Should governments use the welfare system to encourage people to live within two parent families?

[User92]

[RandomPandaz]

Its hard to answer
Cause on the one hand it could be good that way people can have better financial support from each other and a more economically stable place for the children
On the other hand it can drag people to stay with absuive partners or relationships that aren't going well that will just make it worse not only for the partners but the kids aswell
So its a hard one to answer if this does take place there are gonna need to be a lot of things to add on to it to make sure people dont stay with absuive partners for money or bad relationships that could hurt the kids
there's a lot more to do in between the lines so it all depends how much the government is willing to put into it to actually make it something that works and worthwhile but if theyre not gonna put effort into it they better not do it cause a lot of people and kids would suffer if its not working properly

[samhradh_leannan]

No. Using welfare as an incentive to encourage needy families to form two-parent households will pressure people to stay in unhealthy or even abusive relationships just so they can get by financially. That's not good for anyone, especially the children.

[Iraqveteran666]

But if families aren't getting by already and need something like this how does it help anyone? Is domestic abuse, alcoholism, drug use and child abuse not higher among those impoverished homes? How is a person in an unhealthy relationship more likely to leave a poverty stricken home especially as there is no money to get away?

[samhradh_leannan]

@Iraqveteran666 I really don't understand your question.

Someone in an abusive relationship (or even a family situation where the KIDS are being abused) who has a wellfare incentive to remain coupled up might stay in a potentially dangerous situation just so they can feed their children.

[Iraqveteran666]

Having no money to escape is more of an incentive

[samhradh_leannan]

@Iraqveteran666 No money to escape? What does that mean? I'm sorry, but I seriously don't understand the way you're phrasing your words right know.

[samhradh_leannan]

Oh, like money for travel expenses?

Someone who is having a hard time supporting their kids isn't necessarily going to be able to support them as a single parent even if they do save up money to get away, especially if they miss out on welfare once they become a single parent.

[samhradh_leannan]

Providing more welfare for two-parent families, or providing welfare ONLY to two-parent households, means that abusive relationships and families will lack the financial freedom to separate. If they can't get welfare, or as much welfare, if they're a single parent, and they won't be able to support their kids as a single parent, then they will likely stay in a dangerous situation just so their kids can eat.

[Iraqveteran666]

That's very twisted logic. A person will have no more financial freedom to leave an poverty stricken household than a household in receipt of welfare.
Domestic violence is more likely to occur in poverty stricken homes. Children raised in single parent statistically dont do as well as those in two parent homes and as the divorce rate is 50% thats a lot of kids.
Poverty is a major cause in domestic abuse and single parent homes.

[samhradh_leannan]

@Iraqveteran666 If single parents get less or no welfare, based on their marital status, even when they would otherwise qualify for welfare, then they're being pressured to couple up in order to access those financial benefits. That's the whole point of using welfare as an incentive for encouraging two-parent households. And a family that relies on welfare to support their children, and gets enough welfare to do so only because they are a two-parent household, will probably not consider separating even if there is abuse or other problems. If that doesn't make sense to you, then you may not fully understand how powerful a motivator the fear of being unable to put food in your child's mouth (or your own) can be. People do crazier things than staying with an abusive partner when they are desperate enough.

[Iraqveteran666]

So you'd rather couples live and raise families in poverty which makes domestic violence more likely to occur... wow. People do crazy things when they can't put food in their kids mouth.

[Iraqveteran666]

While domestic violence crosses all socio-economic classes, Intimate Terrorism (IT) is more prevalent among poor people. When evaluating situational couple violence, poor people, subject to greater strains, have the highest percentage of situational couple violence, which does not necessarily involve serious violence.
Regarding ethnicity, socio-economic standing and other factors often have more to do with rates of domestic violence. When comparing the African American population to European Americans by socio-economic class, the rates of domestic violence are roughly the same. Since there are more poor African Americans, though, there is a higher incidence of domestic violence overall. So people who are in poverty are more likely to suffer domestic abuse.

