A Different Kind of Welfare

Mr. Deez

Beer Prophet
This is just a topic I've been pondering in the last several months and thought I'd throw it out to the WM. Here in Deutschland, the government doles out cash to all families for each child. The program is commonly referred to as "kindergeld," which literally means "children money." It's not enormous, but it's not chump change either - approximately 200 Euros (about $240) per month per child. Though poor families can get this money, you don't have to be poor to get it. The purpose of the program is to help families bear the cost of having children and to help families who choose to have a parent stay home with the children. (Because I am in Germany under a Status of Forces Agreement, I do not pay most German taxes (don't pay their income tax and can at least to a point get out of paying their VAT and gasoline tax) and therefore am not eligible for the program. I could opt to pay German taxes and receive the benefit for Deez, Jr., who was born last March. I simply choose not to.)

Here's the question - would this be a good idea in the United States? I'm undecided, but consider this. We don't necessarily have a birth rate problem in the US, but we do have an Idiocracy problem. (If you've seen the movie, you know what I mean.) Specifically, degenerates crap out kids every five minutes. However, middle and upper middle class families often delay having children partly for financial reasons. That's a bad thing.

So here's my proposal. (Again, I don't endorse this, but I'd consider it.) You give out a per child benefit to families. However, it has specific terms and conditions. The amount could be comparable to the German program's amount, but that's certainly open to debate.

A few conditions. First, there is an income ceiling but also a floor. The program doesn't exist to give cash to rich people, but it's not there to subsidize Walmart either (like EITC, Medicaid, etc. do). The floor could be $50K of annual combined family income, and the ceiling could be $200K.

Second, only married couples can get the benefit. This program doesn't exist to help single moms keep banging and getting pregnant by legions of desperate dudes. We have enough programs geared toward that. In addition, the husband living in the house with the mother must be the biological or adoptive father of at least one of the children in the home.

Third, you cannot be receiving any other government benefits (except military or veterans benefits) - no subsidized housing, no Medicaid, no food stamps, no free lunch at school, etc. Again, this is to defray the costs of bearing children to encourage responsible people to have children.

Discuss.
 
In your third restriction, do we eliminate the other programs or is it left up as to the individual to choose which type of welfare they want?
 
MrD
Honestly can you ever see liberals putting those kind of rules on any money we dole out?
For instance the 2 parent requirement with both parents either being natural or adoptive. As common sense ( with stats to back it up) as it do you think there is a chance in hell of that being a requirement>

and what would you with all the single mothers with multiple kids from multiple fathers who are now on a host of benefits whose value exceeds your 50k floor.
What a shame there isn't a way to require some sort of responsibility to getting so many benefits.
would you prohibit people above the 50 k floor who get the stipend from shopping at Walmart?

How in general is it working in Germany? Do they have the requirerments you listed, 2 parents homes etc?

I think these are great ideas that might help people responsibility but as I said Liberals don 't care if someone learns responsibility . They seem to care about keeping that voting bllock
 
I will probably get this wrong because it's been a while since I read about it. There is a country (euro I think) that gives everybody a set amount of money regardless of income that can cover basic living expenses. But, that's it. No food stamps, no housing allowance, no nothing. This seems much more efficient because everybody gets the same amount and it eliminates all the special programs with administrative costs. It also doesn't punish those that work hard by taking away what they were given leaving them worse off.
 
We already get tax breaks for children in the US. I prefer getting to keep more of the money that I earn than adding people to the dole. I think more or different tax breaks would be acceptable, but I am looking for less government involvement not more.
 
I'm on the side of tax breaks, not more Gov't doles. Especially one that would require complicated regulations or multi criteria that our public servants (tongue in cheek here) could never administer.
Actually I have become an advocate of the flat tax due to my now absolute abhorrence for the IRS.
 
MrD
" If momma pisses her money away on booze and rubbers instead of health insurance"
confused.gif

Idf momma has actually bought and used rubbers then at least the number of children coming out of her would be reduced.

I understand your concern but giving people money has never encouraged them to greater responsibility. giving money with no skin in the game only disincentivizes them.

We are and will suffer for years- if it doesn't end up bankrupting us all- suffering generations of people living off well intended gov't hand outs.
 
MrD
I think you have worthy intentions. IMO are already entirely too many gov't programs giving out money and creating huge bureaucracies to manage them.
You point out that none of those programs would go away. Your plan is another layer of giveaway with another layer of bureaucracy.

Don't married couples with children get money now? in the form of reduction in taxes?
 

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Back
Top