Should we give people a child allowance?

[Little Raven]

With One Move, Congress Could Lift Millions Of Children Out Of Poverty

The COVID-19 relief bill working its way through Congress is full of big ideas to help people. But there's one idea that's so big, it was politically unthinkable not that long ago.

President Biden and Democratic lawmakers want to fight child poverty by giving U.S. families a few hundred dollars every month for every child in their household — no strings attached. A kind of child allowance.

If this proposal survives the wrangling in Congress and makes it to Biden's desk, experts say it could cut child poverty nearly in half.

The idea even has some bipartisan support. Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah has pitched a smaller version of a child allowance.

I'm all for it. Our birth rate was too low before COVID, and I seriously doubt the pandemic has done it any favors. Anything that makes it easier for people to have and raise children gets a thumbs up from me, at least for now.

[LordMortis]

My "office" is full of COVID babies. (full meaning over 10% of the office has had children, which is impressive when the office is generally aging. 100% of the office staff under 30 has had a child between December and the end of February)

[stessier]

With One Move, Congress Could Lift Millions Of Children Out Of Poverty

The COVID-19 relief bill working its way through Congress is full of big ideas to help people. But there's one idea that's so big, it was politically unthinkable not that long ago.

President Biden and Democratic lawmakers want to fight child poverty by giving U.S. families a few hundred dollars every month for every child in their household — no strings attached. A kind of child allowance.

If this proposal survives the wrangling in Congress and makes it to Biden's desk, experts say it could cut child poverty nearly in half.

The idea even has some bipartisan support. Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah has pitched a smaller version of a child allowance.

I'm all for it. Our birth rate was too low before COVID, and I seriously doubt the pandemic has done it any favors. Anything that makes it easier for people to have and raise children gets a thumbs up from me, at least for now.

I'm for it, but I don't think our birth rate was too low. I think we should increase our draconian immigration caps to make up the difference in population change.

[Smoove_B]

For a nation that's made up of people quick to spout "family values", collectively we do a terrible job of promoting the health of women and children. I'm all for programs that do both. I don't really have a feeling about juicing the birth rate, instead it's about making sure families have the support they need. There was an article in our local NJ news last week about a little girl that told her class via Zoom that she was starving. Her mom was out of work and they had no money for food. Absolutely heart breaking and her story is probably one of millions in the same position right now and before COVID. It's unnecessary.

[Paingod]

It won't do much to stimulate people who don't want kids to go out and have kids, but may encourage people who have had more than they can financially support to continue having them.

I'm not against kids being given advantage, but "no-strings" money is easily abused. Set up college funds for the kids that can only be put towards higher education after the age of 18. Issue debit-style cards that can only be used to buy food with special Christmas/Birthday cards intended to buy gifts. I dunno. Throwing money on the table and hoping people to use it wisely sounds like a generally bad idea. I've known too many people who would take that money and buy things kids have no use for - drugs, alcohol, cigarettes...

[Jaymann]

With One Move, Congress Could Lift Millions Of Children Out Of Poverty

The COVID-19 relief bill working its way through Congress is full of big ideas to help people. But there's one idea that's so big, it was politically unthinkable not that long ago.

President Biden and Democratic lawmakers want to fight child poverty by giving U.S. families a few hundred dollars every month for every child in their household — no strings attached. A kind of child allowance.

If this proposal survives the wrangling in Congress and makes it to Biden's desk, experts say it could cut child poverty nearly in half.

The idea even has some bipartisan support. Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah has pitched a smaller version of a child allowance.

I'm all for it. Our birth rate was too low before COVID, and I seriously doubt the pandemic has done it any favors. Anything that makes it easier for people to have and raise children gets a thumbs up from me, at least for now.

I'm for it, but I don't think our birth rate was too low. I think we should increase our draconian immigration caps to make up the difference in population change.

+1. Not enough people on earth seems like a non-starter when we are approaching 8 billion world wide. With a B.

