I think people are too concerned over those parents who might spend the money on themselves rather than the kids. Of course there will be some of those, but to reject a policy like this because some will abuse it is not fair to the many who will benefit. We get a monthly sum like that here in Hungary and for some families it is vital - its what allows them to give their kids lunch or buy them a new pair of shoes. No one worries about exactly how individual families are spending the money. Children are so expensive that for poor families, only a grossly negligent parent is going to use it in a way that fails to benefit the child. And if they're grossly negligent, child services will be after them. I was shocked to see there are more children in poverty in the US than in Hungary because this is quite a poor country, but these benefits are a huge help. You know what's another huge help? Universal health coverage for children through age 18 - something else the US ought to introduce. Like Medicare for the little ones -- all of them regardless of income.
12
My only issue is how would one assure that the money was spent on kids instead of something else for irresponsible parents. I do not have an easy solution in mind, either. Responsible parents should be able to spend the money as it is needed - whether that be food, clothes or utilities. There is not an easy answer other than trusting people in need to use the money wisely.
5
A terrible idea, one we are trying to get rid of in France. Is it really a good idea to give millionaires a monthly check for their children? We phase out their tax deductions, at the least we should phase out the child support payments. And is it really right to tell people the public has a duty to support the children they choose to have? Far, far better to raise the minimum wage so people can support their own children.
10
Are you CRAZY? Spend the money on birth control!
20
So let's give people who can not run their own or their children's lives - an added incentive to have yet more kids with multiple non-paying fathers - and reward them with a monthly income that can be spent on anything that their little hearts desire - I don't know - what could possibly go wrong with that?
13
This is the wrong solution to a huge problem. My career has been in early child development. Unlike other peer countries, we do not offer preventive services neither pre-natal or post-natal services to mothers. Not that many years ago, it was routine that new parents would have several follow up visits from a visiting nurse who counseled on bathing and feeding and also birth control. Today, new parents receive no support and are shunted out of the hospital on their own in 1-2 days. Infants and Toddlers are only eligible for services once they have already shown evidence of a "developmental delay." By then it is often too late. Cash will not change any of that.
7
The estimate of $90 billion for such a program is off base and too high.
Consider the long-term "savings" to the government and society when children are healthier, learn better, thus have better access to job training if not a chance to go to college, and in the end support themselves with a job.
What are our current costs with unhealthy children, whose lack of health and nutrition prevent them from learning effectively, thus are unable to support themselves as adults, are un- or underemployed, with poor overall health, perhaps even winding up in prison, etc. ?
Just a side note: the condemnation of the poor that is overwhelmingly present in these comments is absolutely appalling. What's the saying? "You don't know a person until you've walked a mile in his/her shoes." Try it. You might be surprised that your assumptions and their reality are two completely different things.
Consider the long-term "savings" to the government and society when children are healthier, learn better, thus have better access to job training if not a chance to go to college, and in the end support themselves with a job.
What are our current costs with unhealthy children, whose lack of health and nutrition prevent them from learning effectively, thus are unable to support themselves as adults, are un- or underemployed, with poor overall health, perhaps even winding up in prison, etc. ?
Just a side note: the condemnation of the poor that is overwhelmingly present in these comments is absolutely appalling. What's the saying? "You don't know a person until you've walked a mile in his/her shoes." Try it. You might be surprised that your assumptions and their reality are two completely different things.
12
Romanticizing is a joy isn't it? And demonizing makes one feel big.
3
You know what, some of us HAVE walked in those shoes. Just because we have a computer, wifi and internet connection now doesn't mean we always did, or that none of us started out poor and worked to be upwardly mobile.
I was age 17, living on my own, making $3.50 an hour in 1982 and had my first boyfriend. We would not have dreamed of producing a child or even of having sex without the pill (thank you, Planned Parenthood) and a condom. And this was pre-AIDS. If I had become pregnant, I would have had an abortion, no question whatsoever.
As a result I am upwardly mobile, a productive citizen and net taxpayer, run a small business that employs others, have a home that provides work for lots of tradesmen, contribute a great deal to charity each year and have never burdened the court or criminal justice system. Last I heard of that particular boyfriend he was a well-to-do business owner and father of two college students. Can you imagine how differently our lives would have turned out if we were casual about mating and producing offspring in our late teens?
I was age 17, living on my own, making $3.50 an hour in 1982 and had my first boyfriend. We would not have dreamed of producing a child or even of having sex without the pill (thank you, Planned Parenthood) and a condom. And this was pre-AIDS. If I had become pregnant, I would have had an abortion, no question whatsoever.
As a result I am upwardly mobile, a productive citizen and net taxpayer, run a small business that employs others, have a home that provides work for lots of tradesmen, contribute a great deal to charity each year and have never burdened the court or criminal justice system. Last I heard of that particular boyfriend he was a well-to-do business owner and father of two college students. Can you imagine how differently our lives would have turned out if we were casual about mating and producing offspring in our late teens?
15
We are, and have been for 45 years, fighting the effects of the causes of poverty. We are not fighting the causes. We have been failing and will continue to fail until we deal with the causes of poverty. Is it really necessary to detail those causes?
1. Capitalistic Greed and assumed superiority of worth by the "haves and have mores" that Bush claimed as his Base.
2. The fiction that a corporation is a person, and the criminal avoidance of paying taxes by said corporations.
To eliminate poverty, we need to eliminate that which causes it. When we have equality in the system we will not have poverty. We will also not have the disgusting display of luxurious waste self aggrandizement and pampering the the elites and people of quality parade for the poor admire. We are still living in the 14th century.
1. Capitalistic Greed and assumed superiority of worth by the "haves and have mores" that Bush claimed as his Base.
2. The fiction that a corporation is a person, and the criminal avoidance of paying taxes by said corporations.
To eliminate poverty, we need to eliminate that which causes it. When we have equality in the system we will not have poverty. We will also not have the disgusting display of luxurious waste self aggrandizement and pampering the the elites and people of quality parade for the poor admire. We are still living in the 14th century.
8
Would spend such monies on planned parenthood and public education which ultimately will yield more positive results for Society . An increase in the tax filing benefit for the marriage deduction might also be useful given its direct benefit to the stability of the family unit
6
About time! Put money where their mouths are - subsidized school breakfasts and lunches are one thing, but not enough. SOME Families need SOME support for shoes, clothing, books, back-packs. Too much of this is now carried by churches and teachers themselves.
5
As a Democratic voter, this is one issue which I agree with the fiscal convservative base of the GOP -- we must stop throwing money at poverty without helping these people get out of it once and for all.
5
Unless one lives on a remote family farm, having three or more children is pure greed.
9
This is a channel for feeding the economy.
It would be added to other channels such as defense spending, research grants, and social security, etc., etc.
It would be added to other channels such as defense spending, research grants, and social security, etc., etc.
Turns out there's a glass ceiling … it's called the ozone layer.
4
IF brought to bear, would it ONLY apply to children born in the United States? As it stands currently it does NOT under IRS guidelines and this would do nothing to cut down the flow of illegal crossings along the southern border. http://cis.org/north/good-news-bad-news-irs-program-pays-illegals-stay-us
5
Nothing like incentivizing the creation of unsupportable children.
21
The idea of giving money to wealthy families is really stupid. I understand the political arguments and how making the payment universal would do away with perhaps penalizing someone whose income increases. But the thought of giving a trump money is galling. Surely there are people smart enough to come up with better ideas. It is imperative that we fix our inequality mess. That will require that a lot of the right wing nuts don't get elected since they care nothing about the poor or middle class.
1
Real estate developer Trump got rich, because our pseudo altruistic hearts, thanks to 421a.
What is the moral justification for the government taking anything from one person and giving it to another person? Some day we will wake up to the truth that this violates the Takings Clause of the Constitution and was one of the true fears of the Founding Fathers. I get it, many commenters believe it is perfectly justified to take from the "evil rich" and give to the "lamentable poor". But that is not a valid moral justification any more than a government who takes from the atheist to give to the Christian or who takes from the "deplorable" to give to the "preferred". Governments should not be allowed to take from any person just to hand to another.
6
Sorry - but this is demonstrably not true. The Founders, in fact, were very concerned with the concentration of wealth leading to an aristocracy like the one the spent lives and treasure to be free of. This is simply not the case. Furthermore, given that most of the rich (including most of the "self-made" members of Forbes) inherited most of their wealth - how is it moral for someone to be able to retain all or even most of a great fortune that they did nothing to "earn." Lastly, given that wealth distorts power relationships - how is it moral to have the law protect the strong from the weak. Isn't this the opposite of the basic precept of the rule of law that has been in place since Hammurabi?
6
Tax deductions for children, like charitable deductions, benefit the wealthy disproportionally. Let's get rid of both of them.
I'd rather pay $250 to every child if there's no other way to prevent child poverty, but aren't we able to support those in need without giving child support to billionaires?
I'd rather pay $250 to every child if there's no other way to prevent child poverty, but aren't we able to support those in need without giving child support to billionaires?
3
I am on the fence about such a program. I grew up in the south Bronx, in a poor, working class family, around plenty of poor, horribly neglected children. To be fair, this was the late 80's/early 90's and the crack epidemic played a significant role in that. However, when I lived in Crotona Park/Melrose area from 2006-2013, there were no shortage of poor, neglected children. I remember one neighbor who offered to sell me her food stamps for cash, which I declined. She would then beg those of us with jobs for money to buy food for her 2 sons. During the period I lived there, she had 2 more children, with 2 different men, who also had other children they were not providing for. Meanwhile I have one child, because that is all I can afford to provide for on my income.
Our country does not have the resources for more people. We are suffering from a huge problem of overpopulation already. How about we give low income people $250 a month not to have anymore kids? As that is one of the main drivers of poverty, having more kids than you can afford.
Our country does not have the resources for more people. We are suffering from a huge problem of overpopulation already. How about we give low income people $250 a month not to have anymore kids? As that is one of the main drivers of poverty, having more kids than you can afford.
14
To everyone worrying that this will result in parents having children purely to get that $250 per month -- that's roughly the order of magnitude of the child tax credit on your income tax. Have you ever, for one moment, contemplated having another child to rake in another $1000 per year? If you lost your job and had a tough time finding another, would one of your strategies be to have another child, so you could pick up $1000-$3000 per year to get you over this rough spot?
Why would poor parents act differently?
As it happens, Professor Smeeding spoke to my church adult education class last Sunday, on child poverty. People asked about poor parents wasting the money on themselves - he said that studies show that's not actually a problem, that poor parents, like the rest of us, want what's best for their kids. (And I recall other studies showing that, contrary to stereotypes, people on welfare are LESS likely to use drugs than the general populace.)
He also told us that a prime factor leading to poverty is unintended pregnancy and children, derailing people from usual pathways through education and jobs, and resulting in single-parent families. UNINTENDED. Tax credits and SNAP didn't lure them into parenthood.
Finally, once kids are here, how can punish them for what you see as their parents' poor choices (or bad luck)? "Sorry, kid, you have to go hungry or cold this month, to serve as an grim example to others." The chance to be a positive example would be better.
Why would poor parents act differently?
As it happens, Professor Smeeding spoke to my church adult education class last Sunday, on child poverty. People asked about poor parents wasting the money on themselves - he said that studies show that's not actually a problem, that poor parents, like the rest of us, want what's best for their kids. (And I recall other studies showing that, contrary to stereotypes, people on welfare are LESS likely to use drugs than the general populace.)
He also told us that a prime factor leading to poverty is unintended pregnancy and children, derailing people from usual pathways through education and jobs, and resulting in single-parent families. UNINTENDED. Tax credits and SNAP didn't lure them into parenthood.
Finally, once kids are here, how can punish them for what you see as their parents' poor choices (or bad luck)? "Sorry, kid, you have to go hungry or cold this month, to serve as an grim example to others." The chance to be a positive example would be better.
10
There are ample studies that show poor people make poor decisions, have trouble with delayed gratification and are innumerate. Applying the logic of comfortable middle-class decisionmaking to the life choices of a 19-year-old dollar store clerk with two kids by two different males is absurd. The notion that such a person can be transformed into a decent parent with just a little more cash each month is beyond absurd.
Aggressive funding and promotion of contraception and abortion will be far more effective than throwing more tax dollars into the abyss after the fact.
Aggressive funding and promotion of contraception and abortion will be far more effective than throwing more tax dollars into the abyss after the fact.
14
There is a misperception out there that everyone would be an upstanding, loving, nurturing parent, producing healthy, wholesome, well-adjusted offspring, if only they had a "living" wage or dole.
Take a good hard look around. Check headlines of kids being tortured, raped and abused by their own parents or parent's boyfriend -- & those are just the extreme cases. How many more cower in fear daily or get punched, insulted & whipped but at a level below hospitalization or police intervention?
How many newborns are fed and changed but just left to languish in their carrier because their mother is too bone-ignorant to speak intelligibly let alone know her child's brain development depends on communication from day one? How many kids are stunted by too much video use or by the chaos and violence and emotional distress in their parents' and grandparents' lives?
Not everyone is a fit prospective parent -- no matter how much "support" they are given -- and it's time to stop romanticizing and sentimentalizing human reproduction. Facing the facts and actively discouraging it -- with cash incentives if necessary as well as by shifting social and cultural and public policy norms -- will do more to solve poverty and crime and other ills than a hundred trillion dollars a year in handouts.
On an overpopulated planet we simply must change the Lifescript paradigm of "go to school, have kids, maybe get married, work, die." There are many other fulfilling ways to live.
Take a good hard look around. Check headlines of kids being tortured, raped and abused by their own parents or parent's boyfriend -- & those are just the extreme cases. How many more cower in fear daily or get punched, insulted & whipped but at a level below hospitalization or police intervention?
