Latest news with #lowerincome
Wall Street Journal
2 days ago
- Business
- Wall Street Journal
Credit-Card Users Are Cautious Now. Rate Cuts Could Open the Floodgates.
What is holding back Americans from borrowing more to fuel spending probably isn't their level of debt. It's the cost of it. As debate rages about whether the Federal Reserve should slash borrowing costs, and how soon, the state of the consumer will be a key question. Some of the latest data points suggest that many consumers, particularly lower-income households, are slowing their spending—but could in theory borrow more on their credit cards to keep it going.
CNA
7 days ago
- Business
- CNA
Groups providing "rescued" food say demand is rising
Groups that provide free food that is nearing expiration or mildly defective say demand is rising. At least one says it has seen an increase of about 15 per cent. Another plans to expand its distribution points to more than 60 by the end of this year, from the current 51. It says this is to help more lower-income families with the rising cost of living. Kate Low has more. Groups that provide free food that is nearing expiration or mildly defective say demand is rising. At least one says it has seen an increase of about 15 per cent. Another plans to expand its distribution points to more than 60 by the end of this year, from the current 51. It says this is to help more lower-income families with the rising cost of living. Kate Low has more.
Yahoo
21-07-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Is the Screen Time Debate Overlooking the Struggles of Working-Class Families?
Let's face it: there's a ton of judgment out there around screen time, kids, and parenting. Many people will see a kid glued to a screen and automatically assume their parents are lazy, negligent, or don't know how to discipline their kids. There's a lot wrong with these types of judgments, but one major issue is that screen time scenarios are often looked at completely out of context. When you see a kid with their face glued to a screen, you don't know what else they did that day, what they are doing on that screen, or anything else about their life or their family's. Another aspect of the conversation that isn't often acknowledged is the socioeconomic class of the child's family. Conversations around screen time tend to center middle- or to upper-class norms, values, and realities. 'Much of the mainstream conversation around kids and screens assumes an ideal, two engaged parents, flexible schedules, and plenty of disposable income for extracurriculars and babysitters,' says Richard Ramos, parenting expert and founder of Parents on a Mission. 'But for many working-class and lower-income families, this simply isn't reality.' The Reality for Working Class Families A 2019 survey from Common Sense Media found that kids from households earning less than $35k annually spent almost two hours more per day on screens than households earning more than $100K annually. Similarly, another study found a correlation between lower income status and increased use of nearly all types of screen time except video chatting. There are many reasons behind these findings, but a major one is that families with more money simply have more childcare options and can provide more structured, screen-free activities. 'Parents working double shifts, evenings, or gig jobs don't always have the option of 'just hire a sitter' or 'send them to camp,'' Ramos points out. The fact is, affordable childcare is hard to come by and extended family support isn't always available. 'So screens become, for many of us, a necessary stand-in to keep children occupied and safe while we provide for them,' he notes."Parents working double shifts, evenings, or gig jobs don't always have the option of 'just hire a sitter' or 'send them to camp.' So screens become, for many of us, a necessary stand-in to keep children occupied and safe while we provide for them." Richard RamosWhy More Screens Don't Mean More Time It goes without saying that wealthier families usually have the money to buy more devices for their kids. But studies have found that wealthier kids don't necessarily spend more time on these devices compared to kids from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Again, it comes down to access to resources and privileges afforded to more middle- and upper class families. Consider how children from different socioeconomic backgrounds spend their unstructured time. 'Children in middle and upper-class families typically have highly structured summers, after-school hours, and weekends, often filled with numerous extracurriculars,' says Devorah Heitner, PhD, an expert on kids and digital media and author of Growing Up in Public. 'In contrast, working-class children who are too young to work themselves may have less structured time during summers and on weekends and spend more time on screens instead.' As Dr. Heitner points out, the popular practice of 'just let them go out and play' is flawed too, and can be more complicated for lower income families. 'The availability of safe outdoor activities is often tied to economic privilege,' she describes. 'Screens can fill these gaps where outdoor play is limited.' Finally, the idea of spending 'quality time' with your kids as an alternative to screen time is tied to wealth and privilege. 'Piano lessons, museum trips, family hikes—these require time, money, transportation, and energy,' Ramos notes. 