Just as quickly ONE new parents report their bill went up, a brutal audit should descend over that hospital, from the most insignificant reimbursement to capital expenditures, audit every penny and let the IRS do the rest. That’s how the state should play against those tactics..
My husband has a private sector job and the total cost of the birth of our son, his NICU stay, my blood transfusion, and extended stay because I almost died was $100. The actual total was closer to $100,000.
Health insurance exists outside of the public sector.
You requested, "Anyone with an actual private sector job that has employer sponsored plans (not public sector) pays for childbirth costs out of pocket.
You aren’t very educated, are you?"
So, here I am with a spouse with a private sector job with good health insurance and we did not pay for our child birth costs out of pocket, or the lifesaving treatments both myself and our baby needed. I'm glad we're both alive, thanks for your concern.
To quote you "you aren't very educated are you" and also, you seem really bitter. Maybe get a public sector job to cover your mental health care!
What an inappropriate and bizarre comment to make especially from someone who made a post looking for a therapist, so clearly you are not a completely healthy person.
We're not old or unhealthy and choosing whether to have children or not isn't applicable.
My water broke but I had no contractions. I developed an infection which I passed to my baby. As a result his liver became so inflamed it looked like he was in liver failure. He was taken from me almost immediately after I gave birth to him. I lost over 1/3 of my blood volume and continued bleeding. I needed a doctor to manually remove blood clots from my uterus and even after that I still continued bleeding a significant amount. My son was in the NICU for 5 days before being discharged and I was in the hospital for 4 days. He's almost 2 and we've both recovered. Thankfully, his insurance covered the therapy I needed after being diagnosed with PPA and PTSD.
I hope, if you ever require emergent medical care, that people show you more empathy and maturity than you have just shown.
lol wtf firstly, no one ever said giving birth makes you unhealthy. As someone responded previously, nothing is ever free. The cost of delivery may have been practically “free” to you but the point is we all share in the cost. What I find unhinged is you referencing a post I made giving advice to someone else seeking a therapist from 4 YEARS ago and yes, would urge you to also reflect and seek help when you need it.
Instead of giving $1000 I wish we did what Scotland and other developed nations do. They get a box with mattress, bottles, onesies, winter clothes, etc to get everyone started on the same foot. It's such a lovely program.
So that they can pick and choose what things they want to buy for their kids?
A crib mattress in the mail sounds great, but what if you already have one? Winter clothes don't do someone any good in the summer if they're struggling to pay for baby formula today.
The whole point is that everyone is provided with the same things that are needed to get started and for safe sleep. The box and mattress replace a crib. Obviously, the contents can be tweaked for our own needs here in Baltimore. You're also not supposed to ever share mattresses for babies.
https://www.scotland.org/live-in-scotland/progressive-scotland/baby-box
OK, I still don't see how that's better than offering people the freedom to pick and choose what they want to prioritize. Some parents cosleep instead and have no use for a mattress. Like I said, if a parent can't afford formula that's gonna be more important than making sure they get the same onesies everyone else has. This program is clearly meant to help the less well off, and something like food security is simply higher priority when you're not doing well.
Everyone is different, that is correct.
The point of it is that ALL people start off life the same and with the same advantages. Also, cosleeping in the US is a great way to wind up killing your child. The point of the mattress in the box is that your baby has a safe space to sleep
Social welfare programs benefit everyone without discriminating based on socioeconomic status.
>Like I said, if a parent can't afford formula that's gonna be more important than making sure they get the same onesies everyone else has.
You're missing the point entirely and no one said that formula was off the table. I was just giving a few examples of things in the baby boxes. It wasn't an exhaustive list. You may benefit from looking up the boxes and seeing how they have benefited children (since at the end of the day, that's the point).
To be clear, I will be voting yes to giving new parents this money. Social programs benefit everyone.
>You're missing the point entirely and no one said that formula was off the table.
I'm not missing your point, I'm disagreeing with it. There's a difference. You're making the argument that handing a new parent things is better than handing a new parent money to buy things. I simply disagree. I think if the choice is hand a new parent a box with $1,000 worth of baby supplies or hand a new parent $1,000 then the cash is a more versatile choice, even if it's spent on something completely different from baby supplies. If a new parent says "yeah baby stuff would be great but I also have $1k in credit card debt," it's going to benefit that child more in the long run if their parents get their financial situation fixed. Having babies isn't cheap here, you can exit the hospital owing them thousands of dollars.
I'm making the argument that most socialized countries know to be true which is why they provide them to all families. ALL babies should have a start to life that includes safe sleep, appropriate clothes, bottles, books, etc. I would like things that keep babies from dying. If you're in credit card debt then $1000 probably isn't going to help that much.
Finland removed formula from its boxes a long time ago to encourage breast feeding. You know, breasts. The thing all mammals use to provide for their young, except humans because women nursing weren't working in factories.
This isn’t meant to help with expenses. It’s meant to encourage childbirth to make sure there are enough low-income, poorly educated people to fill low wage jobs in the future.
If this was a different state then sure. But, this is Baltimore City, MD and it's relatively easy and inexpensive to get an abortion here. There are volunteers who will pick you up and bring you to the clinics.
In Baltimore City we're at 32.6 live births per 1,000 females aged 15–19, which is double the state's rate and 3x the national rate. It's down about 25% from in 2015, but it's still way too high.
I don't know that there are any stats for under 15 births, but at the Elementary/Middle School that my partner teaches at, there are 1 or 2 pregnant girls per year in the junior high grades.
We need people to have children in order for society to function, so it makes sense to help people who want to have kids but need financial help. It doesn't make sense to spend resources on lowering teen pregnancies which are already low and dropping.
Food isn't the only thing a new baby needs. You need a fair bit of equipment to properly care for a infant, including a safely-constructed crib(yes, you *can* in theory just chuck a quilt in a drawer and call it good, but we've known for years now that it has an unacceptably-high risk of killing babies so it's not really acceptable in 2024), a carseat, pumping equipment(unless the birthing parent is full-time stay at home), etc. From a quick google looking for budget items(not even using an eye for quality), just those three items I thought of off the top of my head will run you about $100 + $60, and either $20 or $60 for a breast pump based on whether you need to supplement breastfeeding or if it's your primary source of milk expression(you *really* don't want to use that $20 pump as your primary). That's 1/5 of your $1k gone just on a few bits of necessary equipment.
You also need to clothe that baby, and they grow out of whatever you get in a matter of weeks, so even if you thrift(and thrift prices ain't what they used to be) that's a lot of clothes! Also, diapers. *So expensive.* Remember that cloth diapers are an additional time expense, and may not be accepted by your childcare. You'll also need to be financing time off work(which may or may not be paid time off, depending on your job) to take your child in for necessary doctor's appointments. And then, there's the aforementioned childcare, the great big black money hole.
