Unpopular opinions.

[ICTChris]

30 minutes ago, D.A.F.C said:

Not sure if its just a fife thing but the amount of single parent families these days seems to be off the scale on Facebook. Call me old fashioned but kids need a stable home with two parents and to know how to behave should be the baseline.
Not blaming any single parents but its a fact that kids usually don't do as well and get into bother.

Someone I used to know has a 18 year old and just laughed at him posting up bragging about drug dealing.
What a f**k up

About 15% of families in the UK are single parent families.  Between 1999 and 2019 the number of lone parent families went from 2.49m to 2.85m.  Scotland is about the same level as the rest of the UK.

 

[ICTChris]

24 minutes ago, virginton said:

Giving tax breaks solely to incentivise childbearing is much more of a hallmark of far right thinking rather than socialism. It has absolutely nothing to do with asserting public control over the means of production in the economy: it is just shuffling around some money to 'deserving' candidates on an arbitrary and electoral calculation.

 

Cesescu's regime in Romania paid extra benefits to women who had more four children and made abortion and contraception illegal causing a baby boom and a spike in infant mortality and deaths of mothers due to backstreet abortion.  There were also thousands of children left to rot, essentially, in primitive orphanages.  I'm not sure that anyone on the political Left, even the teenage tankies, is interested in rehabilitating Cesescuism though.

Edited August 17, 2020 by ICTChris

[coprolite]

35 minutes ago, virginton said:

Giving tax breaks solely to incentivise childbearing is much more of a hallmark of far right thinking rather than socialism. It has absolutely nothing to do with asserting public control over the means of production in the economy: it is just shuffling around some money to 'deserving' candidates on an arbitrary and electoral calculation.

It's not all about the incentive though. It is partly about trying to ensure children have a minimum standard of living. One of the "means of production" is your own human capital. Trying to ensure that children gave a chance to utilise that (aka achieve their potential) is socialist.

It's also a progressive redistribution of income so is socialist in that aspect too. 

Unfortunately the money doesn't go directly to benefit the children in all cases and i'm sure some parents benefit more than their kids do. 

 

[DiegoDiego]

You get up to US$4000 for a child in Nagorno-Karabakh, a country whose GDP per capita is US$4,779. Most of the billboards I saw there were encouraging people to have children. The others were celebrating their tank biathlon successes.

[die hard doonhamer]

The single biggest factor in economic outcome is single parenthood. Children from single parent households consistently do worse than those from 2 parent households. That's obviously not to say that no kids from single parent homes struggle in life, but they start with a massive disadvantage.

[vikingTON]

11 minutes ago, coprolite said:

It's not all about the incentive though. It is partly about trying to ensure children have a minimum standard of living. One of the "means of production" is your own human capital. Trying to ensure that children gave a chance to utilise that (aka achieve their potential) is socialist.

You've clearly never actually read Marx if you think that utter bullshit conforms with any mainstream socialist understanding of capitalism.

The best ways to ensure that children have a minimum standard of living purely within the existing structure though would involve raising minimum wages and benefit caps or binning the latter and going for a UBI. And binning regressive consumption taxes such as VAT while we're at it in favour of swingeing taxes on inherited wealth and all capital gains. Simply shuffling around some money in the tax system to a more 'deserving' element of society on the basis of producing sprogs is completely unjustifiable given that there is no need for the latter and does next to nothing to address inequality. Which is why it was massively expanded by welfare (neo)liberals in New Labour and not actual socialists. 

Edited August 17, 2020 by vikingTON

[19QOS19]

Theres definitely evidence that in general kids from single parent homes do worse.
Lack of resources and lack of a father figure will undoubtedly have an effect.
I agree that some of the worst off will be even worse off and that its better that parents split especially when theres abuse and other things going on that will effect kids as well.
One of the major issues with crime in america is kids without father figures. America has the largest single parent families percentage in the world.
Plenty of single parent kids have done well and not let it hold them back though so its not black and white.

In my opinion though a stable family with two loving parents will give kids a better upbringing. You don't need to look too far to see the consequences of how society has broken down to an extent since attitudes changed towards working mums and trying to juggle careers and kids alone versus the nuclear family.
Not saying either is perfect just that one worked better, usually.

