Welfare

Have Kids? Mitt Romney and Joe Biden Want the Government To Pay You Thousands Every Year

In most circumstances, parents would be eligible to receive $3,000 per child annually, doled out in monthly checks. It could be a major overhaul of how the federal government handles welfare.

|

President Joe Biden and Sen. Mitt Romney (R–Utah) are both pitching significant overhauls to the safety net programs for American families by proposing direct monthly child allowances paid to parents.

While the plans differ somewhat in their specifics, both aim to subsidize the costs of raising children in a more direct way than the federal government currently does, a noble goal that would likely boost the economic prospects of poorer parents who may not be able to access the full value of benefits provided via the current tax credit system. But with the country more than $27 trillion in debt, both plans ultimately amount to a promise to hike taxes on the very children that the government would go deeper into debt to subsidize—although Romney's plan does offset some of the new costs by shuttering existing welfare programs—and both may unintentionally hobble the incentives for poor parents to remain in the workforce.

Biden's plan, currently included as part of the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill the House is drawing up, would send parents an annual total of $3,600 per child under age 6 and $3,000 per child aged 6-17. The payments would phase out for single parents earning more than $75,000 annually and for couples who earn more than $150,000. Although it is officially just a one-year program (payments would be allocated beginning in July and based on 2020 income taxes), The New York Times reports that the goal is to eventually make the change permanent.

Romney's plan offers slightly larger benefits that would extend to a more expansive set of parents, but it would also abolish other welfare programs that Biden's plan would maintain. Romney would pay parents an annual total of $4,200 for every child under the age of 6 and $3,000 per child aged 6-17, with the payments phasing out for individuals who earn more than $200,000 annually or couples earning more than $400,000. It is intended to be permanent from the start.

If a parent (or parents) qualified for the full payments during all 17 years of a child's eligibility, he or she would receive a total of $57,600 per child under Biden's plan and $62,600 under Romney's.

As with any expansion of the federal welfare state, the first question that should be asked is how much will this cost and who will pay for it. Romney's plan comes with an estimated price tag of $254 billion annually, but the senator says those costs are fully offset with a series of changes to existing welfare programs. The child allowance would replace the existing child tax credit program and require a significant overhaul of the current earned income tax credit (EITC), which offsets taxes for low-income families. He would also permanently abolish the state and local tax (SALT) deduction, which mostly benefits upper-income residents of states with high taxes. It would also eliminate the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, which is what most people typically think of as "welfare"—a joint federal-state program that provides direct cash assistance to poor families.

Biden is not proposing any cuts to existing welfare programs as part of his child allowance plan, which would cost an estimated $120 billion annually with the full amount added to the large and growing national debt. (Remember, Biden's plan is less generous than Romney's, hence the lower total cost.)

On that front, then, Romney's plan is clearly preferable—although his promise that the child allowance would be revenue-neutral should be scrutinized by independent analysts like the Congressional Budget Office.

Some progressive policy wonks also argue Romney's plan is better. "It's clear that Romney's proposal, due to its generosity and administrative simplicity, is an improvement on the Biden proposal," writes Matt Bruenig, founder of the People's Policy Project, a progressive think tank. He's on board with some of Romney's proposed offsets, including abolishing the SALT deduction and the TANF program, which has been beset by waste and abuse for years and fails to deliver much in the way of benefits.

Notably, however, he also advises Democrats to swap out some of the "unsavory" offsets Romney has proposed, effectively saying that Democrats should aim for the higher promised benefits and then try to undercut the means of paying for them. That would add to the staggering levels of debt that America's future generations will have to deal with—a bill that will come due in the form of higher taxes and lower economic growth.

As long as the benefits are offset with cuts to other welfare programs, a shift to a child allowance system could provide larger, more predictable benefits to needy families without adding to the national debt. That ought to be the goal. If Democrats are unwilling to agree to all the offsets Romney has proposed, he should dial back the promised benefits. There's ultimately no need to subsidize families earning up to $400,000 annually.

One problem worth considering with both plans is how they would alter the existing incentives for poor parents to work.

To understand that, you first have to understand a little bit about how the current child tax credit program works. Right now, parents can qualify for up to $2,000 in tax credits (up to $1,400 of which is refundable, which means it is paid even if the parent owes no federal taxes) for every child under the age of 17. But there's a small catch: The individual or couple filing taxes must report at least $2,500 in income to be eligible for the child tax credit. In other words, parents who earn no income cannot claim the benefit.

