Rendered at 21:25:52 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
prxtl 1 days ago [-]
My brain is so off, I genuinely thought this was something to explain reactive streams to kids :(
drayfield 1 days ago [-]
What a fantastic charity, I really love the idea.
usernametaken29 1 days ago [-]
Germany recently discussed raising health insurance premiums for families (because families cause higher costs). Instead of the stick we need to use the carrot. Everybody is asking why birth rates plummet. It’s simple. Having a family costs a fuckton of money. I personally know a bunch of well-off people who have decided against children since they don’t think they’ll be able to sustain any way of middle class existence with kids.
Having a program that supports mothers like this, cash, no strings attached, is awesome. The last thing people need is to jump 1000x bureaucratic hoops when they’re broke and have basically zero sleep.
Hats off, cool charity!
fredrikholm 1 days ago [-]
> Everybody is asking why birth rates plummet. It’s simple. Having a family costs a fuckton of money.
It's a factor, it's not the only factor.
Decrease in teenage pregnancies, decrease in alcohol consumption, contraception and day after pills, higher levels of education, less socialized culture, less generational housing etc.
Having a child is more than often a deliberate, calculated decision that is made by adults whereas in the old world pregnancies happened left and right with little to say about it. Support systems existed because the problem was pervasive. Now the problem is generally gone, and the support systems thereafter.
No country has managed to reverse the trend of declining birth rates. The better quality of life people have, the fewer children people tend to have.
It's not just about who does and who doesn't have children, it's also how many children per family. 1-2 children is the new normal. My grandpa was #7.
boelboel 22 hours ago [-]
There's been many countries who've reversed declining birthrates to some extent. Almost all European countries and the US did so after WW2, the US had a birthrate below replacement in the 30s. Many cities in the western world had fertility rates well below 1.5 some under 1, Vienna is the most striking example with a tfr of about 0.6 about as low as South Korea right now.
Besides European countries you have many of the Soviet countries who had a rebound, Kazakhstan is the greatest example, going from 1.8 to 3. Israel was mentioned by others.
I also don't think the better life => less kids holds true at this point. Plenty of countries in deep troubles (e.g. Tunisia) have birthrates far below the US or some other western countries. Having a phone is enough to keep people distracted.
Those who do well financially (at least relatively in their own country) get more kids, I've heard about people working for TSMC getting twice as many kids vs their non TSMC peers.
If somehow everyone was able to have a stable job, could afford good housing, wasn't obsessed about the rat race you'd see birthrates close to replacement (like you see them in regions of the US where these conditions are mostly met). Sadly this isn't going to happen.
1 days ago [-]
eru 1 days ago [-]
> No country has managed to reverse the trend of declining birth rates.
Perhaps we can learn from the past? Birthrates between the world wars were below replacement level in much of the western world. Then the trend reversed for a while.
rcxdude 1 days ago [-]
Question is why was this the case? I feel a natural explanation is it's a reaction to there being less people around on account of the huge number of deaths, in which case there's probably little reason to worry: if birth rate increases as population drops then the system should tend to equalise itself. If it's something else related to a gigantic war specifically then it's a bit less certain (one very important question is was the growth just a displacement in time from all the couples who could not have a child during the war but now can?).
Spartan-S63 1 days ago [-]
For at least half that time period between world wars, there was significant economic depression.
It might simply be the economy. The vibes are bad and have been bad since the late 70s because wealth distribution is lopsided and income growth is stagnant.
eru 1 days ago [-]
> It might simply be the economy. The vibes are bad and have been bad since the late 70s because wealth distribution is lopsided and income growth is stagnant.
Seems unlikely: the decrease in fertility rates is pretty universal, but what your are giving as reasons here seem pretty US specific.
woodpanel 1 days ago [-]
> No country has managed to reverse the trend of declining birth rate
May I point you to the State of Israel? Its TFR sits at 3.
And if we really want to be nitpicky, and concentrating on the "reverse"-part of your statement, then even Balkan countries shine, as they literally managed to reverse the trend.