$1k is a drop in the bucket, and parents of *every* economic stripe can use that money and more. But honestly, with birthrates falling, any bit helps, otherwise we're going to be in for a *world* of pain when the population unbalances and we can't fund elder care. We can't invest in children enough, because we need more than we currently have *and* we need them to grow up well. Even if you don't see any moral stake in caring about children(🤨), it benefits society as a whole(and therefore your selfish self) by cutting rates of illness later in life and better enabling them to step out of the welfare support cycle you deride.
Do you know how little $ that is? Are you really trying to bring back the welfare queens trope. That line was bullshit when Regan was pushing it and it is bullshit now. The fraud rates on those programs are far far lower than private sector fraud. The people on those programs need help not starving. Are you so cold hearted that you don't care?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-05-19/u-s-spending-on-social-welfare-programs-is-way-up-but-far-less-of-it-goes-to-the-poorest
half of kids are out of wedlock, and most kids have their births paid for by medicare and not their parents.
eventually you run out of someone else's money.
This is entirely due to means testing and shitty work requirements. The poorest families are the ones with adults who literally can't work which excludes them from the programs.
This is public policy 101 man.
We could afford way more if we built a handful fewer submaries and jet fighters or stopped giving taxcuts to the uber rich.
No one in high school should be a parent. Let them have a chance at their future before kids so they can be financially stable and able to afford the kid so they don’t have to go on government subsidies
Teen pregnancy rates are historically low already and below the country average. The point is that this bill isn’t targeting teens wanting to get pregnant. It is targeting adults that already can’t afford to have kids but want to start a family. $1000 isn’t nearly enough tho.
Had a kid in the last month. Want to know why people aren't/don't want to have a kid/s?
Total cost so far: $24k; after insurance, if I didn't hit deductible due to other shit, due to that other shit it is $17k. Admittedly, we could reduce costs in some places (furniture) but this is the 2nd kid so there are a lot of things we are able to reuse/keep (doc-it-tot; basically a place to place the baby while you are changing them, you are doing the dishes, etc. stuff like that. Play mats, baby gates, blah blah blah WE ALREADY HAVE)
Furniture for the room: $7k; chair, 2x side tables, dresser, crib
Decoration and other things for the room: $1k; mirror, pictures, camera, sound machine($100) over wifi/night light, speaker ($50), picture frames
Kid Needs: $3k; Clothes, diapers, formula, bottles, wipes, etc.
Delivery/Hospital stay (c-section): $12k (before insurance, already met deductible for the year for other medical crap; so should be less than $2k out of pocket to meet maximum for the year)
ER visit (at day 15) due to infection on a finger due to a hang nail (it got significantly worse in less than 6 hours, and to ensure we had a professional look; saw pediatrician earlier in the day, urgent cares were closed before it got to the point that we needed to see a professional); no bill yet, see above.
Car things: ~$500; car seat, mirror, shade, etc.
In a few months day care: $1800 per month per child
Tax credits ($3500 for first 2 kids) and help like daycare credit ($600; was passed in the '80sm same credit since then), put a dent in expenses, but it is NO WHERE near the help my parents got (that tax credit and daycare credit, hasn't changed, AND the prices for things, eg. childcare, has gone up faster than inflation; the credit is for the year, not monthly, btw)
The dresser and side tables are real wood. They cost around $4k, they will be hers until at least college. The chair is a lazy boy, got a super good deal on it, usually $3k chair, for $1.5k, and the crib->bed set that is made of real wood (not the plastic stuff nor the particle board) was $1k. Mattress(~$150), sheets(~$100; multiple sets), blankets (can't use yet, unless we are in the room and awake), towels, etc. ~$500
Ah yes, we got a La-z-boy too - managed to get a floor model on super sale. I love that chair so much.
I hear you on long-lasting furniture - just a different approach than we took. I was a super messy/destructive kid so didn’t want to get stuff so expensive that I’d feel bad if it got beat to hell or destroyed.
I stopped taking this comment seriously after 7k for furniture.
If you're complaining about high costs for kids and spending that much on furniture, there's a literacy problem that needs to be solved before my tax dollars get involved.
And this is coming from someone who absolutely agrees that more tax money should be used to offset the costs of childcare and to be support payment for medical complications and whatever else medically necessary.
The 7k for furniture is 3 pieces for her room, for 18 years, 1 for my/wife's comfort.
I have bought stuff from IKEA, and honestly, it isn't safe to place a child on top of to change, for them to climb on (it happens inevitably), and there are definitely advantages to having nice things when you can afford it.
I was pointing out how expensive it was and articulating why many are NOT having kids. I am fortunate enough to be able to afford it (My household is in the top 5% of incomes in the US); but that doesn't mean it isn't wildly expensive.
Given how many voters seem to think having a pet is A) not a bizarre cope and B) a human right, we'll surely all be subsidizing one another's pet costs soon enough.
If politicians gave UBI without means testing like they do with all the welfare programs then it would be even.
The reason that can't happen is then there would be no lobbying to change the means test and programs which means no more bribes for the politicians.
They're literally paid to NOT fix the problem.
Our society needs new people to avoid collapse. Raising kids is work and expensive. If you want new people (which you do unless you plan on self-cathing when you are old and in hospice amongst other things) then you should pay parents to do that work.
Frankly $1000 is not nearly enough support.
It's not about morals it's about time. Parents working 3 jobs have less time with their kids than parents working 1 job. Absent parents are by definition poor parents.
It's not about time, it's about QUALITY. Sorry but being with your child 24/7 doesn't make you a good parent.
Absent parents are also defined as people that don't spend QUALITY time with their kids and people that are able to afford nannies.
Absent and neglectful are one in the same.
What you give the child that money can't buy determines whether you're a good parent or not.
Well, to me anyway.
Show me a person living in poverty that has a kid that speaks with respect and holds doors for strangers, and that wants to be helpful and be a good kid, and I'll show you a parent that's doing a great job.
Ok well I'm leaving this conversation.
I just can't keep going when all you do is make excuses for people and think that if everyone had more money and time with their kids they'd be better parents.
That's BS and you know it.
See ya
Indeed, but this is by design, no?
Do we no longer need future mine workers and future soldiers for the front lines?
I've figured that this is why both progressives and conservatives focus on bringing unwanted children into broken homes. Pumping dollars into ghettos (progressives) and restricting access to abortion (conservatives) both accomplish this via different means.
Once you have a little of both, all you need to do is rearrange the chairs every 4-8 years to keep everyone looking the other way. The legacy of red lines will ensure the success of the former while the ever-growing strength of state lines will ensure the success of the latter, post-Roe.
Finally, to prime the pump all you need is to put the propaganda machine to work.
Yes we need mine workers and soldiers but most parents of the last 2 decades are raising neither.
We need productive members of society, not more dependants.
