During the session: the DFL said that their “child tax credit” would reduce child poverty by a Third.
Now that we are waiting for the taxes to kick in:
“Good“ reduce child poverty.
Like Homer Simpson, slowly disappearing into the hedge behind him, the DFL is walking their absurd claim back, confident that nobody in the Twin Cities media will call them on it.
I’m going to check back periodically, just to see how child poverty has, well, “fallen”.
Any bets?
How exactly – or I’d accept just a rough guess – is child poverty measured?
… oh, sorry, I forgot. Measuring and numbers and making sense is so, so white.
You’re right, Mitch.
The DemoCommies are already trying to walk back the queen of word salads Kamala Harris talking about population control to avert gloBULL warming, by claiming that she meant pollution control. In other words, who are you going to believe, me or your lying ears?
“Gomez, who helped craft the tax policy, expressed some discomfort in a recent interview about leaning too much into the projections around reduced child poverty.
“You don’t want to get overly cute about getting your anti-poverty statistic,” she said. “We’re just so aware that there are more families than that who are really struggling to make ends meet
–From MPR last month.
Actually, boss, anything that the VP might say is probably misstated, misunderstood, just plain wrong or simply nonsense. I can imagine that “reduce pollution” was the original line and she screwed it up.
I don’t know jdm.
She’s said so many dumb things over the years that I’m not charitable enough to give her the benefit of the doubt.
Flanagan is a 21st Century “good Indian”…she sacrifices the welfare of her people to help leftist degenerates smuggle tons of Fentanyl across the border to add that suffering to the alcohol and meth addictions on the Rez.
In return, they’re allowed to build shitty little c@sino’s up in mosquito land to fleece fat boomer leftists like rAT, and to employ low IQ White women like rAT’s daughter to empty ashtrays and service “whales” on the side.
“child poverty” is 100%, since no child can legally own anything.
Flanagan is talking about parental poverty, or parental neglect, since it is the duty of the child’s parents to see to his or her material needs.
It’s always best to start any discussion by stating a truth.
OK, the legislation suggests it’s going to be $1750/dependent. Federal poverty line for a family of four is about $25k, for three a touch short of $22000, and for two, it’s $18000. So more or less, it’s about a buck an hour raise per child for a family which….appears to have maybe a minimum wage job.
The question I have is why about 10% of families in Minnesota cannot even get a 40 hours per week at minimum wage. Or–I’m remembering Obama’s modification of welfare reform to allow pretty much perpetual community college in lieu of work–maybe they’re choosing poverty because, quite frankly, with Section 8, Medicaid, AFDC, SNAP, WIC, and the like, it’s pretty darned comfortable.
Has anybody measured what a hypothetical family “living in poverty” can potentially collect in assistance of various forms for a year?
That’s an interesting point, TKS.
For living in poverty, I’ve seen some people using EBT cards at Cub, while wearing gold jewelry, $300 shoes and carrying $1,000 hand bags, then jumping into an Escalade or Mercedes. Of course, maybe I shouldn’t be implying that those chains, shoes and bags or cars were purchased. After all, with all of the looting and car jacking going on, it’s reasonable to believe that they weren’t.
bikebubba, it might not be comfortable to be on welfare, but it’s a trap that can be hard to escape.
I was having dinner at the VFW when I overheard the manager of the local dollar store complaining about scheduling. Seems his management gave everybody a raise so now the manager had to cut their hours. No, not because of Obamacare, because of EBT.
If you earn less than X you get an EBT card for $600 free food. Earn a penny more and you lose the entire card. To replace that $600 with after-tax take-home pay, the Raise would have to be about $1,000 a month (and nobody at that store was getting that kind of bump, not even the manager). So the solution was to cut working hours to maintain eligibility. Make more per hour, work fewer hours, need more workers to cover the shifts.
I suspect it’s also a problem on the other end of the scale. A retired person could work the fast food counter but not if he makes too much – cuts into Social Security, not worth it.
Fighting for Fifteen left us with take-out only because nobody can afford to staff the restaurant. Was that intended?
Regarding the welfare trap, about a decade back, I found a graph of useful income (total wage income plus government assistance costs) vs. wage income for Pennsylvania. What was striking was that from zero to about $70K (probably higher now), a family of four got no more useful goods and services by getting raises, and there were several places where crossing a threshold actually resulted in a decrease in effective income. That occurred because various programs have a hard cutoff at various wage rates.
So yes, it’s like there is a government conspiracy to keep people poor.
Bigman:
The income penalty on Social Security, only applies if you collect before your actual eligible retirement date. I waited until my required 6 months before I turned 65. They can’t touch it now, no matter how much I earn. I did learn though that I needed to have more taken out on withholding, even if I claimed zero exemptions.
They can’t touch it now
Really, boss? They just removed grossup from traditional IRA. You don’t think your SS and 401 are untouchable?
Thanks for the tip boss. I’ll look into that.
How exactly – or I’d accept just a rough guess – is child poverty measured?
If we do the leftist way, by counting locked-in future and current Democratic voters!