How many newborns are fed and changed but just left to languish in their carrier because their mother is too bone-ignorant to speak intelligibly let alone know her child's brain development depends on communication from day one? How many kids are stunted by too much video use or by the chaos and violence and emotional distress in their parents' and grandparents' lives?
Not everyone is a fit prospective parent -- no matter how much "support" they are given -- and it's time to stop romanticizing and sentimentalizing human reproduction. Facing the facts and actively discouraging it -- with cash incentives if necessary as well as by shifting social and cultural and public policy norms -- will do more to solve poverty and crime and other ills than a hundred trillion dollars a year in handouts.
On an overpopulated planet we simply must change the Lifescript paradigm of "go to school, have kids, maybe get married, work, die." There are many other fulfilling ways to live.
14
Pretty nasty comments here. Clearly those writing them have never suffered the pain of poverty. Control of how the money is spent is easy, if one is willing to think about it. Payment would be in the form of vouchers or debit cards that can be used only for things that benefit the child - food, clothes, etc. While a few may decide to have more children, most will realize that $250/month isn't much incentive to do so. Part of the problem is that poverty and race cannot be decoupled in this country. That makes it easier to blame the victim.
8
As a female, I have exposed myself to some compromising situations for the sake of sexual self discovery. It is not Stockholm Syndrome that keeps me from identifying myself as a victim, it is self awareness.
1
Only people who live in poverty are allowed to dream and exercise self righteousness?
2
No! It's the financially stable who are repressed, as is reflective by their breeding habits. How much does it cost to process sewage? To eat organic? Giraffes and polar bears are running out of room. Who wants to bring a child into such a world? People who don't give a damn do! People who think nature is the enemy.
1
Does the leftist New York Times know anything other than higher taxation and more government spending?
6
There's been an unintentional experiment with this policy. It involved a Native American tribe in NC that received payments from their casino. The tribe members did not live on a reservation, but were integrated into the local community. I think they received about$5K/year. The children raised in homes which received this additional income fared much better than their non-native peers.
I can only assume the commentators who assume a huge baby boom will result from a program such as this have never had children, and those who think $250/Mo is not enough to make a difference have never lived on the edge.
I've thought about a similar program, but instead of a per child stipend, the money is per family, with maybe a small increase per child. (For those afraid of incentivizing large families.) For those who are concerned with abuse of the money, what if the money is distributed every week after a parenting meeting? (I was thinking$100/wk.) One week for moms, one for dads and one for both? Want drug testing? Sure. (As long as everyone on the government dole does likewise: Congress, employees at defense contractors, etc) My thought was that the money would be enough to encourage parents to work together to raise their kids, even if they're not married or living together. It could allow parents to, maybe, work less and spend more time with their kids.
And, raise the minimum wage!
I can only assume the commentators who assume a huge baby boom will result from a program such as this have never had children, and those who think $250/Mo is not enough to make a difference have never lived on the edge.
I've thought about a similar program, but instead of a per child stipend, the money is per family, with maybe a small increase per child. (For those afraid of incentivizing large families.) For those who are concerned with abuse of the money, what if the money is distributed every week after a parenting meeting? (I was thinking$100/wk.) One week for moms, one for dads and one for both? Want drug testing? Sure. (As long as everyone on the government dole does likewise: Congress, employees at defense contractors, etc) My thought was that the money would be enough to encourage parents to work together to raise their kids, even if they're not married or living together. It could allow parents to, maybe, work less and spend more time with their kids.
And, raise the minimum wage!
5
The ratio of babies born to welfare moms compared to moms in the general population? 1:1.
6
Yes what is your point? This is the *problem* that we have, not some convenient factoid.
De-fund adventure projects in the mid-east and fund family and child programs, jobs and infrastructure, education for all pre-school through university, universal health care which is confidential for anyone who can read or understand. Free contraception, sex education, separation of church from state, education that is public and non religious and includes health care and nor-plant for girls, condoms for boys and both. Residential education - voluntary boarding schools - for kids who cannot agree with their parents´philosophies. Eliminate tax-exempt status for churches. There are lots of viable solutions.
1
So many knee-jerk naysayers here. The paradigm in the United States makes it hard to recognize that something like this defies American "logic". Reminds me of programs to end homelessness. In Utah they discovered that giving homeless people housing BEFORE they kick drugs and get a job works better! But Americans resist that idea because we are so adamant about who "deserves".
10
We know that poverty costs our nation money. The poor get sick, commit crime out of desperation, fail at school because parents work many jobs, and lots more. None of this is new. The amount put into this program will affect the amount we allocate to others, probably saving us money in the end. But to me, more importantly, it's horrifying that we love to use the term: it takes a village to raise a child, but the village will only help raise the child if it costs us nothing. This is a great idea because we at least need to do something. While we criticize the details, people suffer, so let's just get it done.
14
The original concept of the village was a two-way street -- the villagers had input into the rearing of children and how they were shaped and their character formed.
Somehow that has been twisted into the notion that the village is to endlessly fork over its hard-earned wages to non-workers or low-workers, but "don't question my parenting choices!" and "everyone has the right to have as many kids as they want!"
When we of the village get a say in who procreates, when and how often, you might see a shift in attitudes. Till then, there are enough handouts for imprudent "parents."
Somehow that has been twisted into the notion that the village is to endlessly fork over its hard-earned wages to non-workers or low-workers, but "don't question my parenting choices!" and "everyone has the right to have as many kids as they want!"
When we of the village get a say in who procreates, when and how often, you might see a shift in attitudes. Till then, there are enough handouts for imprudent "parents."
9
I think eugenics and intentional sterilization are illegal.
2
You have to love it when liberal think-tankers dream up schemes that are totally oblivious to fundamental market principles. Things with no cost or any types of controls have infinite demand. Pump out kids and get more money. Great solution.
3
Child poverty is a tragic phenomenon and evokes sympathy and a desire to help these innocents who deserve an equal chance in life. But should we facilitate teen age pregnancy and having children one can't afford to raise? How can anyone focusing on this issue ignore the associated realities? Any funding to such children should not be in the form of cash to already irresponsible parents. Rather augment Food Stamps which are presently meagre, help with the cost of utilities and pay for gas, job training and child care so parents can work to support their families.
2
I don't call nearly $500 a month meager, and that is easily what some families get on SNAP, plus WIC which provides a ton of food each month and of course the USDA school nutrition program that provides breakfast, lunch and some takeout meals.
But yes, better to boost the handouts of actual goods that benefit kids than to boost cash which easily can be diverted.
But yes, better to boost the handouts of actual goods that benefit kids than to boost cash which easily can be diverted.
4
How about discouraging the poor from having children they can't take care of? Make it stupid easy to access birth control and come up with something for men. If you are on food stamps/desperate for money/struggling.... don't add to your troubles with more kids. What frustrates me are moms whipping out their WIC card with a pregnant belly and 3 or 4 kids in the cart. Just. Stop.
Hey- I'd like to have 10 dogs, 10 cats and 10 horses. But I can't afford them, so I limit the number I have. Kids should work that way. Asking other people to subsidize your children is selfish.
Hey- I'd like to have 10 dogs, 10 cats and 10 horses. But I can't afford them, so I limit the number I have. Kids should work that way. Asking other people to subsidize your children is selfish.
12
This is the most impressive topic for discussion before the election, although the 'mood' manifests otherwise. All the ten picks by NYT look very reasonable, except the one by Tim of Nashville - who does not seem to appreciate the agony and struggle through which even middle income so-called middle classes go through - although the agony for the poor is not forgettable at all - who are definitely under-privileged. However, we have to decide whether we are talking about poverty alleviation or elimination - the latter is the final goal anyway.
Many readers are talking about the misuse of 'Cash' distribution with a number of reasons that also need a rational analysis. The last NYT pick by Joseph, in this connection, definitely merits a further discussion on exactly how this investment of $90 billion be made.
With due respect to all our fellow readers, I find Bruce Higgins of San Diego talks about how to create this fund and more to mitigate the problem of poverty. I would only like to add that there is something called "sustainability" and Bruce makes a lot of sense to support the very basic tenets of this article by Porter.
Many readers are talking about the misuse of 'Cash' distribution with a number of reasons that also need a rational analysis. The last NYT pick by Joseph, in this connection, definitely merits a further discussion on exactly how this investment of $90 billion be made.
With due respect to all our fellow readers, I find Bruce Higgins of San Diego talks about how to create this fund and more to mitigate the problem of poverty. I would only like to add that there is something called "sustainability" and Bruce makes a lot of sense to support the very basic tenets of this article by Porter.
An idiot idea. Children are not poor; their parent(s) is. If 20% of our children fall in that category that's pretty good because many more of them are raised in single parent families, the fastest rout to poverty. Tax credits benefit those who pay taxes and the bottom 50% do not pay income taxes -- so, guess what? They don't benefit. Have we really become that stupid? What is the single parent rate in the other countries to which we are compared? How many of them do not work (hard to have an income with no work). And of course, irresponsible parents will have additional income to use as they choose, and undoubtedly will also have more children. Jobs. The simple answer to so much is jobs: dignifying, productive, substantive, satisfying self-sufficiency. Children are not poor, their parent(s) are.
5
What you're saying seems logical to you but it's not actually what happens
And check out the economic woes, tax levies and youth unemployment rates in all of these "Utopias" that provide lots of largess for those who reproduce. Not to mention the detrimental effect on women's careers in the places with "generous" maternity leave.
So tired of fallacious comparisons to Western Europe and the UK.
So tired of fallacious comparisons to Western Europe and the UK.
6
As others have pointed out, there would have to be a limit to the number of children per family that would receive money. The country already went through the nightmare in earlier decades of encouraging women to have children to get higher government payouts.
7
It's interesting to read the comments. In Western Europe the family or child allowance system seems to work pretty well. Child poverty is at least not as common as in the US. In Switzerland there is a federal law on family allowances (based on the constitution), but the cantons (states) have their own regulations.
For anyone who's interested:
http://www.bsv.admin.ch/themen/zulagen/00059/index.html?lang=en&down...
BTW: it's not the children's fault that they are poor, but it's the society's fault if the kids have almost no chance to improve their situation...
For anyone who's interested:
http://www.bsv.admin.ch/themen/zulagen/00059/index.html?lang=en&down...
BTW: it's not the children's fault that they are poor, but it's the society's fault if the kids have almost no chance to improve their situation...
8
Great, except it encourages people to have children and the planet desperately needs fewer people, particularly Americans.
9
The prejudice and sterotypes exhibited in the comments do not reflect the millions of people that can be lifted by direct cash. Please read this Bloomberg article on the basic income experiment:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-08/silicon-valley-s-basi...
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-08/silicon-valley-s-basi...
5
It's a global economy. True poverty exists in overpopulating developing nations. Americans who think they're poor are mistaken, unless they recognize the cost of environmental protection.
4
It's depressing to read all the "NYT Picks" that don't want poor families to have help because they won't spend it right.
A country as wealthy as ours should ensure that every family has a living income. As George Orwell pointed out decades ago in "Road to Wigan Pier," we can rail as much as we want about the evils of sugar, but in the end, the rich shouldn't be the only ones to get it in their tea.
A country as wealthy as ours should ensure that every family has a living income. As George Orwell pointed out decades ago in "Road to Wigan Pier," we can rail as much as we want about the evils of sugar, but in the end, the rich shouldn't be the only ones to get it in their tea.
4
Your bit about sugar is reflective of Hypocrisy. Cull another reference.
1
Who gets to define what "living" income consists of?
Walmart jeans or Levis? Filet mignon & asparagus or beans & rice, no meat? Phone? Smartphone? Solo dwelling or roommates? Car? Bus pass? Cable TV? Any TV? WiFi? Health care? Retirement savings? Vacations? Movies? Dining out? Charity/thrift shops or IKEA? Should a "living wage" cover all of the above for a dependent? Two dependents? Three?
Who gets to draw the lines? The taxpayers footing the bill?
Walmart jeans or Levis? Filet mignon & asparagus or beans & rice, no meat? Phone? Smartphone? Solo dwelling or roommates? Car? Bus pass? Cable TV? Any TV? WiFi? Health care? Retirement savings? Vacations? Movies? Dining out? Charity/thrift shops or IKEA? Should a "living wage" cover all of the above for a dependent? Two dependents? Three?
Who gets to draw the lines? The taxpayers footing the bill?
5
It's really interesting to read the comments. Obviously some countries are doing a good job and have a lot of experience with child allowance. Why not ask these governments how this serious problem could be tackled?
I live in Switzerland and we get a child allowance of approximately $ 250 per child per month. Hence, after the third child the amount does decrease per child... in order to prevent having too many children.
Maybe sometimes it's worth looking across your borders to get inspired - you are not alone in this world!
I live in Switzerland and we get a child allowance of approximately $ 250 per child per month. Hence, after the third child the amount does decrease per child... in order to prevent having too many children.
Maybe sometimes it's worth looking across your borders to get inspired - you are not alone in this world!
5
Chica, you live in Switzerland, a country with a small population, about the size of the 5 boroughs of NYC. Not a fair comparison. There is a reason smaller nations offer more child-friendly benefits. Because they want to encourage people to have children to avoid population decline. Why in the world would the US want to encourage more poor people to have more children, who will likely grow up poor and continue the cycle of poverty?
Also, your country seems to be dealing with, as many other European nations and the US, a backlash against immigration. So, lets be honest, it's not the more the merrier in your country anymore than it is in ours. Why are we being taken to task for not wanting our population, which has more than doubled over the previous 50 years to 320+ million ppl, to continue increasing unchecked by giving the people who can least afford it a money per child benefit?