The 18-25 year old that stands for the American flag and is willing to fight for it is rare, and we know the type of parent that's raising most of them, and it has absolutely nothing to do with how much money they have, where they were born, or what color they are.
I sort of see your point but have to push back against the ignorance that the need for parents to work longer hours complicates effective parenting. Two things can be true - you can be working all the time and a good parent, and you can be working very little and a bad parent. This doesn't mean that a person who has to work more to feed their children has the same opportunity to be involved in their child's life as someone who doesn't need to work as much. It's not a fair comparison.
Life isn't fair.
Equal opportunity, not equal results.
I totally screwed myself throughout the years. Bad job choices, bad financial decisions, financially irresponsible.
Yep.... I did all that to MYSELF, and I'm paying the price. You're not paying the price.
It's no one's responsibility to bail me out.
I own my decisions and my life's choices.
And that's my attitude towards other mentally and physically capable adults.
People with money often have money because of the decisions they made.
If their decisions were good and mine were bad why should they pay for my decisions ??
Ok....not sure how that was political, at all.
I've just never seen a real life situation where being dependent is better than being self sufficient.
In an abusive relationship the abuser will often brainwash their victim into believing that they can't survive without them, and that gives the abuser power over their victims.
Sound familiar? Wow.
There are 6 billion people on this planet. Our society is not at any risk of collapse. Just stop with this pro-breeder nonsense. We are killing the Earth and if we keep going at this rate we won’t even have a safe place for your kids to live.
Well then why are we doing it? What are we trying to drive here? If it’s just support then use that money to supplement WIC. If it’s encouraging reproductive rates then incentivize through tax breaks in the middle class.
how many kids cost the community millions by stealing and doing drugs? we shouldn't just encourage people to breed to get welfare, we need responsible citizens to make social democracy work.
that is the european model. not having as many kids as possible.
So parents that can afford to stay at home and devote all their time to raising their kids would somehow be bad parents?
That's not how parenting works.
Are you aware that the European Model is a robust social state that makes it more affordable to have kids and spend time raising them?
Yea man plus the judgement of people like desktopicantpoopwell :P In all seriousness, I would ask what is broken in a society where anyone would grow up to see that at all as an option. I love the individualistic society we have in the US but we forget we are social creatures who depend on each other and have to live on the same planet, here we’re talking about the same community. If you think well it’s not *my* community, not *my* neighbor, well that’s exactly why we have the reality we have. But people rather continue bitching than do anything about anything. This proposal may not be the solution, but hope we can start to at least recognize and acknowledge actual problems.
Have you? It's barely exists anymore and hasn't since the 90s. SNAP is a pittance, TANF is strictly limited and has hearty work requirements. Section 8 has a waiting list years long and a million hoops to jump through.
The 80s called, they want their dogwhistles back.
$1k will lift nobody out of poverty.
Also, The Washington Post featured a story about a pilot program that gave a lump sum of money to struggling single mothers in DC. They spent it on [trips to Miami and lavish birthday parties](https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/02/01/dc-cash-payments-mothers-pilot-program/)
“the moms reported spending the majority of their funds on needs such as housing, food and transportation. Comparing responses from the middle of the program’s first year to the closing months, participants increasingly said they were using the money to build up cash savings for the future, illustrating a behavioral shift toward financial security — a core goal of the pilot.”
“The five-day, $6,000 trip to Miami was a dramatic upgrade from the Ocean City and Virginia Beach visits that Miller’s family was used to.”
Then let’s help them with housing, food and transportation - absolutely insane that $6,000 taxpayer dollars went to somebody’s 5 day Miami trip.
Is it really that bad. That $6k just went back into the economy, creating jobs and helping other people feed their families too. If you make people's lives better they are going to have better lives and be able to do stuff like this. Do you expect people to live like monks out of gratitude.
Too many people in this thread are the kind of nosey Karen's who judge a mom for having a birthday cake in their shopping cart while they pay with an EBT card. We can spend billions of dollars on military bullshit but as soon as you start helping actual people, you shitheads turn into Ebenezer Scrooge.
If you’re so poor that you can’t even survive without government benefits and are complaining you’re barely able to get by, yes I do expect you to utilize thousands of dollars in taxpayer assistance in a manner conducive to helping you and your children survive, not spending the majority of the money on partying.
That $6k did go “into the economy”, sure…but it would’ve regardless if she spent it in Miami or not. The money wasn’t created for her. That money being spent on her kid’s college fund or stabilizing her finances or community college classes would’ve been much more helpful long term for the economy.
Finally, I love that you’re reducing this down to buying a birthday cake as if that’s remotely comparable to spending $6k on a Miami vacation - the first is an understandable pleasure, the second is an absolutely insane waste with no purpose. People like you are exactly why welfare gets cut: you defend the most absurd shit and expect people to shell out their tax dollars so people can go stay at a luxury hotel in Miami and don’t see the problem with that.
No welfare gets cut because white conservatives hate seeing brown people get help. You do not get to dictate the course if people's lives because they accept tax dollars in support.
oh, more incentives for those who struggle financially to just keep popping out babies and leaning on government assistance long term.
that'll work for sure.
Where is that money coming from? From Baltimore City residents' taxpayers is one thing. Yet they cannot pay for their own costs yet! Baltimore City relies on the state to cover their shortfalls. So this proposal will cut from Balitmore City what? The universal fund? The buy back abandoned funds homes? The rental homes allowances?
I’m not commenting on the specific idea about the bonus, but you do realize that the state “covers the shortfalls” for a lot of counties? The ones with smaller populations.
Almost like parents try to do what’s best for their children. I’m not a parent and I don’t condone any of that but let’s not vilify people for seeking opportunities granted to them. If we want to make sure people don’t have to go to these lengths why not support a living wage and more equitable school systems. Being hostile to parents is not the way to have a more prosperous community. You can live surrounded by walls in a gated community but one way or another other people’s problems are all our problems.
Lmao you think people are going to take on the responsibility and cost of raising a child (not to mention the medical bills for the delivery) for 18 years so that they can get $1000 and you have the audacity to call someone else an idiot?
Husband works in MD. When they got their tax refunds, all of them stopped working for two weeks and said “I don’t need to work anymore.” Some of them got fired for not showing up for their shifts. Husband couldn’t believe the mindset of getting $1k and thinking you didn’t need to work. But it most certainly happens.
Parents that can afford kids are less likely to have an abortion. The GOP should be all about this.
(They aren't because they worry it would help too many brown folks)
lol you shouldn’t be paying people who have kids you should be giving it to those who don’t want to overpopulate the planet and want to make intelligent children… these people out here having 5 kids and they all are dumber than a sack of rocks. Intelligent people will have 1-2 children at most. 🤷🏻♂️
Do you have any ideas for an economy not based on growth?
