The article is about government benefits for joint-custody families: …
The article is about government benefits for joint-custody families:
[I]n the U.S., courts tasked with ordering child support, Costanzo told me, have started taking custody arrangements into consideration. Our social policies, unfortunately, do not.
Consider the earned income tax credit (EITC), a refundable tax credit available to low-income Americans. The refund is substantially larger for those claiming a dependent child—but a child can be claimed only once each year. That makes some sense in a sole-custody arrangement (though some people would argue that a “noncustodial father” paying child support shouldn’t be treated like a single, childless adult). In a joint-custody arrangement, it creates confusion about which parent is entitled to claim the credit—and ultimately a lopsided scenario in which two adults regularly house and care for a child while only one gets state help.
…
Joint custody raises these sorts of complications for any program for which one’s eligibility depends on the presence of a child in their home. That includes most benefits targeting people with low incomes—even those that, at face value, have nothing to do with kids. Take Medicaid, the public health-insurance program for Americans with limited means. In most states, an adult’s eligibility is determined by whether their income falls below 133 percent of the federal poverty level, a cutoff that varies by the size of the individual’s household; the size of their household hinges on who they expect to claim as a dependent on their tax return. Again, each child can be claimed only once.
Ok, I'm just gonna throw this out there. If you've got a kid together, work this shit out like grownups? If you've got equal, split custody, you're gonna need to work out logistics periodically...
Ok, I'm just gonna throw this out there. If you've got a kid together, work this shit out like grownups? If you've got equal, split custody, you're gonna need to work out logistics periodically anyhow. Give the lowest earner the credit and move on with your lives. Or split it 50/50. No need to involve the state in this.
Frankly, part of the reason the tax code is so damn complex is because we feel the need to tie in every possible incentive as some sort of credit on taxes.
This kind of stuff would be far better managed as tax-free stipends paid out independent of your tax returns.
No need to involve the state in... government benefits? That's an absolutely silly way to look at it. If they're set up in a way that's fundamentally inequitable, it should be fixed. It shouldn't...
No need to involve the state in... government benefits? That's an absolutely silly way to look at it. If they're set up in a way that's fundamentally inequitable, it should be fixed. It shouldn't be up to individual separated parents to "work out amongst themselves" who gets benefits because the state refuses to acknowledge the very common reality of joint custody, it's up to the state to fix that shit so that the system is less unfair.
Sure, maybe tax-free stipends independent of tax returns would be better. But whether these benefits are doled out through tax refunds or an independent stipend is orthogonal to the actual issue of inequity resulting from the state not accounting for things outside of the prototypical one-household situation when it comes to these benefits.
What I'm kind of getting at is that there's far more shit that the state needs to sort out than who gets a share of the $2k pittance of a child tax credit. Like working out the biases against dads...
What I'm kind of getting at is that there's far more shit that the state needs to sort out than who gets a share of the $2k pittance of a child tax credit. Like working out the biases against dads for custody in the first place.
I get that it is a state-run thing, and yea, I suppose they should fix it. It's pretty simple: Eliminate all dependents from the tax code, and adjust the brackets accordingly.
As someone who was in poverty, this is absolutely not a pittance for very many families. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_tax_credit_(United_States) I get that it may not be a meaningful...
Exemplary
$2k pittance of a child tax credit
As someone who was in poverty, this is absolutely not a pittance for very many families.
The CTC was estimated to have lifted about 3 million children out of poverty in 2016. In 2021, a Columbia University study estimated that the expansion of the CTC in the American Rescue Plan Act reduced child poverty by an additional 26%, and would have decreased child poverty by an additional 40% had all eligible households claimed the credit. The expansion also substantially reduced food insufficiency. Research indicates that cash transfers to families, like the refundable portion of the CTC, leads to improved math and reading test scores, a higher likelihood of high school graduation, higher college attendance, and long-term increases in income for both parents and children. Studies have also determined that the CTC increases labor force participation among low-income parents.