Game_Ender 1 days ago [-]
Israel is still declining just more slowly [0]. They do show the general point of this thread: it’s not money that is causing people to have fewer kids. It is the changing social structure and norms, in Israel they appear to tolerate kids everywhere, everyone has lots of kids adding social pressure, family and social support structures are strong making it easier.
In South Korea the reports are they this is very different. Kids are not tolerated in many places, many couples have few kids, society makes it quite hard on moms as well.
Yeah, SK is right behind Japan on that front. I wonder if the war money is altering the birth rate story in North Korea...
fredrikholm 1 days ago [-]
> And if we really want to be nitpicky, and concentrating on the "reverse"-part of your statement, then even Balkan countries shine, as they literally managed to reverse the trend.
That same bump is now reversing and the general trend of depopulation continues to accelerate. IIRC Bosnia has the lowest birth rates in all of Europe.
I appreciate the push back; I was overly confident in that statement. I do think however that it's correct to state that the slow trend across all developed countries could be summarized as "aggressively downwards".
Israel is literally the one exception.
watwut 1 days ago [-]
> old world pregnancies happened left and right with little to say about it.
Yes.
> Support systems existed because the problem was pervasive. Now the problem is generally gone, and the support systems thereafter.
Meh, support for single moms or pregnant teenagers was not all that great. To large extend, they were punished and suffered, they were blamed. Their kids were oftentimes blamed.
You are better off being pregnant teenager is a single mom today then in 1950 or 1925 or whatever.
po1nt 1 days ago [-]
IMHO we should just accept the lower income. Since women entered workforce we got used to the inflated lifestyle. We should just accept that having a kid will cost you money and it's fine. It's the best purchase there is.
Some might decide to buy more expensive car or larger house and that's cool choice as well. But in the end will bring you just a temporary happiness and maybe some social status boost.
Screw consumerism, just have a child.
rcxdude 1 days ago [-]
This might be a useful attitude to have individually but it's not really a plan of how to solve the systemic issue.
po1nt 1 days ago [-]
There is no systemic issue to solve. There is only cultural issue.
rcxdude 1 days ago [-]
Culture is part of the system, and probably one of the harder parts to change.
jareklupinski 1 days ago [-]
who makes the culture?
one person's actions can start to move the tide
criddell 1 days ago [-]
> It's the best purchase there is.
There are more parents out there that would disagree with that than you might think.
po1nt 15 hours ago [-]
Mine including heh.
collabs 1 days ago [-]
On the contrary, strike! Refuse to have children completely until society and in particular the wealthy uphold their end of the bargain and make universal free of cost childcare a reality.
Love your own life, refuse to have children for free!
po1nt 1 days ago [-]
Wealthy don't have children as well. Poorer families in africa have ten or more. It's not money issue. It's comfort issue
simonh 1 days ago [-]
To back this up, there is growing evidence that subsidised child care, financial support for families, etc has a minimal effect on birth rates, if any.
Estimates are that in France and Poland pro-natalist policies have cost around from $1m-2m per extra birth. This is completely unsustainable.
None of which means we shouldn't support families having children, of course we should for all sorts of reasons. It improves health and education outcomes for children, reduces child poverty, and gives women greater autonomy in their choice between work and home life, and overall seems to increase their participation rate in employment.
I think realizing this and taking it into account in family support policies can help us achieve actually achievable outcomes, while avoiding sinking money into unachievable ones.
fssys 1 days ago [-]
you need the larger house to have the kid!
po1nt 1 days ago [-]
Well no, that's a social standard. Plenty of people even in the US have double digit children in a trailer or two.
madduci 1 days ago [-]
I disagree. Why should we accept lower income, while billionaires are doing whatever they want, in the most illegal ways?
