Fix-US

Of course, I agree, 70% of kids growing up without a father is a huge factor of the break down of the core family unit which has been shown to increase the chances of those kids dropping out of school and growing up to become criminals.

Then you posited:

The question is, will the children themselves, the parents, and society as a whole be BETTER SERVED, if the parents had the option to get that same money directly? ($20,000 per child)

This is almost the same conversation I had with Imabench in another thread before he dropped the discussion. People have impulses and vices, there's no getting around it.

If a person knows they can get 20,000 per child per year from the government to do as they will,

...it will increase the number of broken homes, not decrease them as parents will have a financial incentive to have kids, but no incentive to actually take care of them beyond the bare minimum CPS standards.

It's the same deal with the broken Flores law at the border. If an illegal immigrant knows he can be released into the country after 20 days by bringing a child with him/her...it will increase the number of kids coming illegally, not decrease the number of kids, many of them who end up raped or dead. Our broken laws give illegals incentives to illegally bring kids to the border to cash in on free access to the USA.

The dissolution of the core family unit and the associated break-down of social trust is a fundamental contributor to crime.

...so if this is an issue you want to see addressed, keeping the family together should be your number one goal and all incentives should be toward that goal for the welfare of the child and the welfare of society on the whole.

Perhaps if you put in a requirement that this money can only be given to 2 parent families (doesn't have to be heterosexual families), then MAYBE I can get on board.

Can you please explain to me why single parents should be excluded?

Can you please explain to me why single parents should be excluded?

70% of kids growing up without a father IN THE HOME is a huge factor of the break down of the core family unit which has been shown to increase the chances of those kids dropping out of school and growing up to become criminals.

Please speak up if you disagree.

I disagree. Break down of social trust and the dissolution of the family unit is not a fundamental contributor to crime. You must be aware of that for which can control; hence, these factors are often cited as factors which correlate to criminal activity, not cause it. 

The average American school gets about $20,000.00 per year per-child.

If everyone had the option to get a supplemental income of $60,000.00 per year to home-school their 3 children, don't you think they'd jump at the chance?

You're ignoring one fact: this voucher of which you speak will not act as an inter-temporal grant for future investment and production; it's just another subsidy for the poor. 

And the poor have low marketable skills and little capital. (There are reasons, for example, most lottery winners burn right through their cash winnings quickly if you're interested in the read.)

You speak of the lack of oversight for private charter schools yet how do you intend to oversee the use of these vouchers and how they're spent if they are to act as a direct cash transfer?

How do you plan to instruct the recipients on spending the money wisely? Wouldn't that cost more money? And if you set a performance standard for those who decide to homeschool their children, don't you risk marginalizing those whom these vouchers intend to help?

Your "solution" is essentially to throw many at it under the presumption that these recipients are "victims of their circumstances" rather than subjects of their choices.

It wouldn't affect inflation because it's not NEW money, it's just the same money that's already being spent, it would just be going to different people (trickle-up economics).

The only money which has been spent is money that has been spent. You're speaking of money the government intends to spend. And since the government doesn't have this money, it has to print fiat (i.o.u.'s.) And printing money with no (precious metal/resource standard) creates inflation.

(1) Do you think this proposal (Fix-US) would generate more or fewer criminals?

It's hard to tell. The recipients can use their vouchers to invest or save, or spend on their vices. You've haven't really present any schema that oversees their spending activities.

I'm asking you to fix that by rewarding parents for staying together instead of rewarding parents for simply having kids.

It's the kids who are actually being punished for not having a father in the home. Then they take it out on society for not doing anything about it.

Please explain your hypothesis on the causes and possible solutions for criminal behavior.

PUBLIC SCHOOL IS ALREADY A SUBSIDY FOR THE POOR.

All parents can teach kindergarten. All parents can teach first grade.  All parents can teach second grade. The parents will learn what they need while teaching the kids.

The children are independently tested for aptitude quarterly at testing centers.  If the child scores low, their weekly education payment is cut by 5% per week until the child reaches their benchmark.

Even current home schoolers have to pass state tests.  I'm not sure how this "marginalizes" anyone.

If your father is killed and your mother has to work two jobs, how is this situation your choice?

Don't get me started on fiat. [LINK]

Fix-US will not affect inflation COMPARED TO THE EXISTING SYSTEM.

It's just the same money that's already GOING to be spent.

You're presenting "Fix-US" as a zero-sum game, yet you haven't provided any information, much less a schema, as to how that is. Your proposal while noble lacks grit. Why not take it to its extreme: eliminate taxation, and allow all laborers to keep 100% of their income? And if there's to be a public option, it can be financed by volunteers. Does this not suffice?

Fix the environment.