I get that it may not be a meaningful amount to you, but that just speaks to your personal economic position rather than the utility of the program.
I've been down poverty lane myself. I understand that it isn't a pittance in the scope of the individual, but in the scope of the government, and for the government to actually fix the problem.
I've been down poverty lane myself. I understand that it isn't a pittance in the scope of the individual, but in the scope of the government, and for the government to actually fix the problem.
I don't know that I agree. https://www.crfb.org/blogs/tax-break-down-child-tax-credit Compared with the annual tax revenue of $4.71 trillion, That's amounts to about 1.2% of the total government...
I understand that it isn't a pittance in the scope of the individual, but in the scope of the government
The child tax credit is the sixth largest tax break today, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). It costs $57 billion in revenue this year, $290 billion over 5 years, and an estimated $550 over ten years. Of that total, slightly more than half is spent on refunds to taxpayers who have no tax liability. OMB estimates a smaller figure: the credit cost $47 billion in 2012.
Compared with the annual tax revenue of $4.71 trillion,
NASA will receive $25.4 billion in fiscal year (FY) 2023. This is roughly $1.3 billion more than NASA received in 2022, an increase of 5.6%. High inflation and growing labor costs will mitigate the purchasing power of this increase.
That's 6.8% of the US military budget, and more than double NASA's entire budget. The CTC is a pretty substantial investment.
"Why fix this thing when there are other things to fix?" is what you're saying. Sounds good on paper: every dollar or minute spent fixing one thing is a dollar or minute not spent fixing something...
"Why fix this thing when there are other things to fix?" is what you're saying.
Sounds good on paper: every dollar or minute spent fixing one thing is a dollar or minute not spent fixing something else. There's a specific ethical theory and ideology for that.
If your proposed solution is so simple, why hasn't it been done already?
Because the wealthy benefit from complicated tax codes, and welfare was made a dirty word to justify killing it off as much as possible. Part of it is because the feds have been ground to a...
Because the wealthy benefit from complicated tax codes, and welfare was made a dirty word to justify killing it off as much as possible.
Part of it is because the feds have been ground to a defacto halt by a bad-faith bunch of losers. Look how the ACA was crippled, and became one of the only meaningful legislations that got passed in the 8 years of Obama.
So it seems like it's not so simple as you say. Arguing against implementing little-r reform because we can't do big-R Reform is just as much a hinderance to long term progress as a the bad-faith...
So it seems like it's not so simple as you say.
Arguing against implementing little-r reform because we can't do big-R Reform is just as much a hinderance to long term progress as a the bad-faith actors. In fact, it's often a tactic employed by those bad-faith actors.
This is a pretty reductive position. The reason many people are divorced is because they (or at least one side) could not work it out like grownups. Especially if someone's coparent is petty or...
If you've got a kid together, work this shit out like grownups
This is a pretty reductive position. The reason many people are divorced is because they (or at least one side) could not work it out like grownups. Especially if someone's coparent is petty or vindictive, they really have to pick their battles. It can be exhausting. So having one less thing to negotiate would be relief to many.
On the contrary, divorce is one of the most mature things you can do when a relationship is no longer working. Staying married when you're unhappy will fuck up your kids way more. I see what...
On the contrary, divorce is one of the most mature things you can do when a relationship is no longer working. Staying married when you're unhappy will fuck up your kids way more.
I see what you're saying about the one-side, and agree pettiness is a problem...the one I was kinda complaining about.
Divorce can 100 percent be the right mature choice, but that does not mean everyone who gets divorced is mature or rational. In my own extended family I know of a situation where the spouse who...
Divorce can 100 percent be the right mature choice, but that does not mean everyone who gets divorced is mature or rational. In my own extended family I know of a situation where the spouse who didn't choose the divorce was vengeful and petty and took every opportunity to punish the former spouse that they saw as a bad actor. Since the kids were preteens when the divorce happened, that was approximately a decade where every interaction was hateful.
