It may not be the equation theyre using, the equation could be - I'm poor but I want a kid + government can pay for it = win/win. That's the arguement.Eraser wrote:I have a hard time believing that. Maybe I'm being naive, but getting a child just for social benefits is beyond fucked up.Don Carlos wrote:Sadly I know a lot of people who pump kids out to get money and bigger houses. No intention of working ever. So they are to blame as much as the tax evading corporations as far as I'm concerned.
Especially because I don't believe for a moment that a child is a monetary net positive in any case.
I know people who will never work because they could never be employed, singe mothers ^ / dole bums that throughout their life are mostly reliant on government. If they could earn money they would imo and it's not like they live the life of Riley. There's restrictions too, if you can work then you work for free, if your a single mum you need to be seeking work by the time the child is 3, 2 child limit etc etc so to suggest these people would rather do that than work for money is bold.
Memphs example of council estates, they don't exist anymore. Oh yea, it would also be near impossible for the majority of people in my area to survive with children without some form of government support, even when working full time, these measures are there to bring people above the poverty line, not offer a free ride and all this kinda ties into my arguements about low pay + higher cost to living.
Plus they only started getting blamed when the credit crunch happened, ya know, 5 million people suddenly decided to quit their jobs and live on the dole