In some ways, the Romney and Biden plans are best understood as attempts to ensure that even the poorest, non-working parents can collect federal benefits to help offset the cost of raising children. The direct child allowance payments will go to everyone; no need to demonstrate that you earned at least $2,500 to get it.

One obvious consequence of paying people who do not work is that you might give other people an incentive to stop working, warns Scott Winship, director of poverty studies at the American Enterprise Institute. "Child allowances are allowances for behavior that would be expected to hurt their own long-term prospects and, more importantly, the wellbeing of their children," he writes, though he has also acknowledged that the consequences of that shift are, for now, largely unknown and likely to depend on other aspects of the policy.

Winship also worries that the proposed child allowances—which would be the same in all parts of the country—will seem proportionally larger in poorer places, a corollary to the argument for why a national minimum wage is a bad idea.

Winship also notes that both plans move away from one of the major accomplishments of welfare reforms passed in the 1990s, which were largely predicated on creating incentives to work. That's been the defining feature of conservative welfare reforms for decades, and abandoning it is likely to create some Republican objections. Already, Sens. Marco Rubio (R–Fla.) and Mike Lee (R–Utah) have called out Romney for "undercutting the responsibility of parents to work to provide for their families."

Any major shift in how the federal safety net operates is naturally going to have unintended consequences, of course. But the inverse of Winship's prediction is possible too: The current welfare system rewards work at a low level but can punish those who try to move up the ladder by revoking benefits if they get a raise or find a spouse. A system of direct child allowance payments might encourage some people not to work, but it would also free up others to pursue better jobs without worrying about losing welfare benefits in the process.

The federal government should not be in the business of incentivizing people to have children, either with benefits doled out through the tax code or the welfare system. Nor should it pay people not to work, either by borrowing or by redistributing tax revenue from those who do. At their core, both plans are a form of social engineering that rewards people for choosing to reproduce—even if they cannot afford to raise children—instead of working toward other productive goals that don't involve offspring.

But if the government is going to do those things, it has a responsibility to taxpayers (current and future) to do so in a fiscally responsible, efficient way. If Romney and Biden can streamline the tangled family safety net programs without adding to the national debt, they should be given a chance.

NEXT: You Will Soon Be Able To Taste a Lab-Grown Ribeye Steak

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Change Your Life Right Now! Work From Comfort Of Your Home And Receive Your First PaycheckSDF Within A Week. No Experience Needed, No Boss Over Your Shoulder… Say Goodbye To Your Old Job! Limited Number Of Spots Open… Find out how HERE…….>> Visit Here

    1. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. WEf I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction on the given website. This is what I do…>>>>>>> USA ONLINE JOBS <<<<<<<<<

      1. I get paid 95 $ each hour for work at home on my PC. I never thought I’d have the option to do it however WERT my old buddy is gaining 65k$/month to month by carrying out this responsibility and she gave me how.

        Give it a shot on following website……..VISIT HERE

    2. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. DSa I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction on the given website. This is what I do…>>>>>>> USA ONLINE JOBS <<<<<<<<<

    3. {USA PEOPLE ONLY ]
      By following this simple steps on this website, you can bring from
      $5000-$8000 of extra income every month…
      All you need is a computer and a internet connection and you are ready to start.
      Learn how to make a steady income for yourself on following web adress.for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot.

      open this link………EARNING SEASON ON

  2. “[C]reating incentives to work.”

    What is the point? There will be no work. Everyone will subsist on a meager UBI, and a slightly bigger meager UBI for those committed to raising future party members.

    “The federal government should not be in the business of incentivizing people to have children, either with benefits doled out through the tax code or the welfare system ….”

    BUUUUT …

    “But if the government is going to do those things, it has a responsibility to taxpayers (current and future) to do so in a fiscally responsible, efficient way.”

    I do not understand how any sensible, principled libertarian can possibly believe both of these things, at the same time.

    1. Reason is neither/nor sensible, principled or libertarian.

      1. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job.AMs Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction on the given website…

        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Online Jobs provid

        1. Kinder gentler statism

          1. [USA PEOPLE ONLY ]

            By following this simple steps on this website, you can bring from
            $5000-$8000 of extra income every month…
            All you need is a computer and a internet connection and you are ready to start.
            Learn how to make a steady gwxz income for yourself on following web adress.for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot……

            >>>>CLASSIFIED LEGAL JOBS<<<<<

        2. After leaving my previous job 11 months ago,I’ve had some good luck to learn about this website which was a life-saver for me.They offer jobs for which people can work online from their house. My latest paycheck after working for them for 4 months was for $11600…Pydqx Amazing thing about is that the only thing required is simple typing skills and access to internet.

