Originally Posted by Bostonian
People decide to have children or not based based in part on economic viability. That viability should be based on their earnings, not the taxpayer's.

You get no argument from me that, in an ideal world, life would be incentive compatible. I would be considered rather Draconian by many with respect to my views on enabling adults' dependent behaviour. But when the recipient is a child external to the decision-making process, I see no benefit to the taxpayer of having a child go hungry, be exposed to violence, or become unemployable. That child is an innocent bystander to a flawed decision making process. Why should his lot in life be cast in stone because of his parents' failures? Social security, disability, and prison are economically more costly than ECE for at-risk children.

I'm not aware of comparable US figures, but from a consulting engagement with Correctional Service Canada, I know annual costs of federal incarceration run over $105k for men, and upwards of $120k for females. I would rather see lower crime rates, greater labour force participation, and tax remittances by successful program graduates. That makes good economic and ethical sense when viewed as a lifecycle decision.

Sadly, politicians are elected on a much shorter term, and their success is determined by pandering to myopic interests on all ends of the political spectrum.

Last edited by aquinas; 05/01/13 10:41 AM.
What is to give light must endure burning.