Unions and Fight for your rights, that's what we need
po1nt 1 days ago [-]
Don't pay them money, instead have children. The reason why they have money is you decide to buy their product instead of spending it on kids. (of course nestle and similar excluding)
folkrav 1 days ago [-]
Oh come on. Spending it on kids ALSO means buying their products in the end, captive audience and all. Kids come with all sorts of expenses you can't just wave away. Daycare/education. Clothing. Twice the food you would as a couple, not that far down the line. Possibly a larger vehicle, or just a vehicle at all, depending on your pre-kid lifestyle. Larger housing. And that's assuming everything goes well and you don't happen to have special needs or sick kids, meaning healthcare, taking days off, etc. The whole freaking thing makes you pay at every corner. Don't be dense.
po1nt 15 hours ago [-]
It's a tradition within my family to pass down most of the child stuff, so kids run in second hand clothing that will get puked on, torn, and pooped in anyway. There is no need for a larger car unless you really have a 3+ kids family. You don't need a larger house. That is a scam they are trying to sell you.
In case of special needs you are correct. But you need to hope that's not the case.
folkrav 10 hours ago [-]
Pass it down depends on having a kid around your age that can pass it down to you. We buy second hand for most, but we still have to buy. Yes, there is a need for a larger car when your original car is tiny, or you didn't have one at all. Yes, there is a need for larger housing cause I lived in a one bedroom apartment. As for special needs, I mean, it always can happen, and you always need to be ready that it's a possibility. Telling people that they should have kids regardless then turning around and leaving them with no resources for it is just irresponsible.
You also entirely skipped the most expensive ones. Feeding them, an expense that's been ever growing in the last decade, much faster than inflation. Education and child care, which the cynic in me, having read you say the problems started when women joined the workforce, thinks this is probably cause you think women should stay home for these - I hope I'm wrong.
I'd be extremely surprised if your budget didn't radically change before and after having kids, even staying frugal and living within your means.
po1nt 9 hours ago [-]
Food is not that expensive when you cook yourself. Children even don't eat that much.
Breast milk substitutes are expensive though, I admit.
I'm not saying your budget doesn't change after having a child. I'm just saying for a price of a special color on car, vacation and couple nights out, you can afford to have a child for a year.
It's not cheap, but most of us are blowing money on useless stuff anyway. Some are donating thousands a year to online creator, game microtransactions, drinks in a bar, designer bags, funko pop collections and such.
The lifestyle inflation is real. And thanks to shifting priorities, you might even get yourself into better financial position after a few years, then before having a child.
mattlondon 1 days ago [-]
> It’s simple. Having a family costs a fuckton of money
I've got two young kids. I wouldn't say day to day expenses are particularly huge.
Sure you can go wild and buy them designer clothes/shoes they grow out of in 6 months, or you can fill every waking moment with white-knuckle entertainment and excitement and that all costs money. But you don't need to do that, the kids don't care what they wear so long as it's got a robot/unicorn/etc on it, and they're often very happy playing with a cardboard box, a small amount of generic Lego, and their imagination.
Food cost is almost a rounding error. Barely anything for an extra loaf of bread, an extra packet of cereal, some more chicken etc. peanuts.
The main cost - beyond needing to live in a larger house which I probably would have got anyway even without kids - is the opportunity cost of having kids: I've probably missed a promotion or two because I've had to say no to work travel, projects, late meetings with the US office etc to go kid related things. That and UK nursery costs are bigger than the mortgage, but again that is "optional" and only for the first few years.
Good luck
robot_jesus 1 days ago [-]
Yeah. And the first chart on the page highlights that. It's the drop in income or (to your point, even the opportunity cost of missed promotions) that is most challenging.
Though my kids are amazing and absolutely worth it, no questions asked, I did feel like i was playing catchup in my career starting in my mid-30s.
mattlondon 1 days ago [-]
At least for me, our income did not decrease at all like it does in the chart. It went up but only by normal small inflationary increases. A one-off 1500 USD is not going to m move the needle in the grand scheme of things for me (and I am fortunate to be in that position I acknowledge)
I'm probably 8-10 years behind where I thought I would be in terms of promotions though (and the chunky pay rises that come with it) - I've basically been treading water since my wife was pregnant with the first kid because I had to say no to things at work so I could focus on family. I'm fortunate to have a very chill employer, but there have been many, many, many times where before children I'd simply have stayed late at the office to get something done or done a bit of work at the weekend or jumped on a plane somewhere with less than 24 hours notice or whatever. Instead things just have to wait to the morning or Monday, or I don't respond to messages any time of the day/weekend, or I am not there for that critical meeting with the stakeholders because its in Dallas or at 9pm UK or whatever.
