I'm single and don't feel it's fair to subsidize people who have chosen to have kids they can't afford. It's sad how the USA has deteriorated from the days of Ward and June Cleaver.
I'm single and don't feel it's fair to subsidize people who have chosen to have kids they can't afford. It's sad how the USA has deteriorated from the days of Ward and June Cleaver.
It's not uncommon for a society to subsidize things they believe important to the general welfare of the society. For example, public schools paid for by people with and without kids currently attending them, versus private schools paid only for having students currently enrolled. The rationale is that having an educated population has benefits for the overall society, not just for the students or their parents.
Some believe that it has likewise become rational for society to (somewhat) subsidize the raising of children, believing that doing so will result on an overall more functional and healthy future society (and others may disagree, obviously).
There is an underlying assumption beneath both examples - that people care about future society, that they feel vested in the future of humanity (or their country). That's not true of everybody; I met somebody who was clear that they did not care about future society, and did not want to be taxed today to head off, say, a climate catastrophe 30 years in the future when they would be dead. They had no emotional connection to the people they didnt' know, who would suffer from that, if it happened.
This is the underlying concept that I think Vance was gesturing at - postulating that "unmarried cat ladies" had less reason to sacrifice for future generations and were more often living just for today and for themselves, without concern about, say, whether social security would be available for their kids or bankrupt by then. I'm not saying I agree with him, I'm just trying to understand his point.
The idea that single people should not help subsidize the children of the society moves along similar lines. In this, I'm not talking about "fully supporting" as in paying for all the expenses of childraising, just a partial subsidy.
I'm not yet sure if I would support that, but this article gives me some perspective to reflect upon. It is better to subsidize child care so both parents can work, or to subsidize families so one parent can more often stay home? (Or, as you may prefer, subsidize neither). Is the social good that more people work full time rather than doing their own child care, or that society raise better and more competent/healthy children? Kind of depends on whether one is looking from a short term economic perspective or a sociological perspective looking at the future.
And you are suggesting that single people have a different set of priorities than people with kids, in regards to the future.
I'm single and don't feel it's fair to subsidize people who have chosen to have kids they can't afford. It's sad how the USA has deteriorated from the days of Ward and June Cleaver.
It's not uncommon for a society to subsidize things they believe important to the general welfare of the society. For example, public schools paid for by people with and without kids currently attending them, versus private schools paid only for having students currently enrolled. The rationale is that having an educated population has benefits for the overall society, not just for the students or their parents.
Some believe that it has likewise become rational for society to (somewhat) subsidize the raising of children, believing that doing so will result on an overall more functional and healthy future society (and others may disagree, obviously).
There is an underlying assumption beneath both examples - that people care about future society, that they feel vested in the future of humanity (or their country). That's not true of everybody; I met somebody who was clear that they did not care about future society, and did not want to be taxed today to head off, say, a climate catastrophe 30 years in the future when they would be dead. They had no emotional connection to the people they didnt' know, who would suffer from that, if it happened.
This is the underlying concept that I think Vance was gesturing at - postulating that "unmarried cat ladies" had less reason to sacrifice for future generations and were more often living just for today and for themselves, without concern about, say, whether social security would be available for their kids or bankrupt by then. I'm not saying I agree with him, I'm just trying to understand his point.
The idea that single people should not help subsidize the children of the society moves along similar lines. In this, I'm not talking about "fully supporting" as in paying for all the expenses of childraising, just a partial subsidy.
I'm not yet sure if I would support that, but this article gives me some perspective to reflect upon. It is better to subsidize child care so both parents can work, or to subsidize families so one parent can more often stay home? (Or, as you may prefer, subsidize neither). Is the social good that more people work full time rather than doing their own child care, or that society raise better and more competent/healthy children? Kind of depends on whether one is looking from a short term economic perspective or a sociological perspective looking at the future.
And you are suggesting that single people have a different set of priorities than people with kids, in regards to the future.