3 ms·
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 see
by 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 agoSubsidizing 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 agoI'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 agoThis 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.