I am only just starting to emerge tentatively from the other side of that now about 7 years later, and even then very very tentatively as I am basically 24/7 on-call for family emergencies that trump anything else.
Your wife and family won't believe you if you say it's impacted your career as the man or that it's hard to context switch - they'll laugh and dismiss your feelings as the narrative is that it is typically the mother who makes the sacrifices etc, but even if the mother is the stay at home parent there is still a major impact on the husband's career and work (or it has been for me anyway) but don't ever dare say that to a mother because they have a monopoly on that position.
dominicq 1 days ago [-]
Rx? Is it like Rx by Paul Le Roux, famous drug kingpin?
GaryBluto 1 days ago [-]
Such a strained metaphor designed to obscure the fact it's just taxpayer-funded welfare for expectant and new mothers without any background checks, drug testing, income limits or work requirements.
superb_dev 1 days ago [-]
You tried so hard to make that sound bad but you just can’t. No strings attached money for expecting mothers? Excellent! Sounds fantastic!
GaryBluto 1 days ago [-]
I think giving taxpayer money to anybody without basic checks is a bad idea and it will undoubtedly be exploited by people who don't need it or choose to spend it on the wrong things while neglecting their child's needs; I don't disagree with the idea of giving money to new families who actually need it.
If this received no taxpayer funding I wouldn't care, but when public funding is involved there need to be some checks to ensure no abuse, which Rx Kids doesn't have.
superb_dev 1 days ago [-]
Well there are basic checks? For one, you need to be having a baby.
All of the checks you listed would just serve to make it harder for this money to reach the mothers that need it.
GaryBluto 1 days ago [-]
> All of the checks you listed would just serve to make it harder for this money to reach the mothers that need it.
In the same way seatbelts just serve to make it harder for drivers to get to where they need to go quickly. It would not be difficult to restrict this to people below a certain tax bracket.
It all comes down to how much public money (that could have been used to help people who need it) you're willing to accept the possibility of being defrauded for one person to get support a couple days sooner.
superb_dev 1 days ago [-]
How are you deciding which tax bracket someone is in? The most likely scenario is they look at your previous years filing, which would defeat the whole purpose of this program. If you read the website, you’ll see income drops significantly prior to the baby being born.
Means testing often leaves out those on the lower end who straddle the line or get excluded by stupid technicalities. You simply can’t account for every scenario. Excluding any mother means you will exclude someone who needs it.
I would honestly love a national program that gives money to every mother automatically no questions asked.
drayfield 1 days ago [-]
>In the same way seatbelts just serve to make it harder for drivers to get to where they need to go quickly
?
GaryBluto 1 days ago [-]
Putting on a seatbelt adds a negligible 3 second delay to get where you need to go in exchange for a valuable addition to safety. I'm saying that Rx Kids needs at least a seatbelt, I'm not asking for constant eye tracking to be required. (Yes, I do admit the irony of me employing a strained metaphor)
Hugsbox 1 days ago [-]
I'd rather see a few people abuse this rather than having more barriers up for the people who need this assistance.
GaryBluto 1 days ago [-]
I suppose it's about finding a balance. I understand not having unreasonable amounts of repetitive checks, but if you make it too easy to abuse more than a few people will abuse it, which takes away money from the people who need it.
Hugsbox 1 days ago [-]
I don't know if there's much evidence to support that, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. Even if I'm wrong though, some folks "abusing" a system to get more money they might not necessarily "need" to support their child just doesn't seem that bad to me, and I'm sure whatever that costs the taxpayer would be a rounding error especially compared to the ludicrous amounts the government spends on other things.