          Read all about it here.>>>> PART TIME ONLINE JOBS

    2. Creating incentives to work is the focal point of the Progressive agenda. What the loss of women from the workforce over the last year actually demonstrates is the large percentage of the US population that already relies on government schools to raise their children. When the schools closed, families were forced to do for themselves and the market has briefly realigned.

      So the strategy going forward will be to pay for healthcare, pay for daycare, outright subsidize children, and make sure all the parents trundle off to work. Stay at home moms and home schooling will continue to be ridiculed but will eventually be outlawed. Those kids don’t belong to you. The teaching of morality to children is the purview of the State.

      If social media has revealed anything, it’s that they sure as hell aren’t teaching those on the lower half of the curve how to write or do math or the scientific method. They are teaching them how to defer to authority. Stand in lines, turn in your paper, stick to the rules. Everyone gets a gold star. Everyone gets more free school. Resistance goes on your permanent record.

      The children of today will look back on ‘The Pandemic’ like it was Camelot. The brief shining moment before the darkness descended.

      1. The Soviet system operated in the exact same way. The entire economy was fake. People pretended to work. The government pretended to pay them. Nothing got done. Basic supplies, like toilet paper, did not exist. People wiped their ass with newspapers (Pravda being the paper of choice) and, if they were lucky, were able to purchase meat in a local market once or twice a year. Everyone was raised in this system from birth.

        Russia was a relatively wealthy country before 1917. After all the wars, the world war, and then the purges, it took the Soviets all of forty years (from roughly 1950 – 1990) to gut everything that was left of the economy. I would say we are on course to cut that record by half. By 2045, perhaps earlier, the U.S. will be in the exact same position as Russia in the early 90’s. They still haven’t recovered.

        1. After leaving my previous job 11 months ago, I’ve had some good luck to learn about this website which was a life-saver for me… They offer jobs for which people can work online from their house. My latest paycheck after working for them for 4 months was for $11600…HGb Amazing thing about is that the only thing required is simple typing skills and access to internet.

          Read all about it here….. Online Jobs Provid

    3. A better byline might be Eric “Just the Tip” Boehm

      1. My last paycheck was $2500 for working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 8k for months now and FHU she works about 30 hours a week. and I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. The potential with this is endless.

        This is what I do….. Visit Here

  3. I think the libertarian perspective might be to see this as elimination of SALT deductions (WIN!) and transition of welfare programs toward universal basic income (WIN!).

    I think it’s a bit self-serving, to say the least, that this comes from Utah’s senator. So that makes me suspicious of hidden costs, etc.

    Utah has the highest number of children per household.

    1. “transition of welfare programs toward universal basic income (WIN!).”

      Sigh.

      1. ^This^

        Welfare is welfare, no matter what you call it.

        1. The new “libertarian” position being pushed by Reason is that the welfare state is okay, provided it works as it is intended …. because everybody knows that government busybodies have everybody’s best interests in mind and will succeed in improving everybody’s life if only they are given the chance.

          1. Socialism!

            They’ll get it right this time.

            1. Sure will.

              The resident lefties around here are thoroughly convinced that encroaching government intervention in the economy, of the variety we are witnessing at present is actually “capitalism” and that, therefore, the solutions is socialism.

              Reason seems to be drinking from the same poisoned well. The answer to bad government intervention, they assure us, defeatedly, is good government intervention.

              1. My last paycheck was $2500 for working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 8k for months now and NMA she works about 30 hours a week. and I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. The potential with this is endless.

                This is what I do….. Visit Here

    2. “I think the libertarian perspective might be to see this as elimination of SALT deductions (WIN!) and transition of welfare programs toward universal basic income (WIN!).”

      Assuming that the actual savings to the taxpayer are realized (between 25% and 30% of every dollar spend on welfare is to support a huge bureaucracy), I tend to support this idea. I would even consider it a “plus” to “split” the cost between the taxpayer and the recipient — slightly more in support for the recipient, and slightly lower taxes for the rest of us. On thing: it MUST be limited to citizens and permanent resident aliens.

      At this stage, that’s a lot of “assumptions.”

