11 Reasons Trump's Child Care Plan Reeks

Joseph Farah September 15, 2016


Donald Trump’s scheme to get Washington more involved in the rearing of children is a bad idea and an unconstitutional one at that.


It needs to be said, even as I see some so-called “conservatives” praising the initiative.
Let’s count the ways this notion fails the practical and constitutional tests:

• Will tax credits, which amount to subsidies, for child-care costs lower the costs of child care? Of course not. If something is subsidized – like college costs or health-care costs – it will become more expensive. You don’t have to have an economics degree to understand that. It might even help these days not to have one. So costs will skyrocket over time as a new entitlement is born. Since we know entitlements never go away, it’s one more nail in the coffin of solvency for the U.S. government.

• Forcing businesses to pay for six weeks of paid maternity leave hardly represents a career advancement for women. Will businesses be more or less likely to hire women of child-bearing years knowing they will be on the hook for six weeks of paid leave? Not to mention the obvious question: Where in the Constitution of the United States does it remotely hint that such a power is within the federal government’s purview and limited authority?

• Won’t it be deemed discriminatory by the activist federal courts to pay for maternity leave and not paternity leave?

• I thought one of Trump’s key priorities was to simplify the tax code – to get it down to one page or so? When you begin introducing new tax credits like this, you are clearly making the tax code even more lengthy, more intrusive and more burdensome.

• Don’t we believe in the free market, where employers attract the best and the brightest employees by paying better wages and offering a better benefits package? Do we really want to give smaller business more reasons not to hire people because of new burdensome regulations they can’t possibly meet?

• Why do I say a tax credit is, in effect, a subsidy? Two reasons: 1) The federal government borrows nearly a third of what it spends – driving the cumulative deficit between spending and tax revenues to $20 trillion currently. So any additional tax cuts that don’t produce revenue mean, as far as government is concerned, more debt borne by all taxpayers. 2) Close to a third of American wage earners pay no taxes at all. For them, a tax credit means a direct subsidy.

• It’s not only bad, irresponsible and unconstitutional policy for government to create specific subsidies for certain segments of the population, it’s bad for families because it creates greater dependency on government, which is incapable of meeting that obligation even now.

• It’s another form of wealth redistribution – always a bad idea. How is it wealth redistribution? Since only certain citizens benefit, the rest of the population subsidizes – people who do not have children, cannot have children or who have already raised their children without such “benefits.”

• It’s the kind of feel-good social experiment that has been tried over and over again with predictable results – higher costs, more empowerment of government, more dependency on government, less personal responsibility, more government oversight of child rearing, more red tape, more regulation, more growth of government. Aren’t we capable of learning from our past mistakes?

• Is child care by non-parents the best thing for kids? We all know it is often a necessity for young families because of economic conditions and realities. But is it good national policy to encourage, with subsidies, the farming out of children by parents who love their kids?

• There’s so much more, but just let me give you this last consideration: With the threat of losing federal funding, Barack Obama ordered all public schools in the U.S. to accommodate “transgendered” children by allowing them to use any restroom or locker room they preferred. How long do you think it would take Washington’s mad social-engineering “scientists” to insist that “gay” education be mandated in all these pre-K child-care centers once the federal government’s involved?

The trouble is, few people are willing to state the obvious problems inherent with such ideas. They don’t want to be called ogres and meanies and uncompassionate.


I don’t like to be called any of those things either. But what’s wrong with encouraging churches and synagogues to step up to meet this social obligation? Doesn’t that make more sense – matching up people beyond child-bearing years to watch children and pay with them so Mom can work? Isn’t that a better way? Don’t you think there are lots of grandmas and grandpas out there who would love to volunteer time to watch young kids run around and have fun and learn?


