A Natalist, Nativist, Nationalist Case for the Child Tax Credit
One of the policies with the greatest effect on poverty is the ild tax credit (expanded and made fully refundable by the American Reesue Plan). It caused a 44% reduction of child poverty. UNfortunately it was a tempory one year program (approptiate for stimulus bu not for an always needed prgram). It was not renewed and there was a huge increase in povertyThis is a hugely important policy issue (currently totally impossible with GOP control of the House). There was not overwhelming support for the program — fully refundable sounds like welfare. To be blunt, some of the money went to African Americans.
I think there is a rhetorical trick which might maybe even work. I think the history of generous child credits suggests that fighting poverty was not the only objective. There was also the goal of increasing natality, often frankly aimed at producing footsoldiers for the next war. The aim was to create incentives to make babies.The concern was low fertility not (just) high child poverty. I think a case for an expanded child tax credit can be made which might convince some natalist natavist nationalist Americans who are alarmed that imigration will be necessary to have people to pay the payroll tax to support boomers.
The argument is that native born Americans are dying off with fertility below the replacement rate. In 2022 it was1.67 well below the replacement rate of 2.1 In this the USA has joined other rich countries (which are notably more generous with children that the USA). Logically this should terrify the numerous xenophobic nationalists who now oppose the expanded child tax credit. Logically they should support incenI type,tives for US citizen adults to make babies. “Logically” hah, they do not use this “logic” of which I type. But hey it’s worth a try
What would be even better would be to attack the real problem that discourages childbearing: poor quality, expensive, and inaccessible childcare facilities. Government subsidy, enabling decent salaries and plenty of locations, would allow the poor to work, and ease the anxieties of everyone. It may be more expensive than a tax credit, but it would work.
I’m a dad of 4, 14 to 6. We have purchased childcare at times and did home care at others. My view is that this sector is in better shape than its many detractors try to convince you it is. The barriers to entry are on the lower end, yet for all the presumed customer dissatisfaction, the offering was pretty steady when we were looking for care. Grumbles or not, the customers were satisfied enough not to entice many new entrants. The unmet demand was low enough not to entice a lot of new capacity. Actual customer behavior did not suggest that the sector was really off-track. “We want it cheaper, in a better facility, with more and higher qualified staff. And ponies.” “Well this is what I have and here is my price.” “Okay.”
rick:
Didn’t we attempt something similar during the pandemic? How did it work out Rick? The programs were pretty expansive and worked. Yes?
@rick,
Yep. As with single payer healthcare, other industrialized nations have figured this out, too. Anyone who claims to be “pro-family” would support it. It’s good economically, it’s good politically and it’s good ethically. Any short-term costs will be compensated in the long term by a fitter, more robust and healthier workforce. These are liberal *and* conservative values. They’re just not right-wing extremist and libertarian values.
comment deleted again. too bad, it was funny if you like sarcasm.
sarcasm aside
encouraging more births is insane. the reasons given are horrifying: we want to import low wage labor to pay for our retirements? we need more foot soldiers. the only hope for people who think like this is that they don’t think. they latch on to a “sounds good” meme created by people with an agenda… and they will latch on to the next meme without a thought. lurching from starbord to larboard as politicians find tune their least expensive way to control “the people” appears to be “the way that cannot be spoken.”
as for child-care. sure..and tax business to pay for it so they can continure to hire women at wages too low for them to pay for it themselves. but there is a perfectly rational case for not being too happy about raising children by professionals …that is probably too late to convince anyone here of.
re typo (fine tune, not find tune)
in the past i have assumed without thinking that people who made these mistakes didn’t know any better. i have reason to suspect i was wrong.
I was going to observe that encouraging more births seems to be an unfortunate side effect of taking care of those who are here now. When I observe that US child tax credits are nowhere near as pointed as the linked French pro natalist legislation does, I am somewhat relieved.
arne, i have to wonder how many of these women want to work. or is it just that “we” want women to work in low wage jobs, both for the profit of owners, but also for the “increased production” that makes the very rich happy.
personal experience suggests to me that there are at least two factors.. i have seen women devastated at having to be not home for their kids, but i have also seen women who have no real interests in their kids, but love to “work” and that “sex in the city” lifestyle..or the promise of it. i am not in a position to judge, but neither am i prepared to endorse “day care” as a holy cause….. though i might prefer that “business” pay for it.
Robert:
This was a part of one of my posts in 2022.
In 2006 and as Joel noted in 300 Million and Counting, the replacement rate was 2.01 or almost what we needed at the time in 2006. You are right, the Replacement Rate is about 1.62. I had it at 1.7. If we want to saty pure, I guess we have to start replacing. However, New Deal democrat noted 3 million new and potential citizens have come to America already.
Joel Garreau wrote this in 2006. I do not see much change here other than decreased immigration, an aging baby-boomer population, average age of 38.6, a lower replacement rate, and a lot of political nonsense and scare tactics on the wrong issues.
However the debate is resolved, it’s probably worth noting a few historical assimilation practices in the United States.
– First, the US has a long and distinguished record of taking illiterate peasants from every desert, tundra and bog and turning them into overfed suburbanites in three generations or less.
– Second, new immigrants usually do not marry outside their ethnic group; their adult children do, with some controversy, and their adult grandchildren can’t remember what the fuss was all about.
– Finally, the traditional deal America has offered immigrants is: work, pay taxes, learn English, send your kids to school and stay out of trouble with the law, and we’ll pretty much leave you alone.
One fortuitous result of the enormous wave of immigrants coming to the United States is the median age is only a little over 35 (2006), one of the lowest among the world’s more developed countries. This country also has the most productive population per person of any country on the planet—no matter how you measure it, and especially compared with Japan and the members of the European Union.”
Immigration, Population, Replacement, Politics and the Economy
One could argue that the last point reflects the fact that the Europeans and Japanese have figured out that there are more important things for human happiness than just maximizing the amount of stuff that can be churned out per person. For example, Americans work longer hours than Europeans. That seems to me to be a bigger negative than the positive of having a bit more and newer stuff at home (not that most of us are doing so well by that measure anyway).
As for the opposition to policies to increase the birth rate, on the macro scale it’s a self-correcting problem. Nations (and subcultures within nations) that successfully encourage high birth rates will increase in size and influence over time and, given enough generations, will eventually become dominant. Nations (and subcultures within nations) which for whatever reason have birth rates substantially below replacement level for long periods of time, will shrink and decline in importance and perhaps eventually disappear. Over time, nations will end up consisting mostly of those subcultures within them that encourage large families, and the same thing will happen with the world in general, while groups and countries that do the opposite will wither away and vanish. It could be regarded as a special case of natural selection in action.
Infidel
you started so well. but overpopulation was such a problem in china that…for a while at least…they mandated “one child”. over population in india was an obvious cause of poverty.
your problem is with “eventually.” a lot of things happen on the way to eventually. i think i might have mentioned population crashes due to resource depletion.
as for social security, we can pay for it ourselves. i believe i may have mentionded that from time to time. to people who thought they agreed with me. before immigration became the obvious solution.
and there are people who cannot distinguish between the political problem of racism and the practical, human, problem of overcrowding. a world of Hongkongs?…or NewYorks?
hey! we got the room. move over a bit there, buddy.