Welfare baby solution: Family Cap. (411)
In response to: The problem of babies being tied to welfare money has been large enough that a number of different attempts to break that connection have been made in hopes of reducing the size of the problem.
One legal reform that has been implemented has been "family cap" which makes children conceived while the mother was on welfare ineligible for additional welfare funds. This removes the responsibility from society for any additional children and places the burden squarely on the mother. The caveat is that the other children could and probably will suffer as mother has less income per child and one more child to look after.
Is it fair? That's a tough call because it's not society's responsibility to pay for additional children, but neither is it the other children in the family or even that child's fault. It's a negative financial incentive to the mother that the children will likely bear the brunt of, but that said.... does it work and is it wrong that the mother of this family bears the responsibility when the state cuts off additional financial aid for additional children conceived while financial aid is being drawn?
One legal reform that has been implemented has been "family cap" which makes children conceived while the mother was on welfare ineligible for additional welfare funds. This removes the responsibility from society for any additional children and places the burden squarely on the mother. The caveat is that the other children could and probably will suffer as mother has less income per child and one more child to look after.
Is it fair? That's a tough call because it's not society's responsibility to pay for additional children, but neither is it the other children in the family or even that child's fault. It's a negative financial incentive to the mother that the children will likely bear the brunt of, but that said.... does it work and is it wrong that the mother of this family bears the responsibility when the state cuts off additional financial aid for additional children conceived while financial aid is being drawn?
It's the children that are going to suffer," said Nandora Myers. But then, in a twist of incongruity, she adds that the policy makes some sense. "All these women having all these babies and not being able to take care of them is not right."
I wonder if she really did say that?
No, I don´t think it is fair, but what are the possible alternatives if the state decides to penalise women in this situation? Shouldn´t the state instead make more of a concerted effort into ensuring reasonable child support payments from the fathers of these children are made?
------ This thread is Archived ------
JAN_is:
No, I don´t think it is fair, but what are the possible alternatives if the state decides to penalise women in this situation? Shouldn´t the state instead make more of a concerted effort into ensuring reasonable child support payments from the fathers of these children are made?
No, I don´t think it is fair, but what are the possible alternatives if the state decides to penalise women in this situation? Shouldn´t the state instead make more of a concerted effort into ensuring reasonable child support payments from the fathers of these children are made?
Do the sensible thing? OMG what a concept for government. You're such a radical Jan.
------ This thread is Archived ------
What i think is also unfair is that single mothers are being discriminated against, why does the law not apply to families on social welfare?
------ This thread is Archived ------
What happens if a working woman with four kids looses her source of income and has to go on welfare, does she get if for all the kids or just the first 3?
------ This thread is Archived ------
gardenhackle: The problem of babies being tied to welfare money has been large enough that a number of different attempts to break that connection have been made in hopes of reducing the size of the problem.
One legal reform that has been implemented has been "family cap" which makes children conceived while the mother was on welfare ineligible for additional welfare funds. This removes the responsibility from society for any additional children and places the burden squarely on the mother. The caveat is that the other children could and probably will suffer as mother has less income per child and one more child to look after.
Is it fair? That's a tough call because it's not society's responsibility to pay for additional children, but neither is it the other children in the family or even that child's fault. It's a negative financial incentive to the mother that the children will likely bear the brunt of, but that said.... does it work and is it wrong that the mother of this family bears the responsibility when the state cuts off additional financial aid for additional children conceived while financial aid is being drawn?
One legal reform that has been implemented has been "family cap" which makes children conceived while the mother was on welfare ineligible for additional welfare funds. This removes the responsibility from society for any additional children and places the burden squarely on the mother. The caveat is that the other children could and probably will suffer as mother has less income per child and one more child to look after.
Is it fair? That's a tough call because it's not society's responsibility to pay for additional children, but neither is it the other children in the family or even that child's fault. It's a negative financial incentive to the mother that the children will likely bear the brunt of, but that said.... does it work and is it wrong that the mother of this family bears the responsibility when the state cuts off additional financial aid for additional children conceived while financial aid is being drawn?
I know this is a VERY radical idea, but maybe people should ensure they DONT get pregnant if there is any possibility whatsoever that they cannot afford to support that child, or by supporting that child any others may suffer financially.
Take Benefit/Child Support out of the equation for a moment; pretend it doesnt exist..would anyone, in their right mind conceive another child when they are struggling financially? No, of course they wouldnt.
Child benefit is supposed to be an ADDITION to the weekly income, not the basis on which it is decided whether another mouth can be afforded to be fed.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Bodecia: I know this is a VERY radical idea, but maybe people should ensure they DONT get pregnant if there is any possibility whatsoever that they cannot afford to support that child, or by supporting that child any others may suffer financially.
It's not radical it's impractical because people do all sorts of silly things.
Take Benefit/Child Support out of the equation for a moment; pretend it doesnt exist..would anyone, in their right mind conceive another child when they are struggling financially? No, of course they wouldnt.
Yes they would and millions do regularly all over the world.