Also, your country seems to be dealing with, as many other European nations and the US, a backlash against immigration. So, lets be honest, it's not the more the merrier in your country anymore than it is in ours. Why are we being taken to task for not wanting our population, which has more than doubled over the previous 50 years to 320+ million ppl, to continue increasing unchecked by giving the people who can least afford it a money per child benefit?
6
And who do you think is going to pay the $250 (or $3,000 per year) for each child. This is exactly why many will not vote for Evita Clinton.
3
Give people a basic level of food, housing and medical care for those who can not afford it. Free food in public schools.
But handing out CASH ? Ridiculous. We do not need to pay for cable tv bills, or other elective things that one must work for. We dont need to be paying cash that will go to parent's drug habits. A minor is not equipped to manage money, go food shopping, rent an apartment , they need to be cared for, and if they do not have parents to do so, glad to have my tax dollars help, but in a way we are sure it's being used the right way. In fact even food stamps in it''s current form, is too flexible, practically cash. Often spent on soda and potato chips. If kids don't have parents to guide them,
who will tell them to "eat their veggies" ?
But handing out CASH ? Ridiculous. We do not need to pay for cable tv bills, or other elective things that one must work for. We dont need to be paying cash that will go to parent's drug habits. A minor is not equipped to manage money, go food shopping, rent an apartment , they need to be cared for, and if they do not have parents to do so, glad to have my tax dollars help, but in a way we are sure it's being used the right way. In fact even food stamps in it''s current form, is too flexible, practically cash. Often spent on soda and potato chips. If kids don't have parents to guide them,
who will tell them to "eat their veggies" ?
2
There are far too many humans on earth. Do not encourage more reproduction. Ensure low-cost access to birth control for all people, including sterilization & abortions to whomever wants them. For those children already here, take care of them with low-cost child care, early education, housing, food & medicine.
6
The new Canada Child Benefit that was introduced by the Trudeau government should improve Canada's standing in the current year. These benefits are tax free and paid in cash. This is an effective way to deal with child poverty. There is nothing being considered by the current US candidates. Why?
1
I think a better idea would be for the government to fund a Roth IRA for each child, with contributions for each year of a child's life through the age of 18, invested in a broad stock market index. The IRA could only be tapped for post-high school education expenses or retirement.
We need all Americans to be invested in the idea that American success benefits us all. However, currently a broad swath of the population is outside the investor class and has lost faith in the idea that over the long term a capitalist system provides the greatest chance for sustained economic progress. Making every American child a capitalist from birth will help all of us.
We need all Americans to be invested in the idea that American success benefits us all. However, currently a broad swath of the population is outside the investor class and has lost faith in the idea that over the long term a capitalist system provides the greatest chance for sustained economic progress. Making every American child a capitalist from birth will help all of us.
1
A reader below suggests that the methodology used to determine who is poor is a flawed calculation and he illustrates his point with an example involving 3 families. The problem is NOT with the methodology used to determine poverty rather with the sample size of his illustration. In the real world we are not talking about 3 families we are talking about millions therefore his hypothetical illustration could NEVER happen in the real world. Look in a statistics book if you doubt the veracity of my argument.
Considering the children are poor because of their parents' situations, and their situations are based on their parents' decisions and actions, it makes little sense to assume their parents will somehow start making the right decisions and behaving 100% responsibly just because they are handed an extra $250 per month. In fact, it's likely this will not be the case.
A ridiculous proposal.
A ridiculous proposal.
9
Yes, this sums it up well.
Poverty is a result of choices, or the lack of the ability to make good choices (whether that lack is caused by emotional damage, low intelligence, PTSD, no role models, etc.) not the result of a simple lack of money.
My mother was dirt poor, hungry poor, in the 1940s and 1950s -- but had a strong work ethic and some kind aunts and uncles who modeled upwardly mobile behaviour. She got a good job after high school, waited until she and my dad had savings to marry and have kids, continued a career and eventually became a world traveler and admired friend and hostess to a wide variety of people. She worked like a dog all her life, for whatever she had, and was very generous to others as well. She never took a handout in her life, nor did my dad, who was raised in modest but not hungry-poor circumstances.
There are many "poor" people today who have orders of magnitude more in terms of food/financial security, opportunities, assistance with education/jobs etc. than my parents could ever have dreamed of - and yet look at how they still turn out.
Poverty is a result of choices, or the lack of the ability to make good choices (whether that lack is caused by emotional damage, low intelligence, PTSD, no role models, etc.) not the result of a simple lack of money.
My mother was dirt poor, hungry poor, in the 1940s and 1950s -- but had a strong work ethic and some kind aunts and uncles who modeled upwardly mobile behaviour. She got a good job after high school, waited until she and my dad had savings to marry and have kids, continued a career and eventually became a world traveler and admired friend and hostess to a wide variety of people. She worked like a dog all her life, for whatever she had, and was very generous to others as well. She never took a handout in her life, nor did my dad, who was raised in modest but not hungry-poor circumstances.
There are many "poor" people today who have orders of magnitude more in terms of food/financial security, opportunities, assistance with education/jobs etc. than my parents could ever have dreamed of - and yet look at how they still turn out.
7
All children should be fed everyday and all children should get a great education free. How come our govt allows companies like those of Dick Cheney and his friends to overcharge for army meals not delivered and tools and toilet seats but won't help kids?
5
One thing not mentioned in the article is that the $90 billion per year would be spent in the marketplace stimulating new business, creating new jobs, and would be taxed. It would then flow back into local, state and federal coffers. So it really wouldn't cost an extra $90 billion. It would help impoverished children and serve as an experiment to see what happens in the economy when we give money away without requirements.
Joseph in Missoula
Joseph in Missoula
25
And where did these gains magically come from? Your argument ignores the fact that the $90 billion was taxed away to begin with. Had the money been left with the people who earned it, a different stream of businesses, jobs, and taxes would have been generated. Your imagined gains are balanced by the very real losses you overlook. There are a few free lunches in economics, but this is not one of them.
3
This is the generic argument for handing out government money. There are also strong arguments against doing this. One is that it will not reach its intended audience, which is the children. Others are that people will have more children just to receive the money and their increased dependency on government, which ultimately leaves them less capable of caring for themselves.
We have already experimented and found what happens when we give away money without requirements. Welfare altered the structure of families and the work force. These are what drove welfare reform.
We have already experimented and found what happens when we give away money without requirements. Welfare altered the structure of families and the work force. These are what drove welfare reform.
5
As someone's response indicated, the devil is in the details. In the scheme of things, the cost of this program isn't outrageous. I live in a fairly diverse community. It bothers me when I am in line behind someone using their foodstamps debit card, for food, and they have a separate cigarette or 6 pack order they pay cash for. I am not suggesting folks who need help should have no joy in their lives; I just don't want to pay for their vices.
5
All these people who think they have the right to decide what is allowable for the poor to buy and do and how they should behave. . . because, you presume, you're paying for it with your taxes. As if. We all subsidize you, too. You don't even cover your own mortgage -- we're subsidizing that with a deduction that costs society plenty more than what we put toward helping the people who really need some assistance. To hear you tell it, you work for everything you have but, truth be told, you've had a lot of privileges that really poor people never see. If you were treated as harshly as you demand that the poor should be, you might not be so smug. Just a guess but, you probably got your job because you come from the same background, look same as, act same as and went to the same schools as the people handing out the jobs. You're part of the team and they cut you a lot of slack that you don't think poor people deserve. Wonder what's on your grocery list? How many drinks did you have this week? What kind of grades are your kids earning in that school (the one we're paying for)? Or are they wasting our tax dollars playing video games when they should be studying? (No, private schools are subsidized, too; all those donations are tax deductible, in case you were going to claim that you pay private school tuition.) Since we're paying for your lifestyle, we think you need to be a little more accountable yourself.
52
I believe in progressive reforms to benefit our citizenry, but they have to be well thought out. Subsidizing mortgage interest so people spend money on a house and have accrued an asset rather than throwing their money away on rent can be debated to be a worthwhile endeavor. Giving money to subsidize overpopulation? That is a poor investment for planet Earth.
4
Newsflash: You aren't paying for my lifestyle whatsoever. I get no deductions other than for prop tax and charitable contributions (and I'd give back the $$ I save by deducting my $3500 annual property taxes in a heartbeat if I could only pay taxes at the same rate as the childed.)
I pay my own way AND I pay nearly 50 cents on the dollar marginal tax when you include state, fed and both parts of the SS and Medicare taxes, on my self-employment income. I'm a net payer and have been for decades with zero liability for any of the myriad programs my tax dollars finance to prop up those who breed without thinking of the consequences. (And don't assume we all were born with silver spoons; my dad didn't finish high school and my mom barely did; both worked since they were 14 years old.)
I pay my own way AND I pay nearly 50 cents on the dollar marginal tax when you include state, fed and both parts of the SS and Medicare taxes, on my self-employment income. I'm a net payer and have been for decades with zero liability for any of the myriad programs my tax dollars finance to prop up those who breed without thinking of the consequences. (And don't assume we all were born with silver spoons; my dad didn't finish high school and my mom barely did; both worked since they were 14 years old.)
7
@Tim. You are wrong on the mortgage. You are not subsidizing my mortgage or anyone else's mortgage. The mortgage deduction prevents you from taking more of my income but if my income isn't enough to cover my mortgage you don't pay any of it. Perhaps I should also point out that the interest I pay on my mortgage is income to someone else who does pay tax on that income. So let's review. As a taxpayer, you don't pay any portion of my mortgage and the interest I pay to someone else, the interest I get to exclude from my taxable income, you tax as part of their income.
Also, you are not paying for the grade schools my children attend, public or private, because once again it comes out of the income I earn. I do not get a credit or a deduction for public or private school but my tax dollars pay for the privilege.
Your logic is completely un-american. The fruit of my labor is not the state's. If that is what you want get the heck out and move to China or some other communist country. Be careful though, China, like many of those countries are now realizing the value of capitalism and allowing their citizens to develop capitalistic side businesses, where, after they've given everything else to the state, they get to keep the small excess amount their excess labor has generated to enhance their lives.
Also, you are not paying for the grade schools my children attend, public or private, because once again it comes out of the income I earn. I do not get a credit or a deduction for public or private school but my tax dollars pay for the privilege.
Your logic is completely un-american. The fruit of my labor is not the state's. If that is what you want get the heck out and move to China or some other communist country. Be careful though, China, like many of those countries are now realizing the value of capitalism and allowing their citizens to develop capitalistic side businesses, where, after they've given everything else to the state, they get to keep the small excess amount their excess labor has generated to enhance their lives.
6
Wow, these comments are so interesting. Lots of contempt for “these people” who will doubtless start cranking out a baby per year for a small stipend. $250.00 a month is a drop in a bucket considering how much it costs to raise a child. But it could make all the difference in the world to parents who are doing their level best for their children. The idea that poor people must be miserable failures or they wouldn’t be poor is condescending, arrogant, and ignorant.
So as an alternative to the apparent non-starter of a monthly cash payment, how about an alternative that seems to be missing in this discussion: Spend the money on sex education for boys and girls. It takes two. Make it part of a nation-wide curriculum, along with parenting and personal finance classes. Spend it to make available to all women of reproductive age--and their partners--free birth control and freely disseminated, widespread, accurate information about how women’s bodies reproduce. Most of the commenters here would probably be appalled at how ignorant people are about reproduction in this country. That ignorance is expensive for individuals and society at large.
Give women the information and tools they need to make decisions that work for them in their own lives.
So as an alternative to the apparent non-starter of a monthly cash payment, how about an alternative that seems to be missing in this discussion: Spend the money on sex education for boys and girls. It takes two. Make it part of a nation-wide curriculum, along with parenting and personal finance classes. Spend it to make available to all women of reproductive age--and their partners--free birth control and freely disseminated, widespread, accurate information about how women’s bodies reproduce. Most of the commenters here would probably be appalled at how ignorant people are about reproduction in this country. That ignorance is expensive for individuals and society at large.
Give women the information and tools they need to make decisions that work for them in their own lives.
9
Poor parents already get thousands a year in EITC as well as perhaps up to $500 a month in SNAP, plus WIC, TANF, Section 8, we spend $80 billion a year on "early childhood education" AKA daycare, a vast USDA school nutrition program that often provides take-home food as well as lunch and breakfast, Medicaid (2 million of the 4 million American children born each year are to indigent Medicaid moms), cut-rate or waived utility payments, special university programs for welfare mothers, free bus passes for welfare mothers (n my area they can get free cars from some program) and the list goes on. Diaper banks, clothing banks, toy drives -- my god, if people can't muster a decent life for their offspring with all of these existing programs and more -- then the last thing they need is the incentive of thousands of dollars more per year in tax-free spendable cash.
4
European countries do this, in part, because their population is aging and they need more young people. I was poor for my teenage years and still have poor relatives. Instead of cash payments to everyone, I would much rather the money go to expanded programs for the poor, including child care and after-school care.
8
How about both Suzie? Private wealth in the US is over $80 Trillion. We're extremely wealthy and can do this.
Joseph in Missoula
Joseph in Missoula
1
Great to see that the Times' readership is in essential agreement with Donald Trump: poor people with children are undeserving losers who would rather blow their money on drugs and alcohol than feed and clothe their kids, and are best dealt with by the police.
So what if wages aren't high enough today to support a family today? What's stopping poor people from opening a phony university, inheriting $200 million or just growing up in a nice upper-middle class household, with all the advantages?
So what if wages aren't high enough today to support a family today? What's stopping poor people from opening a phony university, inheriting $200 million or just growing up in a nice upper-middle class household, with all the advantages?
