3 ms·

"Breeding for welfare" is a myth. Children are a major economic burden, even with welfare subsidies. That said, there's no reason offhand to provide basic inco

by beat 11y ago

"Breeding for welfare" is a myth. Children are a major economic burden, even with welfare subsidies. That said, there's no reason offhand to provide basic income to minors. Parents can choose to have as many children as they want, at their own expense. One of the key advantages of basic income is getting rid of the complexities and irregularities of the current welfare model. Subsidies for children are one of those complexities.

jupiterrising 11y ago
[deleted]
- beat 11y ago
  "Simply stating something does not make it a fact." Indeed.
  - VincentEvans 11y ago
    Oh how clever you are. And also most likely wrong. So it's good that you chose to be clever rather than trying to defend your assertion. A foster care system is, in my opinion and at least in poor areas of large metros - is a good (and pretty depressing) example of what many people are willing to do for money. To some extend - childcare subsidies demonstrate the same.
- obviouslynot33 11y ago
  > The idea of basic income is commendable, but do we really want a system that incentivizes large families? > Simply stating something does not make it a fact. Your first quote makes it sound as if it was the inevitable outcome. SOME people. Not all. It's a slippery slope fallacy. What if the same type of people that try to manipulate the system do it because it seems like the only reasonable way to stay afloat? It could be possible then that some of them would not have more kids to get more money.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
One solution would be to not give basic income for children, but to give it to children once they are working age (~16) or when they become an independent adult (18). Everyone gets a certain amount to provide a very basic life on, where they get to decide how their money is spent. If they rather spend their BI on children instead of some other area of life, then that is their choice. If they want both, then they should continue getting a job to acquire funds beyond the BI amount.
brbsix 11y ago
I think the bigger issue is that women are having children that they would otherwise not be able to afford. We know that people respond to incentives. Between free healthcare, WIC credit, free or low cost child care, public education, and more, there's massive subsidization. UBI still permits people to have children that they'd otherwise be unable to afford, but at least the absence of other sibsidies will force individuals to decide how they'd like to budget that income, on children or otherwise.

by beat 11y ago

jupiterrising 11y ago

[deleted]

beat 11y ago
"Simply stating something does not make it a fact." Indeed.
- VincentEvans 11y ago
  Oh how clever you are. And also most likely wrong. So it's good that you chose to be clever rather than trying to defend your assertion. A foster care system is, in my opinion and at least in poor areas of large metros - is a good (and pretty depressing) example of what many people are willing to do for money. To some extend - childcare subsidies demonstrate the same.
obviouslynot33 11y ago
> The idea of basic income is commendable, but do we really want a system that incentivizes large families? > Simply stating something does not make it a fact. Your first quote makes it sound as if it was the inevitable outcome. SOME people. Not all. It's a slippery slope fallacy. What if the same type of people that try to manipulate the system do it because it seems like the only reasonable way to stay afloat? It could be possible then that some of them would not have more kids to get more money.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

One solution would be to not give basic income for children, but to give it to children once they are working age (~16) or when they become an independent adult (18). Everyone gets a certain amount to provide a very basic life on, where they get to decide how their money is spent. If they rather spend their BI on children instead of some other area of life, then that is their choice. If they want both, then they should continue getting a job to acquire funds beyond the BI amount.

brbsix 11y ago

I think the bigger issue is that women are having children that they would otherwise not be able to afford. We know that people respond to incentives. Between free healthcare, WIC credit, free or low cost child care, public education, and more, there's massive subsidization. UBI still permits people to have children that they'd otherwise be unable to afford, but at least the absence of other sibsidies will force individuals to decide how they'd like to budget that income, on children or otherwise.