I mean, where I live there's food banks, and the only requirement to utilize the food bank is that you bring in a piece of mail with your address on it so they can know you're at the correct food bank. I know, I'm poor and I've had to use the foodbank, recently even. Besides that, you could be the richest guy in town and go and pick up a nice big haul of food every 5 weeks if you choose to. But for whatever reason, this system isn't rife with abuse, even though I'm not drug tested (I would pass) or background checked (no criminal record) or made sure I work (I do). I'm aware of a few bad eggs who don't "need" the food bank who access it anyway, but by and large the people who do need it are getting it and that's what matters.
I guess my point is, you always hear about "what if this is abused" when it comes to systems that are in place to help the less-than-fortunate, but from what I can see it's always just a veiled attempt to make it harder for people who need assistance to actually get it, for little to no actual return because the "rampant abuse" we're told to worry about doesn't seem to be such a big issue in reality.
Hugsbox 1 days ago [-]
Oh no, people who need assistance might get assistance, even if we haven't tried to look for a reason not to help them first?! What a disaster!
GaryBluto 1 days ago [-]
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
It is difficult to believe you are approaching this in good faith when you started with drug testing and background checks, then pivoted to it being about tax brackets, are replying to most comments to be sure your perspective always has the last word, are complaining of fraud and people exploiting the system, which happens far more from the wealthy than from those in poverty, and now are resorting to telling people they are breaking the rules when they disagree with you.
GaryBluto 19 hours ago [-]
>It is difficult to believe you are approaching this in good faith when you started with drug testing and background checks, then pivoted to it being about tax brackets,
I wasn't claiming there needs to be all of those in the first place - I was using it to illustrate how little protections are in place. Nor was tax brackets my proposed solution, just one of many protections that could help. You don't need (or shouldn't be required to) to come up with a perfect solution to alert people to a problem.
> are replying to most comments to be sure your perspective always has the last word
It's odd to complain about people engaging in discussion on a discussion bulletin board. It's the most recent discussion in my comment history, so when I check my comment history once in a while I see it's updated (often with some type of accusation of cruelty, bad-faith, et cetera).
> which happens far more from the wealthy than from those in poverty,
We're not really talking about the very wealthy here and it'd be strange to go on an off-topic rant about fraud committed by them.
> and now are resorting to telling people they are breaking the rules when they disagree with you.
I've only mentioned the Guidelines to someone uncharitably accusing me of "look[ing] for a reason not to help [those who need it]", who then at least attempted to engage further up the thread. It's not against the guidelines to disagree with me, but my interpretation is that it is to automatically assume bad faith if somebody disagrees with you and attack things they didn't say, which numerous people have.
It's a factor, it's not the only factor.
Decrease in teenage pregnancies, decrease in alcohol consumption, contraception and day after pills, higher levels of education, less socialized culture, less generational housing etc.
Having a child is more than often a deliberate, calculated decision that is made by adults whereas in the old world pregnancies happened left and right with little to say about it. Support systems existed because the problem was pervasive. Now the problem is generally gone, and the support systems thereafter.
No country has managed to reverse the trend of declining birth rates. The better quality of life people have, the fewer children people tend to have.
It's not just about who does and who doesn't have children, it's also how many children per family. 1-2 children is the new normal. My grandpa was #7.
Besides European countries you have many of the Soviet countries who had a rebound, Kazakhstan is the greatest example, going from 1.8 to 3. Israel was mentioned by others.
I also don't think the better life => less kids holds true at this point. Plenty of countries in deep troubles (e.g. Tunisia) have birthrates far below the US or some other western countries. Having a phone is enough to keep people distracted.
Those who do well financially (at least relatively in their own country) get more kids, I've heard about people working for TSMC getting twice as many kids vs their non TSMC peers.
If somehow everyone was able to have a stable job, could afford good housing, wasn't obsessed about the rat race you'd see birthrates close to replacement (like you see them in regions of the US where these conditions are mostly met). Sadly this isn't going to happen.
Perhaps we can learn from the past? Birthrates between the world wars were below replacement level in much of the western world. Then the trend reversed for a while.
It might simply be the economy. The vibes are bad and have been bad since the late 70s because wealth distribution is lopsided and income growth is stagnant.
Seems unlikely: the decrease in fertility rates is pretty universal, but what your are giving as reasons here seem pretty US specific.
May I point you to the State of Israel? Its TFR sits at 3.
And if we really want to be nitpicky, and concentrating on the "reverse"-part of your statement, then even Balkan countries shine, as they literally managed to reverse the trend.
In South Korea the reports are they this is very different. Kids are not tolerated in many places, many couples have few kids, society makes it quite hard on moms as well.
0 - https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/isr/isr...
That same bump is now reversing and the general trend of depopulation continues to accelerate. IIRC Bosnia has the lowest birth rates in all of Europe.
I appreciate the push back; I was overly confident in that statement. I do think however that it's correct to state that the slow trend across all developed countries could be summarized as "aggressively downwards".
Israel is literally the one exception.
Yes.
> Support systems existed because the problem was pervasive. Now the problem is generally gone, and the support systems thereafter.
Meh, support for single moms or pregnant teenagers was not all that great. To large extend, they were punished and suffered, they were blamed. Their kids were oftentimes blamed.
You are better off being pregnant teenager is a single mom today then in 1950 or 1925 or whatever.
Some might decide to buy more expensive car or larger house and that's cool choice as well. But in the end will bring you just a temporary happiness and maybe some social status boost.
Screw consumerism, just have a child.
one person's actions can start to move the tide
There are more parents out there that would disagree with that than you might think.
Love your own life, refuse to have children for free!
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11150-026-09861-1
https://www.economicsobservatory.com/baby-bust
Estimates are that in France and Poland pro-natalist policies have cost around from $1m-2m per extra birth. This is completely unsustainable.
None of which means we shouldn't support families having children, of course we should for all sorts of reasons. It improves health and education outcomes for children, reduces child poverty, and gives women greater autonomy in their choice between work and home life, and overall seems to increase their participation rate in employment.
I think realizing this and taking it into account in family support policies can help us achieve actually achievable outcomes, while avoiding sinking money into unachievable ones.
Unions and Fight for your rights, that's what we need
In case of special needs you are correct. But you need to hope that's not the case.
You also entirely skipped the most expensive ones. Feeding them, an expense that's been ever growing in the last decade, much faster than inflation. Education and child care, which the cynic in me, having read you say the problems started when women joined the workforce, thinks this is probably cause you think women should stay home for these - I hope I'm wrong.
I'd be extremely surprised if your budget didn't radically change before and after having kids, even staying frugal and living within your means.
Breast milk substitutes are expensive though, I admit.
I'm not saying your budget doesn't change after having a child. I'm just saying for a price of a special color on car, vacation and couple nights out, you can afford to have a child for a year.
It's not cheap, but most of us are blowing money on useless stuff anyway. Some are donating thousands a year to online creator, game microtransactions, drinks in a bar, designer bags, funko pop collections and such.
The lifestyle inflation is real. And thanks to shifting priorities, you might even get yourself into better financial position after a few years, then before having a child.
I've got two young kids. I wouldn't say day to day expenses are particularly huge.
Sure you can go wild and buy them designer clothes/shoes they grow out of in 6 months, or you can fill every waking moment with white-knuckle entertainment and excitement and that all costs money. But you don't need to do that, the kids don't care what they wear so long as it's got a robot/unicorn/etc on it, and they're often very happy playing with a cardboard box, a small amount of generic Lego, and their imagination.
Food cost is almost a rounding error. Barely anything for an extra loaf of bread, an extra packet of cereal, some more chicken etc. peanuts.
The main cost - beyond needing to live in a larger house which I probably would have got anyway even without kids - is the opportunity cost of having kids: I've probably missed a promotion or two because I've had to say no to work travel, projects, late meetings with the US office etc to go kid related things. That and UK nursery costs are bigger than the mortgage, but again that is "optional" and only for the first few years.