5
Many of the comments here seem to be "Some will not spend the money wisely (read: the way I would), therefore we shouldn't do it." So because some people are fools, all should suffer? Is that the argument I'm hearing? Really?
You would rather continue to spend the money on killing people rather than take that money and use it to help people because some of the people who receive it would be reckless?
Its just a guess on my part, but say 15% of the people who received the proposed funding wasted it. That would still mean that this program would be much more effective that the $ Billions wasted fighting a useless war. If I could get a social program that was 85% effective, I would take that risk, all day, every day.
You would rather continue to spend the money on killing people rather than take that money and use it to help people because some of the people who receive it would be reckless?
Its just a guess on my part, but say 15% of the people who received the proposed funding wasted it. That would still mean that this program would be much more effective that the $ Billions wasted fighting a useless war. If I could get a social program that was 85% effective, I would take that risk, all day, every day.
12
How would you respond to the argument that this incentivizes overpopulation? That was also an argument that dominates this piece.
8
What I will never get is how come the same people who argue against any social safety net are the same crowd that wants to defund Planned Parenthood. I guess they want a huge slave population? A huge undereducated slave population? They make no sense. Its impossible to reason with irrational people.
1
People are not going to start having bushel baskets of children for $250 per month. Those who think so flunked elementary school math. More importantly, those who think so have a very dark view of human nature. People make the decision on how many kids to have without factoring in the cost. If they factored in the true cost of raising a child to adulthood, very few people would have children. Rather, having children, for the most part is decided by love. A payment of $250 per month will not alter that.
1
How about a guaranteed minimum income for all?
8
How about a supplement to bring people to a guaranteed minimum wage? For example, if we set the minimum to $30,000 or $2,500 per month. For any month you did not earn $2500 you would be paid the difference. When this is combined with discontinuing many of the existing government benefits which would no longer be needed because everyone is earning a living wage, it would not be the budget buster many fear.
If we discontinued our war making and payments to despots, intervening only when we were directly threatened, we might even be able to pay for this with existing revenues.
I think it would profoundly change our country for the better. Many people would be surprised, because I don't believe we are a nation of slackers that some fear. Imagine, just for a moment, that you didn't HAVE to work for that jerk boss, that you could do what you really wanted and not starve. . . . . .
If we discontinued our war making and payments to despots, intervening only when we were directly threatened, we might even be able to pay for this with existing revenues.
I think it would profoundly change our country for the better. Many people would be surprised, because I don't believe we are a nation of slackers that some fear. Imagine, just for a moment, that you didn't HAVE to work for that jerk boss, that you could do what you really wanted and not starve. . . . . .
11
Would it be means-tested, Bruce? I have good savings but would love to get an easy job part-time and then have my income boosted to $30K; I could run my household swimmingly on that with plenty of time left for leisure and creative pursuits.
Would this ilk also be able to get subsidized healthcare? Gee, if I could get all of the above for some piddly little part-time job, I'd sign up. But who would pay the tens of thousands of dollars a year in taxes I contribute by slogging out to a real job days a week, and running another business on the side on evenings and weekends?
Would this ilk also be able to get subsidized healthcare? Gee, if I could get all of the above for some piddly little part-time job, I'd sign up. But who would pay the tens of thousands of dollars a year in taxes I contribute by slogging out to a real job days a week, and running another business on the side on evenings and weekends?
2
To address your concerns, yes, there would be means testing, so no millionaire is going to get the supplement. On healthcare, we have to have a system that works first. We seem to be still working on that. In general whatever the earnings rules are for healthcare would apply. In addition, many existing government programs would be discontinued because everyone would be earning a living wage.
As far as the "Ilk" I think you would be surprised. In my 45+ yr working life I have found that most people want to work, they just want their efforts to mean something. Very few people would just lay around. Look at the percentage of retirees who volunteer as an example.
What would happen is that employers would get the religion of treating their people better in a hurry. If no one had to work, very few people would put up with abuse. Amazon and others of their ilk would either change or cease to exist. The other thing I think would happen is that there would be an explosion in the arts and creativity.
Lastly, people are worthy in and of themselves. Work gives meaning and dignity to most people. They want meaning in their lives and work is one way of getting it. If we had a way for people to do what they enjoyed as work, the productivity of the US would go through the roof. Unlike many here, I trust that most people are good and can in fact manage their life without the government telling them what to do.
As far as the "Ilk" I think you would be surprised. In my 45+ yr working life I have found that most people want to work, they just want their efforts to mean something. Very few people would just lay around. Look at the percentage of retirees who volunteer as an example.
What would happen is that employers would get the religion of treating their people better in a hurry. If no one had to work, very few people would put up with abuse. Amazon and others of their ilk would either change or cease to exist. The other thing I think would happen is that there would be an explosion in the arts and creativity.
Lastly, people are worthy in and of themselves. Work gives meaning and dignity to most people. They want meaning in their lives and work is one way of getting it. If we had a way for people to do what they enjoyed as work, the productivity of the US would go through the roof. Unlike many here, I trust that most people are good and can in fact manage their life without the government telling them what to do.
The 250$ check would be a disaster in areas facing a meth/heroin/crack epidemic. There needs to be a way to guarantee that the money is spent on children.
11
Poor people aren't crackheads, they're just poor. The wealthy are doing heavy drugs too, like opiates to mask their psychological pain.
To be absolutely certain that they don't spend it on drugs, why not double down on any strategy that keeps the poor from getting anything? If they're poor, take away their food stamps, tax credits, whatever.
Every strata in our economy does drugs. You probably drink, which is one of the worst drugs there is. Holier than thou, eh?
Joseph in Missoula
To be absolutely certain that they don't spend it on drugs, why not double down on any strategy that keeps the poor from getting anything? If they're poor, take away their food stamps, tax credits, whatever.
Every strata in our economy does drugs. You probably drink, which is one of the worst drugs there is. Holier than thou, eh?
Joseph in Missoula
5
Joseph,
I respect your opinion. I specifically mentioned 'areas hit hard'. You can not ignore the current wave of child neglect being experienced in poor, mostly white neighborhoods that are battling addiction. We are seeing OD incidents quadruple as evidenced by ER stats in these neighborhoods and everyday we see new pictures of children abandoned in cars and supermarkets while the 'responsible' adults are passed out. You can't hand-wave this demographic away. Perhaps one way to help these children is to help these parents get healthy. a 250$ check for 'these parents' will go straight to the dealer. I don't drink or smoke but that's not the point.
I respect your opinion. I specifically mentioned 'areas hit hard'. You can not ignore the current wave of child neglect being experienced in poor, mostly white neighborhoods that are battling addiction. We are seeing OD incidents quadruple as evidenced by ER stats in these neighborhoods and everyday we see new pictures of children abandoned in cars and supermarkets while the 'responsible' adults are passed out. You can't hand-wave this demographic away. Perhaps one way to help these children is to help these parents get healthy. a 250$ check for 'these parents' will go straight to the dealer. I don't drink or smoke but that's not the point.
2
This amount of money covers one week of inadequate childcare.
4
Certainly subsidized childcare is a worthwhile benefit for low-income working families.
Sadly, this won't help those who actually need it. It will only reward those who will abuse it. And, yes there are losers that have kids to get "free money".
11
I don't believe that for a minute. Welfare has time limits now.
2
Nothing, absolutely no studies back up what you just wrote. It's just in your head.
Joseph in Missoula
Joseph in Missoula
1
I believe the countries in Europe that do this have a very low birth rate.
1
Tremendous number of criticisms directed at all those un- and under-educated "women" having babies. No men involved in baby-making in America? Is there research to confirm that vast numbers of poor women intentionally have unwanted children for the sake of a monthly pittance?
11
I agree that men should be more responsible but the bottom line is that we women are 100 percent in control of the decision to a) accept the sperm in the first place and b) carry forth any pregnancy. As a woman I certainly have never let any man be in charge of my fertility and I appreciate that I have the right to use contraception, take a morning-after pill, get an abortion without the permission of any man.
So yes, when a child is born into disadvantaged and imprudent circumstances, I hold the bio-mother more responsible. With more control comes the greater share of accountability, too.
So yes, when a child is born into disadvantaged and imprudent circumstances, I hold the bio-mother more responsible. With more control comes the greater share of accountability, too.
5
Unfortunately, in many situations women cannot control the actions of their partners/boyfriends. And as for women being in charge of their own fertility, that is opposed by the Republican party, the Catholic church, the evangelicals, and other misogynistic segments of the body politic. I'm glad you have reproductive rights you feel able to exercise. Other women should have it also.
2
I agree Cogito and that's why I give a sum equal to some families' daycare bills to Planned Parenthood every year, and why I have donated to that organization yearly for 30 years.
And maybe we need more emphasis -- in schools, churches, etc. -- on women being autonomous and not getting boyfriends or husbands until they are more empowered. I like sex as much as the next person but I"d go without it before exposing myself to an unwanted pregnancy if I couldn't make it to a women's clinic for reliable methods, or had a boyfriend who wouldn't use a condom. Why are women so willing to compromise for the first guy who will pay them five minutes of attention, no matter how low quality he may be?
And maybe we need more emphasis -- in schools, churches, etc. -- on women being autonomous and not getting boyfriends or husbands until they are more empowered. I like sex as much as the next person but I"d go without it before exposing myself to an unwanted pregnancy if I couldn't make it to a women's clinic for reliable methods, or had a boyfriend who wouldn't use a condom. Why are women so willing to compromise for the first guy who will pay them five minutes of attention, no matter how low quality he may be?
3
Better idea: An education account funded at $250 a month which could only be used for education expenses to insure the payment benefits the child and isn't used for pizza and beer.
Oh and Ps those countries that pay child allowances do so to encourage having children as they all have a low birth rate demographic problem
Oh and Ps those countries that pay child allowances do so to encourage having children as they all have a low birth rate demographic problem
6
But but but - what about the pizza and beer businesses??? are they not part of our economy?
I think this would be a good idea if it was mandated to used be to pay for childcare or extracurricular activities. Childcare cost are high. Extracurricular activities help broaden prospects.
3
Who is going to pay for this?
Poor people should not have children at all. We should only have children if we can afford them and we should only have the number of children we can afford.
Poor people should not have children at all. We should only have children if we can afford them and we should only have the number of children we can afford.
11
So how shall we impose this ban on poor people having children? What if you aren't poor, have children, and then become poor? What about the fact that poverty is expanding -- as jobs continue to be outsourced - -and soon there will be mostly poor people, a thin layer of middle class people, and the rich.
5
If you're 16 and you get pregnant is's a foregone conclusion that you will be poor, probably for life.
2
Everyone, poor or not, needs to re-think the LIfescript and find meaning in their existence without bio-reproducing. Life without offspring is and can be wonderful. Just because someone "wants" to expand the human population and perpetuate their own DNA doesn't mean they or we need for them to do so.
4
The state of Alaska has had a dividend check program each year since the 1980s, where it gives each state resident a portion of oil revenue received that year. It has ranged from a few hundred dollars to above $1500 per year, per person. So, the more kids you have, the more checks you get. It would be interesting to see if that program has motivated parents to have more kids to get more checks. I seriously doubt it.
5
"It is not even that expensive."
We appear to have a very different sense of what constitutes "expensive." With 74.2 million children in this country, $3,000 per child amounts to $222.6 BILLION. Even cut in half, that's a huge amount of money that sounds as if it's just being thrown at a problem.
Let me tell you what I've seen happen with the Earned Income Tax Credit. One relative, a single mother, spent it entirely on nonessentials. She upgraded her computer (not needed) and bought a Kindle for herself one year. Another year she redecorated the living room. Another year, it was clothes and pampering, with a little for her daughter. When it came time for her very bright daughter's college education, she had not one dime put aside. So the girl didn't go--the father refused to help.
I don't think the kids will get the benefit of that money, and I don't think parents who have children they can't afford in the first place are the people to entrust with it, either. Why isn't the Russel Sage Foundation, which was founded with the purpose being "For the improvement of social and living conditions in the United States," helping fund the installation of indoor plumbing in some of those 500,000 homes covered in this NYT story?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/health/plumbing-united-states-poverty....
That would be money very well spent. Then check to see how Flint's doing. Work your way across the map.
We appear to have a very different sense of what constitutes "expensive." With 74.2 million children in this country, $3,000 per child amounts to $222.6 BILLION. Even cut in half, that's a huge amount of money that sounds as if it's just being thrown at a problem.
Let me tell you what I've seen happen with the Earned Income Tax Credit. One relative, a single mother, spent it entirely on nonessentials. She upgraded her computer (not needed) and bought a Kindle for herself one year. Another year she redecorated the living room. Another year, it was clothes and pampering, with a little for her daughter. When it came time for her very bright daughter's college education, she had not one dime put aside. So the girl didn't go--the father refused to help.
I don't think the kids will get the benefit of that money, and I don't think parents who have children they can't afford in the first place are the people to entrust with it, either. Why isn't the Russel Sage Foundation, which was founded with the purpose being "For the improvement of social and living conditions in the United States," helping fund the installation of indoor plumbing in some of those 500,000 homes covered in this NYT story?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/health/plumbing-united-states-poverty....
That would be money very well spent. Then check to see how Flint's doing. Work your way across the map.
11
You really do believe that anecdotal evidence is proof, don't you. There are cases out there to show whatever, which is why science rejects anecdotal evidence, out-of-hand. Only controlled studies can yield valid conclusions.
We need a huge federal program to educate our people. Only 33% in the US has a 4-year college degree. We need to double that. Otherwise ignorance will keep too many of us groping in the dark.
Joseph in Missoula
We need a huge federal program to educate our people. Only 33% in the US has a 4-year college degree. We need to double that. Otherwise ignorance will keep too many of us groping in the dark.
