Why are people reproducing like rabbits? TAX checks FOOD stamps & more fun benefits!

In the 1970’s there was a popular bumper sticker that said, “It’s the POPULATION, Stupid!” and we had a movement called Zero Population Growth. The idea was to replace yourself and your mate with 2 children. Enter Uncle Sam, who apparently decided that would not allow for enough future taxpayers and the idea was seldom mentioned on TV or in other media; It was certainly not promoted as a good idea. Enter well-meaning programs like the Earned Income Credit to give $ to people with kids. Who would have ever imagined that human nature would screw THAT up?? So somehow we find ourselves in 2017 with Idiocracy; Dummies are having more and more kids to get more and bigger checks while a portion of the population still takes care to make certain they can actually afford and provide for the kids they add to the BILLIONS on the planet! Where does this all end??? The flaw in the government’s 1970’s plan about the taxpayers has backfired! You have parents not working and spewing out kids on government checks; The kids are not going to do any better when they mature after watching their “role models”… and on and on this will go?? I heard today about a woman with 5 kids by 5 different men which is what sort of got me on this rant. Thoughts??

:rolleyes::smack:

well when the people who complain about paying out public money like this decide to quit complaining about subsided birth control abortions and things like sex ed planned parenthood ect then you might have a rant … until then weve been here and done that

I see that the birth rate in the United States last year was the lowest since 1935, and has been steadily decreasing for decades.

Obligatory XKCD when idiocracy is mentioned:

How did I guess that this was an October 2017 join date before opening the thread?

The smell of hamster barf wafting from the link. And you weren’t alone.

First off, the Earned Income Tax Credit only kicks in if parents have EARNED income. So it’s kind of silly to think people who don’t work get it.

Secondly, as has been pointed out thousands of times on this board, “welfare” as people like the OP picture it, died in 1996. It just doesn’t work that way anymore.

Finally, take a look at the 20 countries with the highest birth rates. I wouldn’t call any of them a welfare paradise.

Mind you, we’re willing to discuss this if you’ve got any truth or facts to present. Fox News Barf Screed doesn’t cut it here.

Will the OP come back? ::bates breath::

::::and it’s over the fence!

Technically, it is true that people with less education have more children:

But larger families do have larger incomes on average.

Not quite sure how to square those two facts, but it seems to be the facts.

My grandpa was the oldest of 15 … grandma was 8th of 17 … kids was free manual labor until the damn socialists came in and decried the lack of education … phaw … now we have Pokémon, happy now? …

Thoughts? I think that posting your erroneous claims on a message board 21 years after the laws you are complaining about in regard to welfare indicates that you are getting your “information” from a really bad political news outlet. Does your source spend much energy complaining about the terrible problems we woud have if women were allowed to vote or the labor we have lost with the outlawing of slavery?
As already noted, EIC only applies to INCOME that has been EARNED and the actual birth rate is steadily falling in the U.S.
I would not encourage a woman to have five kids by five different men. It suggests a lifestyle that I do not encourage. On the other hand, unless you have evidence that the woman is living large on government money, (in addition to the money she EARNED), or that she was led to make her choices based on government actions, you are simply fussing about something for which you have already demonstrated a certain level of ignorance.

As for food stamps, thse are simply a government subsidy for WalMart and the military, so your rant might need to be adjusted in a different direction.

Food stamps are not a subsidy for any employer. Food stamps are a subsidy for people who lack economic value relative to their needs.

And the people who “lack economic value” are the ones who find themselves with employers who do not provide sufficient pay–such as WalMart and the military. :smiley:

It is interesting that one would assign “economic value” to persons. I understand the concept, but I disagree with the premise.

What’s wrong with the premise?

It’s what employers do every day, and if we’re going to craft social policy technical understanding matters. Economics is not immoral - it’s amoral.

Not necessarily. As long as expenses exceed income a subsidy of some sort will be required. That can be true or not true for someone working at Wal-Mart or as a doctor.

I have my opinions on the best way those subsidies could be handled and under what conditions. But that’s another thread.

How else do you make decisions with finite resources? You assign value and act off of that. Now it might not be pleasant to say but much, if not all, policy has to make decisions that take into account value of life.

Interesting username/post combo, OP.

So the government is subsidizing itself? Sounds rather circular.

Incidentally, it’s not quite true to say that on the average poor people have more kids than rich people (in the U.S.). First, the effect is exaggerated even below the top 1.5% of the American population. It’s not true that women in the poorest 10% (or however you want to split up the population) have vastly more children each than women in the top 10% (or whatever). Women in the lowest income classes have almost three children over their lifetimes, while women in the almost top 8.5% (ignoring the very top 1.5% for the moment) have almost two children over their lifetimes, so the difference isn’t huge. It is generally true that the more well off a women is, the less children she will have (again, ignoring the top 1.5%), but again the drop in number is from a little less than three to a little less than two, so it’s not a huge difference. But the interesting thing is that women in the top 1.5% of the American population by income have almost three children on average.

This is probably because the biggest factor determining how many children a woman has is how much time she has away from her job (and her education and apprenticeship for that job), not how much money she and her husband (or whatever) makes. There are jobs that by the time that a woman finishes her education and her apprenticeship (i.e., her first few years on the job learning the ropes), she is in her mid-thirties at least. She may not have time to have as many kids as she wants. But for women in the top 1.5% of the population by income (who we can think of as rich), she and her husband (or whatever) make enough money that she can quit her job without having to worry about them going broke. (Sometimes it’s the husband who can quit his job.) After she has kids, she can go back to her job if she wants.