Choosing the undesirable possibilities which leave one poorer and burden to society is always poor planning.
It is weird that I, living in England, apparently know that welfare rules in the US changed significantly over a decade ago, but some Americans apparently don’t. (Re: tomndebb’s post to LonesomePoleCat).
Well, like you said, take it with a whole grain of salt. The Daily Mail is a right-wing propaganda rag; I’m not even sure those families are as entirely workless as they claim to be.
However, in the UK, you don’t actually get any extra money for having a child and not working. You do get money to help you raise a child, but it’s not dependent on you not working. Child benefit is universal regardless of income (which I support because, for the small amount people receive, it would be a net negative to pay for the admin involved in means-testing), child tax credit increases if you go back to work, and, while you are more likely to get access to social housing, there simply isn’t that much of that; the old canard about having a kid to get a council flat is far out of date. The only extra ‘money’ you get for being out of work is milk tokens when your baby’s under one (worth about 7 quid a week), and a payment to help with the costs of a first child (currently 250 quid). Free school dinners are available to working parents on a low income as well as non-working parents.
Some people get more money than they pay out on taxes (especially if they have a long-term health condition that starts when they’re young), but I don’t think that’s what people usually mean by welfare being a money-maker - they mean it’s more than you could get if you got a minimum-wage job, or more than you could get if you didn’t have a kid.
They know that. Everybody knows that, as it was a huge freaking deal, but they’re so dogmatically opposed to Welfare that they continue holding on to this entirely fabricated Welfare Queen image, which is a reality that never existed in the first place, and if it had, was killed in the 1990s.
Going down that Daily Mail article, though, here’s some salt to sprinkle on it:
The family at the start are ten people living in a three-bedroom place. They get 32,000 a year, which sounds a lot until you consider that it amounts to 3,200 each.
The second family, who live an area which has huge unemployment and has done since the collpase of heavy industry, aren’t really three generations of workless people, unless you count a stay-at-mother of 66 as workless even though she did actually work before she got married; that’s common for their generation, and her husband is a retired plumber, so not workless.
The attitude she has in that article is really unhealthy, but not typical. She’s been watching too much Jeremy Kyle. Or she’s saying ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to questions fed to her by the journalist, which are then put into full sentences.
I do think there is actually a small problem with kids growing up never seeing their parents working, or at least not seeing other adults around them working, or at least trying to get work.
I also think there’s a problem with people thinking they’re better off on benefits than they really are. At the end of the article, Emma says that if she went back to work she’d have to pay her rent herself, but that’s not true; if her income’s really low she’d still get help. She’d also get working tax credit.
Still, since her son’s very young (2) childcare costs might be pretty high and recent govt cuts have been really bad for working parents (here’s one link. Childcare is also usually only available in working hours, often literally 9-5 with 8-5 being quite common and 7-6 being really rare. Since a lot of entry-level jobs in retail, manufacturing, telesales, etc, require shift work, that doesn’t help much.
Many of these jobs are also on retail estates with no public transport, and owning and running a car (even learning to drive - it would cost me £1000 now if passed first time) is extremely expensive in the UK. These are real barriers to work that many parents can’t actually do much about.
When my daughter was that age, I was applying for all kinds of work, with different CVs tailored to each job (I even left my degree off some retail work applications in the end), and I lived in an area where there were actual jobs, which is better than the situation in Swansea (the second family in that article). In the end I took a job that left me out of pocket after transport costs because I was so fed up not working, and because I was trying to move nearer to work; if I hadn’t moved, which was much more difficult than you’d expect and would be even more difficult now, I couldn’t have carried on in that job.
But that’s a hell of a risk to take, and I couldn’t have done that if my daughter hadn’t been a summer baby so started school when she was 4.
Some people are taking the piss but they’re a tiny minority compared to the people who actually want to be better off, and are trying to, but might well bullshit about how great everything is when they’re confronted.
Having a child is not always unwanted and certainly isn’t an automatic ticket to “burden to society.” I guess it almost always does leave you at least a little bit poorer. But as far as I know God doesn’t give you ribbons in heaven for having bales of cash. Taking a lifestyle hit for the sake of family is just a part of life for most people.
A little bit poorer for some families means destruction. Any God worth worshipping doesn’t give out ribbons in heaven for bringing children into a life of suffering which could have been avoided with a little population control.