I'm familiar with this kerfuffle. I know two families managing child tax credits and I know from the tax side of things I was informed "The IRS doesn't care about your divorce agreement, the IRS...
I'm familiar with this kerfuffle. I know two families managing child tax credits and I know from the tax side of things I was informed "The IRS doesn't care about your divorce agreement, the IRS wants to know who has the kid greater than 50% of the time." If you say your divorce agreement says you take odd numbered years and they take even - zero fucks - the IRS just wants one of you to say you had them more.
So, it's a rock and hard place - do you lie to the IRS because she had the kid an extra Tuesday in there somewhere, knowing if she decides to file because of that extra Tuesday you have no evidence other than the agreement which they don't care about? That only works in a perfectly amicable or at least not actively hostile relationship. Now imagine that most divorces are not that.
Divorce with children, by and large, is already involving the state in EVERYTHING the two of you do. But the IRS is federal, so now you've got the state decreeing one thing regarding your divorce and the Feds decreeing another and they don't compromise together like agencies run by adults so we end up with the situations we do.
The short answer is yes, lie to the IRS..just so long you're on the same page. I recall something about, on average, the average person commits 4 felonies or misdemeanors a day...unknowingly. It's...
The short answer is yes, lie to the IRS..just so long you're on the same page.
I recall something about, on average, the average person commits 4 felonies or misdemeanors a day...unknowingly. It's virtually impossible to follow all laws, so as long as you're following the spirit, who cares?
Right, which as we've already discussed only happens in ideal situations. Any good engineer knows not to only plan for ideals. Lumping felonies and misdemeanors together is ludicrous. Who commits...
just so long you're on the same page.
Right, which as we've already discussed only happens in ideal situations. Any good engineer knows not to only plan for ideals.
I recall something about, on average, the average person commits 4 felonies or misdemeanors a day...unknowingly.
Lumping felonies and misdemeanors together is ludicrous. Who commits four felonies a day without knowing? No, the real answer is most people maybe commit one misdemeanor and it averages out among the corporations of the world who commit numerous felonies every second.
We're not talking about statistics or hypotheticals, we're taking about real people and your whole argument has big "let the banks regulate themselves!" energy.
The article is about government benefits for joint-custody families:
…
Ok, I'm just gonna throw this out there. If you've got a kid together, work this shit out like grownups? If you've got equal, split custody, you're gonna need to work out logistics periodically anyhow. Give the lowest earner the credit and move on with your lives. Or split it 50/50. No need to involve the state in this.
Frankly, part of the reason the tax code is so damn complex is because we feel the need to tie in every possible incentive as some sort of credit on taxes.
This kind of stuff would be far better managed as tax-free stipends paid out independent of your tax returns.
No need to involve the state in... government benefits? That's an absolutely silly way to look at it. If they're set up in a way that's fundamentally inequitable, it should be fixed. It shouldn't be up to individual separated parents to "work out amongst themselves" who gets benefits because the state refuses to acknowledge the very common reality of joint custody, it's up to the state to fix that shit so that the system is less unfair.
Sure, maybe tax-free stipends independent of tax returns would be better. But whether these benefits are doled out through tax refunds or an independent stipend is orthogonal to the actual issue of inequity resulting from the state not accounting for things outside of the prototypical one-household situation when it comes to these benefits.
What I'm kind of getting at is that there's far more shit that the state needs to sort out than who gets a share of the $2k pittance of a child tax credit. Like working out the biases against dads for custody in the first place.
I get that it is a state-run thing, and yea, I suppose they should fix it. It's pretty simple: Eliminate all dependents from the tax code, and adjust the brackets accordingly.
As someone who was in poverty, this is absolutely not a pittance for very many families.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_tax_credit_(United_States)
I get that it may not be a meaningful amount to you, but that just speaks to your personal economic position rather than the utility of the program.
