Red Mosquito

Simple Torture wrote: A few minutes after he left his "press conference," the stage collapsed:

that's just beelzebub breaking it back down for storage in the 5th circle of hell

Wait is that a video of trump playing the media about British and then getting free press of lots of sliders endorsing him and then the news people getting all mad. Katie tier ha defeat boobs

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:So a plan that only marginally helps low income workers, but greatly helps the white-collar middle class (situations where most of one parent's income goes to childcare) is crap?

A. Yes

B. In Trump's own example, a $70,000 a year family gets about $850. So all problems solved, I'm sure. I'd get more than that.

C. Any daycare plan that helps me at ALL is wasting money that could be spent helping either of those other families. That it is actually helping me MORE than them is absurd. Any approach to daycare assistance should be very, very pyramid shaped.

I get what you are saying, but I disagree. The current model for childcare (dependent care accounts in general) is a huge disincentive for the middle/upper-middle class to have children (top 4-25% of earners). One might even theorize that it is a tool to block class ascension because parents have to make a decision between their careers and having kids. In the DC area the average childcare cost is around $22k/year. It would literally be cheaper to send my daughter to in-state college than what we pay for her preschool (and she isn't even in one of those fancy Mandarin-immersion schools). So the same arguments about college debt can apply here, except that there are no federally subsidized loans for preschool. I am not suggesting the same thing doesn't hit lower income earners as well, they but are.. economically pre-situated(?), so they are are not faced with a scenario where they going hand-to-mouth on a six-figure salary because they are "child poor" for at least 5 years/kid. And the second order consequences of this are actually serious for the economy as a whole. We need engineers, doctors, and professors to have kids 1.) because they present less of a burden to the tax-base raising them and thus can structure their upbringing to maximize their potential and 2.) because we need the genes that grant them the intelligence to do those jobs to passed down in society.

Also, I think your example isn't that bad of what I am talking about. You are privileged enough to be able to choose to have your wife stay at home, many are not. You are also lucky that you are still married. I'll give you a situation that happened to one of my direct-reports two years ago because it fits. Her and her husband earning around a combined $240k/year, which is not uncommon for the professional class west of DC, but her husband decided to give one of the younger ladies on his project a spin and now she is left with a mortgage on a house for $240k/year income and two kids in daycare costing (and I am guessing here because I know where they go, up near where Stip lives now) around $2900/month, plus healthcare, food, etc. That big six figure salary becomes nothing very quickly and the measly $850 you laugh at would make a huge difference.

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:So a plan that only marginally helps low income workers, but greatly helps the white-collar middle class (situations where most of one parent's income goes to childcare) is crap?

A. Yes

B. In Trump's own example, a $70,000 a year family gets about $850. So all problems solved, I'm sure. I'd get more than that.

C. Any daycare plan that helps me at ALL is wasting money that could be spent helping either of those other families. That it is actually helping me MORE than them is absurd. Any approach to daycare assistance should be very, very pyramid shaped.

I disagree but my wife out of town and I've been jab at the Irish place at the striped mall

Bi_3 wrote:Wait is that a video of trump playing the media about British and then getting free press of lots of sliders endorsing him and then the news people getting all mad. Katie tier ha defeat boobs

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:So a plan that only marginally helps low income workers, but greatly helps the white-collar middle class (situations where most of one parent's income goes to childcare) is crap?

A. Yes

B. In Trump's own example, a $70,000 a year family gets about $850. So all problems solved, I'm sure. I'd get more than that.

C. Any daycare plan that helps me at ALL is wasting money that could be spent helping either of those other families. That it is actually helping me MORE than them is absurd. Any approach to daycare assistance should be very, very pyramid shaped.

I get what you are saying, but I disagree. The current model for childcare (dependent care accounts in general) is a huge disincentive for the middle/upper-middle class to have children (top 4-25% of earners). One might even theorize that it is a tool to block class ascension because parents have to make a decision between their careers and having kids. In the DC area the average childcare cost is around $22k/year. It would literally be cheaper to send my daughter to in-state college than what we pay for her preschool (and she isn't even in one of those fancy Mandarin-immersion schools). So the same arguments about college debt can apply here, except that there are no federally subsidized loans for preschool. I am not suggesting the same thing doesn't hit lower income earners as well, they but are.. economically pre-situated(?), so they are are not faced with a scenario where they going hand-to-mouth on a six-figure salary because they are "child poor" for at least 5 years/kid. And the second order consequences of this are actually serious for the economy as a whole. We need engineers, doctors, and professors to have kids 1.) because they present less of a burden to the tax-base raising them and thus can structure their upbringing to maximize their potential and 2.) because we need the genes that grant them the intelligence to do those jobs to passed down in society.

