Child Tax Credit

[Dahobbs 17447]

1 hour ago, slorch said:

The poorest families don't have a tax bill...fact.

Love the angle though...

Why do you think that is somehow different than what he said? They didnt benefit from the credit because they didn't owe enough in taxes. The new credit is refundable. 

[Guest]

Just now, washparkhorn said:

Who needs the credit more than the poorest?  

 

Changing the subject, eh?

 

Never have been a fan of net-negative billing on taxes.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Why do you think that is somehow different than what he said? They didnt benefit from the credit because they didn't owe enough in taxes. The new credit is refundable. 

I'm quite aware of the mathematics...and posturing.

[washparkhorn 9935]

2 minutes ago, slorch said:

Changing the subject, eh?

Never have been a fan of net-negative billing on taxes.

You are hung up on a word. Good luck. This will stimulate the economy regularly and do a lot of good. You disagree. Take care. 

Edited July 16, 2021 by washparkhorn

[Dahobbs 17447]

1 minute ago, slorch said:

I'm quite aware of the mathematics...and posturing.

Posturing meaning? It is an investment in the poor. I don't understand your posts. 

[tantric superman 4667]

4 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Posturing meaning? It is an investment in the poor. I don't understand your posts. 

Probably because you've never worked a day in your life. 

[Clackles 276]

If I had any computer skills, I’d make a .gif showing one of those scenes from the Vietnam war with dense, green jungle that then explodes in a carpet-bomb of napalm, followed by the words “SLORCH’D”.  But I have no such skills.

[deadshank 24651]

16 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

The $150k joint income limit is for the expanded tax credit, not the original $2,000 per child credit. Married couples with an AGI less than $400,000 would still receive the latter $2,000 per child credit (phasing out at higher incomes). The additional $1,000 (children 6-17) to $1,600 (under 6) per child phases out completely at $440,000 (married AGI) I think, but anything under that and you would still qualify for some part of the additional credit.  So, you may actually still qualify (if not, good for you). The information out there is confusing because of the mishmash of what should be two separate credits.  

Ready?  

SHOOT!!!!

Aim. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19151]

Just checked and even though I'm far and beyond the cutoff point to be eligible, there it is.  This deposit is mocking me trying to make me feel like an unwashed poor.

I can't believe I have been relegated to the same class as you lot.  Fuck this.

Edited July 16, 2021 by Fudge Nuggets

[Fudge Nuggets 19151]

I'm probably going to donate mine to the working single moms charity fund at the local titter.

['stache 21774]

They increased it and made it fully refundable so it’s designed to have little effect on your usual April refund. I did the math though and it looks like it may reduce some spring refunds and people will bitch, even though you can opt out of monthly payments and get a bigger refund if that’s what you prefer. I’ll take it now instead of giving the government a larger interest free loan.

['stache 21774]

11 hours ago, slorch said:

Changing the subject, eh?

 

Never have been a fan of net-negative billing on taxes.

And I’m not a fan of billionaires and Fortune 500 companies paying nothing in taxes and often getting subsidies and other tax breaks. Elections have consequences.

Edited July 16, 2021 by 'stache

[Js1 85110]

5 minutes ago, 'stache said:

They increased it and made it fully refundable so it’s designed to have little effect on your usual April refund. I did the math though and it looks like it may reduce some spring refunds and people will bitch, even though you can opt out of monthly payments and get a bigger refund if that’s what you prefer. I’ll take it now instead of giving the government a larger interest free loan.

The whole point of it is the people who TRULY need it (not talking surlyites), need it monthly, not just in Feb/March/April.  Childcare costs are a monthly thing.  

There's so much targeted bitching at THE POORS who spend their refunds on electronics or vacations or stupid shit, that people should be happier to see them using the money upfront, monthly, to bridge the gap in childcare costs. 

And not to mention, one of the main impetus of people (see: women) not going back into the workforce is the cost of childcare.

Edited July 16, 2021 by Js1

[Dahobbs 17447]

2 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Just checked and even though I'm far and beyond the cutoff point to be eligible, there it is.  This deposit is mocking me trying to make me feel like an unwashed poor.

I can't believe I have been relegated to the same class as you lot.  Fuck this.

I feel confident in saying that everyone who thinks they are far beyond the cutoff point AND received a deposit, doesn't actually understand the cut off point. For instance, for a family with 3 kids, the original $2,000 tax credit doesn't completely phase out until an AGI of $520,000 joint or $320,000 single.

