I do know my sister was flat out told when trying to apply to Medicaid that, if she were pregnant, she could get it.
And I don’t see what the fact that it costs more money in the long run has to do with whether people do it. People often prioritize the short term.
I’m not certain but my guess is Supplemental Security Income (SSI). It fills in for SS at the low end of things, also the state may add to SSI.
Personal data point:
I currently receive $10.40 from SSI a month. It was $93 in April of 2009, but California’s budget problems have cause cuts. When I first qualified for disability I got an extra $80 a month in SSI benefits because I had no cooking appliances. I lost it when I got a mini-fridge, a microwave & a coffee pot. My total current benefit for the month is $874.40.
To approach the OP from a different angle (still hoping for the spirit of General Questions), interpreting the question as “Is the prospect of getting more money the reason that people on welfare tend to have yet more babies?” —
There is a sociological theory associated in the mainstream with Daniel Patrick Moynihan, one not without controversy but for which substantive supporting arguments have been, generally referred to as “culture of poverty”, which explains it more like this:
• There is a social stratum in which people grow up without employed parents in neighborhoods where that is the norm. Many of these are single-parent families (usually single moms, not that that’s relevant in all the ways that some people, incuding Moynihan, have tended to make it).
• When you grow up without role models among peers and parents and parents of your peers and so on who have self-sustaining jobs and careers and whatnot, you are less likely to aspire to same, to assume you’ll have them yourself, and so on. You’re also less likely to acquire the formal and informal skills from your home and neighborhood environment that make you readily employable (watching mom balance the budget and seeing how the math works and discussing investments and capital and savings, going to Tosca with your Dad and discussing the history of religion and politics and of opera’s relationship to modern movies, and simply picking up on the nuances of grammar and intonation and body language that are used by the socioeconomic class of the generally-employed and often-employers) or give you good prospects for getting into college. Or thinking that college is in your future, etc.
• People from puberty through adolescence and early adulthood start seeking ways of demonstrating that they are in fact adults (grown-ups). There are many such observable attainments, including moving out on your own (generally requires an income or admission to a school that provides dorm rooms), getting a job and therefore disposable income, getting a car so you’re independently mobile (generally requires either an income or parents with an income), getting married (doesn’t require economic independence but it tends to be expected); or becoming a parent.
• If you grow up in a social stratum where having a baby without having a job and being able to support yourself and your baby is not outside the norm, there is little stigma attached to doing so; and that tends to go hand in hand with the lack of expectation that you will be self-supporting (it’s the same social stratum). So becoming a parent while (still) being on welfare or obtaining your own welfare (where previously you were supported via your parents’ welfare) is one of the few available and locally-accepted avenues by which you change your status from child to adult.
• And if you’re unemployed and out of school, what ELSE would you be doing with your time? It can look like a more responsible and grown-up way of being in the world than hanging out with your unemployed friends (outdoors on street corners and in parks and malls since most of you have no homes separate from those of your parents yet due to no income etc).
There’s plenty of room to poke holes in bits and pieces of this, but as an overall way of looking at things, I think it rings true. It has often been twisted into a debate over whether or not the existence of unmarried moms is a huge social problem, but I suggest focusing more on the larger picture of what the theory is saying.
She had apparently been in the USA on a visa that allowed her to work for a while. But yes, I think wiki sez her checks are only about $700/mo.
You do know that legal residents, on “Green Cards” can collect most benefits, right?
In the UK we’ve had universal child benefit since the end of World War 2. Currently it is £20.30 ($32) per week for your first child and £13.40 ($21) per week for any additional child.
Unfortunately the new budget was announced this week and it will be stopped for families where one parent earns more than £60,000 ($95,000).
I’m sure some people here have children for the money but I would hope it’s a very small number, it’s not exactly a smart thing to do as it’s very difficult to make a profit at that game!
Why is it unfortunate that those making close to $100,000 a year are losing a small stiphon from the Government? If you are making that kind of money you can take care of yourself and your children. Wouldn’t that money be beter put to use somewhere else, perhaps to increase the benefit to those who are truly in financial need?
Thanks to those who responded to my question about Aunt Obama. I was afraid that by asking it, the comments would be of a political nature calling me a right wing shill just trying to take a dig at Obama. Of course, that wasn’t the case, I was really interested to see the answer to my questions.
My loser step son and his mega loser wife do this. They get all the aid available, WIC, section 8, food stamps you name it. They are in their mid 20’s and healthy but refuse to work. They really know how to play the system. He sells his foodstamps for 60 cents on the dollar to buy cigarettes.
