses--just like the odd (both senses) church.


--------------
> I don't know why solutions to these crippling
> problems can't be championed by conservatives.
> UBI, if done Friedman's way, replaces numerous
> massive inefficient welfare programs, leading to a
> smaller, more efficient government. And the value
> of universal basic health care is recognized even
> by Singapore, which is constantly rated the most
> free economy in the world by the Heritage
> Foundation, a conservative organization.

May I scream for a moment?

^This!

Thank you. The US welfare and healthcare systems are massively inefficient because the administrators are forced to make too many decisions. If you remove the police function, the cost of these forms of social support fall by over half--as in most of the other OECD economies.


-------------
> But most
> conservatives in America today don't seem to want
> to solve any of these problems. They continue to
> look for the "trickle down" Reagan promised them,
> in spite of the ever growing evidence of income
> inequality staring them in the face.

Conservative thought went down two tracks. The first was the conviction that welfare should be administered strictly, which required a ton of oversight. For them it was a moral question. People were supposed to bear their own burdens, dammit, even if that meant society paying vastly more than was necessary. The second was the Supply Side religion you describe. Now economic "logic," such as it was, reinforced people's self-righteous inclinations.

Open the floodgates! We now have a moral justification for tax cuts, spending increases, and the glories of debt! Welfare for the wealthy.


------------------
> Perhaps
> Romney has a white horse after all.

Isn't that the most amazing thing? Reagan was an idiot until political trends turned towards him in 1980; Trump was an idiot till events moved his way ('nuff said); and now Romney might benefit from similarly unexpected developments. A Mormon as white horse savior. . . Who would have thought?


-------------------
> My parents used to tell me that they were kids
> once too, and understood my problems. I don't say
> that to my kids. It's a totally different world
> now.

Yes. There is no doubt that our children and theirs will see a declining standard of living because of hollowing out of the middle class and the incredible indebtedness of the public sector. The question is whether we can turn the ocean liner so that the damage is mitigated.

Yes, college has gotten ridiculously expensive. And housing is also costly in many areas.

One of my issues is that even families with two full time wage earners still need food assistance. To me, this is criminal. We take for granted government programs that provide food assistance, but never question why wages are not high enough to provide the necessities for families. It's like we want to punish and demean work. Many teachers are cognizant of the fact that remote learning has made it more difficult for families to get food for their children. Teachers ask, why is it the case that schools have become the de facto places for children from low income families to get fed? What's wrong with this picture?

I also have to say that as a middle-class employed person, the pandemic has been a financial boon for me. I've been fortunate to keep my job, my expenses have been drastically reduced, and I've received the government pandemic relief. For the first time in many, many years my credit card is fully paid off, and I have extra money in the bank. How pathetic is that, that a few thousand extra dollars has made such a huge difference to me? Again, why are we financially punishing people who are working hard and trying to do the right thing?

These issues are huge. Capitalism, like democracy, requires a strong middle class and yet that stratum is in real trouble. The result is the self-immolation of Trumpism and its cousins in the UK and much of Europe. We deceive ourselves if we think the US system will survive a continuation of present trends.

Nothing wrong with being a first world citizen and having sufficient leisure to be able to puzzle out that the world is so crummy that you’re doing your children a favor by not having them!

Citizens of second and third world countries are too busy just surviving to figure out the futility of existence.

So, the tax implications when Sister Molly Mormon divorces Brother Unworthy Porn "Addict" Mormon is...?

Both remarry as quickly as possible.

Molly to a righteous hopefully further up the food chain priesthood holder.

Unworthy marries a younger more gullible wife who quickly pops out a few kids to get that thousand bucks a month.

But to answer the question. Under current law only one parent can claim the child tax credit each year. So lawyers will help figure that part out. Of course if there are two kids each parent could claim one.

This. In an overcrowded world that is slowly being stripped of all it's beauty and abundance by parasitic humans. 8 billion of them.

Religion has no conscience. Religion has divorced itself from the natural. They just want to build the team at any cost.