Joseph in Missoula
2
''Only 33% in the US has a 4-year college degree. We need to double that."
More than more college educated people with large debts and low paying white collar jobs we need people in the trades.
What about vocational programs? Have you any idea what welders, plumbers and electricians make today?
I was in telecommunications. I got a start at Ma Bell, got more training in the Navy and learned more when I was laid off and started a business in 1985 after Ma dumped me. Have you any idea how much easier it is to start a business when you and you knowledge are the product and can forgo large loans as a startup?
My Father went to East New York Vocational High School and was able to support 10 people on what he earned. And neither my Father nor I went into debt to learn our fields of expertise.
More than more college educated people with large debts and low paying white collar jobs we need people in the trades.
What about vocational programs? Have you any idea what welders, plumbers and electricians make today?
I was in telecommunications. I got a start at Ma Bell, got more training in the Navy and learned more when I was laid off and started a business in 1985 after Ma dumped me. Have you any idea how much easier it is to start a business when you and you knowledge are the product and can forgo large loans as a startup?
My Father went to East New York Vocational High School and was able to support 10 people on what he earned. And neither my Father nor I went into debt to learn our fields of expertise.
4
ANYTHING that seeks to alleviate poverty for children AND adults in a fair and decisive way is admirable, but the saying "charity begins at home" should be changed to "charity begins IN THE HEART". The fact that America, such a wealthy country, can allow millions of children, through no fault of their own, to go to school hungry and go to sleep hungry is a national tragedy and travesty. So yes, I'm glad that Hillary brought the issue up. Can anyone of you, ladies and gentlemen, imagine the vile GOP candidate doing so (or caring one iota)?
6
I can finance this, probably with a surplus left over for other programs.
Pull out of the Middle East right now. Stop foreign aid to all the countries in the region. Stop all military actions in the Middle East right now. Stop military assistance to all countries in the region, yes, this includes Israel.
Take that money, I would estimate in the high tens of Millions per month, and invest it in the US. Put it into programs like the one discussed here. Use it to end Homelessness & Hunger. Use it to create jobs in the inner city so that families have a way to survive and the dignity of earning a living. Use it for job training for the millions who are no longer looking for work but would like to contribute.
In other words stop using our people, talent and money to make the world an evil place and start helping people. Start right here at home, first.
Pull out of the Middle East right now. Stop foreign aid to all the countries in the region. Stop all military actions in the Middle East right now. Stop military assistance to all countries in the region, yes, this includes Israel.
Take that money, I would estimate in the high tens of Millions per month, and invest it in the US. Put it into programs like the one discussed here. Use it to end Homelessness & Hunger. Use it to create jobs in the inner city so that families have a way to survive and the dignity of earning a living. Use it for job training for the millions who are no longer looking for work but would like to contribute.
In other words stop using our people, talent and money to make the world an evil place and start helping people. Start right here at home, first.
46
Reading many of the comments here fretting about people having children just to get more government money, I keep hearing Ronald Reagan's racist trope about "welfare queens driving Cadillac's." It was a totally false diatribe then just as it would be now.
Canada, a country I know something about because I lived there for a while, didn't have a baby boom when it introduced an annual cash allowance per child. But for many poor and low income families, it became a god-send because it helped with things such as child care, food, bus tokens and other necessities.
It's not abused and it's not wasteful.
And, frankly, even if 1% of recipients abused such a program, I'd rather have one adult waste the money than have 99 children go hungry, or not have warm clothes, or a decent place to sleep.
What is happening to Americans? We should be ashamed of ourselves.
Canada, a country I know something about because I lived there for a while, didn't have a baby boom when it introduced an annual cash allowance per child. But for many poor and low income families, it became a god-send because it helped with things such as child care, food, bus tokens and other necessities.
It's not abused and it's not wasteful.
And, frankly, even if 1% of recipients abused such a program, I'd rather have one adult waste the money than have 99 children go hungry, or not have warm clothes, or a decent place to sleep.
What is happening to Americans? We should be ashamed of ourselves.
45
Speaking of Canada, the government just implemented a program that is very very generous for children. It can be argued that parents need that income while raising children, but it does not solve societal problems. People too often rely on this money, and like all social measures in Canada, it makes people expect solutions from the state, and make them lacking in responsibility and initiative.
I am for social measures to redress injustices, but we should concentrate on education instead of free money. To subsidize parenthood, because that is what it is, does not solve the problem of single family household, and absent fathers. If we want to help children, low cost daycare, compulsory training for welfare recipients are better long term options.
I am for social measures to redress injustices, but we should concentrate on education instead of free money. To subsidize parenthood, because that is what it is, does not solve the problem of single family household, and absent fathers. If we want to help children, low cost daycare, compulsory training for welfare recipients are better long term options.
8
Training for what? A low wage job that nobody can live on?
4
Welders, electricians, plumbers and machinists with training whether formally in a program or on the job training (OJT) earn very good money once they become proficient. A combination of the two is better.
Bring back the vocational programs that prepare people to work and earn a living after high school. Work with private employers to provide OJT practical knowledge to the students. I learned Trig working on a lathe and mill with a patient exiled Peronista who took the time to show me the results of the math.
If one of these trained people wants to aim higher later and become a Civil Engineer or go into Metallurgy they'll be able to afford college without all the loans they can't pay off.
Bring back the vocational programs that prepare people to work and earn a living after high school. Work with private employers to provide OJT practical knowledge to the students. I learned Trig working on a lathe and mill with a patient exiled Peronista who took the time to show me the results of the math.
If one of these trained people wants to aim higher later and become a Civil Engineer or go into Metallurgy they'll be able to afford college without all the loans they can't pay off.
2
Easy to find the money; instead of only means-testing 1/8th of Medicare part D premiums, means-test half of Part D, and half (versus 1/4) of Part B.
Never made sense to me why social welfare policies are bad when extended to children, but sacred when applied to the 65 crowd...
Never made sense to me why social welfare policies are bad when extended to children, but sacred when applied to the 65 crowd...
2
"Never made sense to me why social welfare policies are bad when extended to children, but sacred when applied to the 65 crowd..."
Could it be because the 65 crowd has paid in for Medicare over a 47 year work life? Most of the chronic welfare folks have never paid a dime in taxes to support them.
Where are you getting the means testing from? If you mean those who work after retirement and go over a set amount that isn't fair. Why should a person who works get less for his investment in Social Security than someone who doesn't who made the same investment?
And part D isn't means tested. What you pay and is set for all and paid by the insured monthly in addition to what was paid while working. The premium Medicare takes out is the same for all recipients no matter what they paid in. The only difference is for those who entered Medicare late who get charged more. The Advantage plans charge based on what level of coverage you want.
Could it be because the 65 crowd has paid in for Medicare over a 47 year work life? Most of the chronic welfare folks have never paid a dime in taxes to support them.
Where are you getting the means testing from? If you mean those who work after retirement and go over a set amount that isn't fair. Why should a person who works get less for his investment in Social Security than someone who doesn't who made the same investment?
And part D isn't means tested. What you pay and is set for all and paid by the insured monthly in addition to what was paid while working. The premium Medicare takes out is the same for all recipients no matter what they paid in. The only difference is for those who entered Medicare late who get charged more. The Advantage plans charge based on what level of coverage you want.
2
I am not at all convinced that there are people out there who think, "Oh wow, if I have a baby i'll get a $250 check in the mail! I'll have a baby!" I just don't think there are really people who think that way.
The real issue, of course, as others have pointed out, is that people should not have children they cannot afford. If $250 a month is what would make you be able to meet the basic material needs of a child, YOU ARE TOO POOR TO HAVE A CHILD. This isn't saying you can never have children! Just WAIT. Find a partner. Get an education. Save some money. THEN have children. It's really not that hard. After all, according to this article, about 80% of Americans manage to do it.
The real issue, of course, as others have pointed out, is that people should not have children they cannot afford. If $250 a month is what would make you be able to meet the basic material needs of a child, YOU ARE TOO POOR TO HAVE A CHILD. This isn't saying you can never have children! Just WAIT. Find a partner. Get an education. Save some money. THEN have children. It's really not that hard. After all, according to this article, about 80% of Americans manage to do it.
8
I know there are people out there that think that way.
3
NYC, huh? Manhattan or I'll bet or one of the better neighborhoods in the boroughs.
Take a walk through the South Bronx or parts of Brooklyn that haven't been Yuppified and see how the others live. Take a day to follow a Social Worker or a policeman or fire fighter.
It will be an education.
Take a walk through the South Bronx or parts of Brooklyn that haven't been Yuppified and see how the others live. Take a day to follow a Social Worker or a policeman or fire fighter.
It will be an education.
2
I am amazed by the number of commenters that assume poor people will have children for the check, while acknowledging that $250 a month per child won't pay for daycare or housing for that matter. Wake up folks - poverty is not a desirable state of being - people don't choose it nor do they choose to stay in it. The level of vitriol expressed in the comments seems to me another example of implicit bias, possibly based on class this time, but probably tied up in the notion of other - "THOSE poor people cannot be trusted to make anything but selfish choices. Otherwise, they wouldn't be poor."
That extra $250 a month per child could be the difference between working an extra job for one of the parents and actually being home for the children in the evening and on weekends. It could be the difference between purchasing less expensive, "empty calories" and providing a more nourishing diet. Or even a solid breakfast every morning. All of which have been shown to improve the outcomes for children.
This proposal deserves a fair and reasoned evaluation, instead of knee-jerk cynicism.
That extra $250 a month per child could be the difference between working an extra job for one of the parents and actually being home for the children in the evening and on weekends. It could be the difference between purchasing less expensive, "empty calories" and providing a more nourishing diet. Or even a solid breakfast every morning. All of which have been shown to improve the outcomes for children.
This proposal deserves a fair and reasoned evaluation, instead of knee-jerk cynicism.
17
Your response has several flaws and assumptions. I work with the poor and marginalized on a daily basis. $18,000.00 per year for six children? You bet your bottom tax dollar there would be more children born into at risk and adverse conditions, not less. I work in deep poverty and while some families will and would do the right thing by their children, the majority will not. The neglect, abuse and poverty I see everyday is staggering. The overwhelming amount of parents I work with and see everyday who take no (and I mean no) responsibility for any part of their child's life is disheartening and heartbreaking at the same time. I don't mean to rain on your parade, but this money will generally not have a positive impact on raising children out of deep poverty. Education and employment, yes. This effort? No.
13
I volunteer with my state's court system and foster children whose families have, so far, lived below the poverty level. My experience is that parents speak first of the extra money and benefits they'll receive if/when they get their child back, rather than the agony of being separated from their child. In most cases, the child comes 2nd (or 3rd or 4th) to the money.
13
@ Steve- You are taking an extremely optimistic, and I personally think foolish, stance on human nature. What you say sounds and feels good, but is it true? Words can't cover up the reality that a substantial portion of people in desperate poverty are addicts, mentally ill, etc. These individuals can not adequately manage their finances which is why they are in the situations they are in. I am for socially responsible programs and incentives, but this not one of them.
5
I am a 7th grade history teacher at a high-poverty, Title I school. The effects of poverty in my classroom are crushing. Many of my students are years behind their more affluent peers. Many come in exhausted and cannot stay awake. Some suffer from untreated and undiagnosed mental disorders. A dozen are homeless. Nearly all don't have married parents or a stable home life. Many students require I kneel beside them every two minutes to remind them to do their work or how to do it. Recently, I mused at a fire drill with our social worker and asked her what she would do if she were given one million dollars to help students. Her reply? "I would pay their rent." So please, Senator Clinton, give our nation's poor a part of my pay check. I give them nearly everything else I have. I save some energy for my own two boys and wife. I work incredibly hard for everyone in my care, but many of my students need stable housing--CASH--more than anything.
15
They need to be taught to not have their own children unless they can afford them. That is the only way to end poverty.
7
Kari,
How does your suggestion help the children who've already been born? As you know, we don't get to choose our parents. Blame parents all you want; I certainly do. But again, the parents aren't my charge. Their children are.
How does your suggestion help the children who've already been born? As you know, we don't get to choose our parents. Blame parents all you want; I certainly do. But again, the parents aren't my charge. Their children are.
3
We'd get a lot more bang for the buck and help a lot more people if we taught them "personal responsibility". It's amazing how many fewer bad decisions are made when people start taking responsibility for them.
3
Two hundred and fifty dollars a month! What will that do for anybody?
Healthcare, childcare, rent or mortgage payment, clothing, extra-curricular, enrichment activities, meaningful entertainment - it all costs well more than $250 per month.
Healthcare, childcare, rent or mortgage payment, clothing, extra-curricular, enrichment activities, meaningful entertainment - it all costs well more than $250 per month.
1
I don't agree here. With the exception of housing costs, which for many, including me, have become unbearably expensive, $250 per month could make a difference--not just for children. Lower-income retired people could use this help too.
I was surprised by all the negative rhetoric. Does anyone have any proof that the suggestion would not work. Why is the richest Country in the world at the bottom of the list with respect to child poverty. Rather then make up stuff why don't we have a discussion on the reason for the problems and then come up with possible solutions. Most of these comments basically say poor people cannot be trusted. I don't think trust has to do with how much money you make. Isn't that what Wall Street vs Main Street is all about. Can't trust Wall Street but you can trust Main Street. I guess Main Street does not include the poor. Shame on everyone for jumping to conclusions without any facts.
9
I am for European reforms: more employee owned businesses, European style healthcare (e.g. Germany), a progressive tax policy, strong infrastructure, free higher education, strong worker's protections, etc. But, this is not a policy I can support. The United States has a population that is not just more impoverished but also immensely more uneducated and prone to criminal behavior. Taking this in consideration, Americans are much more likely to game this system. It provides a very enticing incentive for those most likely to be unqualified to have children; those without money.
