Here's my entry, Integrated Cash Assistance: http://tiny.cc/iCa . It differs from any of the charts in that benefits start at zero income but rise with work and then phase out (like several of the others). Is neutral regarding number of parents in the family. Is more affordable because it replaces many existing programs rather than adding to them. It is all cash, no vouchers.
Any analysis of conservative proposals is futile because they are not made in good faith. All Republican programs are bait-and-switch Trojan Horses. If Democrats ever adopted them, the goalposts would shift and Republicans would then oppose them. Case in point: The ACA which was based on Mitt Romney's tenure in Massachusetts but got branded as Obamcare rather than Romney care.
In what universe is it in the interest of Senate Republicans to give Biden a victory?
The details of the plans are forgettable enough that few swing voters will remember who stood for what. However, any plan that passes is likely to be really popular, probably more popular than the mortgage interest deduction. Passing any such plan would be a big win for Biden, especially when it would pass mainly with D votes. Rs ought to know their hold on the white working class is weak, and letting a D administration hand out this kind of sugar is not in their interest.
Romney's plan seems to be clearly the best, obviously designed by economists to minimize work disincentives while still being available to families with no or very low income. Then on top of that it is deficit neutral and eliminates or consolidates other ineffective welfare programs. The Dems + Romney could pass it with reconciliation. But it would probably die in the House because of the pay fors.
All programs with income based phase-outs are hidden marginal tax rate increases which actually increase the rate at mid-level brackets and can be higher than the marginal rate the really rich people pay. At its extremes they can be high enough to actually discourage work.
It's interesting that no one really knows what they want to incentivize with parents (mostly mothers) working. Both liberals and conservatives are a bit at cross purposes within their own parties.
I think Matt is wrong, however, that parental leave indicates that Biden is all over on workforce participation, having better parental leave should support parents staying in the workforce by making the commitment trade offs slightly less stark. Overall, I think we should looking at more flexible family friendly workplaces as a priority. Beyond some minimum paid leave, the feds can't really legislate that, but the federal government could become a leader in its own workforce policies including part time work that isn't automatically a career killer.
I'm confused...the hypothetical above about college grads making $130k says they get nothing from Biden, but they'd be under the phase-out limit and get the full $3600 right?
I have a hard time seeing many Republicans coming to the table and handing Biden a bipartisan win unless they get something in return. The only votes I can see on this front are:
-Romney. Mostly because I suspect Mitt actually wants to DO something with his time in office
-Collins. Because her brand is getting things done and compromise.
-Murkowski. For Collins' reason, and also because she's up for re-election in a state that likely benefits a lot from this kind of program, and she can tout it in 2022.
This is mildly off topic. A lot of people on the edge of getting Hawley right. It isn't quite right to call his approach bad faith. It isn't a trap for Dems. It is more that it just doesn't matter whether or not it gets passed. Reality means nothing, optics and ideology are everything.
He was a crappy professor in law school, making his way by taking principled stances regardless of how much sense they make. His goal was never to be a good professor.
He is DEEP into dominion theology and making that ideology into reality is his primary goal. His method to get there is winning elections and he obviously wants to be president. He has correctly taken the position that passing actual policy means less than the appearance of being a bad ass that fights the man.
He started running for Attorney General promising that his primary goal was being Attorney General. He said he was going to focus on doing it well and doing it with integrity. He immediately starting running for senate. He used his office and state staff to help him win, likely breaking the law. Clearly his stated premise was false, it just doesn't matter. Then he said his goal was to be a good senator. Clearly that is also not true.
His goal is to win elections so he can be president. He will get there by creating the image that he is fighting against the man and for the people. Almost nobody is making a clear political argument that runs contrary to his claims. The policy itself passing or not passing has no bearing the goal, the goal is just to say he fought for the people. So he wins either way here.
"In many respects, the upshot of this is absurd. A family with two adults and one child gets more help than a family with one adult and two children. "
That seems like a great idea. We shouldn't be encouraging people to have children they can't afford to care for.
Can't we just split the difference on every column? Let's say $3600 per child 0-5 if single, $3000 per child 6-15 if single, $5400 per child 0-5 if married, $4500 per child 6-15 if married, phase in at $3000, phase-in rate 15%, phase out start $150k single/$300k married, phase-out rate 5%, top age 15.
