Twin Tiers Living 476 Posted August 15 Payments for newborns have reduced poverty elsewhere, but are a novel idea in New York. By Julia Rock , New York Focus Illustrations by otomedream and bubalife via Canva, collage by Neil deMause / New York Focus This month, more than a million New Yorkers with children are receiving checks in the mail from the state. The payments of up to $330 are a one-time supplement to the state’s child tax credit, passed as part of the state budget negotiated by the legislature and Governor Kathy Hochul this spring. But one Albany-area Republican senator wants the state to go further and permanently give all new parents a $1,000 “baby bonus.” “When I hear younger people in particular talk about starting a family, cost is a big factor in that and often cited as one of the reasons why they could be discouraged from pursuing a family,” state Senator Jake Ashby, who represents a district between Albany and the Vermont border, told New York Focus. “So I thought that this legislation could be helpful in addressing that.” Ashby’s bill, introduced earlier this month, would supplement the state’s existing child tax credit, which gives low- and middle-income families up to $330 a year per child under 17. The $1,000 newborn payments would go to all parents. More than 200,000 babies are born in New York every year. Both the existing and proposed credits are fully refundable, meaning parents can receive them even if the credit amount is more than they owe in taxes. Affordability and child poverty are pressing matters for state lawmakers and the governor, even if they’ve done little in recent legislative sessions to tackle key drivers of rising costs, such as housing. People with young children move out of New York at higher rates than other New Yorkers because they can’t afford the costs of raising a family, and almost 19 percent of children in the state live in poverty — one of the highest rates in the nation. Expanding the state’s child tax credit is an idea with support both from people like Ashby who are concerned about people being able to have families and from anti-poverty advocates and lawmakers. But the baby bonus proposal is new to New York. “This is the first of this kind of proposal I’ve seen in New York to target a broad credit to families with newborns,” said Pete Nabozny, policy director at the Rochester-based advocacy organization Children’s Agenda. The idea has been tried elsewhere. Federal lawmakers have proposed various versions of a baby bonus as part of the federal child tax credit. A new program in Flint, Michigan, sends $1,500 to pregnant residents and an additional $500 payment when the baby is born. And this fall, Baltimore will vote on a ballot initiative, backed by a group of local teachers, that would authorize sending one-time $1,000 cash payments to new parents. “The simple reality is when you have a baby, your income goes down and your expenses go up,” said Nabozny. Research has shown that having a child is a common reason that people enter into poverty, and that baby bonuses reduce those poverty increases. New York has a paid family leave law, but it only partially replaces workers’ wages, so parents are still likely to experience an income drop when they have a child. And people who don’t work or who hadn’t worked enough consecutive weeks before going on leave can’t benefit from paid family leave at all. “A lot of the fate of these proposals depends on how people interpret them: Is it a poverty reduction measure, or is it paid leave, or is it broad family support?” said Joshua McCabe, director of social policy for the Niskanen Center, a center-right think tank that has advocated for child tax credit reform and expansion. If payments for having a child are viewed as paid leave, policymakers might try to attach work requirements, McCabe said. If they’re seen as a poverty reduction measure, it will lead to debates about stringent means testing. He said that the “baby bonus” framing — pitching it as an idea to help parents cover the costs of a baby when their earnings are taking a dip — could help it win broader support from lawmakers concerned about New York being affordable for families, not just from those focused on poverty reduction. Ashby isn’t the first to propose changes to New York’s child tax credit. As part of state budget negotiations in the spring, Democratic Senator Andrew Gounardes of Brooklyn proposed a more expansive family tax credit overhaul, which would have provided up to $1,600 in credits per child and allowed the state’s poorest families to receive the maximum credit. (Parents making under about $10,000 a year currently get a reduced amount.) According to researchers with the Center on Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University, Gounardes’ Working Families Tax Credit would have lifted tens of thousands of children out of poverty. But that costlier measure did not make it into the final budget. Hochul in particular has talked frequently about affordability and tried to show that she’s sensitive to the concerns of voters struggling with rising costs. The state is also under a specific mandate to tackle its persistently high child poverty rates. In 2021, Hochul signed a law committing New York to cut child poverty in half by 2030. That law set up the Child Poverty Reduction Advisory Council to recommend policies to achieve that