Editorial Draft – lovericeandnoodles

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 of around $300 to most families with young children. 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. However, 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.

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.

Gallery | This entry was posted in Editorial Draft, Feedback Please, lovericeandnoodles. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Editorial Draft – lovericeandnoodles

  1. tenere84 says:

    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.

    PAR2:
    – 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.”

    PAR3:
    – 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

    PAR4:
    – 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.

    Like

  2. comp0327 says:

    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!

    Like

  3. compclass8 says:

    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.

    Like

  4. tenere84 says:

    I’ll be back for peer review.

    Like

  5. compclass8 says:

    be back to provide peer review for this one

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s