I’d actually like to have some factual numbers, such as how much someone gets per child and how much the average child costs to raise.
I’m in a FB discussion and someone wrote (after others said the same thing) “…people do continue to have kids so they can get extra money each month. It’s called welfare!”
I’m sure we’ve done this before, but I searched and didn’t find a thread on this in the first 3 pages. Also, the figures might have changed since the last time this was discussed. So if there is a recent thread feel free to point me to it, otherwise hopefully we can do this here.
TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) is the program for poor families. You have to meet work requirements and it is only temporary (hence the name). You can find more information here: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/tanf/about.html
Suffice it to say, since 1996 nobody is making a positive impact on their personal financial situation by having children. If poor people are having children they are doing it for other reasons.
Doesn’t WIC still give more money for each additional child, though? That’s how kids at my last school (whose mothers received WIC support) made it sound.
The EITC gives you more money the more children you have. Diminishing returns set in pretty quickly though, there’s a big gain for having one kid, a decent gain for having two, and past that the extra money per kid is negligible.
Even for the first kid, though, I doubt you’d be making a profit given that even with food stamps and medicaid, a kid is likely to cost you signifigantly more then you’d get from the ETC.
According to Jas09’s link, an additional child will get you, on a monthly basis:
One gallon of fruit juice
Four gallons of milk
36 ounces of breakfast cereal (that’s roughly three large boxes)
One dozen eggs
$6 of fruit
2 pounds of whole-wheat bread
18 ounces of peanut butter
A quick trip through Peapod to buy these items (going for the lowest price per ounce, which was usually an off brand or store brand) yielded a total cost of $39.57. So, an extra $40 or so a month, maybe a bit more if you’re able to get name brands on the WIC list. An extra $500 or so a year for another child, which can only go towards a very specific list of food.
You get priorities too. You can get on Section 8 faster if you’re a family and the more kids the higher up on the list you go. Section 8 is hard to get on, but you can game the system. I know of one woman that went to West Virginia, where the waiting list was non-existent. She applied got on then moved back to Milwaukee and once you’re on Section 8 you can go anywhere it’s accepted.
The work requirements are easy to get around if you have kids or simply have a physician who will say you’re needed at home to take care of an elderly or disabled relative.
You can easily sell your food stamps and find food at food pantries or local churches.
It’s not easy, in fact it’s probably easier to get a job. Staying on welfare would be a full time job in of itself.
The gains are more than negligible: they’re nonexistent. You get nothing extra above two. The dollar amounts increase, but also the floor under which you’re ineligible raises. With zero kids, you have to pretty much make less money than you can live on.
You can also get a child tax credit for each, and dependent care expenses credit for daycare. Some states like CA have additional amounts on that.
I doubt many consciously have kids for benefits. It’s more like: they no nothing about contraception and keep having them. Any benefits are a bonus but not the goal, despite what commentators might think.
This ignores the other subsidies and programs.
Here in MA, a family on welfare gets free/reduced price public housing (some people pay as low as $50/month), free/reduced price meals at schools (breakfast/lunch), free medical insurance, clothing allowances, and personal allowances.
For example, Obama’s Kenyan aunt (Mrs. Zeituni) is a resident in Boston Public Housing-she receives a one bedroom apartment for about $50/month. She also receives welfare and food (via ETB card).
Since she has made no move to seek employment, she must be satisfied with her present situation.
Since there is no welfare, this is false. According to wiki she does receive Disability. She is indeed disabled. She also was not always able to legally work in the USA until recently, until her deportation hearing was over. (She was here on a visa for a while, then under asylum).
Previously she lived on the streets or in a homeless shelter.
But yes, you are correct she is ‘satisfied with her present situation” as shw was quoted as saying “(wiki) I don’t mind,’’ she said. “You can take that house. I can be on the streets with homeless people. I didn’t ask for it. They gave it to me. Ask your system. I didn’t create it or vote for it. Go and ask your system.’’