Edited July 16, 2021 by Dahobbs

[Bateshorn 9905]

13 hours ago, slorch said:

The poorest families don't have a tax bill...fact.

Love the angle though...

As per usual…slorched!

 

Even if you owe zero taxes you can file for the Earned Income Tax Credit which is refundable.  Most poor families that have even an iota of awareness about taxes file for it.  Why do you think there is an H&R Block in every strip mall in poor communities?  It’s not because they are involved with complicated offshore tax havens.  It’s because they make money off of helping people file a non itemized 1040 to get the EITC.  
 

This tax credit is a major expansion of efforts to eliminate poverty among poor families with children.  As noted, if you expect it to fuck up your tax planning, you can opt out or just set it aside and return it as part of any possible tax bill you may have next year.  
 

It’s an interest free loan for all intents and purposes if you are rich.  Those that are getting a partial credit mean you are actually pretty well off, because you are in the phase out.  The rest of you who got the whole amount filed under the limit ifor 2020. Computer that looked at your return and deposited the money out front should have told you.

 

For me, my crotch fruit are finally paying off. 

Edited July 16, 2021 by Bateshorn

[atomheartbevo 89449]

11 minutes ago, Js1 said:

The whole point of it is the people who TRULY need it (not talking surlyites), need it monthly, not just in Feb/March/April.  Childcare costs are a monthly thing.  

If you are posting on Surly at 9 in the morning, chances are you are making enough money that it'll be a nice little thing you tuck away in the kids' savings account, or throw in their 529.

But yeah, for a lot of (poor) people this could be a big deal. If it gets squandered, so be it, but plenty of families could use it, so it doesn't bother me.

[Guest]

Property will not be solved with tax credit. You know it. The politicians know it. Everybody knows it.

It’s an excuse…

[David Dennison 18659]

13 hours ago, slorch said:

The poorest families don't have a tax bill...fact.

Love the angle though...

So what?

[Bateshorn 9905]

10 minutes ago, slorch said:

Property will not be solved with tax credit. You know it. The politicians know it. Everybody knows it.

It’s an excuse…

Only writing factually wrong, tangential posts will solve poverty. 
 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Bateshorn said:

Only writing factually wrong, tangential posts will solve poverty. 
 

 

Maybe you would be so kind as to educate us on solving poverty… by increasing dendency upon the. government. 

[Dahobbs 17447]

12 minutes ago, slorch said:

Property will not be solved with tax credit. You know it. The politicians know it. Everybody knows it.

It’s an excuse…

Yup. Poverty can't be solved with money. 

Wait, what? 

[Dahobbs 17447]

Just now, slorch said:

Maybe you would be so kind as to educate us on solving poverty… by increasing dendency upon the. government. 

Bootstraps guys. Learn to love them. Slorch has. 

[Js1 85110]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Yup. Poverty can't be solved with money. 

Wait, what? 

They just need bigger, better bootstraps. 

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Why do you think that is somehow different than what he said? They didnt benefit from the credit because they didn't owe enough in taxes. The new credit is refundable. 

There is a difference between a tax credit/entitlement, and reducing an actual bill of taxes owed. I know it’s pretty nuanced and advanced mathematics… But I’m confident you can hang with it there

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Bootstraps guys. Learn to love them. Slorch has. 

People should embrace their dependency right? I can’t do it by myself.  Equality is for everyone but me, because I am a lesser person. I have no business being confident in my abilities. Only through uncle Joe will I achieve self-confidence and sustain that for my family.

Great fucking story…

[Dahobbs 17447]

Just now, slorch said:

There is a difference between a tax credit/entitlement, and reducing an actual bill of taxes owed. I know it’s pretty nuanced and advanced mathematics… But I’m confident you can hang with it there

Sure, there is a difference. I literally described it in the post you quoted. But that has nothing to do with the original point you were responding to, which was merely pointing out that this expanded tax credit is an investment in the poor. That remains true. You just think it is a bad investment because it lacks bootstraps. 

[David Dennison 18659]

3 minutes ago, slorch said:

People should embrace their dependency right? I can’t do it by myself.  Equality is for everyone but me, because I am a lesser person. I have no business being confident in my abilities. Only through uncle Joe will I achieve self-confidence and sustain that for my family.

Great fucking story…

Wait. Are you under the impression that you aren't dependent on the government?

[Dahobbs 17447]

4 minutes ago, slorch said:

People should embrace their dependency right? I can’t do it by myself.  Equality is for everyone but me, because I am a lesser person. I have no business being confident in my abilities. Only through uncle Joe will I achieve self-confidence and sustain that for my family.