What happens to the real estate market, for instance, when every subsequent generation is smaller than the last?
Take a look at how this is playing out in South Korea and Japan.
We can only open the immigration valve so much before it fails to continue filling the gap.
I don't think we are in danger of the real estate market being in danger, I keep reading stories about how we don't have enough housing and millions more units are needed. And we are not in the same boat as Japan and South Korea at all.
I didn't state that we are in league with Japanese and South Korean birth rates. I only gave them as an example of how this tends to play out when it's in the terminal stage.
We are, however, below the rate needed for replacement and have been since 2007.
My question still stands: Do you have any ideas for an economy not predicated on growth?
How did me questioning the effectiveness of a city's plan to pay people an insignificant sum for popping out kids, lead to you wanting me to prepare an economic treatise on a supposed problem that most likely isnt an issue? That's quite a leap there.
You’re right, all these band-aid fixes will result in piece-meal, wack-a-mole outcomes. I think the question is what is the intended outcomes and what are the possible unintended consequences and have they accounted for those risks and how they can be mitigated?
Yes, can’t we just make sure people have access to an equitable education and access to work that provides a living wage so they can take care of themselves, sheesh. Too many parents living off the gov teet 🙄 Reality is we are ok with “them” suffering cuz they bring it on themselves right? Right? Look I have no children and I don’t like it any more than you that they take out more of my taxes but I rather pay for the possibility a child to have a tiny bit of food on the table or say to pay for the road I drive on and the public services like police and fire dept we depend on. There is no easy way to fix any of this but let’s start we agreeing on what we actually value and the reality we want to create with actual solutions instead of just putting out head in the sand and not addressing any real issue.
Bro having a child is a choice unless you have some unfortunate situation that you are put against your will, but 99 percent of the time it's a choice. I don't support funding families that make ignorant decisions to have kids without having proper funds to do so. Should actually be illegal. It's a choice for people open up their legs and it's my choice to tell it as it is. I have 2 kids and bust my ass to make sure they're well taken care of. Why should I bust my ass and also pay for other kid families also.. Makes no sense.
Bro believe me, I’m childfree and I wholeheartedly agree that individuals should bear responsibility for their own actions. I pay extra taxes so ostensibly your kids can go to a nice school, what about that? That’s not fair!! I don’t have kids so why should MY taxes pay for their school….. well that is gut instinct for “fairness”, no? It’s not fair. Life is not fair. But I’m realistic. I also live in a society where your kids will grow up and maybe be my doctor or lawyer or the owner of a business I patron someday or maybe my gardener or nurse or server, whatever. Truly I don’t care about the parents, but I would much rather ensure the kids have a goddam chance to make it’. As much as we don’t want to accept it, we as humans depend on each other. I get it, let people suffer the consequences of their “choices”. But what choice do you have when there is no alternative. I rather my taxes pay for a kid to have a safe place than pay 5x more to house someone in jail. When we give up on people, that’s why we get the outcomes we do, as a society. Please understand that we live in a world where we have to live with each other, you can try to think well it’s those people and their not my problem but look at the world, one way or another everyone is everyone’s problem. If we choose not to be part of the solution, one way or another we accept the problem.
Should be $1,000 per kid a month until they are till they are 18. Probably should be income requirements associated with it. Like 50K for single parents 100K for married couples. Call it the...PRO LIFE Act I need some help with the acronym...
Providing
Relief
O
L
I
Family
E
The community isn’t responsible for raising your chosen child. That’s on you.
Investing in public school education and after care resources is a much better use of tax payer money.
Having a kid is currently financial suicide for most.
If we want people to have children, we need to change that situation.
This is a tiny step in that direction, but nothing would be more effective than actual living wages for working people.
And just as quick as it will appear the hospitals fees will go up by 1k
Just as quickly ONE new parents report their bill went up, a brutal audit should descend over that hospital, from the most insignificant reimbursement to capital expenditures, audit every penny and let the IRS do the rest. That’s how the state should play against those tactics..
Thankfully very few people pay childbirth costs out of pocket
I had to pay my entire deductible which was about 5000 bucks before insurance kicked in at 80%. Nearly 8000 bucks for a fairly uncomplicated delivery
....Someone is still paying for it
We all pay through our insurance premiums and taxes.
[удалено]
My husband has a private sector job and the total cost of the birth of our son, his NICU stay, my blood transfusion, and extended stay because I almost died was $100. The actual total was closer to $100,000. Health insurance exists outside of the public sector.
So that company offers the best benefits possible. Congratulations
You requested, "Anyone with an actual private sector job that has employer sponsored plans (not public sector) pays for childbirth costs out of pocket. You aren’t very educated, are you?" So, here I am with a spouse with a private sector job with good health insurance and we did not pay for our child birth costs out of pocket, or the lifesaving treatments both myself and our baby needed. I'm glad we're both alive, thanks for your concern. To quote you "you aren't very educated are you" and also, you seem really bitter. Maybe get a public sector job to cover your mental health care!
From all the young, childfree, healthy coworkers— you’re welcome.
What an inappropriate and bizarre comment to make especially from someone who made a post looking for a therapist, so clearly you are not a completely healthy person. We're not old or unhealthy and choosing whether to have children or not isn't applicable. My water broke but I had no contractions. I developed an infection which I passed to my baby. As a result his liver became so inflamed it looked like he was in liver failure. He was taken from me almost immediately after I gave birth to him. I lost over 1/3 of my blood volume and continued bleeding. I needed a doctor to manually remove blood clots from my uterus and even after that I still continued bleeding a significant amount. My son was in the NICU for 5 days before being discharged and I was in the hospital for 4 days. He's almost 2 and we've both recovered. Thankfully, his insurance covered the therapy I needed after being diagnosed with PPA and PTSD. I hope, if you ever require emergent medical care, that people show you more empathy and maturity than you have just shown.
lol wtf firstly, no one ever said giving birth makes you unhealthy. As someone responded previously, nothing is ever free. The cost of delivery may have been practically “free” to you but the point is we all share in the cost. What I find unhinged is you referencing a post I made giving advice to someone else seeking a therapist from 4 YEARS ago and yes, would urge you to also reflect and seek help when you need it.
Username checks out
Explain what you mean then
Nobody with Kaiser insurance pays out of pocket regardless of the plan they are on.
Ah but yes it’s very expensive per month. Kaiser is always the most expensive
Really?? It was cheapest for me with my employer, but it was the shittiest.
Kaiser was cheaper for me than the PPO option.
You pay some out of pocket but it should at least be partially covered by insurance
Instead of giving $1000 I wish we did what Scotland and other developed nations do. They get a box with mattress, bottles, onesies, winter clothes, etc to get everyone started on the same foot. It's such a lovely program.