Try this, [LINK]

I'm not talking about reducing/cutting taxes; I stating to eliminate it all together. The government can service its current debt with its gold stock, spr's, and land; it can default on its future obligations (i.e. social security, government pensions, welfare programs, etc.) And the bank sponsored politician (which is likely all of them) can service the rest of the debt by selling their own assets. Does this not suffice?

I already told you. Start rewarding parents for residing together and stop rewarding the ones who reside alone. If you don't want to do the best thing for your child and raise him in a 2 parent environment, then put the kid(s) up for adoption. 

Stop glorifying and supporting single-parent households, it's not helping the kids at all. The data is very clear on this.

...If you don't want to do the best thing for your child and raise him in a 2 parent environment, then put the kid(s) up for adoption.....

Problem Behavior in Kindergarten and First Grade

#1 the EFFECTIVE tax rate for people who make $31,300.00-$52,999.99 is -39% that is A SUBSIDY (BONUS, FREE MONEY) EQUAL TO 39% of their earned income.  PAYING TAXES MAKES YOU RICHER THAN NOT PAYING TAXES.

If you make less than $88,700.00 a year, you not only pay NO TAXES, but you GET MORE BACK (federal transfers) THAN YOU PUT IN.

Effective Tax Rates,

Poorest 20% -- gets 56% back

Next 20% -- gets 39% back

Middle 20% -- gets 15% back

Next richest 20% -- pays 3%

Top 1% -- pays 34%

RIGHT NOW.  IN THE CURRENT SYSTEM. [LINK]

#2 as an individual, debt = bad.  I get it.  However, if you run a business, especially real-estate, debt = good.

But what you seem to be forgetting is that all of the rules for individuals and for individual businesses DO NOT APPLY TO GOVERNMENT DEBT.

We live in an incoherent system where basic principles that are true on one scale are absolutely NOT true on other scales.

Of the 500 estimated serial killers in U.S. history, 16 percent were adopted as children, while adoptees represent only 2 or 3 percent of the general population.

Okay....and out of those 500 how many had no father in the home???

The professor from your video not only focuses entirely on just federal taxes (state, local, and perhaps fica taxes notwithstanding,) but also neglects to mention that federal transfers are subject to taxation as they are a part of personal income--and that assumes that the entirety of those specific taxed demographics collect on the entirety of the federal transfers available. You may want to redo those numbers or cite a more detailed analysis of taxation. What would be the issue with eliminating taxation?

#2 as an individual, debt = bad.  I get it.  However, if you run a business, especially real-estate, debt = good.

Debt is always bad. One is borrowing against one's future (definite) when one incurs debt; so it's incumbent upon on one to redeem this loss and turn a profit through investment (indefinite.) 

But what you seem to be forgetting is that all of the rules for individuals and for individual businesses DO NOT APPLY TO GOVERNMENT DEBT.

We live in an incoherent system where basic principles that are true on one scale are absolutely NOT true on other scales.

So do away with the incoherent system. Does that not suffice? 

The lower levels still get back more in benefits than they pay in.

Public schools cost $20,000.00 per year per-child.  Most families with 3 kids don't make $60,000.00 per year.

This is demonstrably false.  Debt-free corporations have no chance of competing with Debt-full corporations.

Please explain your road-map to utopia.  I'm all ears.

Public schools cost $20,000.00 per year per-child.  Most families with 3 kids don't make $60,000.00 per year.

Then perhaps it would behoove us all to not subsidize the behavior of those who don't plan for their families.

This is demonstrably false.  Debt-free corporations have no chance of competing with Debt-full corporations.

Please demonstrate this falsehood.

Please explain your road-map to utopia.  I'm all ears.

Did I mention "utopia"? Is getting rid of taxation utopian? Or the government itself? How? 

I speak not of "utopia" but of "approach." And that approach is autarchy (not to be confused with autocracy.) Does that not suffice?

Don't help them, just wait until they commit criminal acts and then pay $31,000.00 per prisoner per year.  Sounds great.

Try this, [LINK]

Oh, sure, ok, please explain your road-map to a better system.  I'm all ears.

Don't help them, just wait until they commit criminal acts and then pay $31,000.00 per prisoner per year.  Sounds great.

First, not subsidizing them is not the same as not helping them; second, are you under the impression that because there's a correlation between poverty and crime that your cum hoc ergo propter hoc argument is valid--i.e. criminality is inevitable among the poor? Weren't you the one that created the thread, "Poor = Bad," where you contradicted that notion? 

People who have basic food, clothing and shelter are less desperate and less likely to become criminals.

Are you suggesting that criminal behavior is an inscrutable mystery that can never be mitigated or resolved?