[samhradh_leannan]

@Iraqveteran666 No, I'd rather give some help to needy families whether they are single parent or double parent households.

[samhradh_leannan]

I feel like you didn't understand what this question is actually talking about.

[Iraqveteran666]

Should governments use the welfare system to encourage people to live within two parent families?
Poverty is a major cause of single parent families especially in the African American community leading to a viscous circle of single parent families, drug use, domestic abuse, mass incarceration of men and more poverty. The break up of the family is responsible for so much misery and poverty. Also I'm not against helping single parent families and the question isn't against that.

[samhradh_leannan]

@Iraqveteran666 The question is about using welfare to "encourage" people to live in two-parent families. That means providing welfare exclusively to two-parent families, or providing better benefits for two-parent families, as an INCENTIVE for people to build or stay in two-parent households. In other words, there is essentially a penalty for being a single parent or breaking up a two-parent household (the penalty is receiving less or no welfare, depending on the specifics of the system). This could result in some families relying on the two-parent status of their household in order to receive enough welfare to support their family, or give their children a more comfortable life, again depending on the specifics of the system and the size of the incentives we're talking about. Using financial incentives to encourage families to form two-parent households will, directly or indirectly, pressure people to stay in abusive relationships in order to receive more welfare.

[samhradh_leannan]

Welfare should be allotted based on financial need, and possibly employment effort (especially if children are not involved). It should not be allotted based on the highly personal, highly complex issue of marital status, when there is no good way to account for abusive relationships or other such serious problems.

[Iraqveteran666]

No offense but your view on the matter sounds warped to me. If helping people out of poverty and encouraging stable homelife for children is wrong I don't want to be right. As i understand Sweden pays mothers to stay at home with the kids and it works well for them.

[samhradh_leannan]

@Iraqveteran666 What I don't want to do is create a situation where people are encouraged to stay in abusive or unhealthy relationships in order to receive financial benefits that they can only receive as a two-parent household. There are plenty of ways to provide assistance for needy families AND encourage stable, healthy family dynamics without providing a financial incentive for people to stay coupled up even when the relationship is abusive. I'm not sure exactly what part of that you're disagreeing with.

[samhradh_leannan]

Do you not understand how providing financial incentives for people to form two-parent families will end up encouraging people to stay in abusive relationship? I'm honestly confused about exactly what you're disagreeing with here. I am not against welfare, or against encouraging healthy stable families. I am against providing incentives for people to remain in abusive relationships in order to access financial assistance.

[lumos]

No. People who aren't financially as well off might feel encouraged to stay with abusive partners.

[senna_mp4]

good point :)

[Iraqveteran666]

While domestic violence crosses all socio-economic classes, Intimate Terrorism (IT) is more prevalent among poor people. When evaluating situational couple violence, poor people, subject to greater strains, have the highest percentage of situational couple violence, which does not necessarily involve serious violence.
Regarding ethnicity, socio-economic standing and other factors often have more to do with rates of domestic violence. When comparing the African American population to European Americans by socio-economic class, the rates of domestic violence are roughly the same. Since there are more poor African Americans, though, there is a higher incidence of domestic violence overall. So people who are in poverty are more likely to suffer domestic abuse.

[lumos]

@Iraqveteran666 right, precisely.

[BlueCoyote]

No, people should live however they want to live. It makes much more sense for the government to make sure that single-parents get alone well too, without falling into poverty. This can be achieved by subsidizing daycare (or even better, making them free), closing the gender pay gap for women and giving widows a decent compensation for their deceased husband/wife, to only name a few.

[kickme]

will the daycare workers agree to not being paid?

Unmarried women without kids make more than men. there is no gender pay gap, just an effort gap.

