Most countries have dozens to hundreds of government programs (a dozen federal, a dozen per state, another dozen per city, …) to support parents of underage children. You'd get rid of a lot of administrative overhead by outphasing all of them in favour of including children into basic income (maybe at a fixed reduced rate if expenses are a concern).
No, I'd rather we raise the basic income for every adult enough to the point where the adult can support themselves and ONE (1) child at least for bare necessities like food and shelter.
For what it is worth, I don't think anyone sane would have kids to get money. In fact, you couldn't pay me to have children and raise them. I know what a shitty brat I've been and I'm sure if God or karma exists, I'll get an equally shitty child or worse I'll make a very shitty parent. (Parents: yes, people without kids also have nightmares about fucking up as parents)
Thankfully though many if not most people want children even though it makes no sense. This is good for me because these are the kids who will build and maintain roads, hospitals, and electric lines when our generation can no longer walk without a cane.
I don't think we need to encourage people to have many children. Those who want multiple children should find alternate ways to fund their lifestyle.
Edit: I assume above that basic healthcare for everyone exists with $0 out of pocket even if it is some couple's 99th child.
Unfortunately, the racist caricature of the 'welfare queen' who will go out of her way to work 24/7 for 18+ years for welfare benefits that equate to less than the pay of a part time job has been used to drive conservatives to the polls since the 1980's.
It's well cemented in the public consciousness as a result, so you'll see it trotted out whenever monetary benefits are proposed to help children.
The key is to arguing that it is a minor drain on the proposed system and appeal to the moral high ground. Don't deny all the good people help because you want to deny a few bad people help. There will always be leeches on any system.
>I know what a shitty brat I've been and I'm sure if God or karma exists, I'll get an equally shitty child or worse I'll make a very shitty parent.
Man, that kept me up many a night before my kid was born! She turned out to be amazing, though. Definitely didn't get it from me.
We had to rely on EBT (food stamps) and Medicaid when she was little and we were both in college. Medicaid was amazing, at least for someone who couldn't afford to go to a doctor for a decade or more beforehand, but besides that perk the welfare benefits for having a child basically balanced out the increased costs of raising one. Can't say how well this would scale with n+1 kids though.
Can see it now. Pop out more children, get more money. This incentives baby making. Which might actually be a good thing in countries with declining birth rates.
If you think it's so rational to have children for cash, you can go do it. I've never met anyone who actually thinks it's a good idea. It's always a hypothetical to malign the poor. Because people who malign the poor know exactly how poor people think, or something.
> I've never met anyone who actually thinks it's a good idea.
I see you haven't met my mother. Count yourself lucky.
Those people exist – there's some quite generous child benefit programs in some EU countries, and the math seems to be simple –, but they're far more rare than the "OMG WELFARE PARASITES" would want you to believe. (And in many cases child protection agencies intervene and get the kids off to safety, because as it turns out, people using kids as money presses tend to have a screw loose or five.)
And honestly, I don't see the problem. People get kids for all the wrong reasons, people abuse their kids for all the wrong reasons; that won't get significantly worse. At the same time, fewer kids will grow up in crippling poverty and have their lives ruined before they turn 10 because their parents can't afford to give them any useful education outside the bare minimum provided by public schools.
Do you really not believe that some people would start having children for the sole purpose of income if there was suddenly a program that provided people with $10,000 per year in cash for every child they have?
Having children for financial benefits is a real thing.
It's not just something people accuse the poor of for the purpose of hate (although it is commonly used in such a way).
It's usually not as direct as "let me have this kid so I can get my rebate check", but it's certainly a consideration for many people who are poor. The mentality is more along the lines of "I can't make it by myself, but as a family, we might be able to sustain ourselves".
Most people are aware that it will probably end up costing them more in the long run, but people do crazy things in desperate times.
And the bad thing is, that it's in general not the cleverest set of people that make extra kids to get a higher income. Overall, the more educated people are, the smaller their families are. So this will effectively reverse everything that Darwin claimed: no survival of the fittest, but victory by the 'stupid' by overpowering the educated...