Great fucking story…

Did you build the roads by yourself? The power grid? Did you construct your house by yourself? Invent the internal combustion engine? The internet? Computers? Did you discover algebra and calculus by yourself? What about gravity? Did you launch GPS satellites into space by yourself? Did you birth yourself? 

Maybe you don't like the story of dependency. But your story is a complete fabrication. 

Edited July 16, 2021 by Dahobbs

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Sure, there is a difference. I literally described it in the post you quoted. But that has nothing to do with the original point you were responding to, which was merely pointing out that this expanded tax credit is an investment in the poor. That remains true. You just think it is a bad investment because it lacks bootstraps. 

It is a bad investment because it’s not going to pay us anything back as a society.

Poverty is solved through education and employment. Guess which two aspects of life or summarily under siege right now in our country? Then ask yourself why.

grow dependency. Fight social mobility.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Did you build the roads by yourself? The power grid? Did you construct your house by yourself? Invent the internal combustion engine? The internet? Computers? Did you discover algebra and calculus by yourself? What about gravity? Did you launch GPS satellites into space by yourself? Did you birth yourself? 

Maybe you don't like the story of dependency. But your story is a complete fabrication. 

Individualism doesn’t exist, that’s why my results in life are so different from that of how they began, right?

fuck the ‘you didn’t build that’ line of thought. It damn sure didn’t happen by itself

Edited July 16, 2021 by slorch

[David Dennison 18659]

1 minute ago, slorch said:

Individualism doesn’t exist, that’s why my results in life are so different from that of how they began.

Are they really?

[Dahobbs 17447]

4 minutes ago, slorch said:

It is a bad investment because it’s not going to pay us anything back as a society.

Poverty is solved through education and employment. Guess which two aspects of life or summarily under siege right now in our country? Then ask yourself why.

grow dependency. Fight social mobility.

I agree, the republicans are attacking education. 

Direct investment in the poor will pay itself back easily. And that investment can take several forms, including investment in education for the poor or direct stimulus to allow the poor to take advantage of the options we want to give them. Or did you think a poor person was going to choose college over eating? 

[yoladu 4067]

6 minutes ago, slorch said:

It is a bad investment because it’s not going to pay us anything back as a society.

Do you feel tax cuts and tax credits you receive need to meet the same standard?

[Dahobbs 17447]

7 minutes ago, slorch said:

Individualism doesn’t exist, that’s why my results in life are so different from that of how they began, right?

fuck the ‘you didn’t build that’ line of thought. It damn sure didn’t happen by itself

Of course it didn't happen by itself. But it obviously wasn't you that did it.  Someone else did. Society did. And you now receive the benefit. Why can you not see that?

And, no one wants the individual poor family to be wholly reliant on the federal government forever. The point here is to provide the people enough resources so that they can move on from poverty, so that they have the option to invest in the their future and not merely survive in the present. A reduction in poverty will improve the overall production of the country. And it will also free up the resources we spend on poor to invested elsewhere. It's called progress. 

Slorch, earlier this year you seemed to have a bout of empathy and self-awareness. What happened? 

[Bateshorn 9905]

32 minutes ago, slorch said:

Maybe you would be so kind as to educate us on solving poverty… by increasing dendency upon the. government. 

Tell me you don’t understand how the Earned Income Tax Credit works without telling me you don’t understand how the Earned Income Tax Credit Works. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

I'm in no mood to bother with citing sources or doing extracurricular math today, but my two cents is that I'd much rather see the Child Tax Credit and its effects trickle up than fund a trickle down program that doesn't provide more jobs unless directly related to funding the Keeping Up With The Jones Private Space Program. The former benefits more layers of society than the latter.

[UncleSonny 6558]

Every slorch post makes me think of this for some reason:

 

[DonkeyCigars 144]

31 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I'm in no mood to bother with citing sources or doing extracurricular math today, but my two cents is that I'd much rather see the Child Tax Credit and its effects trickle up than fund a trickle down program that doesn't provide more jobs unless directly related to funding the Keeping Up With The Jones Private Space Program. The former benefits more layers of society than the latter.

Before responding to your point specifically, which I think is good, I want to say "The CTC isn't bad and I'm not mad about this and think it's fine how this is going right now", so you can skip the rest if you are going to try and mischaracterize me.