[BlueCoyote]

@kickme Believe it or not, subsidized or free daycares are the norm all over western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, you name it. You may think it's an outrageous idea to help young parents but America is actually the weird outsider here.

On average, women earn less than men. This is still the case after you deduce all the different factors that play into this such as career choices etc. There is a mystery pay gap of roughly 10-15% that still exists and cannot be explained by structural differences but only by discrimination. You may choose to deny this but it's a fact.

[kickme]

The USA has a higher standard of living than all of these countries and protects them militarily for free, thank god for us. Unmarried women with no kids make more than men. Because they get affirmative action and are able to put in the same effort as a man who has a wife taking care of his kids. A lower percentage of women desire to be the CEO. they are focused on child rearing. That's the difference. You libs are really looney

[BlueCoyote]

@kickme Higher standard of living? What planet do you live on? Have you ever stepped outside of your own country? You are 100% wrong on this and it takes about minus 2 seconds to google this stuff. America lags behind in everything from life expectancy to crime rates to literacy to overall happiness. I mean, I could look up the exact numbers for you but if you actually cared, I'm sure you would have done that yourself a long time ago. I've lived in the US myself and I'm sorry to say it but claiming that living standards are higher there is literally preposterous.
Also, America protects us as much as we protect America. The Nato is a pact based on solidarity. It is not our fault that you guys love to bloat your military budget North-Korea-style (let alone the fact that my own country isn't even a member of Nato).

Again, ON AVERAGE women earn less than men. If you take ALL women and ALL men, women earn less. This is STILL the case AFTER subtracting the structural factors.

[BlueCoyote]

Also, as a little side note, understanding the gender pay gap isn't really a "liberal" thing. At least it shouldn't be. Anyone with critical thinking skills can understand it. Saying it's a liberal thing is like saying gravity is a liberal thing. It's just facts.

[kickme]

dont let the facts get in your way

[tdneves]

it depends on the statistics and the region. if single parents do receive welfare because they are single parents and we can use the welfare to encourage two parents family I think it is a really good idea. depending on the impact that it has on the particular family.

[madhatters4]

encourage? sure. frankly we need to encourage 2 parent families for everyone regardless if they are on welfare or not.

but i don't think we can or should try to mandate it

[meganz621]

No it shouldn't matter what their circumstances are. No one deserves special treatment. In my opinion, people on welfare should have to test negative for drugs and only get welfare if their family income is less than 20k per year. It should also certainly has limits on what it can be spent on

[Waffles731]

You know, I'm starting to think that the Conservative hatred of welfare has less to do with fiscal conservativism and much more to do with the line of the bible that says to punish children for the sins of their fathers, or in this case possibly mothers

[nala_rawr]

sometimes living in a 2 parent family isn't an option... or at least not a healthy one...

[senna_mp4]

my history is a bit bad, but if i remember correctly...100 years after slavery in the US, two parent black families were high, then in 1960 you had the welfare government kick in and within a decade two parent black families had declined significantly.

[AleDeEurope]

No, the government shouldn't do anything with the family structure, and that means stop giving single moms welfare, that's what's ruining the family structure in America, and the West in general.

[Anonymous]

Here the govt encourages grandparents to build or buy a big house with a small apt for each generation.
They call it kangaroo housing.
In that way the grandparents can help with the kids and get helped later but neither is ever free.
Not my idea of happiness: living with your parents in law and changing their pampers later. :p

[MysteriousDarkness]

Which grandparents do you live with your paternal grandparents or maternal grandparents? You have to think of schooling for your kids, your career if you have one etc. I love my job parents but do not want to live with them. When my grandparents were alive I would not have wanted to live with any of them even though I loved them.

[Opinion Owner]

@MysteriousDarkness I left home at 23 , drafted when I had my masters degree. I didn't come back.

[dewaldt]

They can make tax lower. But it isn't financially possible to pay everyone. Also people on welfare do not pay taxes, so your income will be lower than your spending.

