A) Lol, why are some of the kids getting less? Everyone
B) Are these four kids with different relationships or four with one chick, what’s the story?
C) The real question in this is, when will idiots making $42K a year start rubbing their two brain cells together and stop overpopulating the world with four kids they can’t support that nobody asked for?
Anyhow, kids are expensive and if the wife’s working that barely covers half the bi-weekly national average in childcare. Maybe he should start working more than 40 hours a week and pay his share on time so he’s not getting garnished in the first place. I can’t remember the last time I worked a 40 hour week. Then again, I can’t remember the last time I posted photos of my bills on the internet for pity.
Fake news, just like baby jail slavery. That’s a two week paycheck 4 hours overtime on 84 hours. The whole thing falls apart if you bother using your brain.
Listen to all these victim men. That amount of deduction (and you only get the pay garnished if you’re already a deadbeat that didn’t pay and had to be dragged into court) barely covers HALF of childcare. This POS had FOUR kids on $42K income and now is off doing his thing and crying a river. Doesn’t have to raise crap, cover any of the other costs of the kids or do much of anything and now you’re defending this deadbeat and his 40 hour slavery work week. Lolz.
Anybody sh*tty enough to be crying foul over $250 per kid bi-weekly and comparing it to slavery was a deadbeat before and a deadbeat after bailing. Shame castration is off the table.
it seems like you want to transform everything on a copy of your chinese utopia where only rich people have many babies. Quit your commie ways. Let these dumb people have as many babies as they want
That’s called throwing good money after bad (revisit sunk cost). Only in a world where money and resources are infinite do you fail to compare IRR across the available spectrum of opportunities. Given that everything is scalable, I’d rather spend the money scaling the smarties.
nothing is purely scalable. you cant keep throwing money at zuckerberg and expect him to generate similar returns. at som point the marginal benefit of money declines to the point that it doesnt make a smarty more productive.
What does it mean to “subsidize” people? It seems that this depends on the specific proposal. It would be wasteful to give money to most people who could be the next Zuckerberg, identified as having good grades or whatever, as most of them are already rich, just like Zuckerberg was (just not as rich as he is now). There’s an adverse selection, as most people who demonstrate high aptitude already have resources that helped them.
However, we should definitely subsidize baby level care for rich parents, as this would encourage them to have more babies who will have the benefit of their parents’ money and educations. High earning couples are not worried about paying for college in 18 years. However, they are worried that having baby now will disrupt their careers. The purpose of policy is to guide people towards desirable behavior, which for rich people, is to dedicate as much as their resources as possible to producing future good citizens. It would be much more acceptable to most people to spend this money to boost their own kids, rather than someone else’s kids through taxes.
On the other side, I don’t think it is feasible to discourage poor people from having kids. However, I think it’s worth considering how to break the identity politics that reinforces high or low achievement among different groups. I think it would be a good idea, for instance, to have school uniforms or other sorts of things that reinforce some collective identity.
To be fair they only lost cuz they got super aggressive. If they won, they’d prolly say something about how the us treated blacks. Winners make history while losers are the bad guys. That’s why we need trump. Cuz he’s a winner.