Also, I think your example isn't that bad of what I am talking about. You are privileged enough to be able to choose to have your wife stay at home, many are not. You are also lucky that you are still married. I'll give you a situation that happened to one of my direct-reports two years ago because it fits. Her and her husband earning around a combined $240k/year, which is not uncommon for the professional class west of DC, but her husband decided to give one of the younger ladies on his project a spin and now she is left with a mortgage on a house for $240k/year income and two kids in daycare costing (and I am guessing here because I know where they go, up near where Stip lives now) around $2900/month, plus healthcare, food, etc. That big six figure salary becomes nothing very quickly and the measly $850 you laugh at would make a huge difference.

What. In. The. Hell.

I don't know about you guys, but what the USA needs right now is a guy who has no experience at all, zero patience or couth, and speaks in nothing but double talk. What could possibly go wrong?

Bravo to the Trumpster for pulling off the largest scale mass trolling of complete morons in history. (Unless you count Christianity.)

jwfocker wrote:

What. In. The. Hell.

The cost of childcare is crippling expensive for nearly all of the population, and the idea that someone making $70k/year won't need help is flat out wrong in a huge number of cases, particularly for single parents.

"Listen, I know the janitor downtown ain't making shit, but his family is economically pre-situated. Ain't gonna get any better, believe me. And here I am faced with a scenario where I'm going hand-to-mouth on a six-figure salary because I'm "child poor" for at least 5 years/kid. I know janitor family could use a hand, but I've got engineers, doctors, and professors to raise. Fuck them; give me more. I'll make America great again all on my own with my awesome cum."

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote: (Unless you count Christianity.)

Seems a little unnecessary

bune wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:So a plan that only marginally helps low income workers, but greatly helps the white-collar middle class (situations where most of one parent's income goes to childcare) is crap?

A. Yes

B. In Trump's own example, a $70,000 a year family gets about $850. So all problems solved, I'm sure. I'd get more than that.

C. Any daycare plan that helps me at ALL is wasting money that could be spent helping either of those other families. That it is actually helping me MORE than them is absurd. Any approach to daycare assistance should be very, very pyramid shaped.

I disagree but my wife out of town and I've been jab at the Irish place at the striped mall

Bi_3 wrote:Wait is that a video of trump playing the media about British and then getting free press of lots of sliders endorsing him and then the news people getting all mad. Katie tier ha defeat boobs

Bi3 is the extremely rare case of someone who sounds less racist when they're drunk

Rangi Guy wrote:

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote: (Unless you count Christianity.)

Seems a little unnecessary

Not really.

The thing that amazes me is that our local newspaper (conservative rag) has a letter to the editor every day that starts with "I don't know anything about Trump and he is clearly not a stable person, but...".

...and then they proceed to talk about what an awesome POTUS he is gonna be.

Why the fuck even open your mouth? It's astonishing to me.

Self wrote:"Listen, I know the janitor downtown ain't making shit, but his family is economically pre-situated. Ain't gonna get any better, believe me. And here I am faced with a scenario where I'm going hand-to-mouth on a six-figure salary because I'm "child poor" for at least 5 years/kid. I know janitor family could use a hand, but I've got engineers, doctors, and professors to raise. Fuck them; give me more. I'll make America great again all on my own with my awesome cum."

Explain to me how extending the limit on a dependent care spending account is fucking over a janitor.

Bi_3 wrote:

Self wrote:"Listen, I know the janitor downtown ain't making shit, but his family is economically pre-situated. Ain't gonna get any better, believe me. And here I am faced with a scenario where I'm going hand-to-mouth on a six-figure salary because I'm "child poor" for at least 5 years/kid. I know janitor family could use a hand, but I've got engineers, doctors, and professors to raise. Fuck them; give me more. I'll make America great again all on my own with my awesome cum."

Explain to me how extending the limit on a dependent care spending account is fucking over a janitor.

Explain to me how you need more than the janitor.

Self wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Self wrote:"Listen, I know the janitor downtown ain't making shit, but his family is economically pre-situated. Ain't gonna get any better, believe me. And here I am faced with a scenario where I'm going hand-to-mouth on a six-figure salary because I'm "child poor" for at least 5 years/kid. I know janitor family could use a hand, but I've got engineers, doctors, and professors to raise. Fuck them; give me more. I'll make America great again all on my own with my awesome cum."