Now, between you and I:

I read that analysts are saying this CTC is a boon to Wal-Mart and Nike (their words, take the implications as you see them if the shoe fits on who gets these credits). The point being, I agree with you, because just stimulating the economy to buy things, while important for necessities and sundries for day to day living, is not going to be a good use of tax dollars and increased spending if it's to further enrich Bezos or Nike shareholders or LVMH and other fashion houses (the latter being more typical with a lump sum versus a monthly, lower stipend).

That being said, raising taxes on the rich is going to be the left's suggestion, but we know that there are so many tax loopholes that the rich won't pay for it and that the politicians aren't going to not close those, so then the left will say "make the investors pay for it by hiking the capital gains tax" which will disincentivize investors (people are not inherently altruistic, has long been my thesis), hurting the economy even more.

I think we need to do this to help poverty, glad it's being done. But I think now more important than looking to stretch out these welfare programs indefinitely, the need is to invest our national dollars into R&D. You mentioned Private billionaire space programs and I thought of this I read:

Quote

 

The current pissing contest among spacebound billionaires offers a chance to reexamine an old question: Where should ambitious tech and science funding come from, the public sector or private sector? 

According to an Aspen Economic Strategy Group (AESG) paper released this morning, both are important, but the US government can and should be spending a lot more on science and tech R&D. 

The argument: The US government underinvests in science and tech compared to other countries like Germany and South Korea, and increasing investment would more than pay for itself. For every $1 that is invested in R&D, society earns—conservatively—an average return of $5, per the paper. These returns come in the form of everything from standard of living increases to greater competitiveness on the global market. 

In 2018, the US’ public R&D expenditure as a share of GDP was 0.66%, about $135 billion in dollar terms, down from 1.18 % three decades ago, and near its lowest level in 60 years. 

“We're just basically leaving money on the table—it’s like we have this incredible return machine, [but] we just don't invest in it,” Benjamin F. Jones, a professor at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management

 

 

Edited July 16, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[Brothahorn 10085]

They increased it and made it fully refundable so it’s designed to have little effect on your usual April refund. I did the math though and it looks like it may reduce some spring refunds and people will bitch, even though you can opt out of monthly payments and get a bigger refund if that’s what you prefer. I’ll take it now instead of giving the government a larger interest free loan.

Of course there will be bitching. There was bitching when the refunds were less because there was less taken out of paychecks.

I wish our high schools would take the time to teach how our tax code actually worked.

The whole point of it is the people who TRULY need it (not talking surlyites), need it monthly, not just in Feb/March/April.  Childcare costs are a monthly thing.  
There's so much targeted bitching at THE POORS who spend their refunds on electronics or vacations or stupid shit, that people should be happier to see them using the money upfront, monthly, to bridge the gap in childcare costs. 
And not to mention, one of the main impetus of people (see: women) not going back into the workforce is the cost of childcare.

Agreed. Although I think the cutoff could have been lower.

[washparkhorn 9935]

According to this study by Columbia, the expansion of the CTC will create $8 for every dollar of public investment in program. 

"Converting the current Child Tax Credit to a child allowance—by making it fully refundable, increasing its value to $3,600 per child age 0-5, $3,000 per child age 6-17, and distributing it monthly—would cost about $100 billion and would generate about $800 billion in benefits to society.

The extraordinarily high total benefits for beneficiaries, and society as a whole, are driven primarily by increases in children’s health—nearly $700 billion for a $100 billion initial expenditure. Considered as a health investment alone, a child allowance is a remarkably good investment. These improvements in health, in turn, drive taxpayer savings of $32 billion in health care costs. Taxpayers also experience gains of $9.5 billion and $5.6 billion respectively from reductions in child protective service use and criminal justice costs.4 The present discounted value of current and future benefits for society equals roughly $810 billion, or more than eight times initial costs. Recipients of the transfer gain $860 billion. Taxpayers recoup $51 billion of their initial investment of $100 billion."

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5743308460b5e922a25a6dc7/t/605978841a7c672eaed64ec6/1616476294180/Child-Allowance-CBA-brief-CPSP-March-2021.pdf

https://www.povertycenter.columbia.edu/news-internal/2021/child-allowance/cost-benefit-analysis

[Fudge Nuggets 19151]

5 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I feel confident in saying that everyone who thinks they are far beyond the cutoff point AND received a deposit, doesn't actually understand the cut off point. For instance, for a family with 3 kids, the original $2,000 tax credit doesn't completely phase out until an AGI of $520,000 joint or $320,000 single.

Guilty as charged.