      1. I consider myself a pragmatic libertarian which means I might not get invited to the right parties but welfare spending and future automation are realities that have to be considered in any proposal.

        I am a large proponent of a UBI which appears to be coming to the US faster than I thought it would. The fight isn’t whether a UBI is coming, it is a fight of if it replaces the current welfare state or is in addition to it.

        I am not a current fan of Romney’s TDS that seems to cloud most of his actions but I think his plan is a good first step towards an appropriately priced UBI. I support a UBI that is cost neutral to our current welfare spending not including Medicaid. It should also be tied as a percentage to GDP.

        1. “I consider myself a pragmatic libertarian…
          […]
          I am a large proponent of a UBI…”

          So you’re a firm believer that “up” = “down”?

          1. He means trickle down gubment

          2. [ USA PEOPLE COME HERE ONLY ]

            Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening.
            And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s oimh awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.

            Here’s sign up for details………. AMAZING JOB

        2. “I support a UBI that is cost neutral”

          Do you also support dry water? Cold fire? Jumbo shrimp? Staying busy doing nothing?

          “I consider myself a pragmatic libertarian ….”

          You can consider yourself whatever you want, but shilling for an all expansive welfare state is not libertarian, nor pragmatic.

          In light of your exposition, I consider you full of shit.

        3. “I consider myself a pragmatic libertarian which means I might not get invited to the right parties but welfare spending and future automation are realities that have to be considered in any proposal.”

          Welfare in Anglo-American history dates to the 8th or 9th century in England, where townships were commanded by the king to set aside ten percent of food and clothing for the indigent, old, and feeble. This was handled by the church. By 1601 parliament added funding to the programs. Prior to FDR, welfare was handled by a combination of charities, churches, and local and state governments. ‘

          In other words, welfare programs, in one form or the other, go back well over a thousand years. Wishing them to “go away” isn’t going to end them. We can, however, make them less costly and more equitable. Running these programs in the USA costs something over one-half trillion dollars annually.

      2. It is higher than 30% if you count federal, state and local. It is more like 50%. A good part of the problem is that government agencies duplicate services. And agencies/departments like the Department of Agriculture are charged with delivering benefits. I spent time on the Board of Directors of a United Way and you would find government funded agencies that did the same thing in a slightly different way. Every time the Feds came up with a new program there was a new agency.

        1. I analyzed the budget for two small counties in which I used to live. I remember the numbers for one county which doled out SNAP and all federal programs, and one or two State programs, except housing: the budget was just over $77 million, and the cost of wages, benefits, office space, etc., was $22 million. That is right at 30%. I don’t have ready access to the details for the state or fed budgets, partially due to, as you mention, duplication of services, and I am pretty sure that in at least some programs, it might reach 50%. But even if it is only 35-40%, that is an awful lot of money to pay people to hand out money to other people.

    3. “…and transition of welfare programs toward universal basic income (WIN!).”

      Fuck off, slaver.

  4. “a noble goal”

    Hahaha! The decent of Reason into a complete and utter clown show is almost complete.

      1. I’d say we’re at about 90%, but I’d have to go back and count articles for an accurate number, and I’m not going to do that.

      2. Stossel is, at most, a 1%, proposition.

  5. how about the next piece is “What the Fuck is Wrong With Mitt Romney?”

    1. Why? He behaves within acceptable norms.

      1. And, most importantly, no mean tweets … except for the whole Pierre Delecto episode.

      2. yes for a (D) from Michigan or Massachusetts oh wait

        1. A zillionaire that thinks zillionaires know what’s best for everyone else.

          1. Romney is the other side of the elite coin from Bernie. At the core they both agree that ‘We the People’ cannot be trusted with our own freedom.

            1. Bernie is new money. He’s just happy that he finally managed to grift his way into the club, though he probably regrets the decades he spent openly shilling for socialism. It would have been much easier, in retrospect, to playing the clean, moral capitalist like Romney. On the other hand, moral socialism is now the trend — but, unfortunately for Bernie, he is one heartbeat away from drowning in the wave just before it peaks.

              Dying when the grift finally starts to pay off must be crushing.

    2. It’s a Mormon and trad Catholic benefit.

      1. IOW, this is Romney buying his reelection.

      2. I’m an Action Institute kind of Catholic and I find that appalling

  6. Democrats plan for the midterms, buy votes.

    1. That’s their plan for every election. Encouraging people to care for themselves reduces the need for them. How else will they cling to power?

