There are ways to deal with that. One is to limit child tax credits to something like 2. You could limit welfare allowances to a certain number of children as well.JohnG@lt wrote:
Your way would completely exonerate bad parenting. Poor? Lazy? Have kids anyway and the government will make sure they have the same shot in life as the offspring of those who waited until they could afford kids.
If certain parents are unable to keep from procreating and are raising children in an environment that is deemed too poor for their own safety, then that is where child services should intervene and raise the child via orphanages or a foster home with suitable funds.
Unfortunately, this skirts authoritarianism, but there are situations where a child must be separated from his or her birth parents for the sake of their own safety and health.
Trust me, if we went the route I just mentioned, the problem becomes much more manageable.JohnG@lt wrote:
I love the idea of giving all kids an equal chance, on paper. I really do. I grew up poor so it definitely appeals to me. But, and this is a but you could drive a train through, it essentially endorses bad decision making because it takes away the consequences. Sure, you can say the kid is innocent and doesn't deserve the consequences but does that kid in the next town over whose parents worked hard to make sure he had a solid education and health care and food on the table deserve to have artificial competition placed in his path?
And I would suggest that basic amenities would still allow for said ambitions. If you look at the way many people on the dole live in some European countries, it's not pleasant. It's bearable, but most people don't want to remain that way.JohnG@lt wrote:
I don't know about you, but my primary motivation to succeed in life is not to build up a pile of material goods around me. Frankly, I could give a rats ass whether I live in a 100 room mansion or a one bedroom apartment. No, my motivation is solely based on the fact that I want my kids to have a better childhood than I did and to grant them a level of comfort growing up that I never experienced. I want to save and invest and one day pass on the fruits of my labors to my kids and grandkids to make their lives just a bit easier. I am no trust fund baby and I sure as shit don't have any inheritance coming my way, so that is my goal. I'm a third generation American and my goal is to do better than the generation before me. I'll instill in my own children that they have to do better than I myself did.
And for the people that don't have ambition, if you didn't have these things in place, some of them would die, while others would commit crimes to get by. I know you probably don't care about the death part, but the potential criminals should be a concern.
An inheritance tax isn't mandatory for a socialist system to work. That's something every country has a different policy on. Also, funding for basic amenities doesn't preclude raising a child in a much better environment than the public one.JohnG@lt wrote:
So, if you equalize all outcomes coming out of childhood, please tell me where my motivation is. If you're going to provide health care and housing and food and clothing for my kids so that they are equal to other kids and are going to take more than half of any inheritance that I leave via taxation... what is there really to work for? As I said, having a Bentley and a mansion isn't on my to-do list...
Observe how the wealthy in countries like Canada still often send their children to private schools.