Edit: yes, I do, but I am unsure if it will stand the test of Hacker News readers :)
What I've picked up from 'rule-making' so far is that rules in general are OK for 80% of the users. It's the 20% that is the exception (to the rule) and that requires additional rulings. And then the problem starts: of this 20% again only 80% is fixed by the extra rule, so more rules are needed. Then the third rule to fix things actually allows some to profit extra, so... well, you get the idea. Wherever there are rules, some people suffer, and fixing it breaks things...
You're seeing pitfalls in rolling this out, that's great, we can fix those. But saying it shouldn't exist at all (like many commenters are in this thread) because of potential problems here and there is nothing but defeatism.
If you don't like it, attack it at the principal. If you do like it then let's make it happen. None of this in between bullshit.
Sorry, I have to clarify myself a little here. Until single payer healthcare becomes a reality, I would like to see an expansion of WIC from at risk mothers and infants to all mothers and infants and children under five. I know it sounds a little sexist but I think the qualification and means testing brings a little stigma to WIC which shouldn't exist.
It is not just money for formula. WIC has a potential to be so much more to new families. I know I sound hypocritical now but I'd like to think of it as being practical. Sorry, I'm not very articulate.
How about children are included, then provide X% to parents for child care expenses, and X% to a fund that the child can't access until 18. That way we don't have to do free higher education. Public universities can expect each student to have close to XXXXX dollars saved away and set tuition accordingly.
Hmm... So with everyone getting free money, including the children, there is no need for a father to take care of the family when he decides to diforce, right? Afterall, the family gets a good deal of income even when daddy is gone. So marriage will no longer be a bond forever, it will be a bond until something nicer comes along since there is no financial penalty anymore: no pressure to stay together for the kids. Mom and Dad can simply split up and move elsewhere. Wonder how that incease in broken families works out for the future kids...
Edit: my mother had me checked - I am not insane. Anyway: while you are right that keeping two unhappy people together might be much worse than them splitting up, I can imagine that a big organisation like the church (any church) will be a force opposing this idea once they figure this one out.
Having economic shackles as the only incentive to keep two unhappy people together for longer than necessary seems like a terrible environment in which to raise happy and healthy children. Having experienced that as a child, it was miserable and set me up with unhealthy ideas about relationships.
Might as well make divorce illegal again. After all, something nicer might come along.
If the only thing holding your marriage together is needing to pay the bills or a judge, being forced to stay together only serves to make people like you feel righteous.
Your comment makes me wonder about what other unhealthy ideas about relationships you want to force upon others. Perhaps you should spend less time on r/MRAs and r/TheRedPill.
> So with everyone getting free money, including the children, there is no need for a father to take care of the family when he decides to diforce, right?
Having to pay child care costs and alimony above the poverty line are things that exist now and will have reason to exist even if a BI is implemented.
> So with everyone getting free money, including the children, there is no need for a father to take care of the family when he decides to diforce, right?
It certainly would mitigate the social harms caused by deadbeat abandoning parents, but since neither child support nor alimony are currently limited to the amount necessary to provide basic survival necessities, a UBI mature enough to provide basic necessities would not seem to be a basis for eliminating existing child support and alimony provisions.
Obviously, even with existing formulas, the fact that more of the family's income wouldn't be leaving with the prime breadwinner would reduce the amount of support and alimony orders.
> So marriage will no longer be a bond forever
Marriage, in the US, is only a "bond forever" now to the extent that the parties decide to make it one; divorce is readily available, and frequently chosen.
Sooooo, what you're saying is that a significant number of families are currently together for economic rather than emotional / social reasons? I (a) find that somewhat difficult to believe and (b) find that somewhat troubling if true. (disclaimer: I'm in a love-filled marriage and my partner and I have decided to have no children)
Honestly, I'd rather see families split up, if by "split up" you mean "find independence from someone with whom you do not want to spend your life". There's levels here- children are a responsibility that someone needs to shoulder (and emphatically not just Mom), but if the alternative right now is being trapped economically in an emotionally traumatic relationship, that's not good either.
Ah, this is a great point. Yes, I agree. My point is nobody should collect basic income for anyone else. The prison system shall not collect it on behalf of prisoners. Creditors (even the IRS) shall not garnish it. No one collects it in behalf of detained/imprisoned/kidnapped people.
There shall be no back pay. If you could have gotten basic income but didn't accept it last year, you can't get that money this year. (You might still get this year's distribution.)
