12 ms·

I am poor and I can't imagine suddenly deciding I want kids if I came upon a lot of wealth. A jetski maybe but not children. Some people just want a lot of chi

I am poor and I can't imagine suddenly deciding I want kids if I came upon a lot of wealth. A jetski maybe but not children. Some people just want a lot of children. I'm biased against it and I think people shouldn't have kids if they don't have the means to provide for them but I can't get a politician to support this platform of pay to play. I don't think basic income should apply to children. Only adults who are free to spend the money as they see fit should be eligible. The amount of basic income should not change by the number of dependents.

pbhjpbhj 11y ago
What do you see as the purpose of basic income? I see it as lifting everyone to a basic standard of living before wages are taken in to account. Not considering dependents means that those children would be penalised with a lower standard of living (food, clothing, dwelling) than I'd considered basic in the society they are in. Should some children not get to eat because their parents are especially fecund? Overpopulation is a big issue but IMO needs addressing separately to provision of basic living standards.
- morgante 11y ago
  Having children is a choice. I've never understood why welfare schemes reward people for having children and insist on socializing the cost of that choice.
  - Retra 11y ago
    Because society needs children. Or at least, it always has in the past. And given that people are still prone to tribalistic thinking, it's a hard belief to wash away. You may not notice it if you live in a relatively homogenous culture. But when your 'enemy tribes' plan to extinguish you by outnumbering you, it's a real concern.
  - parenthephobia 11y ago
    Surely not giving welfare in this case is effectively equivalent to punishing the children for being born to parents too poor to support them? That doesn't seem just, or sensible: disadvantaged children are more likely to end up in juvie or, later, in prison. Either outcome is significantly more expensive for the tax-payer than the welfare that could have helped them avoid prison.
    - cylinder 11y ago
      Subsidizing poor procreation isn't a big concern in more equal societies because you know that child will have access to good education and opportunity regardless of her parents' standing. Therefore you stand a good chance of getting a positive ROI on that welfare when the child ends up climbing the ladder to productivity and pays back more in taxes over their lifetime. In America you mostly end up with entrenched poverty continuing over generations.
      - newjersey 11y ago
        I'd like to add that my premise in supporting basic income is to expand coverage so there is no means testing. As far as infants and children under five go, I think we should go ahead and eliminate the qualification process for WIC. I'd also want to see expanded school lunch program so every kid gets to eat lunch at school. Thank you for explaining this though. Overall, I couldn't have explained my position better myself.
      - eveningcoffee 11y ago
        This was actually my main concern when I posed the initial question of mine. The question is that can these problems solved by just giving money to the people, or it does not change anything, or will it instead make matters worse. I think that it makes sense to try to model it. I think that results of the pilots are interesting but I am not sure that they cover wider implications.
  - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
    It's not always a choice, the success rate for condom use is less than 100%. You need to account for such edge cases: it's not just to punish a child because their fathers vasectomy failed, for example. The benefit of children to society is at least in part socialised.
    - morgante 11y ago
      Any single birth control mechanism can fail, but that never means you're forced to bear a child if you don't want it.

pbhjpbhj 11y ago

What do you see as the purpose of basic income? I see it as lifting everyone to a basic standard of living before wages are taken in to account. Not considering dependents means that those children would be penalised with a lower standard of living (food, clothing, dwelling) than I'd considered basic in the society they are in. Should some children not get to eat because their parents are especially fecund? Overpopulation is a big issue but IMO needs addressing separately to provision of basic living standards.

morgante 11y ago
Having children is a choice. I've never understood why welfare schemes reward people for having children and insist on socializing the cost of that choice.
- Retra 11y ago
  Because society needs children. Or at least, it always has in the past. And given that people are still prone to tribalistic thinking, it's a hard belief to wash away. You may not notice it if you live in a relatively homogenous culture. But when your 'enemy tribes' plan to extinguish you by outnumbering you, it's a real concern.
- parenthephobia 11y ago
  Surely not giving welfare in this case is effectively equivalent to punishing the children for being born to parents too poor to support them? That doesn't seem just, or sensible: disadvantaged children are more likely to end up in juvie or, later, in prison. Either outcome is significantly more expensive for the tax-payer than the welfare that could have helped them avoid prison.
  - cylinder 11y ago
    Subsidizing poor procreation isn't a big concern in more equal societies because you know that child will have access to good education and opportunity regardless of her parents' standing. Therefore you stand a good chance of getting a positive ROI on that welfare when the child ends up climbing the ladder to productivity and pays back more in taxes over their lifetime. In America you mostly end up with entrenched poverty continuing over generations.
    - newjersey 11y ago
      I'd like to add that my premise in supporting basic income is to expand coverage so there is no means testing. As far as infants and children under five go, I think we should go ahead and eliminate the qualification process for WIC. I'd also want to see expanded school lunch program so every kid gets to eat lunch at school. Thank you for explaining this though. Overall, I couldn't have explained my position better myself.
    - eveningcoffee 11y ago
      This was actually my main concern when I posed the initial question of mine. The question is that can these problems solved by just giving money to the people, or it does not change anything, or will it instead make matters worse. I think that it makes sense to try to model it. I think that results of the pilots are interesting but I am not sure that they cover wider implications.
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  It's not always a choice, the success rate for condom use is less than 100%. You need to account for such edge cases: it's not just to punish a child because their fathers vasectomy failed, for example. The benefit of children to society is at least in part socialised.
  - morgante 11y ago
    Any single birth control mechanism can fail, but that never means you're forced to bear a child if you don't want it.