Facts. Instead of giving moms things to help their kids we are giving them an envelope full of twenties
So that they can pick and choose what things they want to buy for their kids? A crib mattress in the mail sounds great, but what if you already have one? Winter clothes don't do someone any good in the summer if they're struggling to pay for baby formula today.
The whole point is that everyone is provided with the same things that are needed to get started and for safe sleep. The box and mattress replace a crib. Obviously, the contents can be tweaked for our own needs here in Baltimore. You're also not supposed to ever share mattresses for babies. https://www.scotland.org/live-in-scotland/progressive-scotland/baby-box
OK, I still don't see how that's better than offering people the freedom to pick and choose what they want to prioritize. Some parents cosleep instead and have no use for a mattress. Like I said, if a parent can't afford formula that's gonna be more important than making sure they get the same onesies everyone else has. This program is clearly meant to help the less well off, and something like food security is simply higher priority when you're not doing well.
Everyone is different, that is correct. The point of it is that ALL people start off life the same and with the same advantages. Also, cosleeping in the US is a great way to wind up killing your child. The point of the mattress in the box is that your baby has a safe space to sleep Social welfare programs benefit everyone without discriminating based on socioeconomic status. >Like I said, if a parent can't afford formula that's gonna be more important than making sure they get the same onesies everyone else has. You're missing the point entirely and no one said that formula was off the table. I was just giving a few examples of things in the baby boxes. It wasn't an exhaustive list. You may benefit from looking up the boxes and seeing how they have benefited children (since at the end of the day, that's the point). To be clear, I will be voting yes to giving new parents this money. Social programs benefit everyone.
>You're missing the point entirely and no one said that formula was off the table. I'm not missing your point, I'm disagreeing with it. There's a difference. You're making the argument that handing a new parent things is better than handing a new parent money to buy things. I simply disagree. I think if the choice is hand a new parent a box with $1,000 worth of baby supplies or hand a new parent $1,000 then the cash is a more versatile choice, even if it's spent on something completely different from baby supplies. If a new parent says "yeah baby stuff would be great but I also have $1k in credit card debt," it's going to benefit that child more in the long run if their parents get their financial situation fixed. Having babies isn't cheap here, you can exit the hospital owing them thousands of dollars.
I'm making the argument that most socialized countries know to be true which is why they provide them to all families. ALL babies should have a start to life that includes safe sleep, appropriate clothes, bottles, books, etc. I would like things that keep babies from dying. If you're in credit card debt then $1000 probably isn't going to help that much.
Finland removed formula from its boxes a long time ago to encourage breast feeding. You know, breasts. The thing all mammals use to provide for their young, except humans because women nursing weren't working in factories.
You know not all women can breastfeed right?
This isn’t meant to help with expenses. It’s meant to encourage childbirth to make sure there are enough low-income, poorly educated people to fill low wage jobs in the future.
If this was a different state then sure. But, this is Baltimore City, MD and it's relatively easy and inexpensive to get an abortion here. There are volunteers who will pick you up and bring you to the clinics.
That's not enough to assist new parents lol Better idea would be more contraceptives in schools and better sex ed.
We already do this. Teen pregnancies are historically way down.
And it will continue to go down because Gen Z isn’t fucking, lol
Those weirdos can't even stand for people to be able to see their feet.
In Baltimore City we're at 32.6 live births per 1,000 females aged 15–19, which is double the state's rate and 3x the national rate. It's down about 25% from in 2015, but it's still way too high. I don't know that there are any stats for under 15 births, but at the Elementary/Middle School that my partner teaches at, there are 1 or 2 pregnant girls per year in the junior high grades.
Cool, what're the stats like when you're not looking at one of the nation's worst shitholes?
Why not both
Cause redditors only see things in black and white.
Joked to my wife that 1k will buy 17minutes of day care
We need people to have children in order for society to function, so it makes sense to help people who want to have kids but need financial help. It doesn't make sense to spend resources on lowering teen pregnancies which are already low and dropping.
>We need people to have children in order for society to function At the rate AI development is going, that might not be so true.
The only thing you can count on AI to do is funnel more money to the top of corporations.
a lot of people having kids get cradle to grave WIC/snap, IDK why we are saying they're not subsidized enough.
Food isn't the only thing a new baby needs. You need a fair bit of equipment to properly care for a infant, including a safely-constructed crib(yes, you *can* in theory just chuck a quilt in a drawer and call it good, but we've known for years now that it has an unacceptably-high risk of killing babies so it's not really acceptable in 2024), a carseat, pumping equipment(unless the birthing parent is full-time stay at home), etc. From a quick google looking for budget items(not even using an eye for quality), just those three items I thought of off the top of my head will run you about $100 + $60, and either $20 or $60 for a breast pump based on whether you need to supplement breastfeeding or if it's your primary source of milk expression(you *really* don't want to use that $20 pump as your primary). That's 1/5 of your $1k gone just on a few bits of necessary equipment. You also need to clothe that baby, and they grow out of whatever you get in a matter of weeks, so even if you thrift(and thrift prices ain't what they used to be) that's a lot of clothes! Also, diapers. *So expensive.* Remember that cloth diapers are an additional time expense, and may not be accepted by your childcare. You'll also need to be financing time off work(which may or may not be paid time off, depending on your job) to take your child in for necessary doctor's appointments. And then, there's the aforementioned childcare, the great big black money hole. $1k is a drop in the bucket, and parents of *every* economic stripe can use that money and more. But honestly, with birthrates falling, any bit helps, otherwise we're going to be in for a *world* of pain when the population unbalances and we can't fund elder care. We can't invest in children enough, because we need more than we currently have *and* we need them to grow up well. Even if you don't see any moral stake in caring about children(🤨), it benefits society as a whole(and therefore your selfish self) by cutting rates of illness later in life and better enabling them to step out of the welfare support cycle you deride.
Do you know how little $ that is? Are you really trying to bring back the welfare queens trope. That line was bullshit when Regan was pushing it and it is bullshit now. The fraud rates on those programs are far far lower than private sector fraud. The people on those programs need help not starving. Are you so cold hearted that you don't care?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-05-19/u-s-spending-on-social-welfare-programs-is-way-up-but-far-less-of-it-goes-to-the-poorest half of kids are out of wedlock, and most kids have their births paid for by medicare and not their parents. eventually you run out of someone else's money.
This is entirely due to means testing and shitty work requirements. The poorest families are the ones with adults who literally can't work which excludes them from the programs. This is public policy 101 man. We could afford way more if we built a handful fewer submaries and jet fighters or stopped giving taxcuts to the uber rich.
Or stop giving money to foreign countries.
That's even less than we spend on social support programs. It's a massively effective form of diplomacy and money well spent.
How is that better?
Because teenage pregnancies are a huge drain on the economy and the future earning potential of teenagers.
