Paying for children

Hi. I want to talk about mothers who cannot afford their child and turn to the government for help. To me, these women should be given money to raise the child. We do this because the child is innocent and should not live a deprived life just because his mother does not have money. That being said, I propose that the government compel these women to pay the money (that they took from the dole to raise said child) back to the government, once the child is 18. This is because I don't think it's fair for the taxpayers to pay for someone else' child. If a woman knows she is poor and that she would not be able to raise her child properly, then she should not have him/her. If she goes ahead and has the child anyway, then in 18 years she will have her wage garnished (if she works), or her welfare check deducted (if she's on the dole).

Also, if women can turn to the state for help when they lack the financial resources to raise a child, then the same should happen for men, too. This is only fair. I don't see why women can rely on the dole (not just for child-rearing, but for all purposes), but men can't.

Your thoughts?

Wan said:

Hi. I want to talk about mothers who cannot afford their child and turn to the government for help. To me, these women should be given money to raise the child. We do this because the child is innocent and should not live a deprived life just because his mother does not have money. That being said, I propose that the government compel these women to pay the money (that they took from the dole to raise said child) back to the government, once the child is 18. This is because I don't think it's fair for the taxpayers to pay for someone else' child. If a woman knows she is poor and that she would not be able to raise her child properly, then she should not have him/her. If she goes ahead and has the child anyway, then in 18 years she will have her wage garnished (if she works), or her welfare check deducted (if she's on the dole).

Also, if women can turn to the state for help when they lack the financial resources to raise a child, then the same should happen for men, too. This is only fair. I don't see why women can rely on the dole (not just for child-rearing, but for all purposes), but men can't.

Your thoughts?

Click to expand...

Like it or not, abortion should be a choice.


Someone I know has a daughter who is a high school graduate, she is not motivated to further her education. And probably for good reason, she has a learning disability. She would fit into the minimum wage class.

The daughter has a daughter probably of average capacity, a son has the comprehension and expression of a child half his age. I don't see this child becoming a productive member of society. The father is in jail and did not go beyond the 9th. grade.

I would lean towards having the mother payback. She probably prefers to be on the dole.

Wan said:

Hi. I want to talk about mothers who cannot afford their child and turn to the government for help. To me, these women should be given money to raise the child. We do this because the child is innocent and should not live a deprived life just because his mother does not have money. That being said, I propose that the government compel these women to pay the money (that they took from the dole to raise said child) back to the government, once the child is 18. This is because I don't think it's fair for the taxpayers to pay for someone else' child. If a woman knows she is poor and that she would not be able to raise her child properly, then she should not have him/her. If she goes ahead and has the child anyway, then in 18 years she will have her wage garnished (if she works), or her welfare check deducted (if she's on the dole).

Also, if women can turn to the state for help when they lack the financial resources to raise a child, then the same should happen for men, too. This is only fair. I don't see why women can rely on the dole (not just for child-rearing, but for all purposes), but men can't.

Your thoughts?

Click to expand...

Your policy would only drive women to seek illegal abortions, and doctors would provide them. The abortion rate has been lowering in recent years due to an increase in women's economic opertinities. Focus on that.

Wan said:

Hi. I want to talk about mothers who cannot afford their child and turn to the government for help. To me, these women should be given money to raise the child. We do this because the child is innocent and should not live a deprived life just because his mother does not have money. That being said, I propose that the government compel these women to pay the money (that they took from the dole to raise said child) back to the government, once the child is 18. This is because I don't think it's fair for the taxpayers to pay for someone else' child. If a woman knows she is poor and that she would not be able to raise her child properly, then she should not have him/her. If she goes ahead and has the child anyway, then in 18 years she will have her wage garnished (if she works), or her welfare check deducted (if she's on the dole).

Also, if women can turn to the state for help when they lack the financial resources to raise a child, then the same should happen for men, too. This is only fair. I don't see why women can rely on the dole (not just for child-rearing, but for all purposes), but men can't.

Your thoughts?

Click to expand...

I understand your reasoning as I agree that the taxpayer's shouldn't be on the hook for an individual's decisions, however there is one major flaw and that is you would be incentivizing them to have more children in order to continually delay having to pay back the government.

Wan said:

Your thoughts?

Click to expand...

I think you have no idea what you’re talking about.

First, your assumption that only mothers can get state support for their children is flatly wrong. That support will go to whoever is the parent or guardian of the child regardless. Secondly, “dole” is British slang for unemployment benefit/job seekers allowance which has absolutely nothing to do with whether you have children or not. In the UK there is Child Benefit, which is a flat-rate regardless of income and Child Tax Credits which works with tax and will theoretically be more beneficial for parents earning an income than those just on benefits.

Part of the reason the state supports children with education, healthcare and general income support is that children with a stable upbringing are much more likely to contribute positively to the national and society when they become adults. Your proposal would risk poor parents refusing to accept any support, leaving them and their children in much more difficult situations, potentially harming both parents and children leading to greater social and economic costs to the state.

Wan said:

Hi. I want to talk about mothers who cannot afford their child and turn to the government for help. To me, these women should be given money to raise the child. We do this because the child is innocent and should not live a deprived life just because his mother does not have money. That being said, I propose that the government compel these women to pay the money (that they took from the dole to raise said child) back to the government, once the child is 18. This is because I don't think it's fair for the taxpayers to pay for someone else' child. If a woman knows she is poor and that she would not be able to raise her child properly, then she should not have him/her. If she goes ahead and has the child anyway, then in 18 years she will have her wage garnished (if she works), or her welfare check deducted (if she's on the dole).

Also, if women can turn to the state for help when they lack the financial resources to raise a child, then the same should happen for men, too. This is only fair. I don't see why women can rely on the dole (not just for child-rearing, but for all purposes), but men can't.

Your thoughts?

Click to expand...

I wonder how long it'll take for someone to state or intimate that poor people don't know they're poor and being thus ignorant, they comport themselves as though they are not poor. Even the "red" clause, by being conditional, hints at the possibility that a poor woman may not know she's poor.

WTH is up with that? How the hell can one be poor (or wealthy, for that matter) and not know it? Skip the wishy-washiness and make an unqualified normative statement of position: "Women who are poor and who thus cannot properly raise a child should not have a child." If that's what you think, it's what you think. Just say so directly and be done.

Wan said:

Hi. I want to talk about mothers who cannot afford their child and turn to the government for help. To me, these women should be given money to raise the child. We do this because the child is innocent and should not live a deprived life just because his mother does not have money. That being said, I propose that the government compel these women to pay the money (that they took from the dole to raise said child) back to the government, once the child is 18. This is because I don't think it's fair for the taxpayers to pay for someone else' child. If a woman knows she is poor and that she would not be able to raise her child properly, then she should not have him/her. If she goes ahead and has the child anyway, then in 18 years she will have her wage garnished (if she works), or her welfare check deducted (if she's on the dole).

Also, if women can turn to the state for help when they lack the financial resources to raise a child, then the same should happen for men, too. This is only fair. I don't see why women can rely on the dole (not just for child-rearing, but for all purposes), but men can't.

Your thoughts?

Click to expand...

Red:
WTF? Last I checked, men don't have, as in give birth to, children.

Wan said:

Hi. I want to talk about mothers who cannot afford their child and turn to the government for help. To me, these women should be given money to raise the child. We do this because the child is innocent and should not live a deprived life just because his mother does not have money. That being said, I propose that the government compel these women to pay the money (that they took from the dole to raise said child) back to the government, once the child is 18. This is because I don't think it's fair for the taxpayers to pay for someone else' child. If a woman knows she is poor and that she would not be able to raise her child properly, then she should not have him/her. If she goes ahead and has the child anyway, then in 18 years she will have her wage garnished (if she works), or her welfare check deducted (if she's on the dole).

Also, if women can turn to the state for help when they lack the financial resources to raise a child, then the same should happen for men, too. This is only fair. I don't see why women can rely on the dole (not just for child-rearing, but for all purposes), but men can't.

Your thoughts?

Click to expand...

Red:
WTF? Last I checked, men don't have, as in give birth to, children. Nobody is going to allow a penurious man to adopt or foster parent a child. About the only ways a destitute man will have a child is that he's become so after having not been so or he's partnered with a woman and they are together indigent, however they became so.


Blue:
It's not that, under our current public assistance structure/system, men cannot obtain "the dole," but rather that in granting primary residential custody, courts, almost 70% of the time, deem women, more often than men, to be the most fitting custodians of children. AFAIK and as of 2010 -- though policies on this vary by state and with regard to the type of benefit program, SNAP, TANF, etc. -- the non-primary custodian is the one who pays support and the primary custodial parent is usually the one who qualifies for state-provided support (e.g., SNAP benefits) or tax credits/deductions on account of having a child.

The overall matter is further complicated by child support (provided by the non-primary custodial or non-custodial parent) terms, arrangements and realizations; however, that's not directly a gender-specific issue.

Additional references:

• Reaffirming the Work Requirement for Noncustodial Parents as Part of TANF Reauthorization
• Working with Non-Custodial Parents
• Nevada CSE Program Application Form
• Food Stamps and Child Support
• How Child Support Affects Welfare Benefits (Fed and IL)

Aside and off-topic:

Wan said:

Hi. I want to talk about mothers who cannot afford their child and turn to the government for help. To me, these women should be given money to raise the child. We do this because the child is innocent and should not live a deprived life just because his mother does not have money. That being said, I propose that the government compel these women to pay the money (that they took from the dole to raise said child) back to the government, once the child is 18. This is because I don't think it's fair for the taxpayers to pay for someone else' child. If a woman knows she is poor and that she would not be able to raise her child properly, then she should not have him/her. If she goes ahead and has the child anyway, then in 18 years she will have her wage garnished (if she works), or her welfare check deducted (if she's on the dole).

Also, if women can turn to the state for help when they lack the financial resources to raise a child, then the same should happen for men, too. This is only fair. I don't see why women can rely on the dole (not just for child-rearing, but for all purposes), but men can't.

Your thoughts?

Click to expand...

All of the above are fundamental flaws in thinking totally devoid of any understanding of economics and sociology.

Wan said:

Hi. I want to talk about mothers who cannot afford their child and turn to the government for help. To me, these women should be given money to raise the child. We do this because the child is innocent and should not live a deprived life just because his mother does not have money. That being said, I propose that the government compel these women to pay the money (that they took from the dole to raise said child) back to the government, once the child is 18. This is because I don't think it's fair for the taxpayers to pay for someone else' child. If a woman knows she is poor and that she would not be able to raise her child properly, then she should not have him/her. If she goes ahead and has the child anyway, then in 18 years she will have her wage garnished (if she works), or her welfare check deducted (if she's on the dole).

Also, if women can turn to the state for help when they lack the financial resources to raise a child, then the same should happen for men, too. This is only fair. I don't see why women can rely on the dole (not just for child-rearing, but for all purposes), but men can't.

Your thoughts?

Click to expand...

That assumes that a parent or parents who now lack the job skills and/or education to earn a wage sufficient to raise children would somehow acquire them after their last child turned 18. If Jane/John Doe now lacks the job skills or education to attain more than the FPL income then why do you suspect that will change in the next 18 to 25 years?

Wan said:

Hi. I want to talk about mothers who cannot afford their child and turn to the government for help. To me, these women should be given money to raise the child. We do this because the child is innocent and should not live a deprived life just because his mother does not have money. That being said, I propose that the government compel these women to pay the money (that they took from the dole to raise said child) back to the government, once the child is 18. This is because I don't think it's fair for the taxpayers to pay for someone else' child. If a woman knows she is poor and that she would not be able to raise her child properly, then she should not have him/her. If she goes ahead and has the child anyway, then in 18 years she will have her wage garnished (if she works), or her welfare check deducted (if she's on the dole).

Also, if women can turn to the state for help when they lack the financial resources to raise a child, then the same should happen for men, too. This is only fair. I don't see why women can rely on the dole (not just for child-rearing, but for all purposes), but men can't.

Your thoughts?

Click to expand...

1.) No women should not have to pay it back she already paid with taxes or will etc
2.) men can already can get assistance for a child.

your whole premise fails thats what we think lol

Glowpun said:

Like it or not, abortion should be a choice.

Click to expand...

Wayne Jr said:

Your policy would only drive women to seek illegal abortions, and doctors would provide them.

Click to expand...

I am not talking about abortion at all. I am talking about paying for a child.

Nap said:

I understand your reasoning as I agree that the taxpayer's shouldn't be on the hook for an individual's decisions, however there is one major flaw and that is you would be incentivizing them to have more children in order to continually delay having to pay back the government.

Click to expand...

You have a good point. So what do you suggest that we do? My main issue is with taxpayers having to pay for someone else' child. I just don't think it's fair.

OrphanSlug said:

All of the above are fundamental flaws in thinking totally devoid of any understanding of economics and sociology.

Click to expand...

So how about you show where I am wrong instead of making a blanket statement?

ttwtt78640 said:

If Jane/John Doe now lacks the job skills or education to attain more than the FPL income then why do you suspect that will change in the next 18 to 25 years?

Click to expand...

This is why I said we could also deduct the mother's welfare check.

Wayne Jr said:

Your policy would only drive women to seek illegal abortions, and doctors would provide them. The abortion rate has been lowering in recent years due to an increase in women's economic opertinities. Focus on that.

Click to expand...

Having children you have no way of supporting is not economic opportunity. It's the expectation that someone else will pay for them.

Abortion is not illegal, and further, it's not that expensive. Your arguments not fail.

HonestJoe said:

First, your assumption that only mothers can get state support for their children is flatly wrong.

Click to expand...

I know that I said "mothers" in my OP but I did not mean that only mothers would be legally and financially responsible for raising a child. I mentioned mothers/women because they are typically the ones who are stuck with a child. And yes, if it is a man who is responsible for raising a child and lets say he also turns to the state for help, then in my opinion he would also need to pay this money back after the child is grown up. My key message is that taxpayers should not be stuck with the costs for raising someone's child. If you know you cannot afford a child but you have him anyway, then you need to be responsible for all the costs. Somehow.

Wan said:

I am not talking about abortion at all. I am talking about paying for a child.



You have a good point. So what do you suggest that we do? My main issue is with taxpayers having to pay for someone else' child. I just don't think it's fair.


So how about you show where I am wrong instead of making a blanket statement?



This is why I said we could also deduct the mother's welfare check.

Click to expand...

We already do, the FPL amount drops (thus so does the amount of most "safety aid" based on it) with the number of minor dependents in the household.

AGENT J said:

1.) No women should not have to pay it back she already paid with taxes or will etc
2.) men can already can get assistance for a child.

your whole premise fails thats what we think lol

Click to expand...

You are aware that women who cannot afford their children and turn to the government for help most likely do not pay taxes, are you not?

ttwtt78640 said:

We already do, the FPL amount drops (thus so does the amount of most "safety aid" based on it) with the number of minor dependents in the household.

Click to expand...

Really? Where does this happen? Are you an American? I am from Canada. Also, what is FPL?

Wan said:

I know that I said "mothers" in my OP but I did not mean that only mothers would be legally and financially responsible for raising a child.

Click to expand...

You specifically said “I don't see why women can rely on the dole (not just for child-rearing, but for all purposes), but men can't.”. That question is based on a falsehood.

Wan said:

My key message is that taxpayers should not be stuck with the costs for raising someone's child.

Click to expand...

Then why not simple not pay anyone any child support in the first place?

I gave some of the reasoning for this kind of benefit, both flat rate and income-related payments. The general argument is that not paying could actually lead to greater costs to the state. Making poor people even poorer, especially if they have children, is likely to be a false economy. Even recovering the money at a later date (or trying to) risks putting people in greater financial difficulty and thus having to continue to rely on state support more heavily, not to mention the costs of managing such a system.

My father bragged he never spent a dime on any of his six kids. That was mom's job, spending his money.

Wan said:

Hi. I want to talk about mothers who cannot afford their child and turn to the government for help. To me, these women should be given money to raise the child. We do this because the child is innocent and should not live a deprived life just because his mother does not have money. That being said, I propose that the government compel these women to pay the money (that they took from the dole to raise said child) back to the government, once the child is 18. This is because I don't think it's fair for the taxpayers to pay for someone else' child. If a woman knows she is poor and that she would not be able to raise her child properly, then she should not have him/her. If she goes ahead and has the child anyway, then in 18 years she will have her wage garnished (if she works), or her welfare check deducted (if she's on the dole).

Also, if women can turn to the state for help when they lack the financial resources to raise a child, then the same should happen for men, too. This is only fair. I don't see why women can rely on the dole (not just for child-rearing, but for all purposes), but men can't.

Your thoughts?

Click to expand...

OrphanSlug said:

All of the above are fundamental flaws in thinking totally devoid of any understanding of economics and sociology.

Click to expand...

Wan said:

So how about you show where I am wrong instead of making a blanket statement?.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, lets start with economics.

Present condition (politics aside for a moment.) Abortion is legal within limits, economics is one factor but not the only factor as to why some get an abortion. But for those in the lower income quintiles that have a child (participation of a partner or not in raising that child) they usually turn to social safety nets and are not very incentivized to leave those systems.

The last time I looked this up, only 20% ('ish) of those that left social safety nets stayed off them. Meaning the majority came back (or tried to come back) at some point for some reason. The overwhelming reason was the issues that took someone to seeking social safety nets still had those issues no matter if they worked or not trying to leave those social safety nets. By in large that involved children and usually single motherhood, but the consequence was erratic low wage employment from that point forward. Said simply, going into poverty is far easier than leaving it. Despite the political arguments either way.

The conclusion is even after the changes to these Social Safety nets back in 1996 (some refer to as gutting them) the consequence was economic behavior did not change. Impacts to those on social safety nets, percentages of those needing these programs, length of time on them or trying to enter them after leaving, all were not significantly changed. And the reason was in or out of those systems those in the lowest income quintiles did not participate in the economy in a healthy way and as such created a social consequence.

So now we have your idea that women should be given money to "raise a child," but now in the form of a loan.

Sounds good, feel good measure and all from a where tax dollars go perspective, but is not practical and falls for the same mistake most make when thinking about changing how these social safety nets function. The false assumption of what behavior will be, or worse a completely failed conclusion that all other factors remain.

In this case we have every reason to believe we would see an uptick in abortion rates, and reason is economic changes in what someone would need to do if in the lower income quintiles and turning to the government. No matter if abortion laws change in some regard, the economic reasons to not have the child go up and for those who's means to deal with costs have few options.

How someone gets into that position of poverty and pregnant becomes argumentative, and still does nothing to resolve the reality that those in worst economic conditions facing loans to survive with a child will turn to aborting the child as a response. There is no reason, economic or social, to think it would be otherwise.

Wan said:

I am not talking about abortion at all. I am talking about paying for a child.

Click to expand...

Then this thread should not have been posted in the Abortion sub-forum. I suggest it be moved to the Law and Order sub-forum.

HonestJoe said:

You specifically said “I don't see why women can rely on the dole (not just for child-rearing, but for all purposes), but men can't.”. That question is based on a falsehood.