goal. Researchers at the Urban Institute estimate that measures passed by the state since the law was signed, such as raising the minimum wage and including children under the age of four in the existing state tax credit, have the potential to reduce child poverty by up to 7.6 percent — which would still leave the state far short of the mandate. The council is expected to make its recommendations to Hochul later this year, before she proposes her state budget. “In a budget of $239 billion, do we think it’s too expensive to spend 1 percent of that to support child poverty reduction?” —Senator Andrew Gounardes The council has the challenge of coming up with recommendations that could reduce child poverty in accordance with the law, even as the governor and legislature will be concerned about the price tag. Targeting payments to families with young children could be one way of doing that, said McCabe of the Niskanen Center. “Getting money to families with children early in a child’s life is an important priority,” McCabe said. “I would hate to see them pitted against each other, but if you had to choose between benefits for 17- and 18-year-olds or something like a baby bonus, I’m going for the baby bonus.” Not only are the early years essential for a child’s development, but parents’ incomes tend to be lower when their children are younger, McCabe said. In New York, younger children are more likely to live in poverty. Nabozny, a member of the Child Poverty Reduction Advisory Council, said that the council has considered a larger credit for young children, but “hasn’t contemplated a unique, separate credit for newborns.” Gounardes estimates that his expanded tax credit would cut child poverty by 20 percent. Ashby and about a third of the Senate are cosponsors of that measure. Gounardes said that Ashby’s baby bonus proposal is in line with policies he has been looking at, such as providing a bigger tax credit for parents of newborns. “We’re contemplating how we can potentially supplement the Working Families Tax Credit with some type of birth credit, whether that is an addition to our bill or a different bill,” he said. The challenge of tackling child poverty or overhauling the state’s tax credits will be getting Hochul and the legislature to spend the money, Gounardes said. “These programs cost a lot of money, but there’s a reason for it, and as policymakers we have to make a decision,” he said. “In a budget of $239 billion, do we think it’s too expensive to spend 1 percent of that to support child poverty reduction?” This story originally appeared in New York Focus, a nonprofit news publication investigating power in New York. Sign up for their newsletter here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hal 546 Posted August 15 FFS !🤦♂️ I you can’t afford to have kids then do one of two things , get yourself into a financial situation where you can or live with the fact that simply cannot afford to have one ! But DO NOT have one or more children that we the Taxpayers, have to support. It has been the case for far too long that children are used as Meal Tickets by the “ poor” , you know … the ones with Full grocery carts !? Just calling it as I see it … 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beekeeper 39 Posted August 15 I agree. $1000 won't even pay for diapers and daycare for the first year... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Adam 516 Posted August 16 this passes, the breeders will be squirting out Irish Twins left and right.... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beekeeper 39 Posted August 30 People that get food stamps and cash assistance should get a financial incentive after kid 2 to get their tubes tied. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chris 3,135 Posted September 2 On 8/30/2024 at 2:14 PM, Beekeeper said: People that get food stamps and cash assistance should get a financial incentive after kid 2 to get their tubes tied. And we need to go back to the days of assistance only paying for staple foods. No more of this paying for subs, chips and soda with an EBT card at the nearest Dandy 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beekeeper 39 Posted September 2 When my husband had a job in high school as a cashier, one family tried to buy dog food with their Food Stamps. When that wasn't allowed, they went to the meat department and bought steak. When my son was a Cub Scout, he volunteered at the Food Pantry to help the people getting food put it in their car. Each time, he had people that already had food in their trunk from another Food Pantry A friend graduated from college with me with a degree in Psychology and went on to get her MS in Social Work. She had multiple clients that were given lists of food to buy for their drug dealer from the Food Stamps and then used the Food Pantry to try to live off of...She got so frustrated she went back to school and got a PhD in whatever degree you need to do testing to see if a child qualifies for special education services. So yes, the system is very broken...I work in Special Education. When I arrived at a home to do some testing to see if a child qualified for early intervention, the child in question had a green filled baby bottle. Another person with me asked what was in it. Mom replied," I was told if I gave him Mountain Dew and a chocolate candy bar right before you came, he wouldn't be able to add and I could get money the rest of his life." She means ADHD...and she is right. IF he is diagnosed (by a doctor) with that and they live within a certain income limit, they qualify for SSI for his whole life. We, of course, had to excuse ourselves. I am sure another group arrived a week later and she was smart enough to put the MD in the fridge before answering the door. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MsKreed 1,540 Posted September 2 I had a friend relay a similar story of food stamp abuse decades ago. Back when food stamps were “coupon books”, he worked at the Elmira Psyche Center and picked up a second job at the Sugar Creek on Church street (where there’s now the MRI office). At the time, there was an adjacent liquor store in the same building. When the coupons were used for a purchase, stores had to make change in cash (coins) for anything less than a $1 coupon. So customers would make several individual purchases of the cheapest grocery item available (a 10¢ koolaid pack) and get 90¢ change for each transaction....then go next door and buy booze. This practice was so rampant that Sugar Creek employees had to regularly go next door to buy change from the liquor store to replenish the coins in their till when they ran out of rolled coins. I don’t recall if Sugar Creek stopped taking food stamps altogether, or if it was when they were replaced with EBT cards.....but that liquor store went out of business shortly afterward. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ann 421 Posted September 3 On 8/30/2024 at 2:14 PM, Beekeeper said: People that get food stamps and cash assistance should get a financial incentive after kid 2 to get their tubes tied. A vasectomy also works and are less invasive and cost less money. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hal 546 Posted September 3 They already get a ton of “ benefits “ how about giving us the benefit of them not getting benefits for popping out more little mouths for us to feed ! This whole WELFARE system has been broken and abused for as far back as I remember… ENOUGH ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ann 421 Posted September 3 Another effect of the “Baby Bonus” might be fewer abortions. I remember a conversation with an officer of the company I worked for during the 80s about the welfare system and how she would run things. If you wanted taxpayers to support you, you’d live in housing developments with cafeterias where meals would be served 3 times a day during specific hours, medical clinics, small stores that took donations of clothing and other household items. There would be no need for food stamps, rent assistance or cash. If you didn’t like living in those conditions there would be job training sites available to teach and help individuals get off the system and get employed so you could support yourself and/or your family. I remember thinking at the time that was pretty extreme but, with the way things are today, I’m not so sure that would be a bad idea. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beekeeper 39 Posted September 18 On 9/2/2024 at 8:35 PM, Ann said: A vasectomy also works and are less invasive and cost less money. If they had kid number 2 with the same dad. Many have their children all with different fathers... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pvt Snowball 44 Posted October 4 Are there anybody here over 50 because some of the responses are so out of date because the whole idea of food stamps and I'm just spit balling is to use it for food which includes snacks, imagine if you can if you live in a rural area and the nearest place to go food shopping was a dandy or a burn wtf do you think they sell there? lobster etc in which again it counts as food why is anyone upset that a person wants to buy food with their card #iboughtsusionmystampscardlol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Adam 516 Posted October 4 13 minutes ago, Pvt Snowball said: Are there anybody here over 50 because some of the responses are so out of date because the whole idea of food stamps and I'm just spit balling is to use it for food which includes snacks, imagine if you can if you live in a rural area and the nearest place to go food shopping was a dandy or a burn wtf do you think they sell there? lobster etc in which again it counts as food why is anyone upset that a person wants to buy food with their card #iboughtsusionmystampscardlol nope...you cannot spit without hitting an aldis, DG or some other type of store that sells more than junkfood. here in Elmira, dandy on chuch street is les than 2 miles from a wegmans and weis. snacks are not nutritious, contribute to obesity, heart disease, hypertension etc. subway or pizza are foods that are a treat, same as ice cream, candy and soda. foodstamps and snap are for feeding your family in times of need, not to support poor, sometimes calculated, life choices. youd be surprised how many folks here and throughout the area grew up poor, ate the surplus foods and maybe if lucky got to have an actual pizza once or twice a month as a special splurge( instead of the bread with spaghetti sauce, shredded cheese and if lucky pepperoni) that indeed see the current abuse and fraud occurring and whole-heartedly agree it needs to stop. as to the 1,00 baby bonus what happens AFTER the grand is spent? how is that child to be provided for? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pvt Snowball 44 Posted October 4 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Adam said: nope...you cannot spit without hitting an aldis, DG or some other type of store that sells more than junkfood. here in Elmira, dandy on chuch street is les than 2 miles from a wegmans and weis. snacks are not nutritious, contribute to obesity, heart disease, hypertension etc. subway or pizza are foods that are a treat, same as ice cream, candy and soda. foodstamps and snap are for feeding your family in times of need, not to support poor, sometimes calculated, life choices. youd be surprised how many folks here and throughout the area grew up poor, ate the surplus foods and maybe if lucky got to have an actual pizza once or twice a month as a special splurge( instead of the bread with spaghetti sauce, shredded cheese and if lucky pepperoni) that indeed see the current abuse and fraud occurring and whole-heartedly agree it needs to stop. as to the 1,00 baby bonus what happens AFTER the grand is spent? how is that child to be provided for? Look nobody in this new age should be eating supar food when better food is available so only the people who works should have access to good quality food that not very american. As far as that 1000 they can make it retroactive until your situation is improved. I thought 🤔 the whole idea was to feed the children Edited October 4 by Pvt Snowball Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chris 3,135 Posted October 4 I wasn’t aware there was a “working peoples”section at the grocery store that others aren’t allowed to shop in, regardless of payment. But maybe there is. Because I’m buying store and generic brand stuff along with staple items to save money while others are buying junk food, soda and name higher-priced name brand stuff and paying with EBT. Those cases of soda, sports drink, bags of chips etc. cost a hell of a lot more than carrots and other healthy foods. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pvt Snowball 44 Posted October 4 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Chris said: I wasn’t aware there was a “working peoples”section at the grocery store that others aren’t allowed to shop in, regardless of payment. But maybe there is. Because I’m buying store and generic brand stuff along with staple items to save money while others are buying junk food, soda and name higher-priced name brand stuff and paying with EBT. Those cases of soda, sports drink, bags of chips etc. cost a hell of a lot more than carrots and other healthy foods. Poor choices on their part but at the end of the day I rather have those kids not starving or going to bed without anything in their belly's it sad when you hear a child say I'm hungry 😭 Edited October 4 by Pvt Snowball Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Adam 516 Posted October 4 3 minutes ago, Pvt Snowball said: Look nobody in this new age should be eating supar food when better food is available so only the people who works should have access to good quality food that not very american. As far as that 1000 they can make it retroactive until your situation is improved. I thought 🤔 the whole idea was to feed the children could not agree more about your junkfood statement....its downright criminal that i can go to fastfood joint or get soda, chips and a slimjim for cheaper than some fresh fruit and veggies. as to the 1k, or any other similar handouts...remember that money has to come from somewhere and often times it comes not out of the "rich" pockets, but those of us who have struggled to improve our situations only to be taxed and demonized for the trouble. its a cold but factual position; if one cannot hardly care for themselves emotionally or financially, there's no way on green earth they should be incentivized to bring children into that situation. regarding "feeding the children" kids get all three meals provided by schools as it is, and often are sent home with food in their backpacks... which i do not see as an issue ( though if their families receive assistance, that should be taken out of the cash allowance portion)so if those meals are taken care of, the abundance of foodbanks and other such programs there is absolutely ZERO excuse for any child to be hungry, other than piss-poor parenting, so again, why pay such people to have more kids? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chris 3,135 Posted October 4 Just now, Pvt Snowball said: Poor choices on their part but at the end of the day I rather have those kids not starving or going to bed without anything in their belly's You just posted: 11 minutes ago, Pvt Snowball said: Look nobody in this new age should be eating supar food when better food is available You say one thing and then another. Which is it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chris 3,135 Posted October 4 Just now, Adam said: its downright criminal that i can go to fastfood joint I used to think the same thing though, and it turned out to not be entirely true. For the price of that value meal, I can make you a healthy meal. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pvt Snowball 44 Posted October 4 3 minutes ago, Adam said: could not agree more about your junkfood statement....its downright criminal that i can go to fastfood joint or get soda, chips and a slimjim for cheaper than some fresh fruit and veggies. as to the 1k, or any other similar handouts...remember that money has to come from somewhere and often times it comes not out of the "rich" pockets, but those of us who have struggled to improve our situations only to be taxed and demonized for the trouble. its a cold but factual position; if one cannot hardly care for themselves emotionally or financially, there's no way on green earth they should be incentivized to bring children into that situation. regarding "feeding the children" kids get all three meals provided by schools as it is, and often are sent home with food in their backpacks... which i do not see as an issue ( though if their families receive assistance, that should be taken out of the cash allowance portion)so if those meals are taken care of, the abundance of foodbanks and other such programs there is absolutely ZERO excuse for any child to be hungry, other than piss-poor parenting, so again, why pay such people to have more kids? Nobody asked where the money is coming from when we are building 3 ships which have a billion price tag who do you think pays for that when the supermarket which hasn't been since covid but we are worried that someone in the store is buying junk food come on now how are we one of the most advanced country when we still got kids who go hungry even as we fight on here about it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Adam 516 Posted October 4 4 minutes ago, Chris said: I used to think the same thing though, and it turned out to not be entirely true. For the price of that value meal, I can make you a healthy meal. generally speaking type statement. fresh fruits and veggies are often more expensive than pre-packaged items, and for those parents who are working, sometimes multiple shifts, those items are not only cheaper, but easier/quicker to prepare or have kids prepare. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Adam 516 Posted October 4 1 minute ago, Pvt Snowball said: Nobody asked where the money is coming from when we are building 3 ships which have a billion price tag who do you think pays for that when the supermarket which hasn't been since covid but we are worried that someone in the store is buying junk food come on now how are we one of the most advanced country when we still got kids who go hungry even as we fight on here about it. i dont see any of us fighting about the issue here, this has been one of the more engaging and on-topic discussions in quite some time. and it is more infuriating to us than larger government waste because 1. children are put in the middle of it. 2. it affects us more closely. do you realize that medicaid/Welfare consumes 100% or our property tax revenues as well as a portion of the county sales-tax revenue? that means infrastructure suffers, and our taxes go up every year honestly is kind of hard following some of your statements so ill address the hunger one: as i typed earlier, schools provide breakfast, lunch and dinner, and often send items home with each student at end of day. and again, there are TONS of foodbanks especially those put on by churches and other religious institutions and those are more plentiful in any community than ANY store or gas station.... so the masses of starving children is pretty doubtful, and if there are indeed kids going hungry despite all those resources, then giving shitty parents money to bring MORE hungry mouths into the world is just plain stupid and more cruel than controlling what can be purchased with EBT/SNAP 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pvt Snowball 44 Posted October 9 On 10/3/2024 at 10:31 PM, Adam said: i dont see any of us fighting about the issue here, this has been one of the more engaging and on-topic discussions in quite some time. and it is more infuriating to us than larger government waste because 1. children are put in the middle of it. 2. it affects us more closely. do you realize that medicaid/Welfare consumes 100% or our property tax revenues as well as a portion of the county sales-tax revenue? that means infrastructure suffers, and our taxes go up every year honestly is kind of hard following some of your statements so ill address the hunger one: as i typed earlier, schools provide breakfast, lunch and dinner, and often send items home with each student at end of day. and again, there are TONS of foodbanks especially those put on by churches and other religious institutions and those are more plentiful in any community than ANY store or gas station.... so the masses of starving children is pretty doubtful, and if there are indeed kids going hungry despite all those resources, then giving shitty parents money to bring MORE hungry mouths into the world is just plain stupid and more cruel than controlling what can be purchased with EBT/SNAP People are talking about things in which none of us has control over we pick and choose who to help so helping these mothers is a good start Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zapp Brannigan 213 Posted October 9 2 hours ago, Pvt Snowball said: People are talking about things in which none of us has control over we pick and choose who to help so helping these mothers is a good start Giving them incentive to pop out more paychecks is a good start? If you cant afford to have a baby quit spreading your legs. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites