Originally Posted by PrincessPerky
II am glad you have the energy to cook a homecooked meal (cheaper than convenience and all) And manage to get the housework done regularly (lowering costs of all cleaning bills) And manage to get to work on foot (saving on gas) And that your child is old enough to stay home (saving the childcare costs among other hidden costs).
??? Where did I say any of that?
For the record, Rain or I cook a homecooked meal most of the time, because it is cheaper, I suck at houswork but we have no cleaning bills anyway, just a messy house, I have a vehicle, but our family would need a vehicle whether I worked or not, and my child is old enough to stay home some now, but she wasn't always, and when she was younger I worked from home or brought her. Since my child was 6 I have been an employed, unschooling single mother, with no financial support besides the income I earned.
Childcare was really the point, if you're talking about the part where I questioned your equating the costs of homeschooling with the costs of schooling. When you said that homeschooling cost only a few hundred bucks a year, you weren't taking into account the possible income earned by the person providing care to the children. You're doing childcare now, for free, but that work has economic value. The true cost of homeschooling includes the value of your time, economically speaking.
|Minimum income!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! for no work? You feel we should pay people, who do not work, just to stay home, and not work? Am I reading that right? Should we give up hope on all poor people ever gettting out of their troubles?
Oh, no, it's the opposite of giving up hope! It's saying that we're a truly civilized country that values every citizen, and so we will provide you with the financial means to care for your basic needs and the freedom to make your own choices. Imagine, millions of people not having to worry about having a place to sleep, or food to eat, and all without the indignity of the current top-heavy, oppressive benefits bureaucracy. Everyone wins - the government saves millions or billions by not paying the overhead for all of these "programs", and poor people win because they can truly care for themselves and their families without dealing with the crappy system that treats them badly and doesn't meet their needs. People can make their own choices about how to spend the money, rather than the bureaucrats making choices for them. And it's *cheaper* than the system we have now.
Most economists suggest something like $1000 a month per adults and some fraction of that per child. People are free to spend it however they want. If they work at a job, they lose $1 of guaranteed income for every $2 they earn, so at $2000 a month a single person would no longer get the GI check. Right now, supplemental security benefits work pretty much the same way, except the base rate is around $500 a month, which is impossible to live on without getting other gov't goodies.
The Puritans were about more than temperance. The idea that people must work for anything they get came from the Puritan ideals, as did the idea that people who screw up (like failing to be self-sufficient) must be punished. They were the original Tough LOve group.
I believe that when people's basic needs are met, they have the ability and desire to go further, to grow and challenge themselves. This is a core belief I have about my child, as an unschooler, and I think it holds true for everyone. The system we have now leaves people feeling insecure about whether their basic needs will be met, so they're always worried, and it's not safe to grow and try something new because there's no secure base. I believe that very few people would just sit hope and collect their checks and do nothing. OTOH, women would have the freedom to stay home and raise children without having to find a penis with a paycheck or cheat the system (which really you had to do on welfare to survive). It is not natural for human beings to do nothing, and people who did chose this would be those who were already damaged in some way, emotionally or spiritually, and perhaps this would give them the chance to heal a bit... but I think they'd be the infinitesimal minority.