Finally, this is an unwise policy in general that we should not emulate. By encouraging overpopulation with outright payments, we directly fuel climate change, a decreased living standard, the mass extinction of species, and the overall degradation of ecosystems.
Finally, this is an unwise policy in general that we should not emulate. By encouraging overpopulation with outright payments, we directly fuel climate change, a decreased living standard, the mass extinction of species, and the overall degradation of ecosystems.
4
"I was surprised by all the negative rhetoric. Does anyone have any proof that the suggestion would not work."
"The past is prologue"
"The past is prologue"
2
Proof? Take a look a how well 50 years of ever-escalating handouts to unwed mothers have worked so far, sir. Good god. How many more facts do you need before drawing conclusions?
5
Throw money at the problem. That should fix it.
Bigger problem ? Throw more money. That should do it.
A typical politician's thinking. It's time we get a critical thinking person for a fresh perspective to solve these problems -- For now, a businessperson will do.
Bigger problem ? Throw more money. That should do it.
A typical politician's thinking. It's time we get a critical thinking person for a fresh perspective to solve these problems -- For now, a businessperson will do.
7
You cannot solve problems caused by out of wedlock births, gun violence, drug epidemic, racism and gangster culture by writing checks. Each society evolves in a unique way and the child poverty, underperformance in schools, not finishing schooling, acting up in schools etc. are just symptoms and the underlying causes need to be identified and addressed. The problems related to child poverty are as much a legacy of pet democratic policies (AFDC etc.) as the Republicans.
7
Pay people not prepared to have children to have children. Would the money be spent on the children? Any limit to the number of children?
6
Yes the horrible reactions pop up on cue.
Women will just produce a bunch of kids to make more money, rather than work. (Ever raised a child?) How are we going to audit how the money is spent? Some won't spend it wisely?
So what! Trying to audit will cost double,or more and add to the size of government. Yes some may be spent irresponsibly. So? The stipend will help keep most in at least food and diapers every month. May allow some daycare so a parent can work.
This is the system in Germany and no one complains about women having too many children. France is trying to up the birthrate.
This idea, not perfect, is much better than the failure we have now. Which is growing a permanent underclass.
Women will just produce a bunch of kids to make more money, rather than work. (Ever raised a child?) How are we going to audit how the money is spent? Some won't spend it wisely?
So what! Trying to audit will cost double,or more and add to the size of government. Yes some may be spent irresponsibly. So? The stipend will help keep most in at least food and diapers every month. May allow some daycare so a parent can work.
This is the system in Germany and no one complains about women having too many children. France is trying to up the birthrate.
This idea, not perfect, is much better than the failure we have now. Which is growing a permanent underclass.
9
"So what" is because there are non-human species going extinct every single day, the oceans are dying, we are grappling with the effects of man-made climate change more rapidly than previously expected, there are not enough jobs globally for all of the people who need to work, hundreds or thousands of kids in Nigeria & elsewhere are dying DAILY of starvation, and these are only a few of the current and very real ills caused by surplus human population.
We do not need to incent or facilitate more births. Quite the reverse. Think about something outside the idealized nuclear family for a change.
We do not need to incent or facilitate more births. Quite the reverse. Think about something outside the idealized nuclear family for a change.
4
This is hardly a "bold plan." Many countries do this.
2
Why must we always assume the worst about people. The vast majority of people would put a monthly child stiped to good use. Every program will have a a few abusers, imagine the millions in savings by not over regulating and administering a plan like this. Just provide the benefit.
For those of you worried about population explosion due to this small monthly stipend, look no further than to those countries listed as having one today. the U.S. birth rate is higher than all of them: Austria,Britain,Canada,Denmark,Dinland, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxenborg and The Netherlands all have a lower birth rate. Looking at a different measurement, fertility rate, all the countries except France are lower than the US. France is just slightly higher. Germany and Austria are among the lowest 11 countries in the world for birth rate.
Focusing on the innate good in the vast majority of people, and the good in all kids, would benefit this country. By trying to prevent a very small fraction of abusers, we can end out harming millions of well intended decent folks.
For those of you worried about population explosion due to this small monthly stipend, look no further than to those countries listed as having one today. the U.S. birth rate is higher than all of them: Austria,Britain,Canada,Denmark,Dinland, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxenborg and The Netherlands all have a lower birth rate. Looking at a different measurement, fertility rate, all the countries except France are lower than the US. France is just slightly higher. Germany and Austria are among the lowest 11 countries in the world for birth rate.
Focusing on the innate good in the vast majority of people, and the good in all kids, would benefit this country. By trying to prevent a very small fraction of abusers, we can end out harming millions of well intended decent folks.
13
@LP... The low birth rates of these countries, which should be celebrated, is in spite of these subsidies. Birth rates began decreasing worldwide with the participation of women in the workforce, the transformation from a Agrarian society, proper sanitation and birth control. These subsidies are used to encourage individuals to have children in order to prop up their economies and maintain an 'indigenous' population; e.g. look up the Danish ad blitz "Do it for Denmark." As such, these programs are dangerous to implement in America for precisely the reason you point out; we have a growing population. A ballooning population provides much more of a threat to humanity than declining birthrates in today's day and age.
3
Maybe we should be paying the adults not to have kids!
12
The United States has such a high poverty rate because the definition of poverty is silly. By defining poverty to encompass those who earn less than one half the median income level, there's no consideration of whether a country is relatively wealthy or poor. For example, a hypothetical country with three families, one earning $1 million per year, one earning $500,000 per year, and one earning $200,000 per year would have a poverty rate of 33% and therefore would be considered desperately poor under the current definition.
I'm not saying there are no poor people here, but it is intellectually dishonest to use such a warped definition of poverty to advance a social agenda. Similarly, tell the populations of Slovenia, Latvia, and Estonia that they're economically advantaged relative to the US because they have less child poverty by OECD standards, and I think you'll justifiably be told you're crazy.
I'm not saying there are no poor people here, but it is intellectually dishonest to use such a warped definition of poverty to advance a social agenda. Similarly, tell the populations of Slovenia, Latvia, and Estonia that they're economically advantaged relative to the US because they have less child poverty by OECD standards, and I think you'll justifiably be told you're crazy.
24
Totally agree with you. There are people in America that are considered poor that would be considered well off if they lived in Asia, Africa or South America
4
But this is the richest nation that ever existed. And costs are high here. Everything is more expensive here than in Asia, South America or Africa.
1
There's a reason the problem has been renamed, "Food Insecurity."
Bleeding hearts need causes. This is a good thing. Rational people just have to make sure they don't do more harm than good and that they don't waste too much money.
Bleeding hearts need causes. This is a good thing. Rational people just have to make sure they don't do more harm than good and that they don't waste too much money.
4
I know two young women under 19 who are now pregnant. Neither has a job and is depending on friends' parents to give them a place to stay. One is not going to let her ex-boyfriend see the baby and says that she is not going to take child support from him even though he has a job. She want to do it "on her own." This is the culture in some low-income areas and I don't see how giving these immature women cash would make things better for the future children.
15
Taking the kids from them within an hour of birth would be better for the children and society.
Given our skewed priorities, it is more difficult to adopt a puppy or kitten from the humane society than it is to gain control over a vulnerable human being. Any half-wit can pump out an infant and be in complete command of its fate, no questions asked.
Given our skewed priorities, it is more difficult to adopt a puppy or kitten from the humane society than it is to gain control over a vulnerable human being. Any half-wit can pump out an infant and be in complete command of its fate, no questions asked.
3
This will increase poverty. There are people who will see that 10 kids will bring them $30,000 a year and go for it, eying the money not as a stipend for the children but as a reward for the parents. And what of the cost and effort of raising the child? That's the job of the village.
12
That is ridiculous.
2
Doesn't exactly encourage responsible family planning, to say the least.
16
I don't agree with this idea. I have a sister and brother-in-law who don't/won't work and who live on the Social Security disability payments received by their two mentally impaired children. It gives them plenty of money for their bad habits, such as heavy drinking. There is already a lot of abuse in the SS disability system; we don't need to add more shirkers to the list of people the taxpayers have to support. There has got to be a better way to help children who need our help than to funnel money to irresponsible parents.
15
So your anecdote speaks to an entire nation? I don´t think you benefited from your free public education, or maybe it was sub-par. Why do you think foundations and universities do "studies"? One example does not prove a thing.
When 13years old in Nov 1983 During Reagan years . ...My Dad got sick so lost his job, we lost our car, place to live and my family was reduce to just my Dad and me.
We did received a little bit of help for food . ..not much. It was A Recession and lots of people had just their job also.
Thankfully graduated H.S. at early age & immediately went to work at 17years old. Managed to sent money home and grant him his last wish just a few years later when he passed while I was in the Armed Forces(currently have a Total of 5deployments & over100 Combat Missions) for this country. Also managed to help the Rest Of My Family become Teachers, Military Officers, Translator, Truck Driver, etc and Contribute back to Our Community.
But I've NEVER Forgotten those who help Us when we didn't Have Anything. Always Thank Those to taught me the Value In Life.
So If your conscience tells you $250.00 is Too Much maybe you have Checked-Out your Moral Compass a Long, long time ago or No Longer have one.
And Yes! Iam still contributing back to My Community.
We did received a little bit of help for food . ..not much. It was A Recession and lots of people had just their job also.
Thankfully graduated H.S. at early age & immediately went to work at 17years old. Managed to sent money home and grant him his last wish just a few years later when he passed while I was in the Armed Forces(currently have a Total of 5deployments & over100 Combat Missions) for this country. Also managed to help the Rest Of My Family become Teachers, Military Officers, Translator, Truck Driver, etc and Contribute back to Our Community.
But I've NEVER Forgotten those who help Us when we didn't Have Anything. Always Thank Those to taught me the Value In Life.
So If your conscience tells you $250.00 is Too Much maybe you have Checked-Out your Moral Compass a Long, long time ago or No Longer have one.
And Yes! Iam still contributing back to My Community.
16
Jobs will also fight poverty. Free lunches at school. Anything to help.
4
Abortion rates will fall dramatically if this policy is implemented, and those who want to fight abortion should champion this proposal.
1
If governments worked properly for ''all'' of the people, then there would be no need for charities or even tax credits.
Pay people accordingly and then they can afford the costs of living, inclusive of children. Tax people accordingly, and then social programs and infrastructure can be well paid for. ( to be used by all )
Stop with the trickle down economics.
Pay people accordingly and then they can afford the costs of living, inclusive of children. Tax people accordingly, and then social programs and infrastructure can be well paid for. ( to be used by all )
Stop with the trickle down economics.
8
How about paying every adult $250 a month to not have a child?
32
The procreators like to tell us they are creating a "benefit to society" by having kids and that we all should thank them and be happy to have our wages confiscated and redistributed to them, even if they already are at a comfortable household income and we are not.
Let's consider: Benefit to society from the childfree: We pay the highest taxes by proportion of income compared to the childed (about $7K a year more in my case compared to a family of two kids at the EXACT same income level), we pay full SS and Medicare but create no liability for minor disability or survivor & survivor caregiver benefits, no offspring to collect lifelong SSDI if they are disabled. No liability for the healthcare system, no extra burden on employer benefits, no burden on schools, family courts, criminal courts, physical infrastructure, no 15,000 diapers to the landfills and other solid waste, no teen parents, no criminals, addicts, abusers, etc.
All of the above benefits to society are 100 percent guaranteed. Those who have children MIGHT create a productive, healthy and responsible citizen, or they might produce a low intelligence/disabled/addiction-prone/criminal/unmotivated/unemployable/teen parent/etc. who will be an adult economic drain on society for decades to come, and that's after all of the reduced taxes parents pay due to having kids, after the initial drain on healthcare, education, the environment, perhaps family courts, etc.
They roll the dice and the rest of us pay.
Let's consider: Benefit to society from the childfree: We pay the highest taxes by proportion of income compared to the childed (about $7K a year more in my case compared to a family of two kids at the EXACT same income level), we pay full SS and Medicare but create no liability for minor disability or survivor & survivor caregiver benefits, no offspring to collect lifelong SSDI if they are disabled. No liability for the healthcare system, no extra burden on employer benefits, no burden on schools, family courts, criminal courts, physical infrastructure, no 15,000 diapers to the landfills and other solid waste, no teen parents, no criminals, addicts, abusers, etc.
All of the above benefits to society are 100 percent guaranteed. Those who have children MIGHT create a productive, healthy and responsible citizen, or they might produce a low intelligence/disabled/addiction-prone/criminal/unmotivated/unemployable/teen parent/etc. who will be an adult economic drain on society for decades to come, and that's after all of the reduced taxes parents pay due to having kids, after the initial drain on healthcare, education, the environment, perhaps family courts, etc.
They roll the dice and the rest of us pay.
3
It would be far more efficient to subsidize college tuition.
3
Or trade school. Not everyone is cut out for college.
5
This notion is nonsensical. Simply handing parents a check depending on how many children they have would result in a lot of bad outcomes. Plenty of parents are bad parents, objectively, they just don't care about their kids very much. It's terrible but true, and there are stories in the local news every week describing neglected, abused, and even murdered children.
Such people would use the money for themselves, it wouldn't help out the children at all. It would also encourage people to have more children in order to get more dole money, and that's something we should avoid; we should be encouraging everyone to hold it to two children per couple or less, overpopulation is the direct cause of every problem in the world.
So there would be all sorts of misuse of these funds, and to be fair, all the parents of children who could afford them would also have to get this $250 per child per month, which they could spend on fancy hats for their dressage horses or whatever.