Explain to me how extending the limit on a dependent care spending account is fucking over a janitor.

Explain to me how you need more than the janitor.

What do you think a dependent care spending account is? Have you even bother to read his plan?

The GOP contender, who announced his plan this week, wants to let parents deduct from their income taxes child-care expenses for up to four kids. The total deduction would be capped at the average cost of care in their state, which ranges from roughly $5,500 annually for infants in Alabama to nearly $22,000 in Washington, D.C. Parents who make more than $250,000 individually or $500,000 together would not be eligible for the break.

For instance, a family making the national average of about $70,000 each year with a $7,000 child-care burden would annually save $840, according to the campaign website.

And again, it's a shit plan.

1. Because it focuses on tax relief as a solution, it expects you to front all the money required for daycare. Then it reimburses you many months later. This immediately makes it a more viable solution for you, the higher up the income ladder you are.

2. More than a third of American families do not earn enough money to pay income tax. Consider that, at that income level, daycare is a pipe dream. These are the desperate. For them, a flat $1,200 (at tax time...cannot stress it enough) is not remotely enough to represent a true support.

3. By using tax deductions as a reimbursement tool, it effectively increases the percent you can expect to receive as you climb the income ladder. Put another way, for every $1,000 spent on child care, a family in the 15% bracket could count on $150 in actual deductions. A family in the 25% bracket would get $250....a greater amount of government support on the SAME $1,000.

McParadigm wrote:And again, it's a shit plan.

1. Because it focuses on tax relief as a solution, it expects you to front all the money required for daycare. Then it reimburses you many months later. This immediately makes it a more viable solution for you, the higher up the income ladder you are.

2. More than a third of American families do not earn enough money to pay income tax. Consider that, at that income level, daycare is a pipe dream. These are the desperate. For them, a flat $1,200 (at tax time...cannot stress it enough) is not remotely enough to represent a true support.

3. By using tax deductions as a reimbursement tool, it effectively increases the percent you can expect to receive as you climb the income ladder. Put another way, for every $1,000 spent on child care, a family in the 15% bracket could count on $150 in actual deductions. A family in the 25% bracket would get $250....a greater amount of government support on the SAME $1,000.

For the sake of RM-peace, I'm not going to go all broken iris on this, but I disagree that the next the next 50% of income earners don't deserve more federal assistance. Or that helping them is somehow racist/punishing poor people. Or that what you posted is even how pre-tax spending account function. But we will simply have to agree to disagree on this one.

Futher reading for non-parents or folks with low childcare costs who don't understand what the middle class faces:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/soaring-chi ... 1467415411
https://interactives.americanprogress.o ... carecosts/
http://www.usa.childcareaware.org/advoc ... ostofcare/

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:And again, it's a shit plan.

1. Because it focuses on tax relief as a solution, it expects you to front all the money required for daycare. Then it reimburses you many months later. This immediately makes it a more viable solution for you, the higher up the income ladder you are.

2. More than a third of American families do not earn enough money to pay income tax. Consider that, at that income level, daycare is a pipe dream. These are the desperate. For them, a flat $1,200 (at tax time...cannot stress it enough) is not remotely enough to represent a true support.

3. By using tax deductions as a reimbursement tool, it effectively increases the percent you can expect to receive as you climb the income ladder. Put another way, for every $1,000 spent on child care, a family in the 15% bracket could count on $150 in actual deductions. A family in the 25% bracket would get $250....a greater amount of government support on the SAME $1,000.

For the sake of RM-peace, I'm not going to go all broken iris on this, but I disagree that the next the next 50% of income earners don't deserve more federal assistance. Or that helping them is somehow racist/punishing poor people. Or that what you posted is even how pre-tax spending account function. But we will simply have to agree to disagree on this one.

Futher reading for non-parents or folks with low childcare costs who don't understand what the middle class faces:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/soaring-chi ... 1467415411
https://interactives.americanprogress.o ... carecosts/
http://www.usa.childcareaware.org/advoc ... ostofcare/

jwfocker wrote:

If you fundamentally believe that the middle class should not be helped unless proportional support is applied down the income spectrum, then nothing I can say will change that.

theplatypus wrote:Bi3 is the extremely rare case of someone who sounds less racist when they're drunk

Ah. Gotcha.