https://x.com/GarrettPetersen/status/1895916204055052788
I keep harping about making tax bracket cutoffs divide by the number of family members. The policy seems so obvious that I'm surprised taxes don't already work that way.
— Dr. Dad, PhD 🔄🔼◀️🔽▶️ (@GarrettPetersen) March 1, 2025
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You probably don't want to be the kid of a couple of high earning former-dinks who only had you for the tax breaks.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Can I adopt a 17.5 year old for 6 months then kick him out and get the benefit of a dependent for the entire tax year? Asking for a friend
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Probably still much better off and useful for society than the poors having accidents and welfare credits.
Probably. Just need incentives for less screen time too.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It would be far less annoying to design/less expensive/less complicated to invest in things that improve intergenerational mobility so welfare queens pooping out accident babies doesn't mean they turn in to gangbangers.
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/mto.html improved adult attainment for kids if they moved before they were 13. It reduced criminally for the adults and kids. It was also an extremely cheap program as it used existing section 8 funding but got landlords in better neighborhoods to accept families, just the cost of the people getting landlords to accept poors.
Education is fixable without additional funding in most states. Tiered secondary like Germany does.
He isn't a very good economist if he is proposing building more complexity in to the income tax rather than replacing the income tax.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
This only works if you do a small amount at a time and it's too slow to recondition poors faster than they reproduce. Rightoids usually aren't right about methods, but at the end of the day, they're right that the most blunt way to fix a lot of this is for rich people to have more kids and poor people to have less.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Rich people are not going to have more kids. There is no tax breaks in the world that will fix that. Even paying them to have kids doesn't work, both SK and Japan have tried that.
Treat kids as a form of good and it makes perfect sense. People maximize their own utility and welfare which creates income elasticity of demand because higher incomes have higher returns from leisure and work utility then they do from family utility. The elastic quality of kids declines with income, they are inferior goods not normal goods. You maximize your own satisfaction (welfare) by having more vacations vs having kids, as the quality of the vacation increases with income this effect increase with income.
Chuds are no more going to fix reality then the communists did. Their expectation to be able to somehow ignore utility is identical to socialism, and why it simply does not function.
You design policy to accommodate demographic reality because that works, designing policy to try and fix something that is not fixable is r-slurred. Designing policy to accommodate shrinking population isn't very difficult, it's just not very popular unless you start out that way. Norway is the only high-income country who isn't fricked by the demographic cliff because they had good policy from the start.
There are things they could do to slightly increase fertility but they are not things that are likely to happen. The increase in child seat requirements caused a much larger reduction in births than lives it saved https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3665046 free childcare is far and away the most significant fertility positive policy (way larger than paid maternity leave, that has a much smaller impact then people think).
Also if people stopped being r-slurred and accepted the technocratic dictatorship of economists it wouldn't be very difficult at all to make poors crotch fruit in to useful people. Some of the changes are not even very profound.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
or
Pick one impossible task? It's going to be both? I agree that chuds are r-slurred and aren't going to fix this with just tax breaks and prayer, but you're not going to have that technocratic success without the dictatorship functionally destroying the poors by taking their kids (free childcare gateway?) Go ahead and make that more palatable and moral than rich gibs and poor abortions. Let alone deciding what technocrats you can trust with the dictatorship.
At the end of the day, the reality you can fix the most is trying to fix the baby crisis without Islam. You can't not drink water just because the chuds have to drink it too. SK and Japan are also not big peepee America, back to back World War MVPs, inventor of half of everything, sellers of everything, eternal s*x machines, and God's real chosen people.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
This is one of the worst posts I have EVER seen. Delete it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Yeah this is something that the Chinese could pull off but not Americans today. The demographics would immediately draw comparisons to the whole "White Man's Burden" thing which wouldn't fly. Increasingly steep tax breaks and childcare benefits the more kids you had seems more realistic than that.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Landlords don't want poors as customers if they can avoid it. They trash your house and cause more damage them they are worth. Poor people make utterly rslurred decisions, which is why they ended up poor in the first place. I can only assume all their kids will end up the same way. Throwing good money after bad is the hallmark of a typical burger politician. Better to just give larger tax breaks for actual human beings to have more kids.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Programs like MTO self-select for the poors who are not having dog fights in the yard. The impact on housing was one of the factors that was considered as part of the study, it was the same as private renters.
Landchad satisfaction was actually slightly higher for the MTO group vs private renters as they didn't have to chase rent. I hope the poors gave them a tip though
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
when I see a study that says something positive about helping poors I throw it into my phacking pile. study more than likely conducted by stupids or poors
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Libs are melting in Texas cause "rich" couples earning 160k combined will qualify for school vouchers
We will never fix schools cause it would involve doing a lot of favors to honkies that aren't rich enough for the GOP to care and too rich/white for the democrats to care
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I strongly support charter schools. Evidence strongly supports that states that have strong academic standards for schools, and make it relatively easy to start schools, see academic improvements across the board (including in the public schools, it tends to be the middle students that are left in them and teachers don't have to deal with a range of aptitude then).
Vouchers only work if the schools that can accept vouchers are held to the same standards as other schools.
I doubt Texas is doing the strong academic standards though because Texas. Unless you buckbreak religious schools to not teach r-slurred shit the whole thing is pointless.
Something the US could learn from Europe here. Most European countries have been using forms of the charter system for over a century. Lots of people in Europe go to religious schools run by organized religion, particularly Catholic but not only, they can't not choose to teach evolution/sexed and can't religiously discriminate while receiving public funds. They absolutely can have merit based entrance which is what should be allowed in the US.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I don't support the vouchers cause I make too much to get them
Also cause I deeply hate Baptist and that's who stands to benefit from it
I am all for opening as many charters as possible. Worked briefly at a ghetto all black charter school and knew a lot of kids that went to the same charter program. All of them were good students. The one I worked at was downright abusive to kids in the best way imaginable. One of the teachers was smoking hot sister that I witnessed dressing down a kid and telling him that if he didn't study he'd be selling rocks until he was dead or in jail before his classmates were done with college.
It was the most honest conversation I've ever seen a teacher have.
It was one of those moments as young person that really put it into me that people grow up differently. Which seeems obvious as an adult but I was in high school doing this part time torturing gig
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Charter schools and magnet schools are good things overall. Magnet schools help protect the smartest kids who may be from rougher environments while Charter schools usually have better standards and allow parents to be more involved their kids' educations.
Unfortunately the public teachers unions here in America often work against Charter schools because they see it as a threat to their salary.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
This is very true.
Poor people are legitimately the fricking worst and have the worst kids.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
If a few dinks have kids they mostly ignore and let run around feral in a high income community (but kill their screen time), they will turn out 20,000x better than poors raised the same way in some shithole.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Sure beats not being born.
Life is great.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
that's not how it would work in practice, and his real point is "why isn't this the default for how it works when it makes way more sense"
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Because it doesn't solve any problems in 4 years, or less, and there's no way for politicians to enrich themselves.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context