What is wrong with us in this country that we believe only the federal government can really fix problems and answer needs – when it has never demonstrated any ability to fix any problems or answer any needs?
This critique is not meant to single out Trump as a dummy, by any means. His view is shared by the vast majority of Americans, I’m sure. It’s certainly shared by most politicians – Democrats and Republicans alike.
But I thought Donald Trump was different. I thought he was going to shake up the establishment in Washington. This plan suggests we’re not going to turn around business-as-usual thinking in Washington just by electing Trump – though I will be voting for him enthusiastically, given the unthinkable, unimaginable, destructive, cataclysmic, disastrous alternative.




http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/11-reason...re-plan-reeks/

As long as we have an income tax system, I totally support a child care deduction. This is just as valid as a mortgage interest deduction. Same with the enhancement to the EITC for poor family citizens and legal immigrants.

The paid maternity leave through an unemployment insurance benefit now paid by employers, not taxpayers, with offsets in the UI program to allow for the paid maternity leave is a brilliant idea. It doesn't cost employers or taxpayers anything, because it's paid for with offsets. The person only gets an unemployment benefit, not full pay, which is around half pay, but it's something to get you through, and employers don't face higher rates due to maternity leave benefits, so it's a great idea to deal with this issue.

The ideal solution to all things tax is of course the FairTax.

- September 13, 2016 -
​FACT SHEET: DONALD J. TRUMP’S NEW CHILD CARE PLAN

Today Donald J. Trump Will Unveil An Innovative Plan To Bring Federal Policies In Line With The Needs Of Today’s Working Parents

NEW YORK, NY – Today Mr. Trump will proposes an innovative plan to bring federal tax policies in line with the needs of today's families. His plan is not for the wealthy, but rather provides the biggest benefit to working- and middle-class families. This plan is needed because child care expenses are one of the largest expenses in many families, complicating a family's decision on how to care for young children. The Trump reforms will allow a family to make the choice of whether a parent should work outside the home or not without bias from the tax code. Having employed and empowered thousands of women at every level throughout his entire career, Donald Trump understands the needs of the modern workforce.


Proposals Contained In Mr. Trump Child Care Plan


PROPOSAL: The Trump plan will rewrite the tax code to allow working parents to deduct from their income taxes child care expenses for up to four children and elderly dependents.

The deduction is available for taxpayers who take the standard deduction as well as itemize deductions, and will be capped at the average cost of care for the state of residence. Individuals earning more than $250,000 (or $500,000 if filing jointly) will not be eligible for the deduction. For a family earning $70,000 per year in the 12 percent tax bracket with $7,000 in child care expenses, the deduction would reduce taxes by $840 per year.
The plan will offer child care spending rebates to lower-income taxpayers through the existing Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). This could mean almost $1,200 per year per eligible family.
Mr. Trump's plan will ensure stay-at-home parents will receive the same tax deduction as working parents, offering compensation for the job they're already doing, and allowing them to choose the child care scenario that's in their best interest.


PROPOSAL: The Trump plan would create new Dependent Care Savings Accounts (DCSAs) so that families can set aside extra money to foster their children's development and offset elder care for their parents or adult dependents. These new accounts are available to everyone, and allow both tax-deductible contributions and tax-free appreciation year-to-year-unlike current law Dependent Care Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs), which are available only if it is offered by an employer and does not allow balances to accumulate.

When established for a minor, funds from a DCSA can be applied to traditional child care, after-school enrichment programs and school tuition-contributing to school choice. To help lower-income parents, the government will match half of the first $1,000 deposited per year.
When established for an elderly dependent, a DCSA can cover a variety of services, including in-home nursing and long-term care.


PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump's plan will provide regulatory reform to promote new family-based and community-based solutions, and also add incentives for employers to provide child care at the workplace. The ability to set aside funds will be particularly helpful to women, low-income workers and minorities, who are statistically more likely to reduce time working outside the home in order to provide unpaid care.


PROPOSAL: The Trump plan will guarantee six weeks of paid maternity leave by amending the existing unemployment insurance (UI) that companies are required to carry. The benefit would apply only when employers don't offer paid maternity leave, and would be paid for by offsetting reductions in the program so that taxes are not raised. This enhancement will triple the average paid leave received by new mothers.