[hitbyambulance]

With One Move, Congress Could Lift Millions Of Children Out Of Poverty

The COVID-19 relief bill working its way through Congress is full of big ideas to help people. But there's one idea that's so big, it was politically unthinkable not that long ago.

President Biden and Democratic lawmakers want to fight child poverty by giving U.S. families a few hundred dollars every month for every child in their household — no strings attached. A kind of child allowance.

If this proposal survives the wrangling in Congress and makes it to Biden's desk, experts say it could cut child poverty nearly in half.

The idea even has some bipartisan support. Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah has pitched a smaller version of a child allowance.

I'm all for it. Our birth rate was too low before COVID, and I seriously doubt the pandemic has done it any favors. Anything that makes it easier for people to have and raise children gets a thumbs up from me, at least for now.

I'm for it, but I don't think our birth rate was too low. I think we should increase our draconian immigration caps to make up the difference in population change.

+1. Not enough people on earth seems like a non-starter when we are approaching 8 billion world wide. With a B.

+2. we're suffering OVERpopulation, globally. clearly we need to instead siphon off some excess from other countries. (tho i suppose 'good luck with that' in the current political climate... but Microsoft and other big tech companies really were abusing the whole H1-B work visa - just to import foreign talent that actually would work for less than native American tech workers.)

[Kraken]

With One Move, Congress Could Lift Millions Of Children Out Of Poverty

The COVID-19 relief bill working its way through Congress is full of big ideas to help people. But there's one idea that's so big, it was politically unthinkable not that long ago.

President Biden and Democratic lawmakers want to fight child poverty by giving U.S. families a few hundred dollars every month for every child in their household — no strings attached. A kind of child allowance.

If this proposal survives the wrangling in Congress and makes it to Biden's desk, experts say it could cut child poverty nearly in half.

The idea even has some bipartisan support. Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah has pitched a smaller version of a child allowance.

I'm all for it. Our birth rate was too low before COVID, and I seriously doubt the pandemic has done it any favors. Anything that makes it easier for people to have and raise children gets a thumbs up from me, at least for now.

I'm for it, but I don't think our birth rate was too low. I think we should increase our draconian immigration caps to make up the difference in population change.

+1. Not enough people on earth seems like a non-starter when we are approaching 8 billion world wide. With a B.

+3. As long as we can import them, we don't need to produce them. This risks incentivizing those who can least afford them to have more kids.

[LawBeefaroni]

Fix or eliminate the child tax credit first. It does nothing for the very poor and only scales up as you add income.

[Holman]

For a nation that's made up of people quick to spout "family values", collectively we do a terrible job of promoting the health of women and children.

That's because such programs address women and children in economic need, and those are disproportionately nonwhite.

[stimpy]

Keep Maury in business!!!

[stimpy]

There is no such thing as child poverty. Children are born into it.
There is parent poverty and by extension children suffer.
Throwing money at the parents and hoping it trickles down to the children is foolish.
So in other words, it has a great chance of passing!!!

[Holman]

There is no such thing as child poverty. Children are born into it.
There is parent poverty and by extension children suffer.
Throwing money at the parents and hoping it trickles down to the children is foolish.

Jesus Christ.

Do you know who pay's a child's expenses?

[stimpy]

Throwing money at the parents and hoping it trickles down to the children is foolish.

Jesus Christ.

Do you know who pay's a child's expenses?

Responsible parents.

[Holman]

Throwing money at the parents and hoping it trickles down to the children is foolish.

Jesus Christ.

Do you know who pay's a child's expenses?

Responsible parents.

OK. You're just not serious.

[stimpy]

What's the answer than, Alex?
Government? Taxpayers? Santa Claus? Tooth Fairy?

[stimpy]

Having trouble coming back with a snarky answer?
I'll save you the trouble of having to Google for an answer....not much help.

[YellowKing]

I'm against no-strings-attached money per child. Figure out ways to pay for school, food, necessities, you can throw as much money at it as you want and I'm all for it. We absolutely do not need to incentivize bringing more kids in the world to parents who can't raise the ones they've got.