Good luck
Though my kids are amazing and absolutely worth it, no questions asked, I did feel like i was playing catchup in my career starting in my mid-30s.
I'm probably 8-10 years behind where I thought I would be in terms of promotions though (and the chunky pay rises that come with it) - I've basically been treading water since my wife was pregnant with the first kid because I had to say no to things at work so I could focus on family. I'm fortunate to have a very chill employer, but there have been many, many, many times where before children I'd simply have stayed late at the office to get something done or done a bit of work at the weekend or jumped on a plane somewhere with less than 24 hours notice or whatever. Instead things just have to wait to the morning or Monday, or I don't respond to messages any time of the day/weekend, or I am not there for that critical meeting with the stakeholders because its in Dallas or at 9pm UK or whatever.
I am only just starting to emerge tentatively from the other side of that now about 7 years later, and even then very very tentatively as I am basically 24/7 on-call for family emergencies that trump anything else.
Your wife and family won't believe you if you say it's impacted your career as the man or that it's hard to context switch - they'll laugh and dismiss your feelings as the narrative is that it is typically the mother who makes the sacrifices etc, but even if the mother is the stay at home parent there is still a major impact on the husband's career and work (or it has been for me anyway) but don't ever dare say that to a mother because they have a monopoly on that position.
If this received no taxpayer funding I wouldn't care, but when public funding is involved there need to be some checks to ensure no abuse, which Rx Kids doesn't have.
All of the checks you listed would just serve to make it harder for this money to reach the mothers that need it.
In the same way seatbelts just serve to make it harder for drivers to get to where they need to go quickly. It would not be difficult to restrict this to people below a certain tax bracket.
It all comes down to how much public money (that could have been used to help people who need it) you're willing to accept the possibility of being defrauded for one person to get support a couple days sooner.
Means testing often leaves out those on the lower end who straddle the line or get excluded by stupid technicalities. You simply can’t account for every scenario. Excluding any mother means you will exclude someone who needs it.
I would honestly love a national program that gives money to every mother automatically no questions asked.
?
I mean, where I live there's food banks, and the only requirement to utilize the food bank is that you bring in a piece of mail with your address on it so they can know you're at the correct food bank. I know, I'm poor and I've had to use the foodbank, recently even. Besides that, you could be the richest guy in town and go and pick up a nice big haul of food every 5 weeks if you choose to. But for whatever reason, this system isn't rife with abuse, even though I'm not drug tested (I would pass) or background checked (no criminal record) or made sure I work (I do). I'm aware of a few bad eggs who don't "need" the food bank who access it anyway, but by and large the people who do need it are getting it and that's what matters.
I guess my point is, you always hear about "what if this is abused" when it comes to systems that are in place to help the less-than-fortunate, but from what I can see it's always just a veiled attempt to make it harder for people who need assistance to actually get it, for little to no actual return because the "rampant abuse" we're told to worry about doesn't seem to be such a big issue in reality.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I've already discussed this in a separate reply.
I wasn't claiming there needs to be all of those in the first place - I was using it to illustrate how little protections are in place. Nor was tax brackets my proposed solution, just one of many protections that could help. You don't need (or shouldn't be required to) to come up with a perfect solution to alert people to a problem.
> are replying to most comments to be sure your perspective always has the last word
It's odd to complain about people engaging in discussion on a discussion bulletin board. It's the most recent discussion in my comment history, so when I check my comment history once in a while I see it's updated (often with some type of accusation of cruelty, bad-faith, et cetera).
> which happens far more from the wealthy than from those in poverty,
We're not really talking about the very wealthy here and it'd be strange to go on an off-topic rant about fraud committed by them.
> and now are resorting to telling people they are breaking the rules when they disagree with you.
I've only mentioned the Guidelines to someone uncharitably accusing me of "look[ing] for a reason not to help [those who need it]", who then at least attempted to engage further up the thread. It's not against the guidelines to disagree with me, but my interpretation is that it is to automatically assume bad faith if somebody disagrees with you and attack things they didn't say, which numerous people have.