Truly a dimwitted notion. Using these same funds to provide health care, daily meals, clothing, school supplies, and so forth, for impoverished children only, would be a far more intelligent thing to do.
But the main problem seen here is poverty, and the main solution to that is generate less people.
Such people would use the money for themselves, it wouldn't help out the children at all. It would also encourage people to have more children in order to get more dole money, and that's something we should avoid; we should be encouraging everyone to hold it to two children per couple or less, overpopulation is the direct cause of every problem in the world.
So there would be all sorts of misuse of these funds, and to be fair, all the parents of children who could afford them would also have to get this $250 per child per month, which they could spend on fancy hats for their dressage horses or whatever.
Truly a dimwitted notion. Using these same funds to provide health care, daily meals, clothing, school supplies, and so forth, for impoverished children only, would be a far more intelligent thing to do.
But the main problem seen here is poverty, and the main solution to that is generate less people.
15
Is it a better deal for stay at home Moms? If poverty is half the median income, how does our standardized median income compare? Give poverty an absolute measure instead of a relative one please.
The country is a few generations away from giving money to every person. Robots
will be flipping burger building houses, you name it. And if it's up to the Wall Street, robots will be casting votes as well.
will be flipping burger building houses, you name it. And if it's up to the Wall Street, robots will be casting votes as well.
3
Not very practical.
Sure, some parents will buy school supplies, or clothing, for their children.
But will each child get a debit card that can only be used for certain items?
E.g., a parent could claim they are buying their child an I Phone or an I Pad (if these are allowed on the to-buy list).
But how can we be certain the child will actually be the recipient?
Sure, some parents will buy school supplies, or clothing, for their children.
But will each child get a debit card that can only be used for certain items?
E.g., a parent could claim they are buying their child an I Phone or an I Pad (if these are allowed on the to-buy list).
But how can we be certain the child will actually be the recipient?
8
Do we really need to encourage more children?
13
It is clear that low income at risk children deserve financial and emotional support. Tax credits, as pointed out here provide little benefit to low income families.
I would hope that if we provide direct cash payments that we find a way to establish that the money benefits the child. I suspect that in many cases it will not.
I would hope that if we provide direct cash payments that we find a way to establish that the money benefits the child. I suspect that in many cases it will not.
4
I work with NYC mothers in poverty and I have a different idea: free, safe, quality day care for the hours a mother actually works and/or attends school, no matter if her shift is 8 -10 -12 hours, whether she works days, evenings or nights, during the regular work week or on weekends. As it stands now, mothers receiving public assistance get free daycare ONLY during the usual working day, from about 8 AM- 6 PM on weekdays ONLY. If they work, say the night shift in a hospital, they are out of luck! If they can get overtime in a retail establishment for the holidays, and maybe earn some extra money , SORRY no daycare provided. This move would go along way to lifting families out of poverty.
25
I definitely like the idea and it sounds like it could be a major step forward. At the same time, it sounds like an unintended consequence of a change such as this could be to incentivize population growth. I am sure that has been considered but it didn't seem to be addressed in the article. Any insights?
1
Children should certainly have a dependable income. Considering the instability and long-term consequences of poverty, there should be some assurance that basic needs are being met. The fact that child poverty is so prevalent in American society means that many families have adapted in unhealthy ways to deprivation.
The habits we develop because we can afford to make mistakes and have access to vast resource, are not available for the very poor. Healthy routines are replaced by disaster planning. Ending the mindset produced by child poverty requires new habits and the ability to acquire them.
I lived in a rural community that was serviced by home agricultural workers who held pot-lucks to teach nutrition. It helped isolated people feel valued and respected. It was also an opportunity to learn about problems facing the community. I think many programs that have been phased out in the past, should be re-evaluated. So much could happen if this country had the will to address poverty.
The habits we develop because we can afford to make mistakes and have access to vast resource, are not available for the very poor. Healthy routines are replaced by disaster planning. Ending the mindset produced by child poverty requires new habits and the ability to acquire them.
I lived in a rural community that was serviced by home agricultural workers who held pot-lucks to teach nutrition. It helped isolated people feel valued and respected. It was also an opportunity to learn about problems facing the community. I think many programs that have been phased out in the past, should be re-evaluated. So much could happen if this country had the will to address poverty.
27
This is insane. The biggest problem that the world faces is over-population. The biggest problem that our country faces is people having children that they cannot afford. For the US a far better plan would be to pay anyone over 18 to voluntarily get sterilized. Social problems would rapidly decline in a generation.
15
Exactly. I would support a one-time $25,000 or even $50,000 payment to every person under age 30 who elects sterilization. Just think of what we would save in the long run, both in dollars and in benefits to the environment, the orderliness of society, etc.
1
Comparing the price of this program to how much money America spends on pets is ridiculous. What about the parents who will spend the money carelessly, on drugs perhaps, given the opioid epidemic this country is facing? And tell me what exactly $250 a month buys a parent for their child? This doesn't cover childcare expenses, and is not nearly enough for shelter or food. Sure, it would help some, but how many others would see this as a means to have more children just to collect the monthly check, like we see in some other countries already using this model? Why not write an article about what children need and figure out a way to get them what they need - food, clothing, shelter, and most importantly a good education. Don't quote me figures on how much money the people who are not poor are spending on their pets when it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Throwing money at the problem is not the solution and there's plenty of evidence to show you that. Help parents be parents to their children and help children help themselves not repeat their parents misfortunes.
6
I have $$ to spend on my pets because I did NOT get pregnant out of wedlock at 16, 19, 23, 25 etc. -- I made contraception a priority, chose my partners judiciously, worked (often multiple jobs), didn't commit crimes and eventually went from far below the median household income to comfortably above it -- over the course of three decades. I also didn't get pets until a few years ago when I could budget for their care, including healthcare, and be sure that a five-figure sum was set aside in case of my untimely death, so the persons who agreed to care for them in that case would have ample money for their food, health care, entertainment and pet sitting.
I put more thought into adopting two rescue animals than most people put into producing a new human being, including financial prudence. So I agree with Christine Burke, spare us the irrelevant comparisons until every "parent" can say they did the same due diligence about ANY facet of their life as I did about becoming a pet owner.
I put more thought into adopting two rescue animals than most people put into producing a new human being, including financial prudence. So I agree with Christine Burke, spare us the irrelevant comparisons until every "parent" can say they did the same due diligence about ANY facet of their life as I did about becoming a pet owner.
22
A prime example of something that in theory sounds just dandy (and highly emotive), but in practice, bad, bad, bad.
Better the Fed just raises minimum wage nationwide to about $15 or so. Cheaper in the long run, it will not imply "have more kids - get more money," and you'll put the money into the hands of parents or potential parents who would be the recipients to begin with.
Now how the US holds parents responsible for properly raising children, not to mention actually be responsible for their own children, well, good luck with that one.
(I've always thought the Fed should make the offer to pay couples to *not* have children. And I'd appreciate being grandfathered in, thank you. Ha!)
Better the Fed just raises minimum wage nationwide to about $15 or so. Cheaper in the long run, it will not imply "have more kids - get more money," and you'll put the money into the hands of parents or potential parents who would be the recipients to begin with.
Now how the US holds parents responsible for properly raising children, not to mention actually be responsible for their own children, well, good luck with that one.
(I've always thought the Fed should make the offer to pay couples to *not* have children. And I'd appreciate being grandfathered in, thank you. Ha!)
11
This might be a good idea IF we had some way to monitor how the money was being spent. I fear that there are parents out there who will squander the funds on things that do not benefit their children.
9
Count on it.
5
Raising a child is a full-time job. Parents need limitless patience, time, and love. You can throw all the money you want at a child, but that won't teach him anything except to be a freeloader.
12
Is that what happened to Donald Trump? His father threw too much money at him so he became a freeloader -- using the highways, the airways, protected by the military and the National Institute of Health and many other organizations without paying a cent in income tax for many years? Your logic is impeccable.
11
If you want a parent to stay home and parent "full-time," then that parent needs some way some way to pay the bills - either by paying the other parent a living wage, or by "throwing money" at the child.
1
Or by not having a child until they have a stable, committed, responsible partner.
I used to be neighbors with a couple who were very nice and wholesome but not rocket scientists, and they knew it. They desperately wanted kids. Saved up for 10 years at their menial jobs, then took opposite shifts. (This was in the mid-90s) -- she worked at a bank by day, got home at 5:40, he left for work at 5:50, worked till 2 a.m. in a warehouse, came home, slept for 4 or 5 hours till she left for work, then watched the boys all day.
They didn't have to pay childcare they couldn't afford, the kids were on a super-predictable, healthy sleep and eathing schedule, got to see their dad a lot and weren't schlepped out into the cold to go to daycare. Nor did the parents look for handouts from fellow citizens to finance their personal dreams and lifestyle choices.
I used to be neighbors with a couple who were very nice and wholesome but not rocket scientists, and they knew it. They desperately wanted kids. Saved up for 10 years at their menial jobs, then took opposite shifts. (This was in the mid-90s) -- she worked at a bank by day, got home at 5:40, he left for work at 5:50, worked till 2 a.m. in a warehouse, came home, slept for 4 or 5 hours till she left for work, then watched the boys all day.
They didn't have to pay childcare they couldn't afford, the kids were on a super-predictable, healthy sleep and eathing schedule, got to see their dad a lot and weren't schlepped out into the cold to go to daycare. Nor did the parents look for handouts from fellow citizens to finance their personal dreams and lifestyle choices.
3
You have to be realistic about the type of people we have. Many poor parents care deeply about their children and would use the money to improve their lives, but there are also are very large number of people who care only about themselves. Just giving them this money would lead to increased sales of liquor and drugs. This is a sad truth, and I would greatly prefer it if all parents had good values, but we have to anticipate what would probably happen.
It's strange, but professors of economics never consider such simple fact. To them, everyone is a rational economic actor. if that were the case, we would have hardly any poor people in the first place.
It's strange, but professors of economics never consider such simple fact. To them, everyone is a rational economic actor. if that were the case, we would have hardly any poor people in the first place.
73
So as long as even a small percentage of the help goes to bad parents you still want to deny help for all needy families?
5
If poor people cared that much about their children, they wouldn't force those children to live in poverty in the first place.
You know, like not having children they couldn't afford.
That simple economic equation works a lot better!
You know, like not having children they couldn't afford.
That simple economic equation works a lot better!
5
@Cyberax - I'm not telling anyone what to do, I'm just telling them what will happen if they do it.
2
Children need more than a check! They need safe homes and committed parents. Their parents need fair wages and decent housing. A check won't fix what the basic problems are.
88
And the parents need stability in their employment. Laying off people to appease the stockholders is very destructive to family values.
A check won't help pay for decent housing? Healthier food?
Unfortunately, this is going to sound to many people like they'll be paid $250 a month for every kid they have.
83
Welfare in New York kind of works like that.
Welfare recipients fertility rate is >>> the top 1% for sure.
True, true and unrelated, maybe.
Welfare recipients fertility rate is >>> the top 1% for sure.
True, true and unrelated, maybe.
3
Up to the age of 17, yes, that is my understanding of the article.
1
I like the idea that it would apply to every family unit. Two questions, though: would it encourage people to have more children;; how would we know the money is being spent on a child?
42
The reason that you don't give a check for $250 to every child is that you are incenting people (some of whom have already been making overwhelmingly poor choices in life) to have even more children.
Perhaps you give $250 to every child now alive but not to children born in the future? How would that fly?
The devil is in the details and the majority of these well-meaning plans have fostered generations of dependency and poverty from which we have never escaped, This plan does not seem to be one that I would bet the house on.
Perhaps you give $250 to every child now alive but not to children born in the future? How would that fly?
The devil is in the details and the majority of these well-meaning plans have fostered generations of dependency and poverty from which we have never escaped, This plan does not seem to be one that I would bet the house on.
79
Liberal entitlement programs, mass unchecked immigration, refugees. All these thing are why our underclass is growing. And now Hillary wants to hand over another check. It won't change anything but my tax refund.
32
Not sure about the $250 per kid idea, but you are incorrect about the reasons for the great underclass. It is GOP trickle down that began the great wealth shift in the early 80s. Bush 2 greatly exacerbated the divide with tax cuts.
That money disappeared from the economy at large, it is evident on any chart showing where wealth resides, compared to 25 years ago. Add big banks to the mix, with too-easy credit designed to lure and trap uneducated people, and you have today's mess.
That money disappeared from the economy at large, it is evident on any chart showing where wealth resides, compared to 25 years ago. Add big banks to the mix, with too-easy credit designed to lure and trap uneducated people, and you have today's mess.
2
If all of us only concerned ourselves with our own tax refund, what a sad little world it would be.
1
While I am all for making sure our nations children are well taken care of, I do find the notion that governments promote having even more on a planet clearly struggling with too many mouths to feed as it is, somewhat ironic.
Giving money directly to children is well intended, but just how do the authors intend to be sure that it only goes only to food, clothing and shelter.
Better jobs and prudent financial family planning are just as important.
Rather than simply giving money away perhaps we should consider universal healthcare for children, actually using nutritious food in school lunch programs and teaching families personal responsibility.
Giving money directly to children is well intended, but just how do the authors intend to be sure that it only goes only to food, clothing and shelter.
Better jobs and prudent financial family planning are just as important.
Rather than simply giving money away perhaps we should consider universal healthcare for children, actually using nutritious food in school lunch programs and teaching families personal responsibility.
23
"How can it be that the United States spends so much money fighting poverty and still suffers one of the highest child poverty rates among advanced nations?"
Because women who cannot support themselves keep having children so they can go on welfare?
And we are on the 4-5 generation of women who do this, with the unsurprising result of that we keep getting more poor people, as their children grow up without ever having seen anyone work for a living?