  7. This is communism, pure and simple.

    1. Yes, but it’s “Democratic Communism”.

      It’s vote buying.

  8. That’s $57,600 for a kid up to age 18, plus free public school ($84K from my property taxes), free college…

  9. The Federal Government has the Constitutional Authority for this WHERE? This is like watching the ghosts of the USSR take over D.C. – SCOTUS need to tell these Anti-American Politicians where they can stick their UN-Constitutional Revolutionary Plans destroying the USA.

    1. Good luck getting John ROBerts on board.

  10. Why would we give parents more free shit? With the exception of perhaps Musk, breeders are not typically high-earners and we could do with a lot less of them.

  11. The fedgov will have the last laugh when they draft these kids for either the Army or for a modern day Todt Organization.

  12. Meanwhile, taxpayers will be footing the bill for the funerals of anyone who died with Covid 19, including illegal aliens, and another round of $1400 checks is on the way. But let’s shit a brick over a tax credit that’s been around since Lyndon Johnson could still get a boner.

  13. If you qualify for ANY government largess, just take it and be happy. It won’t be too much longer before the “bills come due” for all our fiscal mismanagement. Anybody doing business in US dollars in the near future is going to get rocked when the almighty greenback falls out of bed. I hear they’re taking bets on the date in China.

    1. We’re fortunate enough to still be the tallest dwarf. Eventually we have a managed currency restructuring. And we probably still come out better than the Euro or Renminbi.

      1. That’s really the only silver lining to the absolute clown universe we find ourselves in. The US has become an authoritarian communist shithole banana republic with a cancerous public sector and an abusive rentseeking corporate sector doing the public from both ends. Civil rights are in full retreat. Fiscally responsibility is a dirty word. Still, somehow, beyond all imagining and reason, the rest of the world is somehow, impossibly, worse. The only thing keeping the dollar from immediate and total collapse is, incomprehensibly, America is still the best job the world can manage for a government, like a town that elects a serial killer to sheriff because he’s killed the least number of people.

        1. Sobering…the best of the worst

        2. Want to know what’s keeping the dollar strong? I have two words for you, nuclear fucking weapons.

  14. When Shit Romney and “Diamond Joe” agree on something it’s time to hide your wallets.

  15. There is no money. Printing it (electronic credits made out of thin air) is inflation. Inflation steals your earnings, your savings, and your retirement. It is a hidden tax and a very regressive tax geared at the poor. Rather than giving kids money for when they grow up, it is theft of their inheritance. Yet people think they are getting something for nothing, so it sells. People are stupid, Your kids and grand kids will hate you someday.

    1. “Inflation steals your earnings, your savings, and your retirement.”

      Unless you’re in debt, then inflation is your friend.

      1. He who defaults last, wins.

        Spoiler: it aint you.

      2. Only if wages grow with inflation. Otherwise, it’s a lot like running backward on a treadmill at faster and faster speeds.

  16. I should get some more kids I suppose. My current ones are two old. Can I be reimbursed for this retroactive? Why did I pay for my student loans and my two kids? So unfair.

    1. That’s your privilege talking

  17. noble goal

    I can’t even, any more.

  18. Jesus Christ, that’s an awfully long article to explain how a perpetual motion machine works. Did we really need all the details?

    1. Well put…too bad there was no picture of unicorns, rainbows and what the heck Doug Henson magic trix.

  19. In some ways, the Romney and Biden plans are best understood as attempts to ensure that even the poorest, non-working parents can collect federal benefits to help offset the cost of raising children

    No. That is moronic. Why would you think that.

    What this is is a fucking subsidy. To encourage those least able to afford to have children to build careers around having children.

    This is a deliberate attempt to create a culture of dependency by incentivising sitting around, getting stoned, and fucking.

    We would, literally, be better off directly importing Mexicans to make up the demographic shortfall.

    1. “This is a deliberate attempt to create a culture of dependency by incentivising sitting around, getting stoned, and fucking.

      We would, literally, be better off directly importing Mexicans to make up the demographic shortfall.”

      Don’t worry. They’ll do both.

    2. “Just the Tip” forgot to suggest that this scheme could be cost-of-living adjusted. Otherwise we could have a major exodus of people in high-cost areas moving to low-cast areas to maximize their buying power while “sitting around, getting stoned, and fucking”

  20. Speaking of republicans who have lost their way. Romney is one of those milquetoast GOPers who has no problem voting for more wars and more welfare.

