MW: Child Allowance Act (Passed)

[Arturo Belano]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Governor windjammer

[Maxwell]

The government is giving out child allowances? This is ridiculous.

[LeBron]

The government is giving out child allowances? This is ridiculous.

All of us are under the age of 21, so this should actually be able to pass fairly easily.

I like this idea, but requiring a legal person (assuming a parent or guardian) for those 18-21 seems odd since people 18 and over are young adults/aren't minors.

I propose an amendment for the bill:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I also think we should make sure only young people without jobs get an allowance because we really have a high enough minimum wage that young people with jobs wouldn't need the government money.

[Maxwell]

How much does this cost? I can't imagine giving every single child in the Midwest $100 a month is cheap? Wouldn't that money be better spent on education? infrastructure? science? ect?

I hope the members of this body vote against this bill.

[windjammer]

How much does this cost? I can't imagine giving every single child in the Midwest $100 a month is cheap? Wouldn't that money be better spent on education? infrastructure? science? ect?

I hope the members of this body vote against this bill.

I didn't know you were so anti children.
Child allowance is something that exists in France for instance.

And to answer to your question, it would cost only  4.5B for the rest of the year. The Midwest would still have a surplus. And something like 7B for a full year.

If you don't trust me, I will try to find the calculs I have made.

[windjammer]

Oh, and Adam, I really don't know, are you sure your amendment is a good idea?

[Maxwell]

How much does this cost? I can't imagine giving every single child in the Midwest $100 a month is cheap? Wouldn't that money be better spent on education? infrastructure? science? ect?

I hope the members of this body vote against this bill.

I didn't know you were so anti children.
Child allowance is something that exists in France for instance.

And to answer to your question, it would cost only  4.5B for the rest of the year. The Midwest would still have a surplus. And something like 7B for a full year.

If you don't trust me, I will try to find the calculs I have made.

I'm not anti-children, I'm anti-ridicolous policies where the money could be spent better elsewhere.

I never received an allowance that big, nor do I think it would've been healthy for me or anyone else. Allowances based on chores taught me more than just receiving money ever did.

[windjammer]

How much does this cost? I can't imagine giving every single child in the Midwest $100 a month is cheap? Wouldn't that money be better spent on education? infrastructure? science? ect?

I hope the members of this body vote against this bill.

I didn't know you were so anti children.
Child allowance is something that exists in France for instance.

And to answer to your question, it would cost only  4.5B for the rest of the year. The Midwest would still have a surplus. And something like 7B for a full year.

If you don't trust me, I will try to find the calculs I have made.

I'm not anti-children, I'm anti-ridicolous policies where the money could be spent better elsewhere.

I never received an allowance that big, nor do I think it would've been healthy for me or anyone else. Allowances based on chores taught me more than just receiving money ever did.

This isn't a ridiculous spending. It would help parents to raise their child. I seriously don't understand your extreme opposition because you have always seemed to be at least pro education.

These kind of child allowance helped my parents a lot, because you know, having a child is a cost! That's why I don't believe this is an unnecessary spending!

[Maxwell]

How much does this cost? I can't imagine giving every single child in the Midwest $100 a month is cheap? Wouldn't that money be better spent on education? infrastructure? science? ect?

I hope the members of this body vote against this bill.

I didn't know you were so anti children.
Child allowance is something that exists in France for instance.

And to answer to your question, it would cost only  4.5B for the rest of the year. The Midwest would still have a surplus. And something like 7B for a full year.

If you don't trust me, I will try to find the calculs I have made.

I'm not anti-children, I'm anti-ridicolous policies where the money could be spent better elsewhere.

I never received an allowance that big, nor do I think it would've been healthy for me or anyone else. Allowances based on chores taught me more than just receiving money ever did.

This isn't a ridiculous spending. It would help parents to raise their child. I seriously don't understand your extreme opposition because you have always seemed to be at least pro education.

These kind of child allowance helped my parents a lot, because you know, having a child is a cost! That's why I don't believe this is an unnecessary spending!

I'm pro-education. This isn't education.

[windjammer]

How much does this cost? I can't imagine giving every single child in the Midwest $100 a month is cheap? Wouldn't that money be better spent on education? infrastructure? science? ect?

I hope the members of this body vote against this bill.

I didn't know you were so anti children.
Child allowance is something that exists in France for instance.

And to answer to your question, it would cost only  4.5B for the rest of the year. The Midwest would still have a surplus. And something like 7B for a full year.

If you don't trust me, I will try to find the calculs I have made.

I'm not anti-children, I'm anti-ridicolous policies where the money could be spent better elsewhere.

I never received an allowance that big, nor do I think it would've been healthy for me or anyone else. Allowances based on chores taught me more than just receiving money ever did.