Lol

Good chap really is socially isolated, and not with the times - well-intentioned though he may be, or not.

It’s about time the Republicans came up with something that matches their pro-life policies. Too bad Romney gets the populist brownie points.

you are considered NOTHING so we don't need help from the government. Being a good little priesthood holder like Romney, we single women who couldn't keep a husband deserve to be left out.

We don't have enough people ?

We do need more Younger people to fill the vacancies (past & future) for the retiring cohort of retiring workers, skilled, semi-skilled, Professional & para-professional.

the requirements for workers skills is greatly increasing.

Nursing, transportation worker, construction trades, medical & dental, mental health workers, etc. etc. etc. are all seeing needs for increased education & skills, including the military even food-service workers.

Computer programmers & systems workers...

we need more WORKERS, ppl paying into the SS trust fund.

Also, do a significant increase on the taxable wage ceiling which has been the can kicked down the street for a while (increased only slightly).

So, DtA: while we may have 'enough people', the economic system has become horribly slanted (tax & inheritance laws, sales / VAT taxes) in a regressive direction.

Here in Washington state we have heavy sales (state & local) taxes & no state income or capitol gains taxes; efforts to Balance our tax revenues (reduce sales tax, even with a revenue-neutral system of Sales, Income, & Property taxes doesn't get out of the gate...



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/2021 05:02PM by GNPE.

The issue with most actual conservatives is that they believe in smaller government. That people should be smart enough to solve their own problems and live their own lives. But judging from the attitudes of most people that's doesn't seem to be true anymore. There is a growing number of people in all sides of the political spectrum that look to the government for answers, for entitlements.

As a case in point of how the government fails no matter how much money they throw at a problem. Consider what the current state is in regards to the homeless epidemic. It's literally sky rocketed in the last 10 years and growing every day. There are over 60,000 homeless in LA right now. It's an absolute disaster by our government. And it didn't use to be that way. People continue to vote these leaders in year after year. So it's no surprise how bad things are.

The only answer I can see for all these unwed mommies is if the government cuts them off. Then they can rely on the baby daddies once again.

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The only answer I can see for all these unwed
> mommies is if the government cuts them off. Then
> they can rely on the baby daddies once again.

Would u visit Harm on those children for spite?

Your post doesn't mention widows & wives of disabled 'baby daddies' (btw, why are daddies more responsible than the moms?)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2021 06:54PM by GNPE.

The use of the term "baby daddies" gives him away. He's referring to black children and their "mommies."

That's the way it is with magaRomney. He's in favor of white heterosexual conservative men like himself and looks down on everyone else. He wears his racism like a badge of honor, which is good because it distracts from the fact that he is otherwise insubstantial.

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That people
> should be smart enough to solve their own problems
> and live their own lives.
===============================

"SHOULD" being most salient.

- Maca, you have much experience on the road?
Have ye paid any attention to the judgment exhibited by how people actually drive?

There's Belief, and then there's observation & reason.
Very different things.

What I find ironic is that Romney is the one Republican who voted to impeach Trump last year, yet nobody's more delusional, or Trump supporters, than Mormons. Look at the Bundy's. Look at the MORMoONs who stormed the Capitol with BYU Sweatshirts, Captain Moroni flying the Title of Liberty, the idiot RM who stormed the Senate Chambers, the MORmON with the Bow and Arrow at the BLM protests in SLC last summer. All these guys are obviously MORMoNS and idiots. Every population has them, I know.

He broke ranks and it cost him politically. He's like Marjory Taylor Greene, but the Republicans took him out of any kind of a leadership role. They didn't do that to MTG. They forced to the Dems to remove her from committee. They came down on her side, by voting on Liz Cheney and letting MTG get away with earning a salary for not doing her job.

Leadership positions are granted primarily on the basis of seniority. Romney has been a senator for a scant two years. No senator of his vintage is a leader in that chamber or that party.