  21. Need to know more before I can get on board with this… can this money be used to buy beer and a new Xbox?

    1. well, it’s for the kids, so the xbox is fine, but beer is frowned upon.

  22. both may unintentionally hobble the incentives for poor parents to remain in the workforce.

    “Unintentionally”, eh?

  23. As with any expansion of the federal welfare state, the first question that should be asked is how much will this cost and who will pay for it.

    Why do you hate children, Eric? WHY?!

    1. He does evidently hate children, but not for that reason. He evidently hates them because he is even willing to give this subsidy a chance and doom those children to debt, squalor, and tyranny.

  24. “The government” doesn’t pay for anything. The only money it has it takes from citizens or borrows by enslaving future generations in debt service.

  25. “In most circumstances, parents would be eligible to receive $3,000 per child annually, doled out in monthly checks. It could be a major overhaul of how the federal government handles welfare.”

    Social worker: ‘How many kids do you have Ma’m?’
    Woman: ‘Not sure, 15 or so. Every time I have another, they pay me more money’.
    Unintended consequences? I think not.

  26. Romney is a Mormom from a Mormom state. They have lots of kids. He is pandering to his base.

  27. So a single person making over $75,000 and struggling to survive in NYC is going to pay more so people in Utah can get handouts.

    1. Not just UT. In AZ and ID also. They call it farming the government.

    2. Fuck like your life depends on it, I guess. How these proposed rabbit regulations are going to be reconciled with the green new deal dogma of humans destroying the earth by their mere presence is anybody’s fucking guess.

      1. No need for reconciliation. Making sense isn’t the goal. Our current masters have people like Tony as their base. They don’t need to be consistent, make sense, show their work, demonstrate results, any of it. So, yes, more humans is an ecocatastrophe, and also something we’ll subsidize to infinity. Welcome to the revolution.

  28. because incentivizing the poor to keep churning out children has worked out so miraculously up to this point, let’s double down

  29. That’s right, tax credits are a government handout now. Good call.

    1. Refundable credits sure are

  30. “…While the plans differ somewhat in their specifics, both aim to subsidize the costs of raising children in a more direct way than the federal government currently does, a noble goal that would likely boost the economic prospects of poorer parents who may not be able to access the full value of benefits provided via the current tax credit system…”

    From a libertarian POV, ‘noble goal’ might be achieved by the government subsidizing children?
    I’d suggest it would be a ‘noble goal’ to advise people of the costs of having and raising children.

    1. The gubment had your children for you and became the mommy and daddy of the ones if you actually had any

    2. A noble goal would be to cut spending sometime.

  31. Progs will tell you they don’t want other people having kids because climate change, but they want the government to pay for them to have kids.

  32. Social Security is doomed if population growth falls below replacement rate.

    1. If major changes aren’t made it’s doomed anyway. As it stands today it’s a Ponzi scheme, since the population can’t increase forever. But fear not, there will be major decreases to benefits and/or major increases in taxes and/or massive printing of money.

    2. So, really, the only question is dooming the economy via Social Security or dooming the economy with another new entitlement like this subsidy for crappy parenting.

      Do you really think many of the children born from this subsidy will live in a more productive and freer economy that would enable them to support themselves and any family they want while also paying for the Social Security Ponzi Scheme and the child subsidy?

      Do you think that the kind of crappy parents who would want this subsidy would raise their children to be smarter, harder-working, and productive enough to support the Social Security Ponzi Scheme and the child subsidy?

      And just what gives anyone the right to view future generations as rightless slaves who must work to pay for this Social Security Ponzi Scheme and the child subsidy?

      I say the faster Social Security goes kaput, the faster we can replace it with private, voluntary, free-market alternatives. None of them can possibly be any worse.

  33. I can see this as an alternative for lower income families – especially if it displaced other forms of welfare.

    But for middle class families? Incomes up to $200k? Huh?

    1. Yup. A single earner family who maxes out Social Security payments, still gets subsidies.

      Madness.

    2. Not an alternative to Welfare Statism, but an add-on. Remember that at tax time.

  34. Let us forgive school debt!
    Let us raise the minimum wage to $15/hr!
    Let us send everyone checks because of the “deadly pandemic”!
    Let us send parents money because they have kids!

    We’ve lost our fucking minds.