This isn't a ridiculous spending. It would help parents to raise their child. I seriously don't understand your extreme opposition because you have always seemed to be at least pro education.

These kind of child allowance helped my parents a lot, because you know, having a child is a cost! That's why I don't believe this is an unnecessary spending!

I'm pro-education. This isn't education.

This is education. Parents educate their children!

[Spamage]

There's no way I can support this.

[Maxwell]

Being able to govern means being able to allocate resources efficiently and effectively, and this proposal would not be a good use of money, plain and simple.

[windjammer]

Being able to govern means being able to allocate resources efficiently and effectively, and this proposal would not be a good use of money, plain and simple.

Dixit Maxwell, who wanted the Midwest to cut his spending whereas there was a 40B Midwest budget surplus.

I don't understand the backlash with that. This spending is widely popular in France.  Children are a cost, and this spending would help parents financially.

Spamage, why are you so opposed to that? I want to understand.

[windjammer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_benefit

Basically all (or most of them) European countries have this child benefit.

And I think that the UK for instance is well known for its developed welfare state.

I seriously don't understand the backlash with that.

This is pro family!

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

I'm not anti-children, I'm anti-ridicolous policies where the money could be spent better elsewhere.

I never received an allowance that big, nor do I think it would've been healthy for me or anyone else. Allowances based on chores taught me more than just receiving money ever did.

it goes to the parents not the children (until the child is 18). learn to read.

[Maxwell]

I'm not anti-children, I'm anti-ridicolous policies where the money could be spent better elsewhere.

I never received an allowance that big, nor do I think it would've been healthy for me or anyone else. Allowances based on chores taught me more than just receiving money ever did.

it goes to the parents not the children (until the child is 18). learn to read.

Okay... I still think its a bad idea

[Spamage]

I'm not anti-children, I'm anti-ridicolous policies where the money could be spent better elsewhere.

I never received an allowance that big, nor do I think it would've been healthy for me or anyone else. Allowances based on chores taught me more than just receiving money ever did.

it goes to the parents not the children (until the child is 18). learn to read.

So in essence the Government is giving parents money and should they choose to give it to their children, they can do so. You do realize many children won't even see the money.

[windjammer]

I'm not anti-children, I'm anti-ridicolous policies where the money could be spent better elsewhere.

I never received an allowance that big, nor do I think it would've been healthy for me or anyone else. Allowances based on chores taught me more than just receiving money ever did.

it goes to the parents not the children (until the child is 18). learn to read.

So in essence the Government is giving parents money and should they choose to give it to their children, they can do so. You do realize many children won't even see the money.

Spamage, this is helping parents to raise their kids. Kids are a cost, and this bill helps parents financially.

I don't understand the problem.. This is even a social conservative measure to help to people to found a family?

[Spamage]

I'm not anti-children, I'm anti-ridicolous policies where the money could be spent better elsewhere.

I never received an allowance that big, nor do I think it would've been healthy for me or anyone else. Allowances based on chores taught me more than just receiving money ever did.

it goes to the parents not the children (until the child is 18). learn to read.

So in essence the Government is giving parents money and should they choose to give it to their children, they can do so. You do realize many children won't even see the money.

Spamage, this is helping parents to raise their kids. Kids are a cost, and this bill helps parents financially.

I don't understand the problem.. This is even a social conservative measure to help to people to found a family?

I just don't see a need to spend this money. If you were going to truly assist parents with raising children the amount would be much higher, but if the amount gets much higher it seems as though you're paying people to have kids. I just think we're fine without the extra spending right now.

[windjammer]

I'm not anti-children, I'm anti-ridicolous policies where the money could be spent better elsewhere.

I never received an allowance that big, nor do I think it would've been healthy for me or anyone else. Allowances based on chores taught me more than just receiving money ever did.

it goes to the parents not the children (until the child is 18). learn to read.

So in essence the Government is giving parents money and should they choose to give it to their children, they can do so. You do realize many children won't even see the money.

Spamage, this is helping parents to raise their kids. Kids are a cost, and this bill helps parents financially.

I don't understand the problem.. This is even a social conservative measure to help to people to found a family?

I just don't see a need to spend this money. If you were going to truly assist parents with raising children the amount would be much higher, but if the amount gets much higher it seems as though you're paying people to have kids. I just think we're fine without the extra spending right now.

So you would support a bill with a much higher amount? I don't understand...

[Spamage]

I'm not anti-children, I'm anti-ridicolous policies where the money could be spent better elsewhere.

I never received an allowance that big, nor do I think it would've been healthy for me or anyone else. Allowances based on chores taught me more than just receiving money ever did.

it goes to the parents not the children (until the child is 18). learn to read.