I think Josh H program would be less cultural war and more likely to stay. It would not be something one party is trying to undermine. Can you imagine Democratic’s saying take away support for the kids of rich people.7.500 is barrier especially for single moms but it isn’t impossible and it is an easy bar for married people.
Thank you for this article -- I like both the way you both structured the conflicting objectives of the programs, and showed the distributions of benefits by household income.
Am I terrible for hating means testing in this case? (I fully admit that this is self serving in my personal case, although I do not have kids.) I usually support means testing vs universal programs for fiscal reasons, but it just seems needlessly punitive to phase these out in the 400-500k household income range, especially since the "pay for" is likely to include raising the top rate to 39.6%. According to the IRS tax tables, (https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-individual-statistical-tables-by-size-of-adjusted-gross-income), this is the top 1-2% of households. So this isn't even *that many* people or *that much* expense.
Final point on a more political note: This is really going to alienate those well-off moderate suburbs that went from voting Republican for years to voting for Democrats over the last 2 cycles. And for what? 1-2% of the total cost of the plan? Not worth it. Just make it a Universal benefit to support increasing the birthrate (as per Matt's book). It would be worth it, even if you had to raise the tax hike to 40% vs 39.6%. At least to me.
I have some sympathy with conservatives trying to use the tax code to encourage two parent households. Kids are a lot of work, and it seems pretty obvious to me that on average you're going to get better outcomes on average if you have multiple adults raising a child rather than one. I never understood why many in progressive circles are loathe to admit this. Having grown up in a two-parent household that abruptly became a one-parent household, I can tell you. It. Really. Sucks.
The example of two parents with one child getting more than a single parent with two children seems like an unnecessarily cruel way to go about incentivizing coparenting, but surely there are other less punitive levers to pull. Wondering what you're take on this is Matthew Yglesias. Maybe I'm missing something?
Here's my entry, Integrated Cash Assistance: http://tiny.cc/iCa . It differs from any of the charts in that benefits start at zero income but rise with work and then phase out (like several of the others). Is neutral regarding number of parents in the family. Is more affordable because it replaces many existing programs rather than adding to them. It is all cash, no vouchers.
Any analysis of conservative proposals is futile because they are not made in good faith. All Republican programs are bait-and-switch Trojan Horses. If Democrats ever adopted them, the goalposts would shift and Republicans would then oppose them. Case in point: The ACA which was based on Mitt Romney's tenure in Massachusetts but got branded as Obamcare rather than Romney care.
In what universe is it in the interest of Senate Republicans to give Biden a victory?
The details of the plans are forgettable enough that few swing voters will remember who stood for what. However, any plan that passes is likely to be really popular, probably more popular than the mortgage interest deduction. Passing any such plan would be a big win for Biden, especially when it would pass mainly with D votes. Rs ought to know their hold on the white working class is weak, and letting a D administration hand out this kind of sugar is not in their interest.
Romney's plan seems to be clearly the best, obviously designed by economists to minimize work disincentives while still being available to families with no or very low income. Then on top of that it is deficit neutral and eliminates or consolidates other ineffective welfare programs. The Dems + Romney could pass it with reconciliation. But it would probably die in the House because of the pay fors.
All programs with income based phase-outs are hidden marginal tax rate increases which actually increase the rate at mid-level brackets and can be higher than the marginal rate the really rich people pay. At its extremes they can be high enough to actually discourage work.
Jessie would be getting way to much under any plan
It's interesting that no one really knows what they want to incentivize with parents (mostly mothers) working. Both liberals and conservatives are a bit at cross purposes within their own parties.
I think Matt is wrong, however, that parental leave indicates that Biden is all over on workforce participation, having better parental leave should support parents staying in the workforce by making the commitment trade offs slightly less stark. Overall, I think we should looking at more flexible family friendly workplaces as a priority. Beyond some minimum paid leave, the feds can't really legislate that, but the federal government could become a leader in its own workforce policies including part time work that isn't automatically a career killer.