'In other words, quality time is the true luxury, not just cutting back on screens.' Parental Shaming Around Screens The realities faced by working-class families are often invisible to others, but that doesn't stop people from passing harsh judgements on these families' screen time habits. 'We know from research that when people consider disparities (like screen time measures) without structural context, they tend to blame or stigmatize the groups who are experiencing inequities,' says Erin Walsh, a parent, speaker, and author of It's Their World: Teens, Screens, and the Science of Adolescence. 'In the case of screen time, this includes the idea that children from lower-income households must have more screen time because their parents don't 'understand' the harms or lack good parenting practices.' As such, Walsh notes, in order to understand screen time and class, we have to consider the inequities built into our society—including uneven resource distribution for high quality childcare, afterschool programs, public parks, and play places—and how screen ends up filling in some of these gaps for families. Dr. Heitner agrees it's crucial to recognize the moral undertones surrounding screen time conversations. 'Parenting choices are often judged harshly in public, and social stigma, online discourse, and cultural bias are significant factors here, particularly as screen use is judged differently based on class,' she says. The solution can't simply be telling parents that their children need to get off screens and engage in more movement, outdoor play, or reading. These words are empty if society doesn't provide children with more opportunities like bookmobiles, free library playgrounds, or accessible and safe playgrounds, Dr. Heitner notes. Walsh adds that these issues won't be solved without more equitable access to childcare for working-class families. Rethinking 'Healthy' Screen Time Dr. Heitner recommends reframing the idea of "healthy' screen time from "how many hours per day" to "what kind of apps, experiences, and connections are useful and developmentally appropriate," and "what support systems exist." 'Our goal should be to ensure children have access to technology that supports their learning, connection with friends, and fun, while also preventing excessive use that disrupts sleep or physical activity,' says Dr. Heitner. 'We need to help families find this balance in a supportive way, acknowledging the challenges all parents face—whether in two-parent or single-parent households, whether you're working a lot or a little, or have access to paid childcare versus relying on family members.'"Our goal should be to ensure children have access to technology that supports their learning, connection with friends, and fun, while also preventing excessive use that disrupts sleep or physical activity. We need to help families find this balance in a supportive way, acknowledging the challenges all parents face—whether in two-parent or single-parent households, whether you're working a lot or a little, or have access to paid childcare versus relying on family members." Devorah Heitner, PhDRichard Culatta, CEO of the non-profits ISTE+ASCD, father, and the author of Digital for Good: Raising Kids to Thrive in an Online World, says that technology is a lifesaver in his family, and he uses it for when he needs to get household tasks done or attend meetings from home. But he stresses that in his family, not all screen time is created equal. 'If children are going to participate in digital activities there must first be good digital norms established,' Culatta says. 'What a child is doing with technology is far more important than how long they are using it for.' Here are Culatta's tips for creating a healthier digital culture in your home: Set up parental controls on devices to trigger a conversation before new apps are installed. Turn off autoplay on all video apps. This gives kids control over what they watch rather than leaving it up to the algorithm. Disable non-essential app alerts so kids aren't constantly nudged towards one app or another. Talk to your kids about value and help them identify which digital activities are enriching. For example, talk about choosing educational apps and videos, and help your child find ones that align with their interests. Join them during screen time and turn digital time into shared experiences by watching or playing together. Read the original article on Parents Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
09-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Commentary: Save your Trump tax cut, you'll need it later
If you're lucky enough to notice a net-income boost from the tax bill President Trump just signed, don't rush out and spend it. For Trump giveth with one hand and taketh with the other. The latest Trump "tax cuts" aren't really tax cuts in the sense that tax rates will decline from 2024 to 2025. Tax rates will mostly stay the same. But without the tax bill, tax rates would have returned to 2016 levels, and a majority of Americans would have faced higher taxes. That's because the individual income tax cuts Trump signed into law in 2017 were temporary and due to expire at the end of this year. The 2017 tax rates are now permanent, which will be a big savings for some taxpayers who would have been zapped if the rates had gone back to 2016 levels. The typical taxpayer will owe about $2,600 less per year than if the 2017 tax cuts had expired. The top 1% of earners will owe $67,000 less. Lower-income families with relatively low taxes will save only about $150 per year. There are also a few new tax cuts, such as the elimination