I'll go a step further, and say if you want to throw a universal basic income out there, I'm for that too. Kids, no kids, whatever, you get X amount. It's dangling the carrot of "hey have more kids to boost your income" that I'm against. My wife grew up in foster care and she saw first-hand the abuse that came with that.

[Daehawk]

Im not sure what I could do with a child. Maybe mow the yard if they're old enough or gardening. How many are we talking here? Do they give you one a week or one a month?

[Kraken]

Im not sure what I could do with a child. Maybe mow the yard if they're old enough or gardening. How many are we talking here? Do they give you one a week or one a month?

You beat me to it.

[LordMortis]

Im not sure what I could do with a child. Maybe mow the yard if they're old enough or gardening. How many are we talking here? Do they give you one a week or one a month?

You beat me to it.

I was thinking is a child allowance nowadays? Is five bucks a week enough? We started at quarter a week and with inflation I ended at a dollar week and a dollar an hour for every hour of work we did beyond what was expected of us until I got a job. Once you got a job allowance was cut off.

[Holman]

Having trouble coming back with a snarky answer?
I'll save you the trouble of having to Google for an answer....not much help.

What are you even talking about?

Searching for "child support" (as above) gets you into the specific territory of post-divorce payments to a former partner-parent. A child allowance is about money for parents who need help paying for the expenses that having a child brings to a family.

You're aware that children generally don't have paying jobs, right? And that they still eat and need clothing and housing and medicine?

[stimpy]

Having trouble coming back with a snarky answer?
I'll save you the trouble of having to Google for an answer....not much help.

What are you even talking about?

Searching for "child support" (as above) gets you into the specific territory of post-divorce payments to a former partner-parent. A child allowance is about money for parents who need help paying for the expenses that having a child brings to a family.

You're aware that children generally don't have paying jobs, right? And that they still eat and need clothing and housing and medicine?

I didnt search for child support.
So answer your own question then.
Who pays a child's expenses?

[Blackhawk]

If our options are to ease immigration or give out money to the poor... which do the congressional Republicans hate more? Poor people or foreigners?

As an alternative, we could work to make children less expensive. Increase school lunches, access to affordable (or free) healthcare until Age X, better education, create national after school and summer daycare programs for working parents, make college free, and possibly give a food allowance (rather than a pile of cash for each kid, give a monthly food stamp card with food stamp restrictions.)

[Holman]

Having trouble coming back with a snarky answer?
I'll save you the trouble of having to Google for an answer....not much help.

What are you even talking about?

Searching for "child support" (as above) gets you into the specific territory of post-divorce payments to a former partner-parent. A child allowance is about money for parents who need help paying for the expenses that having a child brings to a family.

You're aware that children generally don't have paying jobs, right? And that they still eat and need clothing and housing and medicine?

I didnt search for child support.

But you can see that the question is interpreted by Google as being about "child support," right? Every link in the screenshot says so.

So answer your own question then.
Who pays a child's expenses?

The parent or guardian responsible for the child's well-being, obviously.

Your initial comment--the one I responded to--was that payments don't trickle down and that children don't experience poverty except as victims of their parents' poverty. Please clarify what that was supposed to mean.

I'm going to take a guess that you mean something like "poor people shouldn't have children," which (besides being gross on its face) makes sense only if people are 100% in control of whether they're going to wind up poor in the future.

[stimpy]

Having trouble coming back with a snarky answer?
I'll save you the trouble of having to Google for an answer....not much help.

What are you even talking about?

Searching for "child support" (as above) gets you into the specific territory of post-divorce payments to a former partner-parent. A child allowance is about money for parents who need help paying for the expenses that having a child brings to a family.

You're aware that children generally don't have paying jobs, right? And that they still eat and need clothing and housing and medicine?

I didnt search for child support.

But you can see that the question is interpreted by Google as being about "child support," right? Every link in the screenshot says so.

So answer your own question then.
Who pays a child's expenses?

The parent or guardian responsible for the child's well-being, obviously.

Your initial comment--the one I responded to--was that payments don't trickle down and that children don't experience poverty except as victims of their parents' poverty. Please clarify what that was supposed to mean.

