The most striking proposals were for the elimination of medical debt for millions of Americans; the “first-ever” ban on price gouging for groceries and food; a cap on prescription drug costs; a $25,000 subsidy for first-time home buyers; and a child tax credit that would provide $6,000 per child to families for the first year of a baby’s life.
I can already hear the crabs who didn’t get this in the past trying to yank down the other crabs who will qualify for it back into the bucket. Happens every time there’s a discussion about minimum wage.
Maybe I’m missing somethng here. I’m not just asking this because I’m upset about the possibility of other people getting money and not me: Wouldn’t we expect the home buyers’ subsidy to only increase demand and drive up the cost of houses? Then the money would end up in the hands of those who already own one or many houses. Isn’t this just giving money to people who are already well-off? Wouldn’t it be better to create a program focused on building more houses instead?
Both can be done. Besides, first time homebuyers are the ones most in need of the kickstart needed to ownership. Consider also that the people with $2m homes likely aren’t going to see a direct increase in demand because of this. It would instead be current owners of so-called starter homes who could then use their existing equity to purchase a forever home.
My friend, in california, every house costs a million dollars. All this is going to do is bump up the value of a house by 2.5% at the expense of taxpayers. Unless we’re going to massively increase tax on the rich and cut tax for the poor, I don’t see this as a win.
Serious answer from a long term economic standpoint.
You want more people to participate in home ownership, it’s good for all home owners. Homes are the majority of a family’s equity/net worth. It continues to grow and appreciate and allows them to invest into themselves.
In 5-10 years, when they’re ready to upgrade, they create a lot of economic activity for everyone by selling their current house, plus additional funds, to upgrade to a new one.
If you ever want to sell your house to someone under the age of 35 who’s not a tech bro, this is how it’s done.
It’s the same logic that the economic stimulus package used to generate economic growth and activity.
The more hands money exchanges, the more valuable it is as a currency to everyone. Counter intuitively, the economy is not a zero sum game. It’s unbounded. The more people we help to achieve financial stability and the ability to participate in the housing market, the better it is for everyone currently participating in the housing market.
I’m still not understanding the part where everyone having an extra 25k for a house purchase doesn’t just increase the price of all houses by 25k. This is what happens when you increase the demand for something without increasing the supply.
Biden failed to get his $15 minimum wage promise but had no issues giving free cash to the rail industry to do nothing, free cash to GM to do nothing, free cash to TSMC & Intel to do nothing, and also free cash to Israel to continue a genocide.
So excuse me when I say that this is a election year scam porkbarrel promise which will magically get stuck in congress or get conveniently halted by a random ass judge.
The only one here I can see happening is the tax credit because it has been done before and because it doesn’t actually involve giving out money.
Rather than malicious or a scam, this is closer to the class rep promising free vending machines. They don’t have the power to give this and they’re unlikely to convince the people that do have the power to actually do so.
That’s not really better exactly, it’s still deceitful, but only because they can’t actually deliver, not that they can, but choose not to.
Capping Groceries is COMMUNISM even though 100% of Current Astronomical Profits are going DIRECTLY to the CEOS and I can’t afford Groceries!
$6,000 credit for newborns
So, you mean, born with debt? (On top of whatever public debt per capita is)
No. It’s basically a continuation of the child tax credit that the republicans killed. It lifted half of kids out of poverty that were in poverty and it was a very very popular covid relief program.
very very popular covid relief program
I mean, everyone’s happy when money is flowing in. But someone has to pay for this.
Also: 6k is pretty much nothing compared to the long term cost of raising the child. It really is a populist move - she’s buying votes with taxpayer money
Yes, you see… i want the taxes I pay to go to helping people. We could instead, say, stop giving as much to the DoD. We could raise taxes on corporations and close off shore loopholes… you know, basic good governance.
i want the taxes I pay to go to helping people
I generally agree with this, but I’d rather see government spending my money on infrastructure, like roads, power plants, research ect. so everyone benefits instead of giving it away for free.
Why not both?
Society benefits from children not growing up in extreme poverty.
Society benefits from children not growing up in extreme poverty
True, but giving money for free isn’t a proper way of fighting with poverty. The proper way would be introducing reforms that make housing, healthcare and education fundamentally cheaper. That would be effective at fixing the very causes that make people impoverished
Making things cheaper doesn’t help people in extreme poverty who have no money.
Giving them money does!
“We should instead impose a $6,000 annual tax penalty on childless cat ladies!” -J. D. Vance, probably /s
