Trump Unveils Child Care Policy - Tax-Free Accounts for Parents, Government May Match Deposits - Polidicks

[img_thumb]https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/files/2016/09/2016-09-06T202245Z_01_MCS119_RTRIDSP_3_USA-ELECTION-TRUMP-1024x683.jpg&w=1484[/img_thumb] [QUOTE]ASTON, Pa. — Donald Trump on Tuesday unveiled several policy proposals for lowering child-care costs that were crafted in part by his eldest daughter, Ivanka, including a plan to guarantee six weeks of paid maternity leave that marks a striking departure from GOP orthodoxy. Conservative Republicans, in particular, have long seen a mandated expansion of the social safety net as anathema to their attempts to shrink government spending and give companies more control over their leave policies. ... Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has proposed guaranteeing 12 weeks of paid family leave. Responding to Trump's maternity leave proposal, Clinton's senior adviser for policy Maya Harris [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/13/clinton-campaign-slams-trumps-mad-men-era-maternity-leave-plan/"]said[/URL] that by focusing solely on leave policies that benefit women, Trump may actually be hurting their cause, contributing to the attrition of women from the workplace after childbirth and the gender pay gap. ... According to Trump aides, Ivanka Trump has encouraged her father for weeks to detail policies that would appeal to parents who feel overburdened or underserved by existing programs, following up on the theme that coursed through her remarks at the convention. Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway, who has grown close with Ivanka, also played a role in making child-care policy a priority, with an eye toward winning over female voters in places such as the vote-rich Philadelphia suburbs, the aides said. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Some Highlights of the Plan][B][I] Create Child Care Savings Accounts [/I][/B] After finding the right care for their circumstances, families should also have an option to set aside extra money to further foster their child’s development. The Trump plan will provide Americans the option of opening dependent care savings accounts (DCSAs) so that they can plan for future expenses relating to child and elder care. Annual contributions to a dependent care savings account and earnings on the account will not be subject to tax. Immediate family members and employers will also be able to set aside funds in these accounts, which will be established for the benefit of specific individuals, including unborn children. [B]Total contributions could not exceed $2,000 per year from all sources, but balances in a DCSA will rollover from year-to-year so that substantial amounts could be accumulated over a period of years.[/B] When established for a child, parents can use the accumulated funds to enroll their kids in a school of their choice or for other enrichment activities that prepare them for their future. [B]Funds remaining in the account when the child reaches 18 can be used for higher education expenses.[/B] To encourage low-income families to establish DCSAs for their children, the[B] government will provide a 50 percent match on parental contributions of up to $1,000 per year. That’s an extra $500 per child for families that qualify.[/B] This will encourage savings, and position families to be better able to withstand the unexpected costs of childrearing. [B][I]Provide 6 weeks of maternity leave to new mothers [/I][/B]The Trump plan will enhance Unemployment Insurance (UI) to include 6 weeks of paid leave for new mothers so that they can take time off of work after having a baby. This would triple the average 2 weeks of paid leave received by new mothers, which will benefit both the mother and the child. [B][I] The Trump plan promotes economic freedom for women[/I][/B] Families make decisions about whether to work outside of the home or not based on the cost and availability of child and elder care. Many women stop paid work to provide care because other options are not readily available. This often limits their careers, and is fundamental to the wage disparities that women face. [B]As noted above, in 2014, single women without children made 94 cents on a man’s dollar, but married mothers with children under 18 made only 81 cents. [/B] [/QUOTE] [URL]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/13/donald-trump-joined-by-ivanka-trump-to-outline-child-care-policy/[/URL] [URL]https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/child-care-reforms-that-will-make-america-great-again[/URL]

This seems fair enough for a starting point to be able to have new parents stay home the first crucial months of their child's life. I don't know how the Trump administration would be able to pay for this with their proposed tax plan though. Can we get Ivanka to run instead?