I have no control over how Google interprets things.

And here was my answer to your question about who pays for a child's expenses.
RESPONSIBLE PARENTS.
Not all parents are responsible. Hate to break it to you.
Thus, my answer of the solution not being simply giving money to the parent and hoping they are responsible enough to spend it to benefit the child.
Not implying that all parents that live in poverty, and therefore their children, are irresponsible. But not naive enough to think that they all are and that money alone can fix the problem.
Others here have posted alternatives and I agree that going that route would be much more beneficial to the children.

As to the late addition to your post, fuck off. Not what I meant at all.

[Holman]

I have no control over how Google interprets things.

You can read your own screenshot, though, can't you?

And here was my answer to your question about who pays for a child's expenses.
RESPONSIBLE PARENTS.
Not all parents are responsible. Hate to break it to you.
Thus, my answer of the solution not being simply giving money to the parent and hoping they are responsible enough to spend it to benefit the child.
Not implying that all parents that live in poverty, and therefore their children, are irresponsible. But not naive enough to think that they all are and that money alone can fix the problem.

So what happens when RESPONSIBLE PARENTS *can't* pay their expenses because a pandemic or a recession or an economic realignment throws the economy into the shitter? Money won't help them because they are suddenly by definition IRRESPONSIBLE?

[stimpy]

I have no control over how Google interprets things.

You can read your own screenshot, though, can't you?

And here was my answer to your question about who pays for a child's expenses.
RESPONSIBLE PARENTS.
Not all parents are responsible. Hate to break it to you.
Thus, my answer of the solution not being simply giving money to the parent and hoping they are responsible enough to spend it to benefit the child.
Not implying that all parents that live in poverty, and therefore their children, are irresponsible. But not naive enough to think that they all are and that money alone can fix the problem.

So what happens when RESPONSIBLE PARENTS *can't* pay their expenses because a pandemic or a recession or an economic realignment throws the economy into the shitter? Money won't help them because they are suddenly by definition IRRESPONSIBLE?

Seriously, dude.
If you think money is the only resource out there to help people, you need to get the fuck out from in front of your screen and go outside once in awhile. You're making stupid arguments for what purpose?
Call out the other posters here that have said they dont agree with no strings attached money as being the answer.
Put me on ignore and do us both a favor.

[stimpy]

Here's a picture I took in front of my church 2 days ago of what was left after sitting outside all day handing bags out.
Any idea what it feels like to panic and have to scramble at the last minute to make sure nothing goes to waste and families and children that need it get it?



Enlighten me how money fixes this?

[Zarathud]

Damn easy. If they had money, they wouldn’t be dependent on finding out your church has available help — or forced to show up asking for a handout — or forced to show up during a limited period there are volunteers to give the handout.

You’re so angry, bro. Need a hug?

[stimpy]

No, apparently I need money, because that fixes everything!!!

[stimpy]

Damn easy. If they had money, they wouldn’t be dependent on finding out your church has available help — or forced to show up asking for a handout — or forced to show up during a limited period there are volunteers to give the handout.

So you'd rather let your kids go hungry than have your precious little pride hurt?
Nice parenting skills.

[Zarathud]

My kids don’t have enough deprivation in their life. Except from not producing their own insulin.

Someone on minimum wage cannot get the medical care I can afford for my kids. I spend more than the $15 per hour minimum wage worker makes annually on health care for my family alone. American health care is terrible if you have no money.

We can have this discussion about letting kids go without and parental responsibility and pride, if you want.

If you value human dignity, parenting, and work then IMO you should be for a higher minimum wage as a moral matter. Even if you disagree on the economics.

[stimpy]

My kids don’t have enough deprivation in their life. Except from not producing their own insulin.

Someone on minimum wage cannot get the medical care I can afford for my kids. I spend more than the $15 per hour minimum wage worker makes annually on health care for my family alone. American health care is terrible if you have no money.

We can have this discussion about letting kids go without and parental responsibility and pride, if you want.

