this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
810 points (98.3% liked)

People Twitter

8468 readers
2151 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 6) 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Sibshops@lemm.ee 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Honestly... This is kind of on the right track.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I'm not sure what you mean, but if you mean giving people cash, yes I agree. It's just far too small an amount to make a difference. People have a variety of needs, and while some might benefit from daycare, others would benefit from diapers, while still others could use a decent car seat. Cash is fungible, and people can spend it how they like.

We spend more on preventing fraud and administering social services than we would spend it we simply gave everyone money. A negative tax rate on a sliding scale would do the most good for everyone. Yes, some people would spend the money on drugs or alcohol or other addictive vices, but the effort to stop that costs more than just letting it happen. It's like we have a swat team at the Dollar Store to prevent shoplifting.

But $5,000 is insultingly ineffective.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dangling_cat@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Well, in a couple of years, some countries more than 50% of the population will be retired. Even a perfect democracy would not pass a law to improve young people’s lives so they can have time and money to have kids.

Just like in a perfect democracy, no affordable housing law will be approved because 66% of the population are homeowners.

Its unsolvable.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] victorz@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago

I dunno what kind of diaper prices you've got in the US, but $5,000 covers diapers 10 times over in a year where I live... Should probably cover food as well, I would think?

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world -4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (4 children)

$5,000 will easily cover diapers, food (even if not breastfeeding), clothes, etc. for a year and more.

We can play with adding other costs, but kids can be way cheaper than paying "retail". FFS, toys, cribs, car carriers, all that shit is free, all day long. What we did pay for amounted to change, and then we sold it for change or donated it.

People have a kid, acquire all that stuff, and in a very short window suddenly have no use for it. You just about can't give it away. LOL, how many babies can wear the same one-piece until it's worn out? 10?! Our landlord's wife worked a charity for baby stuff. Gave us tons of goods, we gave it back.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›