Click to expand...

First you said I didn't know what I was talking about, and now you accuse me of stating a falsehood. I am not saying that I am always right. I just think that you seem to regard me as an opponent. You talk in a gratuitously antagonistic way. All I am doing is put forth ideas to fix problems that I perceive. I wish you would treat me more like a partner and work with me to solve problems.

Then why not simple not pay anyone any child support in the first place?

Click to expand...

I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that we should refuse to give financial resources to a parent who cannot afford to raise his/her child?

I gave some of the reasoning for this kind of benefit, both flat rate and income-related payments. The general argument is that not paying could actually lead to greater costs to the state. Making poor people even poorer, especially if they have children, is likely to be a false economy. Even recovering the money at a later date (or trying to) risks putting people in greater financial difficulty and thus having to continue to rely on state support more heavily, not to mention the costs of managing such a system.

Click to expand...

I have another idea. How about we put people who cannot pay back the money in jail? Accuse them of defrauding the taxpayers and the government, which in a way they sort of are. Another benefit of this is that the sexes are segregated in prisons, and this would mean that these people would not have even more kids.

Wan said:

Hi. I want to talk about mothers who cannot afford their child and turn to the government for help. To me, these women should be given money to raise the child. We do this because the child is innocent and should not live a deprived life just because his mother does not have money. That being said, I propose that the government compel these women to pay the money (that they took from the dole to raise said child) back to the government, once the child is 18. This is because I don't think it's fair for the taxpayers to pay for someone else' child. If a woman knows she is poor and that she would not be able to raise her child properly, then she should not have him/her. If she goes ahead and has the child anyway, then in 18 years she will have her wage garnished (if she works), or her welfare check deducted (if she's on the dole).

Also, if women can turn to the state for help when they lack the financial resources to raise a child, then the same should happen for men, too. This is only fair. I don't see why women can rely on the dole (not just for child-rearing, but for all purposes), but men can't.

Your thoughts?

Click to expand...

Your proposal is to plunge single parents into deep debt to raise their children. Your principle "I don't think it's fair for the taxpayers to pay for someone else's child" is a protest against reality. Society pays for people's existence who don't support themselves all the time. We have 2.2 million in prison, for example. We don't let people die in the streets because they can't pay cash for health care, for example. We provide SNAP benefits so that people with little money can have more food at no expense to themselves. Taxpayers are currently already paying and are going to pay one way or another. If they don't, they are exacerbating social problems that are costly in other ways.

We pour absolutely tons of federal dollars onto senior citizens, many of whom really do not need those extra federal dollars. The amount of money we dedicate to helping young families, by comparison, is paltry.

Just as easily as you can say "I don't think taxpayers should have to pay for someone else's child," I could say "I don't think taxpayers should have to pay for an already-rich person's retirement."

jimbo said:

You are aware that women who cannot afford their children and turn to the government for help most likely do not pay taxes, are you not?

Click to expand...

of course thats the case for SOME women :shrug: and sometimes those same women pay taxes before or after thier kids and theres other taxes we all pay :shrug:

doesn't impact my feelings on the matter one bit, theres lots in society we dont participate in that others benefit from and vice versa . . thats life and how taxes work . . schools roads unemployment etc etc etc

Wan said:

I have another idea. How about we put people who cannot pay back the money in jail? Accuse them of defrauding the taxpayers and the government, which in a way they sort of are. Another benefit of this is that the sexes are segregated in prisons, and this would mean that these people would not have even more kids.

Click to expand...

So in other words not only are you suggesting a position of elitism where only the wealthy will be allowed to breed. But now you also want to add on that being poor should be considered a crime.

You're not having ideas, you're displaying a contempt for the poor.

Not only that but you are demonstrating that you are completely clueless about governance. Your government is there to represent every person of your country not just those you consider worthy of representing. There are poor who work and pay tax so they deserve that representation just as much as the rich who work and then find loopholes to avoid paying tax.