Oh man, it's like a tiny trust fund for everyone. Government matching is an insane promise, but I could see it happening. Are taxes taken from withdrawals? What are the specific limits on the fund's uses? What happens if the dependent dies? I'm eager to see how this develops. [QUOTE]To get real benefits to lower-income taxpayers who can't use the exclusion against the income tax because they have no income tax liability, the Trump plan would also provide them a boost in the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). This boost would be half of the payroll taxes paid by the lower earning parent, and would be subject to an income limitation of $31,200. For a parent making $15 per hour at a full-time job, the EITC boost in the Trump plan could mean as much as $1,200 extra per year.[/QUOTE] This seems to subtly reinforce the $15 wage hike. That's really cool. The DCSAs can also be used for caring for the elderly, which is a massive expense (sometimes rivaling state college tuition) especially in rural areas.

[QUOTE=adamsz;51047081]This seems fair enough for a starting point to be able to have new parents stay home the first crucial months of their child's life. I don't know how the Trump administration would be able to pay for this with their proposed tax plan though. Can we get Ivanka to run instead?[/QUOTE] That's one of the things that confuses me the most about a lot of republicans, they pretend to be about small government and tight budgets but never actually try to pay for the things they do. Trump especially. This plan doesn't seem bad though, other countries have really nice benefits for parents that make it less of a nightmare to raise children, the US could really use some of that.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51047111]That's one of the things that confuses me the most about a lot of republicans, they pretend to be about small government and tight budgets but never actually try to pay for the things they do. Trump especially. This plan doesn't seem bad though, other countries have really nice benefits for parents that make it less of a nightmare to raise children, the US could really use some of that.[/QUOTE] A tiny minority of republican politicians are actually economically conservative.

Here's hoping this idea doesn't get steamrolled like his pre-nomination tax plan.

6 weeks seems like a good step forward but that's still like 1/3rd of the rest of the world, guess its better than 0 weeks though

Sounds like a decent plan, better than the nothing that Republicans want regarding maternity leave and child care. Clintons plan is better for more Americans; 12 weeks maternity [B]and [/B]paternity leave, and a flat cap on expenses covers everyone while Trumps mostly favors middle and upper class families. I also prefer the way Clinton is paying for her plan (tax increase on the wealthy) vs Trump, who wants to cut spending to cover a third of the costs and promises the additional two thirds will come from increased growth, a dubious prospect. What is nice about this though for Trump is that he can use this to get the womens vote and if it dies on Congress then oh well he tried.

Sounds great and all but how will his tax plan pay for the government matched contributions and everything else.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51047104] This seems to subtly reinforce the $15 wage hike. [/QUOTE] That isn't going to happen if Trump wins and Republicans control Congress. This is what I mean when I say his plan is good for middle and upper class families, while Clinton's is good for everyone. Not everyone has the luxury of working a $15/hour full time job.

[QUOTE=Cructo;51047338]I don't think you should be having kids if you are working a job that can barely support yourself though[/QUOTE] The entire reason both candidates have childcare plans in the first place is because people find it hard to pay for childcare. What does this post even mean.

so basically nothing to actually help PAY for the problems and an excuse for why women make less.

I don't see either Clinton's or Trump's maternity leave proposals passing congress. The majority of Clinton's platform is pipe dream nonsense that has no chance of passing. [editline]13th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;51047308]That isn't going to happen if Trump wins and Republicans control Congress. This is what I mean when I say his plan is good for middle and upper class families, while Clinton's is good for everyone. Not everyone has the luxury of working a $15/hour full time job.[/QUOTE] Then don't have kids...

he's also going to put a sweety in the hands of all the good boys and girls of the land of America!!! [b]UNLESS YOU'RE [I]BROWN.[/i][/b]

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;51047531] Then don't have kids...[/QUOTE] Fair enough if you are against maternity leave in general, I was just illustrating that Clinton's plan covers more people.