Then, to make things worse, we continue to import the world's poverty and they too have lots of children, as each US-born child nets them even more welfare?
Wash, rinse, repeat.
Because women who cannot support themselves keep having children so they can go on welfare?
And we are on the 4-5 generation of women who do this, with the unsurprising result of that we keep getting more poor people, as their children grow up without ever having seen anyone work for a living?
Then, to make things worse, we continue to import the world's poverty and they too have lots of children, as each US-born child nets them even more welfare?
Wash, rinse, repeat.
52
Of course, because women get pregnant on their own and men have no say in the question...
4
Are these immaculate conceptions? Trust me, there are MEN involved in the creation of these children.
1
What "welfare"? What you are referring to doesn't exist anymore.
1
This sounds like an excellent approach for getting poor people to have more kids to live off the proceeds, which is exactly the opposite of what is desired. There has to be a work requirement on parents.
76
I like this idea in theory if not in practice. Far too many government "antipoverty" are facades for bureaucratic institutions and nonprofits to collect their monthly check from Uncle Sam and do very little for the people they claim to help. Poverty is at it's heart a lack of purchasing power that hinders every area of life. $250 in the pockets of a poor family would go a long way towards helping pay the grocery bills, rent, and transportation costs, meaning that earned income could be spent constructively or saved. Also, there is far too much emphasis on helping "the poor" as opposed to helping everyone, which limits support from everyone making more than $25,000 a year (most Americans of working age). Social Security, an egalitarian program that pays out no matter how much one has earned during their working life, remains popular across all income levels.
However, due to policies preferred by liberals and the New York Times, this proposal would not only fail to pass Congress, it would fail to work at all. For one, open immigration policies with developing nations imports poverty into developed nations, at least for the first generation or two. $250 a month is more than the average monthly wage in many parts of the world, so who wouldn't simply come across borders and use their kids as money sponges? The additional $190 billion a year would turn into $290-$390 billion a year, squeezing our finances and having no real positive impact on child poverty in America.
However, due to policies preferred by liberals and the New York Times, this proposal would not only fail to pass Congress, it would fail to work at all. For one, open immigration policies with developing nations imports poverty into developed nations, at least for the first generation or two. $250 a month is more than the average monthly wage in many parts of the world, so who wouldn't simply come across borders and use their kids as money sponges? The additional $190 billion a year would turn into $290-$390 billion a year, squeezing our finances and having no real positive impact on child poverty in America.
20
Teach a child to fish! Not shortchange our schools to overpay contractors for campaign contributions.
6
Every single nation on the planet needs to stop paying people to breed. There are now 7.5 billion humans on the planet - the majority of whom are millennials in their prime breeding years. What the heck are we going to do in another 20 years when there are 12+ billion people? Humans have destroyed species and are well on their way to polishing off the oceans, air and ground soil, along with lowering the quality of life for HUMANS.
59
Wish I could rec your post 1000 times, Mary.
How many kids in Nigeria are dying of starvation today even as selfish Americans spend tens of thousands of dollars on IVF, too?
How many kids in Nigeria are dying of starvation today even as selfish Americans spend tens of thousands of dollars on IVF, too?
3
And just who is going to pay for this, in addition to all the free college tuition we will be on the hook for?
21
Dontcha know? you can just "tax that rich guy, over there -- behind that tree"???
Of course, the "rich guy" turns out to be Joe Average earning $35K a year, who gets virtually NO Federal benefits until he turns 67!!!!
Of course, the "rich guy" turns out to be Joe Average earning $35K a year, who gets virtually NO Federal benefits until he turns 67!!!!
29
The free college tuition will be paid by the same people paying for the free K-12. Why should someone pay to go to a state university?
1
He is right it needs to go to everyone with children. They are the future! Not just the poor! Also sending it out monthly allows it to be used for essentials like food, clothing, and school supplies. It would help a middle class family with school choice! Many of us do not qualify for any subsidized day care. It is very expensive to work. A descent daycare is $200 per week minimum. Babysitters ( Nannies are a minimum of $15-17/HR. All of this would go back into the economy monthly.
Much of the low income tax credits that are advertised on telephone poles by tax services " tax refund $5,000 plus are spent on windfall luxury purchases like Rims, TV's, gaming systems for the boy friend of the day. Then the low income housing areas have a rash of crimes in Feb., March and April where these items are stolen from the Section 8 housing.
Much of the low income tax credits that are advertised on telephone poles by tax services " tax refund $5,000 plus are spent on windfall luxury purchases like Rims, TV's, gaming systems for the boy friend of the day. Then the low income housing areas have a rash of crimes in Feb., March and April where these items are stolen from the Section 8 housing.
7
Take a good look around at the mainly obese, entertainment-obsessed, culturally vapid ilk that are "our future" and you will get really depressed.
We need a new paradigm of "the future" that involves honoring the planet and other species with a dwindling human population, rather than assuming exponential human population growth is good and inevitable -- and that someone else will swoop in and clean up all of the associated ills for us and for the animals, insects and other creatures we share with.
We need a new paradigm of "the future" that involves honoring the planet and other species with a dwindling human population, rather than assuming exponential human population growth is good and inevitable -- and that someone else will swoop in and clean up all of the associated ills for us and for the animals, insects and other creatures we share with.
3
Amazing! I'm on board!
3
People don't need more incentives to have more children.
27
Is there any concern that people would have children in order to receive the benefit? For someone otherwise unable to work, it might be tempting to get $1000 a month for each child. It seems without a robust safety net for adults in general, this could create a negative incentive.
10
I think it says "$250 a month" but that's $3000 a year. Four kids, and you get $12,000 a year. I am sure it will be tax free, too.
That's enough to let a lot of welfare mothers "slack" and live off that, and their food stamps. Why work? why use birth control? Uncle Sam rewards you for every baby you push out.
That's enough to let a lot of welfare mothers "slack" and live off that, and their food stamps. Why work? why use birth control? Uncle Sam rewards you for every baby you push out.
6
And one of the biggest reasons for child poverty in the USA is the destruction of middle class jobs, and also the destruction of welfare systems.
Jobs at Walmart, or even the somewhat better employer the Apple Store, don't count a employment, except to silly economists who like to spout off about the Obama "recovery".
Bernie Sanders attacked Reaganonics, and Porter belittled him in this column in months past.
Jobs at Walmart, or even the somewhat better employer the Apple Store, don't count a employment, except to silly economists who like to spout off about the Obama "recovery".
Bernie Sanders attacked Reaganonics, and Porter belittled him in this column in months past.
6
God, just what we need - more incentives for ignorant, desperate people to reproduce.
How about instead we provide $500 a month cash to every American woman age 15-25 for every single month she does not produce offspring? That would be $60K or $70K and far, far cheaper than all the entitlement programs, remedial education, family/criminal courts, health care and special needs care, etc. etc. that we spend on millions of disadvantaged kids born to teen and early-20s mothers.
In the 21st century absolutely no one needs to be breeding before age 25; those years should be spent making oneself educated, marketable and solvent. (I'd say 30 but the fertility scaremongers would be out in force.) In fact, we don't need for every human to reproduce at all and i would favor continuing those $500 monthly checks to age 35 at the woman's option.
How about instead we provide $500 a month cash to every American woman age 15-25 for every single month she does not produce offspring? That would be $60K or $70K and far, far cheaper than all the entitlement programs, remedial education, family/criminal courts, health care and special needs care, etc. etc. that we spend on millions of disadvantaged kids born to teen and early-20s mothers.
In the 21st century absolutely no one needs to be breeding before age 25; those years should be spent making oneself educated, marketable and solvent. (I'd say 30 but the fertility scaremongers would be out in force.) In fact, we don't need for every human to reproduce at all and i would favor continuing those $500 monthly checks to age 35 at the woman's option.
72
1000 times yes.
4
" No one needs to be breeding"? Are we talking about animals or human beings here?
1
And this will be paid for by... who exactly...?
20
The problem of child poverty explained in two words: unwed mother.
In many countries with high out-of-wedlock birth rates, the people cranking out the kids are already educated, with a career path. And those societies often feature an anit-sponging ethos: they believe in giving back at least as much as you take out.
THAT is not problem from which all-too-many Americans suffer, alas.
Our unwed motherhood problem disproportionately involves un- or under-educated women. And the rationale is simple: many so-called anti-poverty programs provide huge subsidies, conditioned expressly on making a baby.
This proposal repeats precisely that mistake.
Poverty is NOT the result of a lack of money, but the result of deliberate life-choices: making babies out of wedlock; committing a crime; abusing substances; dropping out of our hideously expensive public schools.
Children don’t need to start out life with “equal support from society”. They need to start out life with two parents who are capable of raising them.
To “fix” the problem of child poverty, don’t make a baby when you’re poor. A program which says to poor women that the more kids they make, the bigger the checks they will receive, is precisely the wrong prescription. The results are entirely predictable.
And, yes, people DO make babies for the money. Anyone who says they don't knows nothing of economics. Bribes work. And bribing poor women to make babies caused the problem; obviously,it isn't the solution.
In many countries with high out-of-wedlock birth rates, the people cranking out the kids are already educated, with a career path. And those societies often feature an anit-sponging ethos: they believe in giving back at least as much as you take out.
THAT is not problem from which all-too-many Americans suffer, alas.
Our unwed motherhood problem disproportionately involves un- or under-educated women. And the rationale is simple: many so-called anti-poverty programs provide huge subsidies, conditioned expressly on making a baby.
This proposal repeats precisely that mistake.
Poverty is NOT the result of a lack of money, but the result of deliberate life-choices: making babies out of wedlock; committing a crime; abusing substances; dropping out of our hideously expensive public schools.
Children don’t need to start out life with “equal support from society”. They need to start out life with two parents who are capable of raising them.
To “fix” the problem of child poverty, don’t make a baby when you’re poor. A program which says to poor women that the more kids they make, the bigger the checks they will receive, is precisely the wrong prescription. The results are entirely predictable.
And, yes, people DO make babies for the money. Anyone who says they don't knows nothing of economics. Bribes work. And bribing poor women to make babies caused the problem; obviously,it isn't the solution.
33
The problem of child poverty explained in one word: education.
(I wonder if you support sex education and institutions like Planned Parenthood?)
(I wonder if you support sex education and institutions like Planned Parenthood?)
2
Two words: Rewarding overpopulation.
51
Yes, how about a government-sponsored PR program discouraging reproduction. That would be truly progressive.
3
How can you guarantee that the money will be spent on the child?
67
Yes, TV,computer, mobile phone, video games, ....
2
You can't guarantee the money will be spent on the child - but you can't guarantee that with the tax credit, either.
Also, $250 isn't all that big an incentive to have another child who will be (from a financial standpoint) a drain on the family.
There will always be people who use a benefit in ways we don't intend. That's not a reason to deprive millions of children of a source of fundamental security and well- being - well-being that will likely pay off in benefits to society as the child grows up.
Also, $250 isn't all that big an incentive to have another child who will be (from a financial standpoint) a drain on the family.
There will always be people who use a benefit in ways we don't intend. That's not a reason to deprive millions of children of a source of fundamental security and well- being - well-being that will likely pay off in benefits to society as the child grows up.
6
@Anne. I am sure that there are irresponsible parents who do not do their best for their children. I also don't believe that these can be more than, what? Ten per cent? In any event, most of them do not fall within that category. It is always the question of recognizing that there are no perfect conditions and solutions. It reminds me of the fact that advertisers consider half of their money badly spent but they do not know which half. The inevitable question is that these children will always be with us, as adolescents, young people and adults eventually and how can we help to make sure that they will grow up so that they will be good, productive citizens. Maybe, if we do right by them now, they will, in turn, become the responsible parents we are looking for.
1
I wish that people would stop comparing a country with 325 million people with countries that have two differentiating characteristics: near homogeneous population and the population equal to one of our great cities or less. What a small developed country can do, a huge country cannot replicate. The second observation is that tax credits are useful for individuals who make a good salary,but are useless for the poor. The poor, because of their poverty, pay little or nothing in tax and no amount of tax credit solves their problem. They need "direct" assistance.
40
Must assume you've Never Gone Hungry to bed as a child.
1
@Martin. Not quite, but almost. However, I fail to see the source of your response in my comment.
4
@Martin: tell me how any American child "goes to bed hungry" when we give each child AT LEAST $150 a month in food stamps (or WIC)?
Where does the money go? How much would it cost to buy a loaf of bread -- jar of peanut butter -- jar of jelly -- gallon of milk -- box of Cheerios -- enough to feed 2 children for a WEEK????
Clearly, the parent is stealing the child's benefit, so that the parent can party...buy fast food...have cigarettes (or pot)...drink beer or liquor....by selling the child's food stamps for cash.
How will another $250 a month help that? It would just mean more party times for the parent, and no more food for the child.
The way to keep those children well fed? Give the parent FOOD directly, and not money. Most are absolutely irresponsible to handle money, or use it effectively.
Where does the money go? How much would it cost to buy a loaf of bread -- jar of peanut butter -- jar of jelly -- gallon of milk -- box of Cheerios -- enough to feed 2 children for a WEEK????
Clearly, the parent is stealing the child's benefit, so that the parent can party...buy fast food...have cigarettes (or pot)...drink beer or liquor....by selling the child's food stamps for cash.
How will another $250 a month help that? It would just mean more party times for the parent, and no more food for the child.
The way to keep those children well fed? Give the parent FOOD directly, and not money. Most are absolutely irresponsible to handle money, or use it effectively.
3
The psychological impact is the difference between money you have to spread thin or money that you can dependably allocate and build with. To that end however, making sure financial literacy is attended to is crucial.
6