Child benefit is supposed to be an ADDITION to the weekly income, not the basis on which it is decided whether another mouth can be afforded to be fed.
It's not radical it's impractical because people do all sorts of silly things.
Take Benefit/Child Support out of the equation for a moment; pretend it doesnt exist..would anyone, in their right mind conceive another child when they are struggling financially? No, of course they wouldnt.
Yes they would and millions do regularly all over the world.
Child benefit is supposed to be an ADDITION to the weekly income, not the basis on which it is decided whether another mouth can be afforded to be fed.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Why the confusion?!
------ This thread is Archived ------
Bodecia: Why the confusion?!
cos i don't understand the point, (i'm going out for a while, if you reply don't be upset if i don't respond instantly)
------ This thread is Archived ------
Bodecia: I know this is a VERY radical idea, but maybe people should ensure they DONT get pregnant if there is any possibility whatsoever that they cannot afford to support that child, or by supporting that child any others may suffer financially.
Take Benefit/Child Support out of the equation for a moment; pretend it doesnt exist..would anyone, in their right mind conceive another child when they are struggling financially? No, of course they wouldnt.
Child benefit is supposed to be an ADDITION to the weekly income, not the basis on which it is decided whether another mouth can be afforded to be fed.
Take Benefit/Child Support out of the equation for a moment; pretend it doesnt exist..would anyone, in their right mind conceive another child when they are struggling financially? No, of course they wouldnt.
Child benefit is supposed to be an ADDITION to the weekly income, not the basis on which it is decided whether another mouth can be afforded to be fed.
In an ideal world perhaps, but none of us know what the future holds, when I had my children both my husband and I had good jobs. Unfortunatly a few years later I was made redundant and also seperated. The last thing I ever wanted was to rely on the state to help me take care of my children but for about 5 months, until I found employment and sorted childcare thats what I had to do.
Of course I wouldnt have considered having my children if I hadnt been in a good financial position but circimstances change.
------ This thread is Archived ------
If they don't want to be on Welfare then why keep having babies at the Goverment's expense.This is not just related to the States,it's a problem everywhere.If you cannot provide for 1 child,how can you possibly quantify having more.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Conorco: cos i don't understand the point, (i'm going out for a while, if you reply don't be upset if i don't respond instantly)
The point I was trying to put across is this..
If there were no such thing as Child Benefit, and families had to support their families purely on the flat rate welfare they got for general living, or purely on any wages received, if they were struggling to support existing children, they would be mad to conceive yet another child.
However, Child Benefit does exist, but is looked upon by too many as a God Given Right, and the basis on which they decide on another mouth to feed. Thats not right. Its an addition to any income, nothing more, and should be looked upon as such.
JMO
------ This thread is Archived ------
Glatlol: In an ideal world perhaps, but none of us know what the future holds, when I had my children both my husband and I had good jobs. Unfortunatly a few years later I was made redundant and also seperated. The last thing I ever wanted was to rely on the state to help me take care of my children but for about 5 months, until I found employment and sorted childcare thats what I had to do.
Of course I wouldnt have considered having my children if I hadnt been in a good financial position but circimstances change.
Of course I wouldnt have considered having my children if I hadnt been in a good financial position but circimstances change.
Hi Y...
Youre circumstances were different, I think. You didnt start out on benefit, and didnt intend to be out of work. When we pay our taxes we are definately entitled to take a little back!
My issue is with those who are benefits to start with.
Happy Easter!
------ This thread is Archived ------
bestbefore: If they don't want to be on Welfare then why keep having babies at the Goverment's expense.This is not just related to the States,it's a problem everywhere.If you cannot provide for 1 child,how can you possibly quantify having more.
Exactly..
------ This thread is Archived ------
Conorco: What i think is also unfair is that single mothers are being discriminated against, why does the law not apply to families on social welfare?
I would be surprised if it doesn't since it's a "family cap".
------ This thread is Archived ------
The operation of family caps can create a situation that completely deprives families of welfare grants when their oldest children leave the household and only capped children remain.
This situation commonly occurs when a noncapped child reaches adult age and becomes ineligible for welfare, or when a noncapped child leaves the household to go into foster care and only capped children remain in the household.
This complete deprivation of welfare funds could have grave health effects for the significant number of capped children in the United States.
This situation commonly occurs when a noncapped child reaches adult age and becomes ineligible for welfare, or when a noncapped child leaves the household to go into foster care and only capped children remain in the household.
This complete deprivation of welfare funds could have grave health effects for the significant number of capped children in the United States.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Bodecia: Hi Y...
Youre circumstances were different, I think. You didnt start out on benefit, and didnt intend to be out of work. When we pay our taxes we are definately entitled to take a little back!
My issue is with those who are benefits to start with.
Happy Easter!
Youre circumstances were different, I think. You didnt start out on benefit, and didnt intend to be out of work. When we pay our taxes we are definately entitled to take a little back!
My issue is with those who are benefits to start with.
Happy Easter!
Oh dont get me started on people who see benefit as an income they are entitled to.