Generally, here in the USA we don’t expect elderly disabled people to “seek employment”.
It is often claimed in Australia this happens but the cost of raising a child is far in excess of any supposed welfare benefits even when we had the baby bonus that was paid to new mums. It is just another way to have a go at the less fortunate.
There will always be those who are mentally challenged or ill who may claim they did it the money but really they are on the fringes and need more help than condemnation.
We have a strong welfare system, it would be interesting to see how many babies are born into welfare compared to US stats.
My ex in-laws said their neighbours-across-the-road with 6 children were frank about the fact that they were “better off” on welfare than working. They were supposedly pulling in something like $45,000 tax free, and then had all the benefits of a consession card on top. I never actually met these people myself (and it’s been years since my horrified in-laws told me about them) so I don’t know how much truth there is to it or what details I might be screwing up. I also had the impression that they had more children to increase their benefits, but I can’t recall if I was told that or assumed it because they had a large family.
I do recall a front page Herald Sun article a LONG time ago about three single mothers who had 10, 12 and 12 children respectively who were reportedly upfront about the fact that they kept having babies because their welfare payments went up. I have always remembered the paragraph where the reporter describes talking to one of the children about her father, and one of the other children sadly said “I wish I knew who my daddy was”.
Not at all another way to ‘have a go’ at those less fortunate.
I can’t provide hard data exactly in line with the OP in so far as people having babies for the welfare, but it as an unfortunate reality in Australia, that if one or both parents can only secure work in ‘low skill’ type of employment, you will receive net less than being on welfare where there is one or more children in the family.
Don’t want to derail the tread too much but in Australia Welfare benefits for parents include:
Family Tax Benefit A - up to $164 fortnight,
Family Tax Benefit B - up to $140 f/n,
Parenting Payment - $442 f/n
If we’re talking a couple, presumably one of the couple would be on a Newstart allowance (sort of like government funded unemployment for the Americans)
Newstart - $442 f/n
Rent Assistance (presuming they’re not in public housing) up to $120 f/n
Just the first four payments provide a yearly income of $30,888 (tax free), and will often also mean the recipients are in public housing (or at worst receiving rent assistance of up $120 f/n if in the private rental market), and have a health care card.
The thing which may produce the argument for having kids to keep the welfare going is that
A - The Parenting payment is only paid when the youngest child in the household is <6 years old (for a couple), and
B - Baby Bonus is still around and equates to $5,437 paid in 13 monthly installments.
Thanks for that information. I had heard about his Aunt, but didn’t know what the story was. I do have one question about your post however. You state she is on Disability. I too am disabled and recieve SS Disability. However, you also stated that until recently she was not legaly allowed to work in the US. If that is the case, then how did she qualify for SS Disability? Not judging or anthing, just curious. When I was injured while working my Disabliity was based on the number of years worked and the amount of money that I paid into the system via SS taxes. From what I have gathered, my monthly benefit is high compared to most as I was a high income earner when I was working. I have talked to others on disability that were not high income earners and they told me that their monthly befefit is around $800 a month. It must be very difficult to live on that. If you never worked in this country how can you apply for and recieve disability? I am not suggesting that we as a society turn our back on someone who is unable to provide for themselves, so don’t take my comments the wrong way. I just don’t understand that someone who is not a citizen (you said she was here on a visa) can take advantage of something that the rest of us have or are paying for.
Same thing in Canada - welfare goes up quite a bit with children in most provinces. Meanwhile, no matter how many kids you have, minimum wage stays the same, you just have to be away from the home - and find child care - 40 hours a week. Who’s the stupid one - the person who works 40 hours, or the person who sits home and collects the same amount?
OTOH, same as the USA, I suspect it is not a scam to get money so much as they type of people that cannot manage to hold a job also have difficulty working their birth control properly; and each time they think they’ve found the man of their dreams and will live happily ever after, until about the second trimester … which can start a new thread in a different forum, about why women always fall for the biggest jerks.