Maybe. But here is the thing – do you think it is fair for someone else to subsidize your children (at the cost to themselves)?
It is usually the duty of parents to raise their children (and pay for their education). The left however feels that it “takes the village to raise the child” (nice way of saying that someone else should pay for education, etc…). This means that dysfunctional people and families can externalise the consequences of their actions.
If we think of it in a crude way: wouldn’t the most fit evolutionary strategy in such a system be to just get as much children as you want? Since someone else will bust their but to pay for the raising and education of your child.
This is unfortunately what happens in many countries, and it is quite sad. In my country there are 13.4 million people on government grants and there are 12 million people working. Of those that work, only about 3 million pay tax (75% which is paid by 750,000). Of the 13.4 million receiving “social grants”, about 9 million are child grants (government pays them for each child under 16, thereby encouraging people to get children. Many people receive the child grant from their children before they stop getting their own grant).
The point of this is that each tax payer is paying to raise 3 children that are not theirs. Is that fair? Should someone really be allowed to get children if they cannot afford them?
This is also one of the reasons I believe that democracy does not work in most countries – especially countries with a high population or which is not homogeneous.
The excuse of “family location” is BS. Many people have put off or postponed having children until they can afford them, and at least kept the number of children to a minimum. Many people also at least put in the effort to raise the kids that they have properly.
"Should someone really be allowed to get children if they cannot afford them?"
Probably not, but there's the rub. How do we prevent this? Perhaps if we refuse to bail them out... but are you willing to watch a child starve to death? Will you be the one to pull the plug?
The first thing would be to refuse child grants so to prevent adults from getting children, in order to get welfare. Awarding people for getting children is wrong and stupid.
The second thing is to force mothers to reveal the father of their children. Many do not inform the state who the father is, therefore forcing the taxpayer to pay for raising the child instead of the father.
And probably the best option would be to implement policies similar to China’s one child policy. A good example would be forced sterilization after 3 children if the person receives any form government welfare (or already have kids and is imprisoned).
But in any case, well before this point, the state can spent money on voluntary sterilisation campaigns (i.e. paying the poor and drug addicts to be sterilised).
Why is it suddenly fair for the government to make such extreme intrusions (forced to reveal information, sterilization) when before it wasn’t (taking aways money).
Because the nature of economy changed. In the old times, any able bodied person could do manual labour. Now manual labour isn't needed that much (industrialisation, etc...).
Another reason is longer life expectancy and subsidized health care. In the old days, a person inclined to irresponsible reproduction will not live that much longer than a person without. Now there are many countries with an average fertility rate well over 6.
Another reason is that it reproductive responsibility has been shown to work. Compare China to every 3rd world country (e.g. 50 African countries and India). Their one child policy not only stopped untold misery, but created the bedrock for future prosperity.
I come from a lower-middle class background ( military family during the 80's and early 90's ), grew up in many different small cities and never finished high school. I am in my mid 20's now and have the wealth that people here like to refer to as 'FU Money'
Germany has about 800,000 USD millionaires (also numbers from 2006) and a population that’s about 16 times smaller than China’s. Do you really think that that difference has nothing to do with location and history?
