(September 13, 2021 at 11:32 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I think that it's career ending for a number of reasons. One..that stuff about kids yanks heartstrings..for sure, but also because it's a positively horrible idea on it's own merits.
There is no monetary incentive to reproduce. None. You don't make money by having kids, it's not a thing - and it's not even the purpose of those funds - which are to very explicitly address poverty. Kids are expensive...and, tbt, there's never any real number where you can say "ah, I know I can do this now". I have five, they don't make me a dime and never will.
Poverty exists, and maybe it's embarrassing, but it's a relevant fact of social welfare programs. Cutting those programs will not reduce poverty for the same reason that having fewer children will not address global warming.
The subsidies do not by any stretch compensate what it costs to have children, but don't tell me that some people don't take that into consideration. I know people who scheduled the birth of their children around it.
I'm not embarrassed by poverty because I didn't create it. Tax subsidies is not a "program" but it is an incentive. Note that I did not advocate cutting social welfare programs. That is a separate issue.
Why is it so?
~Julius Sumner Miller
~Julius Sumner Miller