Editorial Draft – Cory Booker And Child Poverty Reduction Efforts
The senator of New Jersey Cory Booker rolled out amazing policy proposals on Thursday to significantly reduce child poverty. Booker has a plan to give a monthly allowance allegedly being around $300 to most families with young children. However, to even be in the position where working American families are in poverty, is ridiculous and we should be ashamed of ourselves for letting it happen. By doing this, the plan is projected to help 7.3 million children escape poverty. This would be a great policy for the lower working class and can significantly improve the lives of many.
The policy Mr. Booker is proposing follows a bill called the American Family Act of 2019. It expands the child tax credit from $2,000 a year to $3,600 a year. With the child tax credit, the question that is always asked is where will the money come from. According to the article, the tax would come from families earning $180,000 or individual filers earning $130,000. Although these middle class or wealthier families are not happy with this extra tax money they have to pay, it is essential for this policy to work effectively. This method according to the article was proven to work very well in other countries such as Europe and Canada. These countries were able to cut their child poverty rate by almost half.
Although Mr. Booker’s plan is very good, not everyone agrees. There are still people against it, specifically the more wealthy who do not want to give their hard-earned money. But if these taxes are not put into place, millions of children will still be in poverty. Realistically, from these families taking away an extra few hundred can inconvenience them sure, but it can also save many lives of children. To sacrifice some money to save the lives of others while barely financially hurting oneself should be a no brainer. The tax credit itself will put some families out of poverty,
Overall this is a great plan. By increasing the taxes of wealthier people by a small percentage, the government is able to get children out of poverty and save their lives. To make this plan even better, Mr. Booker should propose increasing the tax to $325 or even $350. This would give children the chance to buy things that they want or help their families even more to feed their children and buy them school supplies. Raising a child in general can be a real hassle and struggle, but even more if done under poverty. It can be almost impossible for some single parents. This policy would also aid in trying to distribute the wealth from the upper class to the lower class. Overall, this policy is great and should be enforced to try and save the lives of poverty living children.
NEEDS A TITLE
(LoveRiceAndNoodles, for better service in future, ask specific questions to guide me in providing the best feedback.)
I’m going to give you some advice that would be helpful to most of your classmates. Look at your first paragraph, reorganized to eliminate all unnecessary language:
What that paragraph doesn’t say, and should, is that we should be ashamed that working American families could ever BE in poverty.
I see from reading your second paragraph that the money isn’t exactly a PAYMENT, which your term “allowance” suggests. It’s an increase to the Child Tax Credit TO $3600 a year. That comes out to $300 a month, but as a TAX CREDIT that can be claimed when the taxpayer files taxes. It’s also not a NEW $300/month as you explain it. It’s an INCREASE of $1600/year, which comes to a NEW $133.33/month.
It might be unfair to claim that middle class families “are not happy” with the credit. And it’s not clear that they’ll ever have to pay more, just because somebody is paying less. We don’t collect the same amount of taxes every year. I guess it’s possible that $133.33 a month could yank a few families out of poverty, but it doesn’t seem so dramatic when we look at it head-on. Does it?
There’s not much new in your third paragraph, Noodles. Mostly a restatement of your first two claims.
1. The tax credit will pull some families out of poverty.
2. Well-to-do taxpayers are unhappy about “making up the difference.”
You do make your own position clear, which is to your credit. But can you elaborate a bit on whether the exact taxpayers being “extra-taxed” are the best choice to make the difference?
Paragraph 4 is brave and admirable. You make a bold proposal based on your underlying principle that . . . that what? Be clear. No kid should grow up in poverty? No one working a full-time job should be in poverty? Families with children are more vulnerable than childless families and deserve our additional support? Why do individual taxpayers have to pay more instead of getting businesses to make up the shortfall?
I hope some of this was helpful to you, Noodles, as you produce your Editorial for Portfolio.
Let me know. I like the interaction.
A little about your beginning sentences. I think you should change “amazing” to something more clear/descriptive like “great.” Amazing can be used to describe something good or bad. Or scary. But you’ve established your claim well at the beginning so I won’t comment much on that.
I think what you have to work on, for a start, is some grammar errors.
– However, the question that is always asked is where will the money come from.
It’s not a good idea to end a sentence with a proposition. And if you place a question into a sentence, you should either put it in quotes, like:
However, the question that is always asked is, “from where will the money come?”
or a sentence describing the question:
However, it is always asked from where the money will come.
– According to the article, the tax would come from families earning $180,000 or individual filers earning $130,000.
– Althought these middle class or wealthier families…
Correct me if I’m wrong but I think the or’s should be replaced by and’s. Definitely for the second one.
– This method according to the article was proven…
You should change that to:
This method, according to the article, was proven…
– These countries were able to cut their child poverty rate by almost half.
Extremely minor but it should be “one half.”
– There are still people against it, specifically the more wealthy who do not want to give their hard-earned money.
should be changed to “specifically the wealthier (or just wealthy) who…”
– Realistically, from these families…
should be “Realistically, to these families, …”
– extra few hundred
should be “few extra hundred dollars…”
– …can inconvenience them sure, but it can also save many lives of children.
This one is tricky, because you should put it as “them, sure,” but you also have “realistically,” at the beginning of your sentence. I would either replace “realistically” with “sure” or take it out entirely.
– no brainer —> no-brainer
– Overall (,) this is a great plan.
– By increasing the taxes of wealth(y) (or just “the wealthy” and take out people) people…
– Raising a child (,) in general (,) can be a real hassle and struggle (hassle + struggle is probably redundant), but even more (so) if done under poverty.
– …to try and save the lives of (impoverished) children.
You effectively supported your argument, in paragraph 2, about why Mr. Booker’s bill would be effective. Seeing how other countries approached the issue does indeed help your main argument hold more water.
Now for the one thing that bothered me about your argument overall. I think many people would argue that the wealthy deserve to be taxed more and/or that wealth is unevenly distributed. I happen to agree with some points. However, your line of reasoning in PAR3 strikes me as a bit naive. Are you 100% sure the reason the wealthy don’t want to be taxed is because it’s a mere “inconvenience” to them, and that they don’t want to budge with their “hard-earned” money? I personally think this demonstrates a lack of perspective. Money politics is more complicated than many may be inclined to think. All I can say to that argument is that you should put some more thought into it.
As for your final paragraph, well, I saw a lot of sentences that basically said, “this is a great policy/plan.” And that’s a valid point to make, but they look more like filler sentences. Pretty minor but I thought I should point it out.
Your writing was interesting to read, especially since I had no idea about this bill being passed. I think you did a wonderful job of stating your viewpoint on the topic early in your writing, and your transitions were well-written. All four paragraphs were structured well and flowed smoothly with the topic being written about. And by also incorporating the backlash being received for this bill being passed, you were able to incorporate all sides of the story. I would only recommend use of better descriptive language!
Your first paragraph is good and it states your claim and leaves the reader wanting to find out more which is what a good first paragraph should do. The structures of the facts that you include in your paragraphs are well organized and relate well to your claim. The last paragraph is also very good because you come up with a good solution to the issue that is reasonable to achieve. The language you use throughout the editorial is very strong and it shows your opinion on the topic. Overall I think your editorial is very good and I cannot find any specific changes that need to be made.
I’ll be back for peer review.
be back to provide peer review for this one