How do we know this money would be spent on the children? Or rather, how would we ensure this money is spent on the children, and only on the children?
If you cannot afford kids you shouldn’t have them. Living in poverty popping out numerous kids is wrong.
We’re a high-income country. It’s great that this could take 25% of the children living in poverty, out of poverty. But shouldn’t we be taking **100%** of them out of poverty?
That just seems the fundamentally decent thing to do.
I can see this money spent on cans rather than the kids.
Wow, never knew this sub was so anti poor people.
For all the talk of the country supposedly being run by right wing parties, we’re edging ever closer to socialism. Working people are taxed to death, while non-working people are given free housing in the exact same new build houses.
So take from the working poor to give to the non-working poor. Doesn’t say how many kids it will put into poverty. I’ll tell the wife we need to quit and start knocking out more kids.
7 comments
How do we know this money would be spent on the children? Or rather, how would we ensure this money is spent on the children, and only on the children?
If you cannot afford kids you shouldn’t have them. Living in poverty popping out numerous kids is wrong.
We’re a high-income country. It’s great that this could take 25% of the children living in poverty, out of poverty. But shouldn’t we be taking **100%** of them out of poverty?
That just seems the fundamentally decent thing to do.
I can see this money spent on cans rather than the kids.
Wow, never knew this sub was so anti poor people.
For all the talk of the country supposedly being run by right wing parties, we’re edging ever closer to socialism. Working people are taxed to death, while non-working people are given free housing in the exact same new build houses.
So take from the working poor to give to the non-working poor. Doesn’t say how many kids it will put into poverty. I’ll tell the wife we need to quit and start knocking out more kids.