Since I was responding to your comment about the price of gas your response is a non-sequitur. You might at least try to construct a consistent set of assumptions for your poor people. My original statements were that the poor people being described don’t exist in significant numbers. Your tendency to change your description from post to post which just strengthens my case. I suggest you go find some statistical evidence to supports your argument or admit the poor you are describing are products of your imagination.
The poor I am describing are my neighbors.
And my response to your comment about going to the grocery store when coming home from work negated the problem with the price of gas was appropriate. Many poor people work schedules that mean coming home from work after supermarkets are closed or work so many hours that trying to shop for groceries when they are exhausted is counterproductive.
Anyone who thinks that receiving a small allotment of government money for two years in order to raise a child to the age of eighteen is a “money maker” is pretty clearly innumerate, as well as completely out of touch with financial reality.
It’s possible that teen mothers aren’t really looking forward through the next 18 years, but keeping their eyes more focused on the immediate future. If there are no jobs and my education was subpar and I can live at my parents house and eat their food and borrow their car and get a few years of TANF and food stamps and medicaid and not have to work, that’s a better life than I have right now without a baby.
It’s a far cry from set for life or a solid money making scheme, but the logic does make some sense.
And you know your neighbor’s income, work schedules, commuting, shopping and dining habits exactly how? Of course, there is no reason we shouldn’t extrapolate what happens in your immediate vicinity to the entire country.
Focusing exclusively on TANF payments when these are just one part of the social payments system - and after some other parts have been repeatedly noted in this thread - is not going to give anyone a reason to trust your claims. (The same goes for DSeid as well.)
Of course, some people don’t need a reason to trust your claims - they just like your claims, facts be damned. Hard to deal with that one.
Why don’t you just provide a cite then? Show these ‘facts’ that people are ignoring.
You’re not stupid, so there’s no point pretending. However, we’ll play this your way.
Let’s pretend I promise to give you $5 a month if you’ll stop working, and to pay your tax liabilities. You are now receiving free money and paying no taxes. Does that mean you can afford to live on my $5?
If not, why not? It’s free to you.
That doesn’t follow at all–you’d have to show that welfare was the cause of those growing numbers, when it’s been shown that the rate of fertility vs. income is similar across many nations and time periods without regard to welfare availability.
I’ve known several women who’ve been in bad relationships where the man pretty much dictates everything they do. Domestic control and abuse is unfortunately common, especially in lower income situations.
It doesn’t seem to me that any significant facts are actually in dispute, and I don’t think people asking for cites are asking in good faith.
My points, as stated repeatedly, are that people who have children are eligible for benefits which cover the (primary) costs of supporting those children as well as additional benefits which cover their own costs. As such, they are ahead on a net financial basis as a result of having these children.
It does not seem that anyone is disputing the above.
What people are saying instead is some combination of:
[ul]
[li]suggestions that I’ve said people can make it rich on welfare (“welfare queens”)[/li][li]making an artificial argument over whether it’s worth having children in order to get welfare[/li][li]pretending that TANF is the sum of social assistance programs.[/li][/ul]
These are not good faith arguments and cites have no applicability. For someone who genuinely wants to know, there’s enough already. But you can’t force people to accept things they actively don’t want to accept. Take it or leave it.
I find it pretty disingenuous for you to start out saying, “For lower-income women, having children is a money-maker,” and then turn around and try to act like you weren’t implying the whole welfare queen thing. When I see “money-maker” I think of someone who has a substantial amount of cash lying around. Are you trying to say that you don’t understand why we would interpret it that way?
You have to consider the context in which it was originally said (post #21). Frylock had been unsure whether the social payments covered part or all of the costs of raising a child, and in that context I responded that it covered more than the costs of a child.
In case there was any genuine uncertainty about this, I reiterated further in post #44 & #51 (specifically disclaiming welfare queens), and possibly others. To pretend I was talking about welfare queens is what’s disingenuous.
Oh, I understand it full well. I wasn’t going to mention it here, but since you’re trying to make an issue of it …
You would interpret it that way because your overriding focus WRT this issue is on preserving as generous as possible social assistance payments, against the Heartless Bastards who would cast off the poor to suffer on their own, and you are therefore incapable of discussing the subject rationally and dispassionately.
And you’re all geared for discussions of welfare queens where you feel you’re on solid ground, and you’ve seen in the past what looks like a good refutation of the Heartless Bastards’ claims in that regard.
You’re far less comfortable discussing the more subtle issue of whether the actual nature of these programs incentivizes poor women to make bad decisions, so you try to shift the discussion into what you perceive as a “winning” one for your “team”.
Not hard to understand at all.