[Anonymous]

The government should make people in the welfare system do something that could be considered work. Even if that work is picking up trash off the side of the freeway. At least until they could find a job.

[WalterRadio]

The government currently monetarily discourages couples with kids from getting married.

I personally know families whose adults are not married because to do so would reduce benefits.

[ThisDudeHere]

Although everyone should have the freedom to live alone, without children, or in any other way, there is no denying that the nuclear family is at the core of society's backbone.

[Anonymous]

No we should just tax single parents for being single parents. As soon as they get married with a new partner we relieve their taxes. The more years they are married the more taxes are relieved, after 25 years of marriage taxation is completely removed.

Welfare actually removes the desire in the citizen to work and innovate. It is a system that does not produce nor create, it simply consumes.

[MysteriousDarkness]

What is taxing a single parent going to do?

[Nexiy]

Welfare is tape on the capitalist system, it fixes nothing. what is needed is a better system.

[Barrabus_the_Free]

The welfare system, combined with feminism, is what destroyed the family in the first damn place.

More of the same isn't going to help.

[kickme]

you should not be able to get welfare unless you are agree to be sterilized. If you can't take care of yurself or the kids you have you dont need to burden society with more.

Can't feed em, don't breed em.

[MysteriousDarkness]

What do they do if the could feed their kids but lose their job because it went out of business or the owner retired and no one took over? On top of that they try to get a job but keep getting told they are over qualified because a job opening for the job they do is too far from where they live and they have 1 year left on their least? What about expenses such as medications, car insurance, car payment, rent, groceries etc.

[kickme]

@MysteriousDarkness fine, give them welfare, but if all these things you mention are true they can't afford to take on more kids.

[strateguy632]

Definitely. Divorce should automatically get less. Then she will be motivated to make things work.

[wankiam]

its there to help people when they need help. not as a tool of control

[Anonymous]

No. Forcing people to live within a specific set of means is the exact opposite of a democracy. As a person who came from a divorced home I can't think of anything more toxic than forcing two people to live together that clearly hate one another.

[Reach500]

I don't think he meant by force, just encouraging it

[User92]

@Reach500 Exactly just encouraging it

[camonday]

in my opinion no because it may lead to more families in which abuses are acted.

[Iraqveteran666]

Governments should pay mothers a wage to stay at home and raise their kids.

[MysteriousDarkness]

What wage do you think they should pay them?

[Iraqveteran666]

@MysteriousDarkness the average weekly wage. It's like an investment in our future.

[Hidden_P]

No. People should be paid properly.

[samhradh_leannan]

That would be the most ideal system.

[Hidden_P]

Putting people on benefits only encourages laziness and resentment. However, in a world where one parent stayed at home while the other worked was ideal. Look after the kids, make sure there is food and a clean home etc.

But it will never be like that again

[GARY-]

That would be a complete 180 of what they're encouraging right now and this would go directly against feminist idea of how families should be structured.

[dusty_milk]

Gary? Gary! Gary, Gary, Gary! GARY? Gary! Gary? GARY! GARY! Gary?

[GARY-]

Gaaarrrrrrryyyyyyyyy! 😂

[Anonymous]

The welfare system should be ended and people should be forced to find work.

[Anonymous]

Hell no! The government should not be forcing people to do this. What if the couple is same sex?

[Waffles731]

And if the couple is same sex that is wrong, cause of a verse that also says people who touch pigskin and have tattoos should be put to death

[Opinion Owner]

@Waffles731 LOL!!!

[SarahsSummer]

I'm not a fan of government welfare programs.

[Anonymous]

No, fuck that. Family diversity is not a bad thing

[evenlift]

No.

There shouldn't be government welfare.

[Anonymous]

They already do. You can see how well THAT works.

[lord_chilled]

Yeah, maybe they should

[skeptic002]

i think the government should die in a ditch

[DizzyAster]

How does that work?

[Anonymous]

nope