After all the effort to even become a U.S. Senator

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Leadership positions are granted primarily on the
> basis of seniority.
===============================

Not by any measure of performance, or integrity etc., but just butt-in-chair time.

All that work and in the end it's no better than working for the airlines where seniority is everything.
Amazing anything functions at all.

First, it wasn't all that much effort. It was pretty much a cakewalk for Romney to get elected in Utah.

Second, no, he won't have any committee chair anytime soon, but he still has considerably more clout than the average freshman senator, as a former governor, former presidential candidate, and one of the most prominent, perhaps THE most prominent traditional Republican.

I think it is high irony that the most prominent Repub Trump opposition are from Utah and Wyoming, two of the reddest states in the country.

Planetary suicide

It's times like this I'm reminded that the inspired prophet, seer and revelator James Faust, even one of the Lord's Anointed, spoke approvingly about a global population of one trillion. (Not a typo.)

I would like to see Planned Parenthood funded.

Yes please. Every child a wanted child. Women running their own lives. Lovely.

+1

Yeah, because the first thing that comes to mind when I could use an extra couple hundred bucks a month is.....Have more kids!!!

A 3000 square foot house the Utah was 125k in the early 1990s and college tuition was about 400 a semester. If you made 30-50k per year you could make a good go of it and mom did not even need to work. Is this the world Romney is trying to re-create by giving someone a few hundred bucks a year for a kid? It won't work.

Housing, college and other costs have left lots of people in the cold. We need free college, free medical care, no cap on FICA and much, much higher taxes on rich people (the 1%).

Romney is totally on the wrong track here.

Also, we need fewer people and population control and not promote having lots of kids. We need good quality of life not just more people living in crappy condtions.

Someone is going to PAY for all the items you wish were 'Free', isn't that in your thinking at all?

- Are nurses, physicians, college personnel (professors, instructors, custodians, administrators, going to go unpaid?

Guess what would happen...

In the good ole U.S.A., tax laws are written by minions employed / controlled by the Rich, the Super Rich, by investor conglomerates (including labor unions, retirement planners, etc.), their attorneys & accountants; If you've got a viable way to see that changed, please let me know, you'll likely have my support!.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2021 09:30PM by GNPE.

The Seattle Times editorial supports Romney's plan.

https://replica.seattletimes.com/html5/reader/production/default.aspx?pubname=&pubid=84d463e0-c035-4c49-902d-95c722bfe073

IMHO, a 'true conservative' wouldn't be distracted by the nation's piecemeal approach to taxes, exemptions, exclusions, incentives...

Fix the situation by a holistic methodology instead.

The current approach is the chief reason we're in the financial - fiscal mess we're in.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2021 04:50PM by GNPE.

Both Roy's & Perky's remarks are On Point;

I wonder if WMR 'really' thinks this idea / plan will help a significant number of people in a significant way.


IMHO, we could move to a GAI (guaranteed annual income) model, that idea has been floated for a while but never launched.

Income equality should First be resolved by adequate health care, single payer or M4All; eliminate the Blind Spots (dental, vision, hearing care that effect many seniors & retirees, then increase the minimum Social Security monthly benefit to $1,000.00 or more.

First Steps are Good Steps.

> IMHO, we could move to a GAI (guaranteed annual
> income) model, that idea has been floated for a
> while but never launched.

It's usually called a UBI (universal basic income) and was first proposed by Milton Friedman, the great libertarian, in 1971. The idea was to eliminate extreme poverty, provide basic healthcare and education, and get the government out of the business of welfare administration. Then people's incentives to work would not be affected by policy and they would make their decisions on the basis of market forces.


-----------------
> First Steps are Good Steps.

I reckon that is exactly what's going on. Romneycare was a step towards the Friedman system, and this is too. The GOP is on the verge of reorganization, and Romney is aiming to lead the centrist wing.

Meanwhile even Hope Hicks is turning on Trump. I think she sees what Romney is doing and is trying to jump in front of him.

In short, there's competition to see who will be the White Horse.