    1. They have stopped even pretending that they have any problems with running the economy straight into the ground.

  35. Sooo…for Eric Boehm, it’s
    #LibertariansForFaith-BasedInitiativesToBenefitTheQuiverfullMovement

    For Mitt Romney, it’s
    #ReligiousRightRepublicansForNicolaiCeauşescu-StyleBabyMakingMachines

    And for Joe Biden, it’s:
    #DemocratsForFutureBankruptGenerationsAndVotersAndHairSniffingSupply

    Damnit, in the store where I work, I already see families with 6 to 8 poorly-dressed ragamuffin children whose parents have made a career out of EBT, SNAP, WIC, Medicare, Medicaid, SSI Disability/”Crazy Checks”, Section 8 housing, utility subsidies, energy subsidies, Earned Income Tax Credit, and Stimulus Checks!

    One such Crank-Headed Baby-Daddy with 6 kids he couldn’t keep up with actually had the Goddamn nerve to tell me not to talk to his kids when I politely asked them to stay away from the bag carousel for their safety!
    When he brought out his EBT card to pay for his groceries, I said out loud under my COVID-19 mask: “I mighta known!”

    Now, Joe Biden and Mitt Romney want to tack on a government finder’s fee for fertility to benefit such terrible excuses for parents?

    Does anyone really think this new subsidy is a replacement for all the other programs??

    Does anyone really think the present Welfare State bureaucracy will willingly give up their secure, cushy, phony-baloney jobs to be replaced by this subsidy???

    And is this a libertarian magazine that actually gives Eric Boehm a platform to say we should give this subsidy a chance????

    To these questions and to this subsidy, I say:
    Not just “No!”, but “Hell no!”
    Not just “Hell no!” but “Shit no!”
    Not just “Shit no!” but “Fuck no!”

    In the U.S., it costs around $450,000 to raise one (1) child from birth to age 18! (Note this does not include college, which thanks to student loans subsidies is a monster unto itself!)

    If someone cannot guarantee that they can pay that entire $450,000 over 18 years, they really have no business having children and government shouldn’t be encouraging such crappy behavior! Our government is virtually assuring such children a life of debt, squalor, and tyranny!

    I’m just glad as one of the Childfree By Choice that I am leaving future social engineers and tyrants nothing to work on, no “resources,” no cogs in their wheel!

  36. If you are going to write an article about abolishing the Earned Income Credit and its possible side effects, please first learn what it is and how it works.
    The EIC doesn’t reduce someones taxes. It is a refundable credit. This means once the refundable part of the child tax credit and/or the dependent care credit has reduced the tax burden(even down to zero) the EIC is then added into the refund.
    It is calculated based on earned (not unemployment or social security) income and the number of kids. It can also be paid to those with no kids that make very little in earned income. It does factor in unearned income for limits of eligiblity. The more you make rhe higher the EIC until about 21000 then it flattens out for awhile. It then goes back down. It peters out at an income around 48000 with 3 kids.
    It does have a way for calculating for more kids but the credit or kids greatly decreases.
    Most tax returns I see with EIC on them have a credit of 2500-3500 dollars.
    Establishing earned income is easy if it’s a W2 or even documented 1099s. It is harder for the self employed to document, especially anyone that works using cash.
    I agree if “just do away with it all” isn’t an option then figuring out a way to provide support all year instead of lump some on the tax return is a good thing.
    It might cut down on the cash advances and refund loans that just add to the problem.

    1. All I know is that the rest of us pay for whatever EITC beneficiaries do not, and also have to pay for whatever tax burden their children impose via EBT, WIC, Medicaid, day-care subsidies, government schools, infrastructure wear-and-tear, etc.

      I have also heard figures that there are a total of about 1100 benefits granted to those with children that are not granted to the involuntarily childless, the childfree, those whose children are grown up, and those who were just plain taught to do the right thing and not take up unsupportable financial burdens. Whether the number of benefits is accurate, those who don’t get the benefits certainly pay the freight of those that do.

      What Biden and Romney are proposing is just another “Gimmie” program that redistibutes wealth and imposes a senseless class-war-type wedge between U.S. Citizens.

  37. I’m child-free by choice, though it was the choice of the women I’ve known. 🙂

    1. Don’t worry or put yourself down. You were all doing the right thing to not give governments here and worldwide any more lab subjects, pack mules, and cannon fodder.

  38. Ok for all those on public assistance. Need a raise just pop out another baby you can’t support. There is no end to stupid policy proposals from Romney and the rest of the statists.

Please to post comments