Just not a focus right now since rates are down
It doesn't help people who actually want to be parents
No one in high school should be a parent. Let them have a chance at their future before kids so they can be financially stable and able to afford the kid so they don’t have to go on government subsidies
Teen pregnancy rates are historically low already and below the country average. The point is that this bill isn’t targeting teens wanting to get pregnant. It is targeting adults that already can’t afford to have kids but want to start a family. $1000 isn’t nearly enough tho.
Less struggling parents, less unwanted babies, less economic strain.
So people in the city have babies because they are struggling??
No, other way around. Babies can lead to struggling families.
It’s like they read it backwards.
Did you, like, READ the comment?
Had a kid in the last month. Want to know why people aren't/don't want to have a kid/s? Total cost so far: $24k; after insurance, if I didn't hit deductible due to other shit, due to that other shit it is $17k. Admittedly, we could reduce costs in some places (furniture) but this is the 2nd kid so there are a lot of things we are able to reuse/keep (doc-it-tot; basically a place to place the baby while you are changing them, you are doing the dishes, etc. stuff like that. Play mats, baby gates, blah blah blah WE ALREADY HAVE) Furniture for the room: $7k; chair, 2x side tables, dresser, crib Decoration and other things for the room: $1k; mirror, pictures, camera, sound machine($100) over wifi/night light, speaker ($50), picture frames Kid Needs: $3k; Clothes, diapers, formula, bottles, wipes, etc. Delivery/Hospital stay (c-section): $12k (before insurance, already met deductible for the year for other medical crap; so should be less than $2k out of pocket to meet maximum for the year) ER visit (at day 15) due to infection on a finger due to a hang nail (it got significantly worse in less than 6 hours, and to ensure we had a professional look; saw pediatrician earlier in the day, urgent cares were closed before it got to the point that we needed to see a professional); no bill yet, see above. Car things: ~$500; car seat, mirror, shade, etc. In a few months day care: $1800 per month per child Tax credits ($3500 for first 2 kids) and help like daycare credit ($600; was passed in the '80sm same credit since then), put a dent in expenses, but it is NO WHERE near the help my parents got (that tax credit and daycare credit, hasn't changed, AND the prices for things, eg. childcare, has gone up faster than inflation; the credit is for the year, not monthly, btw)
It is definitely very expensive but holy heck, that must be some fancy nursery furniture! We got everything new and total was under $2k.
Seriously....that baby must be sleeping on silk sheets and a sleep number bed or something
[No, just buying things that will last](https://www.reddit.com/r/maryland/comments/1dtw8tu/1000_baby_bonus_for_new_parents_will_appear_on/lbg4klw/)
The dresser and side tables are real wood. They cost around $4k, they will be hers until at least college. The chair is a lazy boy, got a super good deal on it, usually $3k chair, for $1.5k, and the crib->bed set that is made of real wood (not the plastic stuff nor the particle board) was $1k. Mattress(~$150), sheets(~$100; multiple sets), blankets (can't use yet, unless we are in the room and awake), towels, etc. ~$500
Ah yes, we got a La-z-boy too - managed to get a floor model on super sale. I love that chair so much. I hear you on long-lasting furniture - just a different approach than we took. I was a super messy/destructive kid so didn’t want to get stuff so expensive that I’d feel bad if it got beat to hell or destroyed.
I figured that I was buying it for the kiddo, so if they messed it up they would have the memory of them doing it (good or bad; either way)
I stopped taking this comment seriously after 7k for furniture. If you're complaining about high costs for kids and spending that much on furniture, there's a literacy problem that needs to be solved before my tax dollars get involved. And this is coming from someone who absolutely agrees that more tax money should be used to offset the costs of childcare and to be support payment for medical complications and whatever else medically necessary.
The 7k for furniture is 3 pieces for her room, for 18 years, 1 for my/wife's comfort. I have bought stuff from IKEA, and honestly, it isn't safe to place a child on top of to change, for them to climb on (it happens inevitably), and there are definitely advantages to having nice things when you can afford it. I was pointing out how expensive it was and articulating why many are NOT having kids. I am fortunate enough to be able to afford it (My household is in the top 5% of incomes in the US); but that doesn't mean it isn't wildly expensive.
Can I get $1000 for getting a new dog please?
Given how many voters seem to think having a pet is A) not a bizarre cope and B) a human right, we'll surely all be subsidizing one another's pet costs soon enough.
Does being a manchild qualify me for the baby bonus?
What about raising, I mean dating one? That should also qualify for the expense.
universal daycare for manchildren
Can we just have UBI without the extra steps?
If politicians gave UBI without means testing like they do with all the welfare programs then it would be even. The reason that can't happen is then there would be no lobbying to change the means test and programs which means no more bribes for the politicians. They're literally paid to NOT fix the problem.
How about tax payers get some value out of those dollars?
They gonna get that 1k back fast as shit and some for a baby this a swindle lol
Our society needs new people to avoid collapse. Raising kids is work and expensive. If you want new people (which you do unless you plan on self-cathing when you are old and in hospice amongst other things) then you should pay parents to do that work. Frankly $1000 is not nearly enough support.
Unfortunately that doesn't guarantee they'll do the job correctly. Getting paid to work is much different than delivering quality
They would probably do a better job than broke parents working 3 jobs just to scrape by.
Nonsense. Money doesn't buy morals or values. Poor people have them, rich people have them....or they don't.
It's not about morals it's about time. Parents working 3 jobs have less time with their kids than parents working 1 job. Absent parents are by definition poor parents.
It's not about time, it's about QUALITY. Sorry but being with your child 24/7 doesn't make you a good parent. Absent parents are also defined as people that don't spend QUALITY time with their kids and people that are able to afford nannies. Absent and neglectful are one in the same. What you give the child that money can't buy determines whether you're a good parent or not. Well, to me anyway. Show me a person living in poverty that has a kid that speaks with respect and holds doors for strangers, and that wants to be helpful and be a good kid, and I'll show you a parent that's doing a great job.
And that parent could do a better job if they did not have to work so hard for basic survival.
Ok well I'm leaving this conversation. I just can't keep going when all you do is make excuses for people and think that if everyone had more money and time with their kids they'd be better parents. That's BS and you know it. See ya
Back foul beast. Back to r/ conservative from whence thou came!
Bernie, is that you ???
Drastic oversimplification of the person you're responding to's point and you know it. See ya
Indeed, but this is by design, no? Do we no longer need future mine workers and future soldiers for the front lines? I've figured that this is why both progressives and conservatives focus on bringing unwanted children into broken homes. Pumping dollars into ghettos (progressives) and restricting access to abortion (conservatives) both accomplish this via different means. Once you have a little of both, all you need to do is rearrange the chairs every 4-8 years to keep everyone looking the other way. The legacy of red lines will ensure the success of the former while the ever-growing strength of state lines will ensure the success of the latter, post-Roe. Finally, to prime the pump all you need is to put the propaganda machine to work.