This is a fairly decent policy, but we should still have some sort of program to aid people in moving to different parts of the country, where their line of employment is required.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51047686]This is a fairly decent policy, but we should still have some sort of program to aid people in moving to different parts of the country, where their line of employment is required.[/QUOTE] some fuckin' hot shot blue sky thinking here if you even remotely believe this will happen

[QUOTE=Roger Waters;51047695]some fuckin' hot shot blue sky thinking here if you even remotely believe this will happen[/QUOTE] I can keep dreaming. It's the same as my hopes for each state having their own state bank akin to the Bank of North Dakota, so that they are held responsible for their own local economies. [editline]13th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;51047716]Most companies will pay for moving expenses if you're a skilled employee. I've moved as a paramedic and the company flat out payed for the moving expenses. Unless that's not the kind of expenses you're talking about.[/QUOTE] That's the expense I'm talking about. Basically, moving for families is a pain in the ass, but it's ultimately necessary sometimes.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51047721]I can keep dreaming. It's the same as my hopes for each state having their own state bank akin to the Bank of North Dakota, so that they are held responsible for their own local economies.[/QUOTE] that's the craziest shit ive ever heard

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51047686]This is a fairly decent policy, but we should still have some sort of program to aid people in moving to different parts of the country, where their line of employment is required.[/QUOTE] Is that that 'Nomad Act' thing that I see popping up here every other month? I assume you're the person who mentions it each time? Because I've never seen or heard of that idea being mentioned by anyone else ever outside of Facepunch. No politician brings it up, no expert brings it up, no one brings it up. For a good reason too.

[QUOTE=Roger Waters;51047695]some fuckin' hot shot blue sky thinking here if you even remotely believe this will happen[/QUOTE] It's far, far from unheard of for companies to pay to relocate workers they're in need of.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;51047738]It's far, far from unheard of for companies to pay to relocate workers they're in need of.[/QUOTE] private companies sure but if you expect the federal government under Trump to act in favor of the people you've already lost the battle

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;51047531]I don't see either Clinton's or Trump's maternity leave proposals passing congress. The majority of Clinton's platform is pipe dream nonsense that has no chance of passing. [editline]13th September 2016[/editline] Then don't have kids...[/QUOTE] good to know accidental pregnancies never happen, even with protection.

[QUOTE=sb27;51047737]Is that that 'Nomad Act' thing that I see popping up here every other month? I assume you're the person who mentions it each time? Because I've never seen or heard of that idea being mentioned by anyone else ever outside of Facepunch. No politician brings it up, no expert brings it up, no one brings it up. For a good reason too.[/QUOTE] Similar concepts have been done in the past, namely with the WPA. No one would actively mention this kind of thing as it's already practiced with companies, but it's something which could be realistically used for construction, engineering, and technicians.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51047816]Similar concepts have been done in the past, namely with the WPA. No one would actively mention this kind of thing as it's already practiced with companies, but it's something which could be realistically used for construction, engineering, and technicians.[/QUOTE] The only issue being that for private companies they already do this very often. Even in super tech saturated cities I've been offered at least SOME form of relo, though not always all. (Which all is insane, for me, and apartment dweller who can move all their stuff in a medium uhaul)

[QUOTE=codemaster85;51047779]good to know accidental pregnancies never happen, even with protection.[/QUOTE] If you get pregnant accidentally, some fault is with you. I'm convinced in this day and age, in America, the vast majority of the fault is with you. [editline]13th September 2016[/editline] This is Facepunch, so we know better than most that its not hard to not get somebody pregnant.

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;51047531] Then don't have kids...[/QUOTE] The republican party is of course well known for encouraging sex ed and making abortion readily available to people, so they don't end up with kids they don't want or can't take care of.

I don't even think Trump knows what party he is a part of. I guess he just wants to be able to identify with "the party of Lincoln" to win himself some brownie points.

[QUOTE=adamsz;51047081]This seems fair enough for a starting point to be able to have new parents stay home the first crucial months of their child's life. I don't know how the Trump administration would be able to pay for this with their proposed tax plan though. Can we get Ivanka to run instead?[/QUOTE] I read somewhere earlier today that they were going to crack down on unemployment fraud and reallocate the saved funds to this

[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;51048834]I read somewhere earlier today that they were going to crack down on unemployment fraud and reallocate the saved funds to this[/QUOTE] Is that really that much money though? Plus whatever they have to spend to go through the process of the crack down.