Subsequent governments here created a generation of welfare dependant families, families who were better of not working because of all the extra benefits they received. Children grew up with no work ethic and no way out of the benefit trap.
I know things are different here now,so few jobs and so many seeking employment, I have had 3 different jobs in the past 4 years due to companies closing down. And there are families dependant on welfare who would rather work.
Happy Easter to you both to
------ This thread is Archived ------
Glatlol: Oh dont get me started on people who see benefit as an income they are entitled to.
Subsequent governments here created a generation of welfare dependant families, families who were better of not working because of all the extra benefits they received. Children grew up with no work ethic and no way out of the benefit trap.
I know things are different here now,so few jobs and so many seeking employment, I have had 3 different jobs in the past 4 years due to companies closing down. And there are families dependant on welfare who would rather work.Happy Easter to you both to
Subsequent governments here created a generation of welfare dependant families, families who were better of not working because of all the extra benefits they received. Children grew up with no work ethic and no way out of the benefit trap.
I know things are different here now,so few jobs and so many seeking employment, I have had 3 different jobs in the past 4 years due to companies closing down. And there are families dependant on welfare who would rather work.Happy Easter to you both to
There's a family where we live who Himself has a saying about..
"When a new [family name] baby is born, the midwife stamps "Disability" on its forehead instead of slapping its a*s"..
Cracks me up every time..
------ This thread is Archived ------
bestbefore: If they don't want to be on Welfare then why keep having babies at the Goverment's expense.This is not just related to the States,it's a problem everywhere.If you cannot provide for 1 child,how can you possibly quantify having more.
Think the issue here is not about the mother but about the baby. What will happen if it does not get funds for what it needs such as milk and nappies? Why is it being punished for the sins of the mother?
The other issue is this is total against human rights. In Europe this would contravene the European Bill of Human rights big time, in as much as one mother with a child born before coming on welfare gets preferential treatment over another who had a child once on welfare.
Think there are better ways of saving money than hitting on single mums..
Shame on you America...
------ This thread is Archived ------
Bodecia: There's a family where we live who Himself has a saying about..
"When a new [family name] baby is born, the midwife stamps "Disability" on its forehead instead of slapping its a*s"..
Cracks me up every time..
"When a new [family name] baby is born, the midwife stamps "Disability" on its forehead instead of slapping its a*s"..
Cracks me up every time..
"Disability" = Disability Welfare for life here.
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
Why is this shameful?
wanting beyond need
More Proof The GOP is a Criminal Organization
men's perspective towards women
The weird and the random facts around the world
Unions support Democrats!
Ladies
Would you hire this guy - for any job?
The GOP Representatives owned by Vladimir Putin
your favorite topic?
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Stats for this Thread
16,522 Views
410 Comments
Created: Apr 2011
Last Viewed: 8 hrs ago
Last Commented: Jul 2011
0 Likes
Related Forums
- Why is this shameful?
- wanting beyond need
- More Proof The GOP is a Criminal Organization
- men's perspective towards women
- The weird and the random facts around the world
- Unions support Democrats!
- Ladies
- Would you hire this guy - for any job?
- The GOP Representatives owned by Vladimir Putin
- your favorite topic?
One legal reform that has been implemented has been "family cap" which makes children conceived while the mother was on welfare ineligible for additional welfare funds. This removes the responsibility from society for any additional children and places the burden squarely on the mother. The caveat is that the other children could and probably will suffer as mother has less income per child and one more child to look after.
Is it fair? That's a tough call because it's not society's responsibility to pay for additional children, but neither is it the other children in the family or even that child's fault. It's a negative financial incentive to the mother that the children will likely bear the brunt of, but that said.... does it work and is it wrong that the mother of this family bears the responsibility when the state cuts off additional financial aid for additional children conceived while financial aid is being drawn?
By Barbara Vobejda and Judith Havemann
Washington Post Staff Writers
Two-month-old Michael Myers-Evans has huge, dark eyes, just like his brother and two sisters. Like his siblings, he is poor, the child of a single, unemployed mother.
But in one very important way, Michael is different from the rest of his family, different from almost everyone else in his circumstances: He is not eligible for welfare.
Michael is one of the first generation of babies being born around the country under a controversial new policy known as the "family cap." Now in place in 19 states, the family cap denies additional benefits to children conceived and born while their mothers are receiving public assistance.
That means that Michael's mother, 25-year-old Nandora Myers, is now supporting four children on the same $650 monthly welfare payment she received when she had three children. And that basic calculus defies the history of federal welfare policy, which until now has always tied the level of benefits to the size of one's family.
"It's the children that are going to suffer," said Nandora Myers. But then, in a twist of incongruity, she adds that the policy makes some sense. "All these women having all these babies and not being able to take care of them is not right."
For years, social scientists and Washington lawmakers have waged an emotional debate over whether welfare benefits affect behavior – whether single women were having children knowing they could support them at taxpayer expense. Now, as an array of welfare changes takes hold, the family cap is the principal revision aimed at severing the link between money and babies.