Budget to penalize large families!

[YOSEF]

I'm not being a jerk, your argument is illogical. It always was.

Why is there a smaller incentive for someone with a larger family to work?

The income is deducted from FS 20-30% regardless of family size.

The income limit rises with each child.

Each child costs the parents more money to support.

Anyone with a any sense realizes that the above numbers show, that as the family grows, the incentive to work does not decrease.

I can only conclude that economics is not your strong point.

That's OK. It's not mine either. (Though I have read dozens of books on Economics, from right, center and left. And am still not sure who's right.)

I gave you an example of Bob. Please show me what is incorrect in my example.

[Baruch]

@Baruch If you truly care about all jews and their wallets you should probably also care that you are insulting people left and right.

There is absolutely no need to put an insulting line in your posts degenerating the poster you are responding to.

I hear you. I apologize. Perhaps I am being too emotional about this.

But, I am shocked and saddened about how people can defend a proposal that will be disastrous to a significant portion of Klal yisrael. I am frankly angry.

[Baruch]

I gave you an example of Bob. Please show me what is incorrect in my example.

I give up. Sorry. One of us is not understanding the other.

[cholent]

Let's assume Bob can get a job that pays $35K.
If Bob is a single father with 1 child, he will only make $25K equivalent off of programs.
If Bob is a father of 7, he will make $60K equivalent off of programs.

How do we get Bob the father of 7 to work?

Bob the single father will lose his programs if he gets the job. Bob the father of the large family will continue to qualify, because both benefits and eligibility change with family size

[YOSEF]

Bob the single father will lose his programs if he gets the job. Bob the father of the large family will continue to qualify, because both benefits and eligibility change with family size

Thank you for a response to my actual post.

I understand what you are saying, and have understood that.

To be clearer: how will Bob ever come off programs? He will always be stuck making just below the limit for programs, unless he somehow can make a HUGE leap (programs for a family of 6 or more people) from just below the limit plus programs to making enough to cover the spread.

How is Bob not stuck on programs?

[Baruch]

Thank you for a response to my actual post.

I understand what you are saying, and have understood that.

To be clearer: how will Bob ever come off programs? He will always be stuck making just below the limit for programs, unless he somehow can make a HUGE leap (programs for a family of 6 or more people) from just below the limit plus programs to making enough to cover the spread.

How is Bob not stuck on programs?

The more income you make, gradually your benefits get cut. There is no HUGE leap. By the time you get close to the income limits, you are hardly making any money on benefits.

There factually is no huge leap!

There used to be a huge health insurance leap (even though that was also somewhat gradual, first the father {and mother when not pregnant} lost it, then the mother and children lost it) but now with Obamacare, health insurance is also gradual. (Maybe not enough, but we're discussing FS here)

And EIC is capped at 3 children either way.


There is an argument to be made that programs make people not work. But it has nothing to do with family size.

[cholent]

Thank you for a response to my actual post.

I understand what you are saying, and have understood that.

To be clearer: how will Bob ever come off programs? He will always be stuck making just below the limit for programs, unless he somehow can make a HUGE leap (programs for a family of 6 or more people) from just below the limit plus programs to making enough to cover the spread.

How is Bob not stuck on programs?

Of course he is stuck on programs, and it is a serious concern. The answer is not to suddenly cut benefits from vulnerable children. The answer is to create a slow ramp down of programs, so that as Bob earns more money his programs slowly become less valuable. This exists to some extent with food stamps, although not enough. It usually doesn't exist with Medicaid. Even where it exists in some form, there is still a point at which benefits fall off a cliff, right at the top of eligibility limits, and that is where people get stuck

[YOSEF]

Of course he is stuck on programs, and it is a serious concern. The answer is not to suddenly cut benefits from vulnerable children. The answer is to create a slow ramp down of programs, so that as Bob earns more money his programs slowly become less valuable. This exists to some extent with food stamps, although not enough. It usually doesn't exist with Medicaid. Even where it exists in some form, there is still a point at which benefits fall off a cliff, right at the top of eligibility limits, and that is where people get stuck

Even with a slow "ramp down", doesn't that mean that he essentially is earning at some point, just to make up what he is losing in programs, sort of like a hamster wheel? And that it will take time for him to actually make more overall (assuming his salary continues to increase)? And isn't that majorly compounded with a large family?