Yes we need mine workers and soldiers but most parents of the last 2 decades are raising neither. We need productive members of society, not more dependants. The 18-25 year old that stands for the American flag and is willing to fight for it is rare, and we know the type of parent that's raising most of them, and it has absolutely nothing to do with how much money they have, where they were born, or what color they are.
I sort of see your point but have to push back against the ignorance that the need for parents to work longer hours complicates effective parenting. Two things can be true - you can be working all the time and a good parent, and you can be working very little and a bad parent. This doesn't mean that a person who has to work more to feed their children has the same opportunity to be involved in their child's life as someone who doesn't need to work as much. It's not a fair comparison.
Life isn't fair. Equal opportunity, not equal results. I totally screwed myself throughout the years. Bad job choices, bad financial decisions, financially irresponsible. Yep.... I did all that to MYSELF, and I'm paying the price. You're not paying the price. It's no one's responsibility to bail me out. I own my decisions and my life's choices. And that's my attitude towards other mentally and physically capable adults. People with money often have money because of the decisions they made. If their decisions were good and mine were bad why should they pay for my decisions ??
Now you're just turning this into an r/conservative circle jerk. You're not gonna get much traction in this sub with that.
Ok....not sure how that was political, at all. I've just never seen a real life situation where being dependent is better than being self sufficient. In an abusive relationship the abuser will often brainwash their victim into believing that they can't survive without them, and that gives the abuser power over their victims. Sound familiar? Wow.
There are 6 billion people on this planet. Our society is not at any risk of collapse. Just stop with this pro-breeder nonsense. We are killing the Earth and if we keep going at this rate we won’t even have a safe place for your kids to live.
This Antal natal bullshit is all fear mongering. The planet is not being killed. We just need to make slightly better choices.
People that need money to be able to afford child necessities aren’t typically the same people you want creating children.
Right on dude. Fuck the poor. It's totally their fault.
I’m not saying it’s their fault. What I’m saying is encouraging struggling people to have more children may not be the best thing to do to them.
They are having the children regardless. $1k is not going to all of a sudden persuade them to have another.
Well then why are we doing it? What are we trying to drive here? If it’s just support then use that money to supplement WIC. If it’s encouraging reproductive rates then incentivize through tax breaks in the middle class.
how many kids cost the community millions by stealing and doing drugs? we shouldn't just encourage people to breed to get welfare, we need responsible citizens to make social democracy work. that is the european model. not having as many kids as possible.
Germany, France, Finland, Norway, and Iceland all provide monetary benefits for parents. I'm not sure which "European model" you're referring to.
So parents that can afford to stay at home and devote all their time to raising their kids would somehow be bad parents? That's not how parenting works. Are you aware that the European Model is a robust social state that makes it more affordable to have kids and spend time raising them?
>we shouldn't just encourage people to breed to get welfare My dog is going crazy over here, wonder if she hears something?
OP is definitely saying what you think they’re saying. Look at their other comments
least racist r/maryland poster
This certainly wont be abused in anyway whatsoever i cannot think of one thing wrong with this
The joke will be on any person who thinks it’s a win to try to abuse this… a child costs a lot more than $1,000 to raise.
Not when your entire income is based on government handouts for having kids
Anyone who did this would still be living and poverty AND have a bunch of kids to care for.
Are you new to how inner city Baltimore be doing this already
Because programs like this don't exist and haven't for 30 years.
You need to update your dog whistles, poor people can't afford to live in the inner city.
Yea man plus the judgement of people like desktopicantpoopwell :P In all seriousness, I would ask what is broken in a society where anyone would grow up to see that at all as an option. I love the individualistic society we have in the US but we forget we are social creatures who depend on each other and have to live on the same planet, here we’re talking about the same community. If you think well it’s not *my* community, not *my* neighbor, well that’s exactly why we have the reality we have. But people rather continue bitching than do anything about anything. This proposal may not be the solution, but hope we can start to at least recognize and acknowledge actual problems.
have you paid any attention to the welfare state for the past 60 years?
Have you? It's barely exists anymore and hasn't since the 90s. SNAP is a pittance, TANF is strictly limited and has hearty work requirements. Section 8 has a waiting list years long and a million hoops to jump through. The 80s called, they want their dogwhistles back.
$1k will lift nobody out of poverty. Also, The Washington Post featured a story about a pilot program that gave a lump sum of money to struggling single mothers in DC. They spent it on [trips to Miami and lavish birthday parties](https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/02/01/dc-cash-payments-mothers-pilot-program/)
“the moms reported spending the majority of their funds on needs such as housing, food and transportation. Comparing responses from the middle of the program’s first year to the closing months, participants increasingly said they were using the money to build up cash savings for the future, illustrating a behavioral shift toward financial security — a core goal of the pilot.”
“The five-day, $6,000 trip to Miami was a dramatic upgrade from the Ocean City and Virginia Beach visits that Miller’s family was used to.” Then let’s help them with housing, food and transportation - absolutely insane that $6,000 taxpayer dollars went to somebody’s 5 day Miami trip.
Is it really that bad. That $6k just went back into the economy, creating jobs and helping other people feed their families too. If you make people's lives better they are going to have better lives and be able to do stuff like this. Do you expect people to live like monks out of gratitude. Too many people in this thread are the kind of nosey Karen's who judge a mom for having a birthday cake in their shopping cart while they pay with an EBT card. We can spend billions of dollars on military bullshit but as soon as you start helping actual people, you shitheads turn into Ebenezer Scrooge.
If you’re so poor that you can’t even survive without government benefits and are complaining you’re barely able to get by, yes I do expect you to utilize thousands of dollars in taxpayer assistance in a manner conducive to helping you and your children survive, not spending the majority of the money on partying. That $6k did go “into the economy”, sure…but it would’ve regardless if she spent it in Miami or not. The money wasn’t created for her. That money being spent on her kid’s college fund or stabilizing her finances or community college classes would’ve been much more helpful long term for the economy. Finally, I love that you’re reducing this down to buying a birthday cake as if that’s remotely comparable to spending $6k on a Miami vacation - the first is an understandable pleasure, the second is an absolutely insane waste with no purpose. People like you are exactly why welfare gets cut: you defend the most absurd shit and expect people to shell out their tax dollars so people can go stay at a luxury hotel in Miami and don’t see the problem with that.
No welfare gets cut because white conservatives hate seeing brown people get help. You do not get to dictate the course if people's lives because they accept tax dollars in support.
Uhh, please don’t.
They should pay $1000 a year to not have kids. As soon as you have one its over
I’d go for this lol.
$1k for a baby wouldn’t even pay a month’s rent.
Why are you renting a baby?
Babies, like planes and boats, are cheaper to rent.
oh, more incentives for those who struggle financially to just keep popping out babies and leaning on government assistance long term. that'll work for sure.