The single biggest factor in economic outcome is single parenthood. Children from single parent households consistently do worse than those from 2 parent households. That's obviously not to say that no kids from single parent homes struggle in life, but they start with a massive disadvantage.

I'm not arguing about how well they'll do, with (likely) less income then they are of course at a disadvantage off the bat. I took issue with the behaviour side of D.A.F.C's original post. Single parent doesn't mean poorer parent than couples IMO.

[D.A.F.C]

3 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

I'm not arguing about how well they'll do, with (likely) less income then they are of course at a disadvantage off the bat. I took issue with the behaviour side of D.A.F.C's original post. Single parent doesn't mean poorer parent than couples IMO.

I didn’t mean that the mum was a worse parent just that studies show that a lack of a father figure tends to mean that kids are more likely to commit crime, get into drugs etc. I’m sure that two same sex parents would be better than one as well. 
You can, for example, argue that in America that because black or Hispanic kids tend to be from poorer areas that this contributes as much as the high rates of fatherless homes. I’m not blaming single mums either as it must be incredibly difficult to bring up kids and make ends meet.

My own opinion about behaviour is that kids shouldn’t be allowed to act like arseholes and cause nuisance to others when they are at an age to know better. This is poor parenting regardless or what the home situation is.

[coprolite]

1 minute ago, virginton said:

You've clearly never actually read Marx if you think that utter bullshit complies with any mainstream socialist understanding of capitalism.

The best ways to ensure that children have a minimum standard of living purely within the existing structure though would involve raising minimum wages and benefit caps or binning the latter and going for a UBI. And binning regressive consumption taxes such as VAT in favour of swingeing taxes on inherited wealth and capital. Simply shuffling over money to some more 'deserving' element of society on the basis of producing sprogs is completely unjustifiable given that there is no need for the latter. 

I've only read das kapital and the communist manifesto so i'm not a marx expert, no. You do know that marx isn't the only socialist and his views aren't definitive right? 

I never suggested tax credits were the best option to do anything. 

There are good reasons why tax breaks are targeted at families with kids. I'm not saying it's optimal but there are reasons. 

[Theroadlesstravelled]

25 minutes ago, DiegoDiego said:

You get up to US$4000 for a child in Nagorno-Karabakh, a country whose GDP per capita is US$4,779. Most of the billboards I saw there were encouraging people to have children. The others were celebrating their tank biathlon successes.

Ok I’m in.

 

[scottmcleanscontacts]

UK Labour is not and never has been 'red' by any credible standard, never mind the New Labour administration that introduced child tax credits in 2003. 

Whether or not New Labour were particularly lefty or otherwise is another argument entirely. They are still the traditional socialist party who were the ones to implement many welfare policies. I didn't say they were implemented by 'red' parties but that they were implemented through the lens of traditional socialist policy, which would be extremely unlikely in ordinary times, under a Tory government, for example.

It's not too difficult to align the socio-economic changes and the welfare system with times of Labour power - introduction of minimum wage etc as well.

[coprolite]

27 minutes ago, DiegoDiego said:

You get up to US$4000 for a child in Nagorno-Karabakh, a country whose GDP per capita is US$4,779. Most of the billboards I saw there were encouraging people to have children. The others were celebrating their tank biathlon successes.

How does a tank biathlon work? Biathlon's shooting and skiing right, so i can probably guess half of it. 

[ICTChris]

24 minutes ago, DiegoDiego said:

You get up to US$4000 for a child in Nagorno-Karabakh, a country whose GDP per capita is US$4,779. Most of the billboards I saw there were encouraging people to have children. The others were celebrating their tank biathlon successes.

Karabakh is a pretty unique situation though, I can see them wanting to boost their population as a way of consolidating control over the territory.  They are encouraging immigration and resettlement as well, I think most of the Armenians who have fled the war in Syria have been resettled in Karabakh.

Why were you there out of interest?

[vikingTON]

2 minutes ago, coprolite said:

I've only read das kapital and the communist manifesto so i'm not a marx expert, no.

Well if you had actually read them for the sake of comprehension then you'd already know that Marx would have had absolutely no truck with the neoliberal idea of 'human capital': that is in fact called 'labour' which is always subject to real capital under the prevailing economic system. He really wasn't an 'equality of opportunity' kind of guy. 

