Subsidies to get more children? 28 replies

Please wait...

Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#11 13 years ago

czech speacial forceswe have too many people from other countrys coming and creating problems.[/quote] That's putting all immigrants into the same basket which is not the case. I'm sure most of them are peaceful people who want to work to get their living instead of just causing problems around.

[QUOTE=masked_marsoe]But seeing as all Western nations already have unemployment, why is there a need for even more workers?

Because most of those that are unemployed are ill-skilled and/or too old for enterprises to hire, not to mention possible illnesses.




masked_marsoe Advanced Member

Heaven's gonna burn your eyes

50 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

8,063 Posts

0 Threads

#12 13 years ago
Because most of those that are unemployed are ill-skilled ...

I'd say training programs are better than child-bearing subsidies. Many older workers can provide experience, though they don't have to work full time. I'd rather see a full-employment economy than one where only a few children get jobs, and then have more children to get benfits.




Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#13 13 years ago
masked_marsoeI'd say training programs are better than child-bearing subsidies.

Governmental re-training programs don't just take relatively long time, but they are costly and ineffective means to employ people. Private companies aren't interested about re-training for the same reasons, even though their own programs would be more efficient. Child-bearing subsidies bring new, fresh workforce in the long term and aren't as costly as re-training programs.

I'd rather see a full-employment economy than one where only a few children get jobs, and then have more children to get benfits.

I would like to see too but full-employment economy is quite an utopia and I don't know how it would work out if we look from multiple perspectives.




Karst

I chose an eternity of this

50 XP

6th January 2005

0 Uploads

4,505 Posts

0 Threads

#14 13 years ago

I don't think they should, cause i don't think money should be a reason to have children. People who don't really want to have children will "produce" them anyway to get the bonuses, and turn out to be bad parents. And besides:

marsoe But seeing as all Western nations already have unemployment, why is there a need for even more workers?

that.

The reason is not really the need for a larger workforce, but to counter the overall population decline in a lot of western countries. But i don't think that's a very serious problem. There are enough immigrants to balance that out anyway.

however i do think there should be child support (as there is in most countries).




King_Nothing100

I aim to please

50 XP

23rd February 2003

0 Uploads

892 Posts

0 Threads

#15 13 years ago

People already get money for kids here, but it's backfired tremendously e.g;

- Chav teenager has kid without being married - Council catch note of this, and grant the chav state benefit, and moved straight to the top of the council house list - Chav realises that they can pull in more money than working on minimum wage, so they pop out more kids to get more benefits - Kids usually end up as unsocial scumbags due to poor parenting skills, thus - Kids don't even bother to enter the workforce, because they have probably failed in school, so either; - Get on the dole, fake injury to get on disability benefit, or repeat the same cycle that the animal that spawned them chose for their career




Hmmmdonut

The real Homer

50 XP

6th July 2005

0 Uploads

441 Posts

0 Threads

#16 13 years ago

PethegreatI know in the US we have the child tax credit. I think it is around $600 for every kid under 18.

I know there is no problem with people having too few kids in the US. Most families have 2 or more kids. I know this is more of a problem in europe where it is normal for families to either have none or only one kid.

Average in America is 1.5 kids per family.




Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#17 13 years ago
KarstI don't think they should, cause i don't think money should be a reason to have children. People who don't really want to have children will "produce" them anyway to get the bonuses, and turn out to be bad parents.

Subsidy money isn't there to get people to make children because of it, but take off the financial problem from the decision of making children. Like said: raising/sustaining children is expensive thing to do and carrying baby in the stomach & giving birth takes some will power. Besides, were not talking about huge benefits here but relatively small amount of money given for the parents.

Tax cut like WarHawk109 suggested, would be equivalent for the subsidy which couldn't be abused as easily and it would be more motivating.




Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#18 13 years ago

Lack of children is certainly a problem in many countries. Its definitely a good idea to encourage it. Unfortunatly, the cultural and social motivations to have children is gone, so I don't think any amount of financial incentive will make a big difference.




Pethegreat Advanced Member

Lord of the Peach

70 XP

19th April 2004

0 Uploads

20,892 Posts

0 Threads

#19 13 years ago
I'd rather see a full-employment economy than one where only a few children get jobs, and then have more children to get benfits.

Kids need to be eased into jobs. You can't expect a kid out of college to start working 40 hours a week when they never worked an hour before.

I can only hope that people will wake up and notice that their race is dying out.




Karst

I chose an eternity of this

50 XP

6th January 2005

0 Uploads

4,505 Posts

0 Threads

#20 13 years ago

RelanderSubsidy money isn't there to get people to make children because of it, but take off the financial problem from the decision of making children. Like said: raising/sustaining children is expensive thing to do and carrying baby in the stomach & giving birth takes some will power. Besides, were not talking about huge benefits here but relatively small amount of money given for the parents.

Tax cut like WarHawk109 suggested, would be equivalent for the subsidy which couldn't be abused as easily and it would be more motivating.

Obviously that's the point, i just think it's pretty easy to abuse. But as i said, i do think parents should get child support money, just not subsidies to actually have children.