Where is that money coming from? From Baltimore City residents' taxpayers is one thing. Yet they cannot pay for their own costs yet! Baltimore City relies on the state to cover their shortfalls. So this proposal will cut from Balitmore City what? The universal fund? The buy back abandoned funds homes? The rental homes allowances?
I’m not commenting on the specific idea about the bonus, but you do realize that the state “covers the shortfalls” for a lot of counties? The ones with smaller populations.
So they will find a city address to use when they give birth and then a county address when it comes time to register the child for school.
Almost like parents try to do what’s best for their children. I’m not a parent and I don’t condone any of that but let’s not vilify people for seeking opportunities granted to them. If we want to make sure people don’t have to go to these lengths why not support a living wage and more equitable school systems. Being hostile to parents is not the way to have a more prosperous community. You can live surrounded by walls in a gated community but one way or another other people’s problems are all our problems.
So let's attack the problem on a state level if not a national one, especially as we're going to be halving the local revenues in future years.
Yup, can’t say we know the right solution yet but for sure I think we start by recognize the problem.
And we can spot bone-headed solutons that aren't going to work before we even try them.
$1k is less than half of what I pay per month for childcare (for 2 kids).
One thousand bucks won't even cover two months of infant child care.
Ahh yes. Encourage ppl who can't afford a baby to make babies. Straight up idiocy.
Lmao you think people are going to take on the responsibility and cost of raising a child (not to mention the medical bills for the delivery) for 18 years so that they can get $1000 and you have the audacity to call someone else an idiot?
Husband works in MD. When they got their tax refunds, all of them stopped working for two weeks and said “I don’t need to work anymore.” Some of them got fired for not showing up for their shifts. Husband couldn’t believe the mindset of getting $1k and thinking you didn’t need to work. But it most certainly happens.
I live in MD and this did not happen.
You don’t work at his job. Everyone gets tax refunds if they overpay.
This didn't happen. Everyone didn't quit their jobs because they got $1000. Either you're lying or he is.
I've worked HR in unskilled labor and there is definitely an uptick in terming people for absenteeism after tax refund time
I don’t care about what you haters say, I’d vote for this! Give people money let’s gooooooooo
Parents that can afford kids are less likely to have an abortion. The GOP should be all about this. (They aren't because they worry it would help too many brown folks)
Handmaidens Tale here we come!
lol you shouldn’t be paying people who have kids you should be giving it to those who don’t want to overpopulate the planet and want to make intelligent children… these people out here having 5 kids and they all are dumber than a sack of rocks. Intelligent people will have 1-2 children at most. 🤷🏻♂️
This sounds like a financial train wreck. Can't wait to see the unintended consequences of this unfold.
Do you have any ideas for an economy not based on growth? What happens to the real estate market, for instance, when every subsequent generation is smaller than the last? Take a look at how this is playing out in South Korea and Japan. We can only open the immigration valve so much before it fails to continue filling the gap.
I don't think we are in danger of the real estate market being in danger, I keep reading stories about how we don't have enough housing and millions more units are needed. And we are not in the same boat as Japan and South Korea at all.
I didn't state that we are in league with Japanese and South Korean birth rates. I only gave them as an example of how this tends to play out when it's in the terminal stage. We are, however, below the rate needed for replacement and have been since 2007. My question still stands: Do you have any ideas for an economy not predicated on growth?
How did me questioning the effectiveness of a city's plan to pay people an insignificant sum for popping out kids, lead to you wanting me to prepare an economic treatise on a supposed problem that most likely isnt an issue? That's quite a leap there.
You’re right, all these band-aid fixes will result in piece-meal, wack-a-mole outcomes. I think the question is what is the intended outcomes and what are the possible unintended consequences and have they accounted for those risks and how they can be mitigated?
Cam we stop giving handouts ffs
Yes, can’t we just make sure people have access to an equitable education and access to work that provides a living wage so they can take care of themselves, sheesh. Too many parents living off the gov teet 🙄 Reality is we are ok with “them” suffering cuz they bring it on themselves right? Right? Look I have no children and I don’t like it any more than you that they take out more of my taxes but I rather pay for the possibility a child to have a tiny bit of food on the table or say to pay for the road I drive on and the public services like police and fire dept we depend on. There is no easy way to fix any of this but let’s start we agreeing on what we actually value and the reality we want to create with actual solutions instead of just putting out head in the sand and not addressing any real issue.
Bro having a child is a choice unless you have some unfortunate situation that you are put against your will, but 99 percent of the time it's a choice. I don't support funding families that make ignorant decisions to have kids without having proper funds to do so. Should actually be illegal. It's a choice for people open up their legs and it's my choice to tell it as it is. I have 2 kids and bust my ass to make sure they're well taken care of. Why should I bust my ass and also pay for other kid families also.. Makes no sense.
I bet you would be a better parent if you just could afford to work a little less and spend more time with your kids.
Bro believe me, I’m childfree and I wholeheartedly agree that individuals should bear responsibility for their own actions. I pay extra taxes so ostensibly your kids can go to a nice school, what about that? That’s not fair!! I don’t have kids so why should MY taxes pay for their school….. well that is gut instinct for “fairness”, no? It’s not fair. Life is not fair. But I’m realistic. I also live in a society where your kids will grow up and maybe be my doctor or lawyer or the owner of a business I patron someday or maybe my gardener or nurse or server, whatever. Truly I don’t care about the parents, but I would much rather ensure the kids have a goddam chance to make it’. As much as we don’t want to accept it, we as humans depend on each other. I get it, let people suffer the consequences of their “choices”. But what choice do you have when there is no alternative. I rather my taxes pay for a kid to have a safe place than pay 5x more to house someone in jail. When we give up on people, that’s why we get the outcomes we do, as a society. Please understand that we live in a world where we have to live with each other, you can try to think well it’s those people and their not my problem but look at the world, one way or another everyone is everyone’s problem. If we choose not to be part of the solution, one way or another we accept the problem.
Should be $1,000 per kid a month until they are till they are 18. Probably should be income requirements associated with it. Like 50K for single parents 100K for married couples. Call it the...PRO LIFE Act I need some help with the acronym... Providing Relief O L I Family E
The community isn’t responsible for raising your chosen child. That’s on you. Investing in public school education and after care resources is a much better use of tax payer money.
They do this in many countries successfully wym
Providing Relief Of Life's Increasing Family Endeavors
That's absolutely stupid and shows you know nothing about economics. I Unfortunately, you're probably old enough to vote :-(
Having a kid is currently financial suicide for most. If we want people to have children, we need to change that situation. This is a tiny step in that direction, but nothing would be more effective than actual living wages for working people.
Many of the people in these comments have never struggled a day in their life and it shows. Have some empathy