5 ms·

Just because the government says it will be "forever" doesn't mean it will. When thinking about planing the multi-generational prosperity of your family (someth

Just because the government says it will be "forever" doesn't mean it will. When thinking about planing the multi-generational prosperity of your family (something few people do to any serious degree) you can't take the perpetual existence of this-or-that political institution as granted.

zanny 10y ago
Which should be just fine under UBI, where you shouldn't be getting anything for children in the first place. Children are not adults, and are not treated like adults for the vast majority of social contracts, and UBI is certainly one of them - we have no expectation today of children to make any income whatsoever now, but to be provided for by their parents. If parents would only be on UBI, that is not enough to provide for kids, but that is a reflection of negligence on the part of the parents. It is certainly an endemic problem we need solutions for in that the poor, the most promiscuous population, is also the one that cannot afford their own children, but we certainly do not want to give them any incentives to have more kids. Children should absolutely be an expense to the parents, because the parents decided to have them, and unless we need kids (at which point the state can start subsidizing procreation in almost any way they want) we need to maintain strong (and much better than we have) adoption and orphanage faculties, but not excuse bad parents in any way who make irresponsible immature decisions like reproducing without any financial means to care for their own.
- Mz 10y ago
  If parents would only be on UBI, that is not enough to provide for kids, but that is a reflection of negligence on the part of the parents. Scenario: Single mom of a child with special needs who is devotedly taking care of said child and does not have time to also work for money. One of my fears with UBI is that I am hearing ideas posited that men will no longer be made responsible for things like child support or alimony because, hey, the woman gets a check anyway. And I think this is incredibly, seriously problematic. Please do not make such sweeping statements about parents. Parenting is a very tough thing and money alone hardly makes one a decent parent. Studies have shown that there is as much neglect and abuse (and addiction) in rich neighborhood as in the ghetto. The best parents are typically middle class. They have consistently made choices to try to balance the need for money (which takes time) and the need to spend substantial time with their child(ren) in order to raise them.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > One of my fears with UBI is that I am hearing ideas posited that men will no longer be made responsible for things like child support or alimony because, hey, the woman gets a check anyway. And I think this is incredibly, seriously problematic. Both child support and alimony are not flat basic-necessity calculations, but are income based. The availability of a UBI doesn't change the fundamental premises on which those are built, or even make any significant impact on the formulas -- under the assumption that a UBI paid to the adults would be counted as each adult's income, and UBI paid for the child to the custodial parent(s) would be treated as joint income when the parents are together and income solely of the custodial parent in the formulas after a split, there would be no need to even touch existing formulas.
    - Mz 10y ago
      That's a nice theory. But I have seen comments right here on HN where people suggested that we could stop providing child support payments if we had UBI "because men would be supporting the children via taxes anyway" or words to that effect. Furthermore, I have read up on the history of the American welfare program. It was dreamed up as a means to "help poor, single moms" at a time when intentionally getting pregnant out of wedlock was essentially unthinkable, so most poor, single moms were widows, not women who had given birth out of wedlock. The design of the program fundamentally changed the social contract and actively promoted the numbers of poor, single moms in the U.S., in part by making it less stigmatizing to have kids out of wedlock. So, whether it is intended or not, if you pass a UBI, an awful lot of people will feel like deadbeat dads are not such a big deal and you will further change the social contract. The indicators I am seeing is that many of those changes will be negative changes rooted in a presumed lack of responsibility for our actions.
      - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
        Your argument actually generalizes to a broader one -- if people get money from the government then it weakens family bonds because family members don't need each other as much when they have government money. But it fails for the same reasons all the other ones do, which is that UBI is unequivocally better than the status quo of means tested welfare. Welfare has the same problem with creating deadbeats but much worse, because if the father does actually pay child support or for that matter stays with the mother to raise the child, then the mother loses the welfare benefits. When you have two parents who are very poor but love their child it creates the unconscionable incentive for the father to leave so that the mother then qualifies for welfare while the father sends what money he can in cash under the table. UBI at least improves the status quo by eliminating that.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Which should be just fine under UBI, where you shouldn't be getting anything for children in the first place. If you are going to replace present means-tested benefit programs and not adversely affect current recipients, you need to have a lot higher per-person level of UBI if children aren't covered beneficiaries. The most sensible target population I see for a UBI in the US is probably "all US citizens and legal permanent residents (green card holders)", without respect to age. > and unless we need kids We do. Permanently greying population would be a serious problem.
  - zanny 10y ago
    You only need kids if your society is in a position where those with the wealth to afford children are not having them. Japan certainly has that problem, currently, the US does not. If you are in the Japanese situation, I would still argue opening up immigration is almost certainly cheaper an option than subsidizing child rearing, but we are no where near any problems stateside involving population replacement, and if we did, again, we can open our borders much more before turning to child subsidy.