In many states, you can’t sell food stamps because they don’t exist. They’ve instead moved to EBT cards. I guess at least 10 states and 2 territories do this (probably lots more, those are what I can confirm from wiki/my knowledge). Maybe some enterprising ghetto economist has figured out how to buy booze and smokes with them somehow.
Agree. But many of the people on these entitlement programs can’t (or don’t) do the math. Even if an extra child boosted the amount of their check by only $10 a month, there *will *be people who have a child for that purpose, even though it doesn’t make financial sense to do so.
EBT does not inhibit selling food stamps. There are several ways of doing it, which I am not sure if I can detail here but you should be able to google EBT & audit or selling & EBT and get a lot of information.
Buy good steaks and sell them for cash, duh.
In theory I agree with you. On a personal level I’ve been paying taxes towards it for 10 years and as soon as I get kids they stop it! 
That sort of money isn’t that much where I come from anyway. I’m not struggling but when you lose almost half of it on taxes and pay $20k a year on childcare it quickly gets used up (it’ll be almost $40k/year on childcare when my second child’s born in a couple of months and starts nursery).
It would be good if the government spent the money elsewhere to help the needy but we’ve currently got the Tories (right-leaning party) who are cutting benefits across the board while reducing the top rate of tax for those earning over $240k…
I have been on welfare since I was a teenager because I was homeless and a runaway but fast forward once I had children I started receive more money from the state, but that was not my motive to get money. Over the years I have learned they don’t give you enough money to have a very fulfilled life they give you enough money to cover necessities. Some women, unlike myself, have really screwed up priorities and they use the money for things it is not intended to be used for. I can assure you if you pay bills and get the necessities for your home and children you will have nothing left until the next months check. For a Woman like me, that is very depressing, because a job pays more than welfare and a monthly check unless of course its very lucrative more than likely you can do simple math and realize you make more money by getting off your ass and working for it. It’s supposed to be a stepping stone so that you can become independent and make your own money. Being a low income, single mother, is very hard physically, spiritually, emotionally, and financially so not all women have sex and make a baby just to get on welfare if they do they are setting themselves up for a very big let down and a very big setback in life.
That’s not the same as families with no working members and whose main pastime seems to be making babies.
However I don’t believe that there are that many who sit down and say “lets have a baby to get more benefits.” The problem as I see it is that there is no other source of income that rises with the size of your family. Years ago there were tax allowances for them but they stopped a long time ago. If I decide to have six children, there will be some benefits available (family allowance family income benefit etc) but that pales into insignificance to the benefits I would receive as a non-working single parent.
Various governments have tried to engineer the system to make it possible to climb out of the benefit trap, but all they do is make it so complicated that many people fail to get the benefits to which they are entitled, while others seem to live comfortably without working.
On a motoring forum recently, a new member asked for help buying a car. He said that it needed to be cheap as he, his wife and three children were living on benefits. He took umbrage when I suggested that the cost of running a car might be too high for someone in his position.
The most common reason I’ve heard poor women give for why they have more babies is so they’ll be sure to have someone in the world who loves them. It’s really hard to argue that that’s a financial incentive, and it would be there regardless of how the welfare laws worked.
I once heard a young woman claim that she would never stop having babies, because the government every baby meant more money from the government. The idea is certainly a pervasive one, whether it is factually true or not. The truth of the matter is that welfare benefits barely provide enough money for the child to survive on, much less serve as a way for the parent to profit off them. Whether the people having children know or care is an entirely different story.
Statements like the one in the OP don’t reflect reality so much as a persistent conservative narrative that people who are on welfare are profiting at the expense of “honest, hard-working Americans.” America specifically clings to the myth of a “welfare queen” who exploits the system to bathe in unearned luxuries. This is hardly a new idea; People have spent millennia promoting the idea that people with money are virtuous and industrious, while the poor are greedy, lazy parasites. It’s a very deeply rooted narrative and I suspect it’s not going anywhere soon.
People don’t have babies. Women do.
Speaking as a male, I don’t really have a say in this; but I swear I would rather cut off my right leg with a dull hacksaw than go through pregnancy and childbirth just for a handful of dollars.
Jesus that makes me sad. I would like to offer them hugs.
Do poor people in the United States actually tend to have more children than middle-class or rich people?
I would say that though it may be seen as a benefit to some people to have additional children I can’t see it much of a motivation to have children. There would seem to be a want to have children and just appreciate the extra income, then a reason for having children.