I've been down poverty lane myself. I understand that it isn't a pittance in the scope of the individual, but in the scope of the government, and for the government to actually fix the problem.
I don't know that I agree.
https://www.crfb.org/blogs/tax-break-down-child-tax-credit
Compared with the annual tax revenue of $4.71 trillion,
That's amounts to about 1.2% of the total government tax revenue.
Or, comparing to expenditures since the US does run at a deficit, compare with the US military budget
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_for_FY2024
Or, NASA:
https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/nasas-fy-2023-budget
That's 6.8% of the US military budget, and more than double NASA's entire budget. The CTC is a pretty substantial investment.
"Why fix this thing when there are other things to fix?" is what you're saying.
Sounds good on paper: every dollar or minute spent fixing one thing is a dollar or minute not spent fixing something else. There's a specific ethical theory and ideology for that.
If your proposed solution is so simple, why hasn't it been done already?
Because the wealthy benefit from complicated tax codes, and welfare was made a dirty word to justify killing it off as much as possible.
Part of it is because the feds have been ground to a defacto halt by a bad-faith bunch of losers. Look how the ACA was crippled, and became one of the only meaningful legislations that got passed in the 8 years of Obama.
If we're talking reform, let's reform.
So it seems like it's not so simple as you say.
Arguing against implementing little-r reform because we can't do big-R Reform is just as much a hinderance to long term progress as a the bad-faith actors. In fact, it's often a tactic employed by those bad-faith actors.
This is a pretty reductive position. The reason many people are divorced is because they (or at least one side) could not work it out like grownups. Especially if someone's coparent is petty or vindictive, they really have to pick their battles. It can be exhausting. So having one less thing to negotiate would be relief to many.
On the contrary, divorce is one of the most mature things you can do when a relationship is no longer working. Staying married when you're unhappy will fuck up your kids way more.
I see what you're saying about the one-side, and agree pettiness is a problem...the one I was kinda complaining about.
Divorce can 100 percent be the right mature choice, but that does not mean everyone who gets divorced is mature or rational. In my own extended family I know of a situation where the spouse who didn't choose the divorce was vengeful and petty and took every opportunity to punish the former spouse that they saw as a bad actor. Since the kids were preteens when the divorce happened, that was approximately a decade where every interaction was hateful.
I'm familiar with this kerfuffle. I know two families managing child tax credits and I know from the tax side of things I was informed "The IRS doesn't care about your divorce agreement, the IRS wants to know who has the kid greater than 50% of the time." If you say your divorce agreement says you take odd numbered years and they take even - zero fucks - the IRS just wants one of you to say you had them more.
So, it's a rock and hard place - do you lie to the IRS because she had the kid an extra Tuesday in there somewhere, knowing if she decides to file because of that extra Tuesday you have no evidence other than the agreement which they don't care about? That only works in a perfectly amicable or at least not actively hostile relationship. Now imagine that most divorces are not that.
Divorce with children, by and large, is already involving the state in EVERYTHING the two of you do. But the IRS is federal, so now you've got the state decreeing one thing regarding your divorce and the Feds decreeing another and they don't compromise together like agencies run by adults so we end up with the situations we do.
The short answer is yes, lie to the IRS..just so long you're on the same page.
I recall something about, on average, the average person commits 4 felonies or misdemeanors a day...unknowingly. It's virtually impossible to follow all laws, so as long as you're following the spirit, who cares?
Right, which as we've already discussed only happens in ideal situations. Any good engineer knows not to only plan for ideals.
Lumping felonies and misdemeanors together is ludicrous. Who commits four felonies a day without knowing? No, the real answer is most people maybe commit one misdemeanor and it averages out among the corporations of the world who commit numerous felonies every second.
We're not talking about statistics or hypotheticals, we're taking about real people and your whole argument has big "let the banks regulate themselves!" energy.
Mirror, for those hit by the paywall:
https://archive.is/rrtHF