Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you view everything from the standpoint of a South End brownstone owner maybe, but $3600/young child is a big deal. HCOL states it ends up quickly vaporizing into a month and a half of daycare but in large portions of the US it is 1/3rd of the annual cost. Being fully refundable makes it available to low wage earners and the people who could use it most.
You don't notice it if equals your yearly Tatte budget, but for many others it will undoubtedly lead to a better outcome in life.
We are in a HCOL state with some of the highest daycare costs in the nation. If I was posting in the Mississippi forum, yeah I could see people thinking $3600 is a lot. But, we're in the MA forum, where million dollar homes are everywhere and $30k/year for one kid in daycare is in the ballpark of normal for a majority of the state's population. Half the threads are people screaming they can't afford a home here (frequently even with dual incomes, no less), but $3,600 is going to open doors and incentivize people on the fence to have kids? If only there was a term for that...oh right, laughable.
I'd entertain a discussion about sliding scale where people whose primary residence is in a HCOL area receives more than those in a LCOL area, or a discussion about something a little less static (free daycare for children under 3, for example). Or, we can just have more threads in other parts of the forum where people ask why it seems that the only people who are having kids are those who can least afford to have kids.
So, let's try this again. Explain to me, without using brownstones and coffee, how $3,600 is going to incentivize your typical 30-something DINK couple in MA who is looking at either one parent quitting their job, severely cutting back hours, or paying $30,000 in daycare costs should they have a kid. As you put, that credit quickly vaporizes around here. Even if it's impactful, telling a couple they only have to worry about $25,000 in daycare instead of $30,000 isn't exactly going to make for easy decisions. It's a step up from 'thoughts and prayers', but it's not going to help either parent sleep better at night.
$3,600 is laughable compared to the annual cost of one young child, and some couples don't even qualify for it, so I guess in that regard it's helping ... keep the birth rate low.
The birth rate discussion has left the station and is about 50 years down the road. We've been below replacement generally since 1971. Cash isn't going to change that. Especially $3600. If we want to increase the total fertility rate, we'd need massive structural changes to our culture.
$3,600 is laughable compared to the annual cost of one young child, and some couples don't even qualify for it, so I guess in that regard it's helping ... keep the birth rate low.
Quote:
Originally Posted by id77
So, let's try this again. Explain to me, without using brownstones and coffee, how $3,600 is going to incentivize your typical 30-something DINK couple in MA who is looking at either one parent quitting their job, severely cutting back hours, or paying $30,000 in daycare costs should they have a kid. As you put, that credit quickly vaporizes around here. Even if it's impactful, telling a couple they only have to worry about $25,000 in daycare instead of $30,000 isn't exactly going to make for easy decisions. It's a step up from 'thoughts and prayers', but it's not going to help either parent sleep better at night.
The median household income in the state is $80k. The median household income in Lawrence is $40k. It's clear that $3600 isn't going to move your needle, or the DINK couple that pops into your head when you think about who should be having kids, but it's going to move some needles.
The median household income in the state is $80k. The median household income in Lawrence is $40k. It's clear that $3600 isn't going to move your needle, or the DINK couple that pops into your head when you think about who should be having kids, but it's going to move some needles.
This is not the right way to think about it. The right way to think about it is "is this money going to be enough to make it so that having a child is not a big financial burden?" The answer is no.
Even with double that money a child is going to be a huge financial burden for the family with $40k income.
I am not blaming Biden, it's just that we have fallen so behind that it's kind of unthinkable to fix it easily now. I mean, 2 generations ago a family was able to be middle class with 1 income and the other parent would take care of all the childcare needs. To be in a comparable situation today you would need a free public childcare option available every day 6AM to 6PM for free regardless of where you live...the other option would be to...triple? salaries so that 1 person can stay home while the other one is the bread winner. Just not going to happen.
We are in a HCOL state with some of the highest daycare costs in the nation. If I was posting in the Mississippi forum, yeah I could see people thinking $3600 is a lot. But, we're in the MA forum, where million dollar homes are everywhere and $30k/year for one kid in daycare is in the ballpark of normal for a majority of the state's population. Half the threads are people screaming they can't afford a home here (frequently even with dual incomes, no less), but $3,600 is going to open doors and incentivize people on the fence to have kids? If only there was a term for that...oh right, laughable.
I'd entertain a discussion about sliding scale where people whose primary residence is in a HCOL area receives more than those in a LCOL area, or a discussion about something a little less static (free daycare for children under 3, for example). Or, we can just have more threads in other parts of the forum where people ask why it seems that the only people who are having kids are those who can least afford to have kids.