If you value human dignity, parenting, and work then IMO you should be for a higher minimum wage as a moral matter. Even if you disagree on the economics.

This thread is not about minimum wage.
It's about whether or not you agree with the government giving money to everyone below a certain income level and realistically thinking that everyone will use that money to enhance their children's lives. Will some? Yes. Will some not? Yes.
Where's the checks and balances?

[Zarathud]

Tracking the check is irrelevant. If you have kids, you pay a lot for their care and support. Even if you’re irresponsible.

You’re looking at this like someone paying child support, resentful of their ex-spouse. Money is fungible. Kids are expensive. More money in the gas tank lets you drive further.

Besides, adding checks and balances would just be government bureaucracy. Republicans don’t like that — except when not having it is an excuse to be outraged.

It would be nice if life could be separated into different threads. But if people earned a better wage, we wouldn’t be talking about child allowances.

[stimpy]

Tracking the check is irrelevant. If you have kids, you pay a lot for their care and support. Even if you’re irresponsible.

You’re looking at this like someone paying child support, resentful of their ex-spouse. Money is fungible. Kids are expensive. More money in the gas tank lets you drive further.

Besides, adding checks and balances would just be government bureaucracy. Republicans don’t like that — except when not having it is an excuse to be outraged.

It would be nice if life could be separated into different threads. But if people earned a better wage, we wouldn’t be talking about child allowances.

Yes we would because not everyone works.
And saying that irresponsible parents pay a lot for their kids care and support is contradictory.

[Kurth]

Tracking the check is irrelevant. If you have kids, you pay a lot for their care and support. Even if you’re irresponsible.

You’re looking at this like someone paying child support, resentful of their ex-spouse. Money is fungible. Kids are expensive. More money in the gas tank lets you drive further.

Besides, adding checks and balances would just be government bureaucracy. Republicans don’t like that — except when not having it is an excuse to be outraged.

It would be nice if life could be separated into different threads. But if people earned a better wage, we wouldn’t be talking about child allowances.

Yes we would because not everyone works.
And saying that irresponsible parents pay a lot for their kids care and support is contradictory.

I’m trying to follow along here, but I really don’t get what you’re arguing.

Are you saying that because some poor parents are irresponsible and won’t make good use of extra money to provide for their kids, no poor parents should get extra help from the government based on childcare expenses?

Do you think that all children living below the poverty line are in that situation because their parents are irresponsible?

If not all, do you think the numbers are so skewed toward irresponsible parents as to make the number of responsible but poor parents de minimus?

[stimpy]

Not implying that all parents that live in poverty, and therefore their children, are irresponsible. But not naive enough to think that they all are and that money alone can fix the problem.
Others here have posted alternatives and I agree that going that route would be much more beneficial to the children.

[Blackhawk]

It's about whether or not you agree with the government giving money to everyone below a certain income level and realistically thinking that everyone will use that money to enhance their children's lives. Will some? Yes. Will some not? Yes.

Some is enough. Any program that helps anyone will be used properly by some and abused by some. Every program ever. So yes, if you give everyone $300 some will take that money, let their kids stay hungry, and buy $300 in extra booze. Some will buy healthy kid food and invest it in their education. Most will buy a six-pack and eat out once, then use the rest for rent, utilities, and food. In the end, more kids will benefit from it than will suffer for it.

The article states that this could cut child poverty by half. The perfect is the enemy of the good, and this seems good (although there are still probably better alternatives, as I mentioned earlier.)

Social Security Survivor's benefits for kids with dead parents (I got that for a decade growing up, and my father gambled most of it away), TANF, housing subsidies, food stamps (people still sell theirs for cash for drugs.) All of them are abused. All of them. And all of them still result in a better life for far more kids than the tiny fraction who abuse the programs. And kids who grow up with a better life tend to become adults who lead better lives, contribute more to society, and pay it back.

[Zarathud]

What Blackhawk said. It’s about resources for those who can use it. More gas in the gas tank.

Not everyone will drive to where you want without significant government regulation. But you can help them drive further.

And you don’t stop people driving cars because there are accidents and crashes.