[Baruch]

And isn't that majorly compounded with a large family?

No, because the ramp gets slower and slower, the larger the family grows.
The 30% deductions from FS, are based only on his income - and the end of the ramp is much farther away, because the family is larger, (the end of the ramp is when he reaches the income limit)

[churnbabychurn]

The more income you make, gradually your benefits get cut. There is no HUGE leap. By the time you get close to the income limits, you are hardly making any money on benefits.

There factually is no huge leap!

There used to be a huge health insurance leap (even though that was also somewhat gradual, first the father {and mother when not pregnant} lost it, then the mother and children lost it) but now with Obamacare, health insurance is also gradual. (Maybe not enough, but we're discussing FS here)

And EIC is capped at 3 children either way.


There is an argument to be made that programs make people not work. But it has nothing to do with family size.

There is nothing gradual about loosing health insurance. You go suddenly from virtually free health, to paying 15k a year in premiums w high deductable. I know many who hesitate to ask for a raise/look for a new job when at the threshold.

[Baruch]

There is nothing gradual about loosing health insurance. You go suddenly from virtually free health, to paying 15k a year in premiums w high deductable. I know many who hesitate to ask for a raise/look for a new job when at the threshold.

I admit I do not know too much about ObamaCare. I do assume that it's more gradual now with Obamacare, then before Obamacare.
Also, the parents do lose insurance before the kids. So you definitely can't argue "There is nothing gradual about loosing health insurance". (I did qualify my statement with: "Maybe not enough")

But this conversation is about FS, not health care.

[cholent]

Even with a slow "ramp down", doesn't that mean that he essentially is earning at some point, just to make up what he is losing in programs, sort of like a hamster wheel? And that it will take time for him to actually make more overall (assuming his salary continues to increase)? And isn't that majorly compounded with a large family?

You make it sound like anyone could make significantly more money at any time just by wanting to do so. Of course it will take more time for anyone to earn more overall. The question is how fix programs so they don't disincentivize growing past a certain point. And if he was just replacing exactly what he earned in programs, while that would still be a smart long term strategy, I wouldn't call it incentivizing work. Instead, benefits need to go down by less than the increase in pay.

Health insurance is indeed a prime example of a program where people fall of a huge financial cliff. Having families be able to pay increasing premiums and copays while staying on Medicaid (as exists to some extent in NJ) would be a good strategy for dealing with this.

I agree with the poster above who said that the real reason for cutting snap this way and not across the board is political - less total people affected. And I agree that it sends the message "Why are you having children if you can't afford to fully support them?"

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Since it is Friday I will chime in. Everyone is sick and tired on these entitlements. Having a family with say 6 or more kids is a choice you made, not the government. If you can't support that choice the simple solution is to keep that thing in your pants!!! 

[David Smith]

[quote name="ChaimMoskowitz" post=1742354 timestamp=1495779592]
Since it is Friday I will chime in. Everyone is sick and tired on these entitlements. Having a family with say 6 or more kids is a choice you made, not the government. If you can't support that choice the simple solution is to keep that thing in your pants!!! 
[/quote]
Why should a family with two kids qualify, but with six kids not? The same logic should apply. Either children without enough guardian income should be entitled, or they shouldn't be. This is seemingly social engineering.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Why should a family with two kids qualify, but with six kids not?

A family with six doesn't qualify?

[Proisrael]

Whoever doesn't like the conservative approach to economics is more then welcome to move to our neighbors in the north or go to Europe. The budget needs to be balanced and they need to cut programs. They would rather cut programs to less people and leave the majority of people unscathed, unfortunately this affects us as Jews more then the others but I do not believe this is targeted at us its simply the majority vs minority.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

So they are targeting the minorities?

[Emkay]

Since it is Friday I will chime in. Everyone is sick and tired on these entitlements. Having a family with say 6 or more kids is a choice you made, not the government. If you can't support that choice the simple solution is to keep that thing in your pants!!! 

Would you say that also about a family with one or two kids?

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Would you say that also about a family with one or two kids?

One or even two could be an oops but not six. 

[David Smith]

One or even two could be an oops but not six. 

So the government is condoning irresponsible sexual activity over having a family.