markfox01 said:
its tit for tat IMO... either that or keep a bigger generation of single parents..

markfox01 said:
its tit for tat IMO... either that or keep a bigger generation of single parents..

lili said:
But you have to look at what percentage of the people are truly taking advantage of the system as compared to the percentage who actually need that money. You could reduce the assistance to effectively eliminate the few moochers at the cost of the many many more who actually needed that money.

jonnythan said:
Which do you think will produce better results in 25 years?

jmo said:
Child tax credits aren't an awful lot. Anyone who thinks their going to be better off by having children is really stupid. Im sure it happens, but nowhere near as much as certain aspects of the press would have you believe.

I live in an area with alot of single parents, and they all work bloody hard to support their children. My own mum was a lone parent for many years and worked as hard as possible, only to have to spend most her money on Childcare whilst she worked. Luckily my dad began to pay enough maintanance to afford to put me and my sister into childcare and buy us clothes and the like, but it aint easy.

markfox01 said:
The poverty trap of being a single parent.. and if the money was reduced it will force them to work.. instead being at home is more money than working in this country..

jonnythan said:
This is wrong. Those are listed in the Declaration of Independence, which is a document with no legal standing whatsoever.

There are lots of entitlements in the US.

Quote:
Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.]

lili said:
But you have to look at what percentage of the people are truly taking advantage of the system as compared to the percentage who actually need that money. You could reduce the assistance to effectively eliminate the few moochers at the cost of the many many more who actually needed it.

lily said:
they should be praising the parents of families who are together, rather than encouraging parents to go seperate ways just for money

jmo said:
That doesnt work. Countless studies have shown that.

Many single parents work or want to work, but can't afford childcare.

Child care is more expensive than a minnimum wage job, particularly for parents who have more than one child.

lili said:
I was a single parent for a short period, and what they call "assistance" isn't even enough to support a single person, much less a mother and a child. The max given to a single mother with 1 child was $427 a month. That isn't even enough to rent a room in someone else's house, not to mention food, clothes, transportation, daycare... Even when I had a fulltime job at $9 an hour the cost of daycare ate up more than half my take-home pay, and the rest wasn't enough even to pay my rent. But because I had a full time job, I didn't qualify for assistance. At one point I was living in a motel on credit cards. Eventually I had no choice but to go back to my husband for money. The only person who would call that living rich off the system is someone who has never tried to do it before.

lili said:
That's assuming all families should stay together. There are many many kids who were raised by parents who stayed together "for the kids" and I've never heard one of them say it was a good thing. And then there are those situations of abuse, and abandonment. Some parents have no choice in being a single parent. Many many would not be if given a choice. Life is not nearly so idealistic.

raditz8526 said:
www.fairtax.org

Too bad you couldn't keep all of your money, eh?