I'm confused...the hypothetical above about college grads making $130k says they get nothing from Biden, but they'd be under the phase-out limit and get the full $3600 right?
I have a hard time seeing many Republicans coming to the table and handing Biden a bipartisan win unless they get something in return. The only votes I can see on this front are:
-Romney. Mostly because I suspect Mitt actually wants to DO something with his time in office
-Collins. Because her brand is getting things done and compromise.
-Murkowski. For Collins' reason, and also because she's up for re-election in a state that likely benefits a lot from this kind of program, and she can tout it in 2022.
Rubio/Lee/Hawley will chicken out.
This is mildly off topic. A lot of people on the edge of getting Hawley right. It isn't quite right to call his approach bad faith. It isn't a trap for Dems. It is more that it just doesn't matter whether or not it gets passed. Reality means nothing, optics and ideology are everything.
He was a crappy professor in law school, making his way by taking principled stances regardless of how much sense they make. His goal was never to be a good professor.
He is DEEP into dominion theology and making that ideology into reality is his primary goal. His method to get there is winning elections and he obviously wants to be president. He has correctly taken the position that passing actual policy means less than the appearance of being a bad ass that fights the man.
He started running for Attorney General promising that his primary goal was being Attorney General. He said he was going to focus on doing it well and doing it with integrity. He immediately starting running for senate. He used his office and state staff to help him win, likely breaking the law. Clearly his stated premise was false, it just doesn't matter. Then he said his goal was to be a good senator. Clearly that is also not true.
His goal is to win elections so he can be president. He will get there by creating the image that he is fighting against the man and for the people. Almost nobody is making a clear political argument that runs contrary to his claims. The policy itself passing or not passing has no bearing the goal, the goal is just to say he fought for the people. So he wins either way here.
"In many respects, the upshot of this is absurd. A family with two adults and one child gets more help than a family with one adult and two children. "
That seems like a great idea. We shouldn't be encouraging people to have children they can't afford to care for.
Can't we just split the difference on every column? Let's say $3600 per child 0-5 if single, $3000 per child 6-15 if single, $5400 per child 0-5 if married, $4500 per child 6-15 if married, phase in at $3000, phase-in rate 15%, phase out start $150k single/$300k married, phase-out rate 5%, top age 15.
I think Josh H program would be less cultural war and more likely to stay. It would not be something one party is trying to undermine. Can you imagine Democratic’s saying take away support for the kids of rich people.7.500 is barrier especially for single moms but it isn’t impossible and it is an easy bar for married people.
Thank you for this article -- I like both the way you both structured the conflicting objectives of the programs, and showed the distributions of benefits by household income.
Am I terrible for hating means testing in this case? (I fully admit that this is self serving in my personal case, although I do not have kids.) I usually support means testing vs universal programs for fiscal reasons, but it just seems needlessly punitive to phase these out in the 400-500k household income range, especially since the "pay for" is likely to include raising the top rate to 39.6%. According to the IRS tax tables, (https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-individual-statistical-tables-by-size-of-adjusted-gross-income), this is the top 1-2% of households. So this isn't even *that many* people or *that much* expense.
Final point on a more political note: This is really going to alienate those well-off moderate suburbs that went from voting Republican for years to voting for Democrats over the last 2 cycles. And for what? 1-2% of the total cost of the plan? Not worth it. Just make it a Universal benefit to support increasing the birthrate (as per Matt's book). It would be worth it, even if you had to raise the tax hike to 40% vs 39.6%. At least to me.
I have some sympathy with conservatives trying to use the tax code to encourage two parent households. Kids are a lot of work, and it seems pretty obvious to me that on average you're going to get better outcomes on average if you have multiple adults raising a child rather than one. I never understood why many in progressive circles are loathe to admit this. Having grown up in a two-parent household that abruptly became a one-parent household, I can tell you. It. Really. Sucks.
The example of two parents with one child getting more than a single parent with two children seems like an unnecessarily cruel way to go about incentivizing coparenting, but surely there are other less punitive levers to pull. Wondering what you're take on this is Matthew Yglesias. Maybe I'm missing something?
I wish these charts included the EITC (especially since Romeny's plan eliminates it). It's basically a child benefit anyway, so it should be counted.