Have a kid, get money from the government!

Here, in Germany (and Austria, and ....) not only government employees (their tariff is scalled: married, child, children...) but every person with children gets money from the state.

Can't see the point, where there could be discrimination. (Actually, parents should even get more money than they get now!)

What about the people who don't have kids? Isn't that discriminating against them? It's making a value judgment that having kids is somehow more valuable than not having them. I think that is discrimination against people who choose not to have kids, and it's government social engineering.

Just to correct my earlier post: Since I am in New York, I mistakenly assumed that the U.N. here is run by the U.S. government. I have been informed that the U.N. is actually not considered a part of the United States though. It doesn't change my point of view, but I thought I'd correct it so as to look as little like an ignorant bozo as possible.

It's more expensive to have a family than it is to not have a family. The UN generally has to move people for them to function properly, thus the cost of living can be more or less than a person's native land. Thus, a housing allowance based in need is generally given.

I'd love to be able to afford to buy a nice 2-3 bedroomed house within commutable distance to my job - but then alas I am single, unmarried, no children and so am not entitled to any reductions/handouts/or breaks of any kind. What was I thinking when I decided not to have children because financially I can't do so? Yikes I should have just popped five or six out, with different fathers, lived off welfare and gotten myself a beautiful house somewhere for next to nothing - all off the backs of other working people!

Oh and this has nothing to do with the UN in your post above - I'm just sounding off in general.

The only thing I'm famaliar with in this realm is with the US Federal governemnt.

Some jobs (all of the uniformed military and most overseas dimplomatic positions) you'd get an allowance based on whether or not you have "dependents" (either adult or children..).

Those were implemeted as an incentive to keep people in government service. The thinking goes that as people get older, some will marry and have kids. Government jobs tend to pay poorly so the aded incentive keeps people with experience working there.

But those are all either/or things. There isn't an amount paid per child. You either have dependents or you don't and the amount doesn't change based on the number of dependents.

On a general public scale IMO, it would be a poor public policy. If the government has no business in one's regulating personal affairs then they also have no business spending taxpayer dollars involving themselves in the results of the choices people make.

Now I just found out that the U.N. also gives extra money for a spouse that doesn't work. I'm sorry, but that is complete bullshit.

I've had several jobs, and also was in the business of job placement, and have never come across something like this before. Not saying it doesn't exist, but I highly doubt it is common.

There are child tax credits, but I haven't personally had different pay than people with children (before I had my own kid), and my husband doesn't make more because he has a kid.

As McGentrix says, having a kid is expensive. Say you get $2,000 a year extra. A kid costs far more than that, trust me.

But at any rate, I really don't think this is widespread, at all.

Sozobe, you are probably right. But it still pisses me off.

kickycan, I once had a girlfriend who grew up in a family that was in the UN service. As McGentrix points out, you move constantly, about every three years. And the wives may not be "employed" but they have a very ridged protocol they are expected to follow which amounts to the same thing. A major complain, and reason so many people left UN employment was the bitter complaints from the wives for all the unpaid work expected of them. The UN, or any international governmental agency that has diplomatic duties regards the husband and wife as a team. It sounds to me like the complaints finally were addressed.

Re: Have a kid, get money from the government!


We can claim our kids as dependents on our tax forms, assuming they're the right age.

Is this the same thing as giving us cash outright?

What about social security benefits to the spouse of a deceased person, who paid the requirement amounts of $$ into social security? Should a spouse, who never worked and NEVER paid a cent to social security receive benefits, just because they were MARRIED to someone who did?

Miller, your point is well taken. I guess the U.N. thing is not the main issue here. The real issue is how the government tries to manipulate people's lifestyles with taxes and monetary rewards. As soon as they started doing this, they opened the doors to all kinds of inconsistencies and conflicts of interest. I don't agree with any of these monetary incentives based on dependents and children. Should a middle class suburban family of five be entitled to the same monetary incentives as a family of five living in the projects? I don't think either should get a break just because they decided to plop out a brood, but can you see how the poor family might feel a little bit screwed in that situation?

As I already said, getting more money when you have children is part of most (did a check it meanwhile) salaries of public employees and civil servants in Europe (= you get higher paid when you married, get more for each child).

Additionally, the state pays you a (fixed) sum what is called in Germany "children money".

It's the same on the privat sector, where people have a tariff equivalent to that of civil servants/public employees.

In Germany, this is backed by our constitution ("Basic Law": Article 6, 1:
"Marriage and the family shall enjoy the special protection of the state.").

I never had a job that paid me more because I had a child. The only thing I was able to do is save a few bucks on my taxes by claiming my son as a dependent.

Sad thing is, there's a bunch of piece of sh!t losers living off welfare who take advantage of that. In turn, we get more losers in society, who willl produce more losers, and so on, and so on.

Here, you do not get paid more if you have children (though, for years, the pay rate of women, which was much lower, was justified because it was assumed all men were breadwinners for a family, and all women were not).

However, quite rightly, in my view (as a single and childfree woman who also gets no breaks) all families including single parents, of course - not sure if there is an earnings cut out?) are entitled to a small amount of money, called child endowment.

This is in recognition of the expenses of raising children - and the fact that children are a worthy investment in the future for ALL Australians - and I absolutely support it.

Of course, dependent spouses and children can be calimed as tax breaks - though there aren't too many dependent spouses left! Again, I absolutely support this - for the children at the very least. Kids are the future, and the better the conditions in which they can be raised, the better for all of us.

It's interesting that governments feel the need to promote the idea of marriage and family, which, I believe this is. Is there any real scientific reason for this? Do they believe that "family" is somehow on the endangered list? And even if it is, where is the proof that this would automatically have negative effects for the society? Or is it just some stupid archaic reasoning, based on nothing but tradition? I believe it's the latter.

It is ridiculous, by the way, to say that you would be better off with dependent children. Have you not looked at the costs of raising kids? And, whatever jobs we have are there because people make more people....

dlowan, if children are so important, make the schools better. Don't just give money away to any yahoo who pops out a baby. Just my opinion.