Frequently Asked Questions About The Trump Child Care Plan


Q: How Will The Plan Be Paid For?

The child care plan is part of the comprehensive tax, trade, energy and regulation reform plan proposed by Donald Trump at the Detroit Economic Club. More details about his tax plan will be discussed later this week at the New York Economic Club. The child care plan itself can more than be offset by additional growth. About two-thirds of the entire Trump tax reform program will offset by the increases in economic activity that accompany pro-growth tax reform, better trade deals, regulatory and immigration reform, and unleashing American energy. The remaining one-third will be offset by minor changes in the current trajectory of spending for federal agency operations, excluding Defense, Veterans, Social Security and Medicare.


Q: Will The Benefits Already Provided For Child Care Expenses, Like The Dependent Care Flexible Spending Account And Child Tax Credit, Be Eliminated Under The Trump Plan?

No, the benefits provided by the Trump child care plan are in addition to the benefits available under current law. Current programs do not serve the large numbers of families that would benefit from the Trump plan, but if a family finds that it benefits more from existing programs, they would still be available. The only restriction would be that the same child care spending cannot be used for multiple benefits programs—no double-dipping.


Q: Will Same-Sex Couples Receive The Benefits?

The benefits would be available in the same way that the IRS currently recognizes same-sex couples: if the marriage is recognized under state law, then it is recognized under federal law.


Q: Will The Maternity Leave Policy Cause Employers To View Women As Less Desirable Employees Because Of Paid Leave?

No. The cost to an employer of hiring should not be affected by this fully-offset policy, so the employer should not view hiring women as adding to their costs of Unemployment Insurance. Further, employers in a competitive marketplace should not eliminate existing maternity care benefits to instead take advantage of the UI system. The UI benefit would only equal what would be paid to a laid-off employee, which is much less than a workers’ regular paycheck. This should prevent abuse while providing a safety net for the sake of the health of mother and child.



Donald J. Trump’s Plan Is More Complete Than Hillary Clinton’s Plan

Point One: Hillary Clinton does not have a plan to provide relief to most Americans faced with high child care costs. She claims she wants to cap a family’s child care expense at 10 percent of income, but provides no details. The Trump plan would provide relief to every working- and middle-income earner who has child care expenses. For example, the Trump plan would reduce taxes by $840 per year a family for earning $70,000 per year in the 12 percent tax bracket with $7,000 in child care expenses; Hillary Clinton’s plan would provide no relief to this family.

Point Two: Hillary Clinton prefers institutional child care that does not meet the needs of workers in rural areas or who have schedules that require working on a night shift or on call. The Trump plan would give states the flexibility to establish standards that fit the needs of state residents without compromising quality.

Point Three: Hillary Clinton would force businesses to pay for 12 weeks of fully-paid family leave at their expense. The Trump plan proposes 6 weeks of partial pay through the existing Unemployment Insurance system, fully paid for within the program.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-r...hild-care-plan

Please note that there are some elderly care benefits in the plan as well, very important for seniors and their families. This is long over-due in my opinion.

Trump's plan to help parents afford child care: Who benefits?



Donald Trump's proposal to make all child care costs tax-deductible would boost the bottom line for wealthier parents, while delivering little benefit to working parents at the lower rungs of the income ladder.

In a speech repeatedly interrupted by protesters, the Republican presidential nominee on Thursday told an audience at the Detroit Economic Club that once he's in the White House, Americans will be able to "fully deduct the cost of child care spending from their taxes."

http://cbsnews3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i...797640x360.jpgPlay VIDEO
Trump talks about his economic plan


While Trump did not offer specifics, what sounds like an increase in the standard deduction for families with children won't help the lowest-income families, as they already don't owe federal income tax, said Elaine Maag, a senior research associate in the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

"If your income isn't high enough to owe taxes, excluding income from taxation doesn't change your situation at all."

