Should benefits only be given to parents for the first two children?

Asked by: smt123
  • I think so.

    If a working couple, for example have two children, and don't earn enough money to afford to look after a third, they can't have a third - simple as. How unfair is it that people on benefits can have as many kids as they want - all paid for, yet the working people can't have more than they can afford to look after. Especially when the only reason this happens is because there are people who go out to work every day and pay tax, (yet they simply can't have what they can't afford).

  • Benefits should extent to as many childre, based on their parents education

    Why are we helping spread the idea that if you drop out you can get a paycheck for having kids.
    A working single mom/dad who has an associates degree. A police officer, a soldier, a teacher should be the ones getting rewarded instead of those who have kids when they are but kids themselves. Or highschool dropouts having 2-3 kids and expecting their neighbors to pay for them.

    Benefits for children shouldn't be benefits, they should be a bonus to those skilled or educated ot have more kids, while not giving any to those who multiply like humanity is facing extinction while barely able to support themselves.

    Posted by: N711
  • Punishing children because of a myth is just cruelty.

    The only people that would suffer from this sort of policy are children.

    FACT: The majority of people who are on public assistance and are of childbearing age are the WORKING poor.

    FACT: The amount of money a welfare payment increases with each additional child is nowhere NEAR the amount it takes to feed, clothe, and house that child- it is in actuality just $90 per month increase on average. In fact, the national average welfare payment for a family consisting of a single mother and two children is $650 per month. I dare you to live on that and raise kids.
    FACT: There are 19 states that have tried "family caps" in place on welfare already. It has not been proven to reduce the birth rate in comparison to non-cap states and national rates, and the numbers have been highly contradictory. For example, one state boasted a reduction of 8% in the birth rate among women on assistance after they enacted their cap in 1997- but the nationwide birth rate had dropped by a similar amount.

    The odd part is that the folks who push for this also claim to be pro-family. Apparently the fact that children suffer and that the increased poverty potential for a pregnant woman might cause a rise in the number of abortions doesn't occur to them.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.