So, let's try this again. Explain to me, without using brownstones and coffee, how $3,600 is going to incentivize your typical 30-something DINK couple in MA who is looking at either one parent quitting their job, severely cutting back hours, or paying $30,000 in daycare costs should they have a kid. As you put, that credit quickly vaporizes around here. Even if it's impactful, telling a couple they only have to worry about $25,000 in daycare instead of $30,000 isn't exactly going to make for easy decisions. It's a step up from 'thoughts and prayers', but it's not going to help either parent sleep better at night.
it helps the sub 80k couple who needs it. It's more for our moderate-income urban folks in the MA context. But that's who has kids here anyway. MA has the lowest non-Hispanic white birthrate in the US, I suspect because the typical lifestyle lived is so outrageously expensive and reliant on educational credentials. In inner-city areas, child care is often much much less expensive (and lesser in quality)
For most Americans, it can be impactful, less so in MA in general already a low birthrate state who almost undoubtedly will see bigger declines in birthrates than the US as a whole. MA was and is closed for longer and was already in a bad natural growth position.
Were just trying to get as many births as possible I guess? I don't even see the value of that in MA where our growth is all international anyway and our population density is high as is the COL. Good for the folks in Lawrence and Methuen though.
This is not the right way to think about it. The right way to think about it is "is this money going to be enough to make it so that having a child is not a big financial burden?" The answer is no.
Even with double that money a child is going to be a huge financial burden for the family with $40k income.
I am not blaming Biden, it's just that we have fallen so behind that it's kind of unthinkable to fix it easily now. I mean, 2 generations ago a family was able to be middle class with 1 income and the other parent would take care of all the childcare needs. To be in a comparable situation today you would need a free public childcare option available every day 6AM to 6PM for free regardless of where you live...the other option would be to...triple? salaries so that 1 person can stay home while the other one is the bread winner. Just not going to happen.
To follow your reasoning, you'd think that it's impossible for poor people to have kids. That's basically the exact opposite of what happens in practice. Fertility decreases with income level. It's moving the needle, not creating the entire demand. Every little bit helps. The important question is "how much". I suspect it will be a little bit but not nearly enough to bring the state to replacement fertility. More than anything, I suspect most of the benefit will be in making things better for kids that have already been born.
To follow your reasoning, you'd think that it's impossible for poor people to have kids. That's basically the exact opposite of what happens in practice. Fertility decreases with income level. It's moving the needle, not creating the entire demand. Every little bit helps. The important question is "how much". I suspect it will be a little bit but not nearly enough to bring the state to replacement fertility. More than anything, I suspect most of the benefit will be in making things better for kids that have already been born.
Fertility declines with (female) education, income, religiosity and many other factors and it's extremely hard to conclusively pinpoint which one comes first, but this research shows a much stronger correlation with education rather than income. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentra...889-020-8331-7
People aren't just waiting for some cash. A child puts a huge burden on a family, especially the mother, and more and more educated women understand this and rather postpone children or avoid them altogether unless you seriously propose a way to remove that burden (like free childcare, or another way that allows you to have a career. This isn't whining, you need 2 full incomes to live a, at least, middle class life unless one of the 2 has an exceptional job).
Me and pretty much everyone in my group of friends waited their mid-late 30's to start having children exactly for this reason, this of course will limit the number of children you can have.
The median household income in the state is $80k. The median household income in Lawrence is $40k. It's clear that $3600 isn't going to move your needle, or the DINK couple that pops into your head when you think about who should be having kids, but it's going to move some needles.
Lawrence is also the 351st wealthiest town in MA, out of ... 351 towns. Looking at MA, the two wealthiest counties -- Norfolk and Middlesex, have median household incomes above $80k and median family incomes above $100k, and those two counties also make up around 2.2 million people (out of 7, so ... almost a third of the state). Those DINKs living in the 495 loop make up a significant portion of the MA population, particularly when you eliminate the population that isn't of reproductive age (too old or too young). They shouldn't be dismissed or told to go back to their lattes simply because there's poorer people in Lawrence, and just because $3,600 helps someone in poverty doesn't mean that amount is substantially less effective for what is likely close to 1 million people in MA. And, probably around a third of those million make over $150k HH income, which means they don't get the full amount anyway.
A flat credit, especially for such a small amount, isn't a needle mover in HCOL areas. You know what wouldn't be, though? How about uncapping DCFSA, and to the gov's credit, they made some strides in this regard this year (though they can do better). I don't even see a political issue with it: the Dems can appeal to their base that's predominantly in expensive coastal areas benefitting from such a move, and the GOP can take credit that it's not a handout or entitlement (and lowers tax burden, yay?).
Is that enough? I don't know, but it's more than the credit is doing today for these people.
Speaking of Lawrence and some other poor cities and towns, it's possible that those residents won't get the childcare credit either. You have to supply receipts, SSN's, or EIN's in order to claim the credit. When you pay relatives or a baby sitter cash, you aren't getting that information to put on your tax return.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