of taxes on income from tips and overtime pay, up to certain limits. Those expire in 2029, when Trump, presumably, leaves office. The new law also increases the deductibility of state and local taxes, which will mainly benefit wealthier homeowners. If the tax-cut law makes you feel richer, don't celebrate yet. Other developments are brewing that could offset any savings from the tax cuts. Here are three factors that could raise costs for families during the next few years. Trump's trade war is far from over. Though he has delayed some tariffs more than once, others have gone into effect, pushing the average tax on some $3 billion worth of imports from 2.5% to around 15%. That's real money US importers pay upfront, then pass on to their customers, all the way to ordinary consumers buying products from retailers. Some people wonder why the Trump tariffs haven't shown up yet as higher prices, given that Trump started imposing new tariffs all the way back in February. The answer is inventories. Importers saw the tariffs coming and massively stocked up in the first quarter. Imports surged in the first quarter, then plunged in the second. That led to large inventories of pre-tariff goods and much smaller inventories of costlier post-tariff goods. Prices will rise as pre-tariff inventories run out and post-tariff products hit the Yale Budget Lab estimates that at current levels, the Trump tariffs will push inflation about 1.7 percentage points higher, costing the typical family about $2,300 per year. That's almost as much as the Trump tax cuts will supposedly save the average family. Some consumers won't notice the higher costs. Those who will notice are most likely lower-income shoppers who need the imported goods hit hardest by tariffs, including clothes, shoes, backpacks, electronics, and auto parts. By the end of the year, the higher costs imposed by the Trump tariffs should be evident at a retailer near you. The government's annual deficits are already close to $2 trillion per year, and they're going higher due to the Trump tax-cut bill, which will add at least $4 trillion to the national debt during the next decade. That's on top of $22 trillion in new borrowing that's already baked in. The Treasury is borrowing unprecedented amounts of money, and it may already be affecting markets by pushing long-term interest rates higher than they'd otherwise be. If there's so much Treasury debt coming onto the market that there aren't enough buyers, rates will have to rise to lure investors into an asset they'd otherwise pass by. Long-term Treasury rates are the peg for mortgage rates and nearly all other consumer and business borrowing rates. So, if Treasury rates are higher, all other rates are too. Homebuyers have been hoping for a break on mortgage rates, but they've stayed close to 7% for most of 2025. Higher rates can be expensive. An interest rate that's one point higher on a $420,000 loan adds $222 in higher interest costs per month, or $2,664 per year. There goes your Trump tax savings again. Read more: 'No tax on tips' is now law. What does that mean for tipped workers? There have been so many warnings about a US debt crisis during the past 20 years that it sounds like a perennial false alarm. But there are finally signs that it isn't, mainly in the bond market, where rates have been rising when ordinarily they'd be falling. Higher rates are only the first shock. Higher rates mean ever-higher interest payments on the federal debt, which is already starting to crowd out other forms of government spending. At some point, interest payments will become unsustainably high, forcing Congress to raise taxes, cut spending, and get the federal budget back on a sustainable path. This reckoning is going to hit nearly every taxpayer, through either higher taxes, benefit cuts, or both. One fix could be a federal value-added tax, similar to a national sales tax, that pushes up prices for many everyday things, similar to the Trump tariffs, except not limited to imports. There will be trims to Social Security and Medicare, higher income taxes, and higher corporate taxes. This austerity will slow the economy and maybe cause a recession, further cutting into incomes. The wealthy will pay the most, but almost everybody will pay something. Are you ready? Most Americans aren't. The nation has been on an extraordinary binge for the past 20 years, living on borrowed money like literally no other nation on earth. It now seems like an American entitlement to spend beyond your means, in perpetuity. It isn't, and those who save for a rainy day will eventually have their moment. Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Bluesky and X: @rickjnewman. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices.
Wall Street Journal
07-07-2025
- Business
- Wall Street Journal
Musk's Playbook Won't Do for Social Security
Your editorial 'The Social Security Iceberg Gets Closer' (June 20) rightly warns that delaying reform will make eventual fixes more difficult and painful. Effective solutions don't require gutting benefits or indulging political theater about fraud. One idea is to modernize the benefit formula to target assistance better. Social Security must protect those with lower lifetime earnings, but the program can be made more progressive by slightly slowing benefit growth for higher-income retirees, many of whom live longer and collect more. Increasing the number of working years used to calculate benefits would also improve incentives to work at older ages and help reduce the program's shortfall.