An article I read had bad info and said cutoff for joint was $400K but didn't stipulate a value for the single cutoff.  I thought it was like the stimulus where cutoff for single was basically 1/2 the joint cutoff.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

1 hour ago, washparkhorn said:

According to this study by Columbia, the expansion of the CTC will create $8 for every dollar of public investment in program. 

"Converting the current Child Tax Credit to a child allowance—by making it fully refundable, increasing its value to $3,600 per child age 0-5, $3,000 per child age 6-17, and distributing it monthly—would cost about $100 billion and would generate about $800 billion in benefits to society.

The extraordinarily high total benefits for beneficiaries, and society as a whole, are driven primarily by increases in children’s health—nearly $700 billion for a $100 billion initial expenditure. Considered as a health investment alone, a child allowance is a remarkably good investment. These improvements in health, in turn, drive taxpayer savings of $32 billion in health care costs. Taxpayers also experience gains of $9.5 billion and $5.6 billion respectively from reductions in child protective service use and criminal justice costs.4 The present discounted value of current and future benefits for society equals roughly $810 billion, or more than eight times initial costs. Recipients of the transfer gain $860 billion. Taxpayers recoup $51 billion of their initial investment of $100 billion."

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5743308460b5e922a25a6dc7/t/605978841a7c672eaed64ec6/1616476294180/Child-Allowance-CBA-brief-CPSP-March-2021.pdf

https://www.povertycenter.columbia.edu/news-internal/2021/child-allowance/cost-benefit-analysis

Did you happen to catch how the term "Society" was defined? Didn't seem 100% honest there.

I think it's more truthful to say the cost of $100bn would generate $800 bn in benefits to the poor/impoverished and that should be good enough as a headline and thesis/abstract because the fact is, this is a net negative for taxpayers of -$ 48.9 bn. or ~$49 cents on the dollar (page 3).

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

2 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Before responding to your point specifically, which I think is good, I want to say "The CTC isn't bad and I'm not mad about this and think it's fine how this is going right now", so you can skip the rest if you are going to try and mischaracterize me.

Now, between you and I:

I read that analysts are saying this CTC is a boon to Wal-Mart and Nike (their words, take the implications as you see them if the shoe fits on who gets these credits). The point being, I agree with you, because just stimulating the economy to buy things, while important for necessities and sundries for day to day living, is not going to be a good use of tax dollars and increased spending if it's to further enrich Bezos or Nike shareholders or LVMH and other fashion houses (the latter being more typical with a lump sum versus a monthly, lower stipend).

That being said, raising taxes on the rich is going to be the left's suggestion, but we know that there are so many tax loopholes that the rich won't pay for it and that the politicians aren't going to not close those, so then the left will say "make the investors pay for it by hiking the capital gains tax" which will disincentivize investors (people are not inherently altruistic, has long been my thesis), hurting the economy even more.

I think we need to do this to help poverty, glad it's being done. But I think now more important than looking to stretch out these welfare programs indefinitely, the need is to invest our national dollars into R&D. You mentioned Private billionaire space programs and I thought of this I read:

 

I have multiple family members in the STEM fields, so I am biased already towards and favor approving more funding toward science, but I will need some time to consider a thoughtful response.

[Dahobbs 17447]

1 hour ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Did you happen to catch how the term "Society" was defined? Didn't seem 100% honest there.

I think it's more truthful to say the cost of $100bn would generate $800 bn in benefits to the poor/impoverished and that should be good enough as a headline and thesis/abstract because the fact is, this is a net negative for taxpayers of -$ 48.9 bn. or ~$49 cents on the dollar (page 3).

Including the poor in the term "society" seems dishonest to you? Ok.

And it's not like it didn't expressly state the information you want:

"The present discounted value of current and future benefits for society equals roughly $810 billion, or more than eight times initial costs. Recipients of the transfer gain $860 billion. Taxpayers recoup $51 billion of their initial investment of $100 billion."

 

Edited July 16, 2021 by Dahobbs

[DonkeyCigars 144]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Including the poor in the term "society" seems dishonest to you? Ok. It's not like it didn't expressly state the information you want:

"The present discounted value of current and future benefits for society equals roughly $810 billion, or more than eight times initial costs. Recipients of the transfer gain $860 billion. Taxpayers recoup $51 billion of their initial investment of $100 billion."

 

No, that's not what I said, to your question. I'm saying there is an obvious spin by couching the term there for the headline of the paper-- not sure that is even debatable.

Also "Taxpayers recoup 51bn of their initial investment of $100bn" is a funny way to say there is a negative ROI and Taxpayers are actually at a net loss of $49bn.

[Dahobbs 17447]

22 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

No, that's not what I said, to your question. I'm saying there is an obvious spin by couching the term there for the headline of the paper-- not sure that is even debatable.

Also "Taxpayers recoup 51bn of their initial investment of $100bn" is a funny way to say there is a negative ROI and Taxpayers are actually at a net loss of $49bn.

Since the purpose of the article was to evaluate the benefits to society, then the article is phrased exactly correctly. The credit produces more 8x good than it costs.  What you're thinking of is a budgetary analysis. Pretty much every item in our national budget produces a negative ROI from a strict budgetary standpoint (e.g., military expenditures don't produce equivalent tax dollars).

Edited July 16, 2021 by Dahobbs

[TwiceHorn 31283]

8 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Yup. Poverty can't be solved with money. 

Wait, what? 

It can only be solved with MOAR GUBMINT CHEESE!

[tchookem 3900]

Congrats on the sex everybody

Yeah, 15 years ago.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

4 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I have multiple family members in the STEM fields, so I am biased already towards and favor approving more funding toward science, but I will need some time to consider a thoughtful response.

Okay; so DonkeyCigars--

With respect to the CTC, we may share some thoughts on the topic and its benefits, perhaps here is where we may diverge: I like the monthly payments as well, parents are paying down debt on credit cards, getting started on school supplies, and trying to figure out their daycare situations among other things (some of that is anecdotal from my circle). Some recipients may also have unexpected medical debt not just due to COVID but other issues that were put off. That being said, I don't see why one of the expectations seems to be that it will be permanent. The unemployment bonus was not and there was quite a bit of griping about it despite there being evidence that there was a labor shortage prior to the pandemic and that the pandemic and its issues also created problems for labor. So this is where I don't believe it is advantageous to say to the part of society whose wealth grew the most by a large large margin, "well, you're just going to find a work around, so why bother!" No. That may not be an easy problem to solve, but it is right to solve it. Perhaps I'm an idealist, but dammit, it's time.

 

With respect to science, it's a whole different topic and complete derail but we as a nation have funded less and less basic science in comparison to China. They have pumped so much money into research that they are unrecognizable from where they were two decades ago. Fields (my opinion) need both basic and applied research and typically the public sector is where the former excels. Ignoring the attacks on science with political motivation, it is not as if it ever was a large part of the budget. Like your article says, it is less than 1%. That is not all bad news, private support has made up some of the slack and that is a positive development but the US still needs to have public support because some sectors are underfunded and especially underfunded in specific sectors and this is where it is important: most likely because the short term gains are not evident. Some really really good science takes awhile to foment. It's why it can be helpful to have renewable grants that are extendable. Grants to universities in the life sciences (as an example) can be from several different agencies but the two largest are most likely to be NSF or NIH, with the latter dominating most departments with which I'm familiar. (Also, a lot of the public is not aware that the cut a university takes for overhead can be around 50% depending on the institution).

[Bateshorn 9905]

8 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Before responding to your point specifically, which I think is good, I want to say "The CTC isn't bad and I'm not mad about this and think it's fine how this is going right now", so you can skip the rest if you are going to try and mischaracterize me.

Now, between you and I:

I read that analysts are saying this CTC is a boon to Wal-Mart and Nike (their words, take the implications as you see them if the shoe fits on who gets these credits). The point being, I agree with you, because just stimulating the economy to buy things, while important for necessities and sundries for day to day living, is not going to be a good use of tax dollars and increased spending if it's to further enrich Bezos or Nike shareholders or LVMH and other fashion houses (the latter being more typical with a lump sum versus a monthly, lower stipend).

That being said, raising taxes on the rich is going to be the left's suggestion, but we know that there are so many tax loopholes that the rich won't pay for it and that the politicians aren't going to not close those, so then the left will say "make the investors pay for it by hiking the capital gains tax" which will disincentivize investors (people are not inherently altruistic, has long been my thesis), hurting the economy even more.

I think we need to do this to help poverty, glad it's being done. But I think now more important than looking to stretch out these welfare programs indefinitely, the need is to invest our national dollars into R&D. You mentioned Private billionaire space programs and I thought of this I read:

 

So both Houses of Congress have passed huge plus ups in science funding in the last two months (Endless Frontiers in the Senate and NSF and DOE Science for the Future Acts).