zanny 10y ago

Which should be just fine under UBI, where you shouldn't be getting anything for children in the first place. Children are not adults, and are not treated like adults for the vast majority of social contracts, and UBI is certainly one of them - we have no expectation today of children to make any income whatsoever now, but to be provided for by their parents. If parents would only be on UBI, that is not enough to provide for kids, but that is a reflection of negligence on the part of the parents. It is certainly an endemic problem we need solutions for in that the poor, the most promiscuous population, is also the one that cannot afford their own children, but we certainly do not want to give them any incentives to have more kids. Children should absolutely be an expense to the parents, because the parents decided to have them, and unless we need kids (at which point the state can start subsidizing procreation in almost any way they want) we need to maintain strong (and much better than we have) adoption and orphanage faculties, but not excuse bad parents in any way who make irresponsible immature decisions like reproducing without any financial means to care for their own.

Mz 10y ago
If parents would only be on UBI, that is not enough to provide for kids, but that is a reflection of negligence on the part of the parents. Scenario: Single mom of a child with special needs who is devotedly taking care of said child and does not have time to also work for money. One of my fears with UBI is that I am hearing ideas posited that men will no longer be made responsible for things like child support or alimony because, hey, the woman gets a check anyway. And I think this is incredibly, seriously problematic. Please do not make such sweeping statements about parents. Parenting is a very tough thing and money alone hardly makes one a decent parent. Studies have shown that there is as much neglect and abuse (and addiction) in rich neighborhood as in the ghetto. The best parents are typically middle class. They have consistently made choices to try to balance the need for money (which takes time) and the need to spend substantial time with their child(ren) in order to raise them.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > One of my fears with UBI is that I am hearing ideas posited that men will no longer be made responsible for things like child support or alimony because, hey, the woman gets a check anyway. And I think this is incredibly, seriously problematic. Both child support and alimony are not flat basic-necessity calculations, but are income based. The availability of a UBI doesn't change the fundamental premises on which those are built, or even make any significant impact on the formulas -- under the assumption that a UBI paid to the adults would be counted as each adult's income, and UBI paid for the child to the custodial parent(s) would be treated as joint income when the parents are together and income solely of the custodial parent in the formulas after a split, there would be no need to even touch existing formulas.
  - Mz 10y ago
    That's a nice theory. But I have seen comments right here on HN where people suggested that we could stop providing child support payments if we had UBI "because men would be supporting the children via taxes anyway" or words to that effect. Furthermore, I have read up on the history of the American welfare program. It was dreamed up as a means to "help poor, single moms" at a time when intentionally getting pregnant out of wedlock was essentially unthinkable, so most poor, single moms were widows, not women who had given birth out of wedlock. The design of the program fundamentally changed the social contract and actively promoted the numbers of poor, single moms in the U.S., in part by making it less stigmatizing to have kids out of wedlock. So, whether it is intended or not, if you pass a UBI, an awful lot of people will feel like deadbeat dads are not such a big deal and you will further change the social contract. The indicators I am seeing is that many of those changes will be negative changes rooted in a presumed lack of responsibility for our actions.
    - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
      Your argument actually generalizes to a broader one -- if people get money from the government then it weakens family bonds because family members don't need each other as much when they have government money. But it fails for the same reasons all the other ones do, which is that UBI is unequivocally better than the status quo of means tested welfare. Welfare has the same problem with creating deadbeats but much worse, because if the father does actually pay child support or for that matter stays with the mother to raise the child, then the mother loses the welfare benefits. When you have two parents who are very poor but love their child it creates the unconscionable incentive for the father to leave so that the mother then qualifies for welfare while the father sends what money he can in cash under the table. UBI at least improves the status quo by eliminating that.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Which should be just fine under UBI, where you shouldn't be getting anything for children in the first place. If you are going to replace present means-tested benefit programs and not adversely affect current recipients, you need to have a lot higher per-person level of UBI if children aren't covered beneficiaries. The most sensible target population I see for a UBI in the US is probably "all US citizens and legal permanent residents (green card holders)", without respect to age. > and unless we need kids We do. Permanently greying population would be a serious problem.
- zanny 10y ago
  You only need kids if your society is in a position where those with the wealth to afford children are not having them. Japan certainly has that problem, currently, the US does not. If you are in the Japanese situation, I would still argue opening up immigration is almost certainly cheaper an option than subsidizing child rearing, but we are no where near any problems stateside involving population replacement, and if we did, again, we can open our borders much more before turning to child subsidy.