If Trump's broader plan on taxes were enacted, 63 percent of households would not pay federal income taxes, up from the 43.9 percent that are currently exempt, Maag noted. Typically, people don't owe federal income tax because either their incomes are too low, or because they qualify for tax credits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit or Child Tax Credit, which reduce tax liability and in some cases results in a tax refund.

"Because it's a deduction, it's gong to miss the 44 percent of workers that don't pay federal income tax," said Hunter Blair, a tax and budget analyst at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a liberal-leaning think tank. "And, with tax deductions, the benefits rise with income, so it's a regressive plan."

About half of people who owe no federal income tax have income too low to owe taxes.
The upshot: Trump's plan would only help people that have income they can deduct. "The general notion with his child care proposal is there is probably less there than meets the eye," said William Gale, an economist with the Brookings Institution, a centrist think tank.

Given the current structure of who pays taxes and who gets credit, Trump's proposal would only help higher income households, he added. "It's certainly not going to benefit a family of four with $30,000 in income."

http://cbsnews3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i...753640x360.jpgPlay VIDEO
Anti-Trump Republican Evan McMullin to run for president


Another reason working families might not benefit much from Trump's child care proposal is that any tax benefits would come long after the services were paid for. That's likely to be of limited benefit to households on a budget who pay for child care on an ongoing basis.
"If you face budget constraints, it's very hard for the tax system to help with a monthly bill," said Maag, who noted that child care givers would be unlikely to accept waiting for months to be paid.

Although Democratic and Republican lawmakers remain divided on issues like individual income taxes, there is some bipartisan support for providing tax relief to low- and middle-income Americans. Proposals include expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is aimed at working families that make less than $53,000 (depending on marital status and household size), and the Child Tax Credit, which also lets parents reduce their taxable income.

Although a move in Congress to expand child care subsidies might be a nonstarter, both Democrats and Republicans are talking about reducing poverty. "[C]hild care is a barrier to people going to work," Maag said.

The EPI's Blair called Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's plan to cap child care costs at 10 percent of a family's income through federal subsidies and tax breaks "a vastly better policy than the tax deduction that Trump is proposing."

But Clinton's plan is plagued by the same problems as any proposal delivered through the tax system, Maag said. "You get the benefit long after you incur the expense."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps-p...-who-benefits/

https://youtu.be/xJrN8fUGmhM

I think it may be acceptable to ease the tax burden on child bearing marriages. The only thing that we should not be doing is subsidizing child bearing if the family cannot afford to support itself. If you cannot support yourself, then you should not be either starting a family or expanding a family. This means that if you are receiving absolutely any public assistance whatsoever from any government agency, then you should in no way be eligible for any expansion of benefits for any new children. And this should be permanent.

Where I am at, once you start receiving benefits, you are limited as to how much cash benefits you may receive. This is forever, once you exhaust this fixed amount you are not ever eligible for any more. The same should apply for child bearing. When you enter any public assistance program, then from then on, you are not ever eligible for any additional benefits for any new children. If you are able to secure enough self support to be ineligible for public assistance, but are required at some point to go back on public assistance, then your status should not change, you are not eligible for any additional assistance for any children you may have added since you were last on public assistance.

When people have children while on public assistance, this is government subsidized poverty and has to stop.

And nobody who is receiving any public assistance should ever receive any kind of tax benefits. They are already getting tax benefits.

Child care costs however you manage it are an expense of working, whether married or not, and should have always been a deduction on the income tax, so should privately paid health insurance and medical expenses. If employers can deduct child care expenses and health insurance costs they provide to employees, then individuals should be able to deduct the same expenses and costs because these are essential expenses of working and earning a living when employers do not provide them as part of your income. If you are dead, you do not earn, if you have children and no one to baby sit them while you're at work, you can not work. These are not public assistance programs, these are just common sense.

The simplest way of course to address all of these things is to eliminate the income tax altogether and replace it with the simple, fair and beautiful FairTax, a retail sales sales on new goods and services paid at the final point of sale.