So in essence the Government is giving parents money and should they choose to give it to their children, they can do so. You do realize many children won't even see the money.

Spamage, this is helping parents to raise their kids. Kids are a cost, and this bill helps parents financially.

I don't understand the problem.. This is even a social conservative measure to help to people to found a family?

I just don't see a need to spend this money. If you were going to truly assist parents with raising children the amount would be much higher, but if the amount gets much higher it seems as though you're paying people to have kids. I just think we're fine without the extra spending right now.

So you would support a bill with a much higher amount? I don't understand...

No, there's no way I can support this bill. I was just pointing out the problem I see in it that you ought to raise the amount, but you can't.

[windjammer]

I'm not anti-children, I'm anti-ridicolous policies where the money could be spent better elsewhere.

I never received an allowance that big, nor do I think it would've been healthy for me or anyone else. Allowances based on chores taught me more than just receiving money ever did.

it goes to the parents not the children (until the child is 18). learn to read.

So in essence the Government is giving parents money and should they choose to give it to their children, they can do so. You do realize many children won't even see the money.

Spamage, this is helping parents to raise their kids. Kids are a cost, and this bill helps parents financially.

I don't understand the problem.. This is even a social conservative measure to help to people to found a family?

I just don't see a need to spend this money. If you were going to truly assist parents with raising children the amount would be much higher, but if the amount gets much higher it seems as though you're paying people to have kids. I just think we're fine without the extra spending right now.

So you would support a bill with a much higher amount? I don't understand...

No, there's no way I can support this bill. I was just pointing out the problem I see in it that you ought to raise the amount, but you can't.

Spamage, seriously, if you believe that just by getting 100 dollars a month someone would like to have a kid...
I'm not buying them to have a kid, I'm helping people who want to have/have a kid.

Oh, and with this bill, the budget would still be balanced...

[LeBron]

I'm not anti-children, I'm anti-ridicolous policies where the money could be spent better elsewhere.

I never received an allowance that big, nor do I think it would've been healthy for me or anyone else. Allowances based on chores taught me more than just receiving money ever did.

it goes to the parents not the children (until the child is 18). learn to read.

So in essence the Government is giving parents money and should they choose to give it to their children, they can do so. You do realize many children won't even see the money.

Spamage, this is helping parents to raise their kids. Kids are a cost, and this bill helps parents financially.

I don't understand the problem.. This is even a social conservative measure to help to people to found a family?

I just don't see a need to spend this money. If you were going to truly assist parents with raising children the amount would be much higher, but if the amount gets much higher it seems as though you're paying people to have kids. I just think we're fine without the extra spending right now.

We could actually conserve money if we only give the money to those who need it (so any family who makes under $100K). Rich kids really don't need it anyways since they get spoiled enough as is. It might be considered "ridiculous" spending, but poverty and unemployment is still a problem and this is just a reimbursement for families to say we, the government, are still there for them.

I live in the U.S. and I conserve a lot of money with a minimum wage job and still would have to rely on loans if I went away to college. If the U.S. implemented this policy (basically, returning the tax dollars to us in a phenomenal way), it would still teach us how to be responsible with money.

Maybe if we regulate what the parents/guardians and those 18-21 can and can't do with the money though? For example, they shouldn't be allowed to waste government money on liquor, smokes, marijuana, gambling etc., but they can use it towards education, entertainment - (movies, video games, sports etc.), or towards bills if the family is struggling financially or maybe average things like food and clothes.

And I, of course, stand by the original bill or the bill as amended (or a bill that could be further amended). When you're below 18, your parents still legally own you and therefore should get possession of the money, but 18-21 year olds are not only more independent, they're legally independent and most will be going away to college, so it only makes sense to give it to them from that point on.

[Maxwell]

How about cutting lower income tax rates? That would have the exact same effect as this bill, more money in the pockets of families.

[windjammer]

How about cutting lower income tax rates? That would have the exact same effect as this bill, more money in the pockets of families.

I would support cutting lower income tax rates, obviously.

But I still my bill wouldn't have the same effects than this current bill.

Of course, your proposal would have positive effects. (and I would sign that )
Bbut my bill as well .

This would improve the current income tax system.

I think we can all agree that people who have more children should pay less taxe than people who have the same income but less children, right?

And adding revenues for having kids, or cutting tax for people who has more children, that would have the same results, right?

So I believe that this bill would improve the current income tax system in the system, by taking into account the fact that people don't have the same numbers of children, something that the current Midwest income tax doesn't take into account.

Are you still strongly opposing this bill Maxwell?

And no way you can change your mind Spamage, I'm willing to make compromise, obviously .