Quote

You do know that marx isn't the only socialist and his views aren't definitive right? 

They kinda are definitive to the political relevance of socialism over the past 150 years though m8.

Quote

There are good reasons why tax breaks are targeted at families with kids. I'm not saying it's optimal but there are reasons. 

There really aren't and certainly no good 'socialist' reasons for doing so, which was the original claim. Get rid of them and focus on alleviating poverty across the board instead of trying to choose 'deserving' winners among them. 

[scottmcleanscontacts]

There really aren't and certainly no good 'socialist' reasons for doing so, which was the original claim. Get rid of them and focus on alleviating poverty across the board instead of trying to choose 'deserving' winners among them. 

Marxist theory is of course important to Socialism but before him there were plenty of proponents of the idea - many similar to him and many quite different but their ideas are still as every bit as important today, though they may be much less known than Marx. Marx and his work only became famous long after his death when people like Lenin decided to interpret his theory to suit their needs - this was not what Marx was suggesting when he wrote his work, that much should be obvious.

I'd say Robert Owen and the like are every bit as important.

[vikingTON]

10 minutes ago, scottmcleanscontacts said:

Whether or not New Labour were particularly lefty or otherwise is another argument entirely. They are still the traditional socialist party who were the ones to implement many welfare policies. I didn't say they were implemented by 'red' parties but that they were implemented through the lens of traditional socialist policy, which would be extremely unlikely in ordinary times, under a Tory government, for example.

It's not too difficult to align the socio-economic changes and the welfare system with times of Labour power - introduction of minimum wage etc as well.

 

It was the vision of welfare (neo)liberals just as the pre-WW1 Liberal Party introduced old age pensions and other early benefits. Just because it was packaged under the never really socialist anyway banner of the UK Labour Party does not make it a 'red' cause to keep tax breaks for parents.

[coprolite]

5 minutes ago, virginton said:

Well if you had actually read them for the sake of comprehension then you'd already know that Marx would have had absolutely no truck with the neoliberal idea of 'human capital': that is in fact called 'labour' which is always subject to real capital under the prevailing economic system. He really wasn't an 'equality of opportunity' kind of guy. 

 

They kinda are definitive to the political relevance of socialism over the past 150 years though m8.

There really aren't and certainly no good 'socialist' reasons for doing so, which was the original claim. Get rid of them and focus on alleviating poverty across the board instead of trying to choose 'deserving' winners among them. 

Things have moved on since marx's day. You should try to keep up. Human capital is a factor in the productivity of labour and is an attempt to capture the fact that people's labour inputs (hours) have different outputs (money). This tends to increase with investment (time and money, through experience and education). 

Where individuals have higher levels of human capital their bargaining position tends to be improved and they can yield not only a higher marginal product from their labour but also a higher share of that product. 

You hate children and parents, we get it. 

[vikingTON]

Just now, scottmcleanscontacts said:

Marxist theory is of course important to Socialism but before him there were plenty of proponents of the idea - many similar to him and many quite different but their ideas are still as every bit as important today, though they may be much less known than Marx. Marx and his work only became famous long after his death when people like Lenin decided to interpret his theory to suit their needs - this was not what Marx was suggesting when he wrote his work, that much should be obvious.

I'd say Robert Owen and the like are every bit as important.

Marx was literally the leading figure of the socialist faction at the First International (hence the resulting split with the anarchists) and the Second International was organised along close Marxist lines (well as much as you could ever establish on the left) just six years after his death. This historical revisionism of yours is just not true at all then. You cannot live in some sunny, wishful thinking fantasy land in which Marx wasn't decisive to socialist politics (compared to Owenism FFS) and that if only big, bad Lenin hadn't intervened then it would have proceeded down an entirely different path.

[scottmcleanscontacts]

Marx was literally the leading figure of the socialist faction at the First International (hence the resulting split with the anarchists) and the Second International was organised along close Marxist lines (well as much as you could ever establish on the left) just six years after his death. This historical revisionism of yours is just not true at all then. You cannot live in some sunny, wishful thinking fantasy land in which Marx wasn't decisive to socialist politics (compared to Owenism FFS) and that if only big, bad Lenin hadn't intervened then it would have proceeded down an entirely different path.

There's nothing revisionist going on. When Marx lived, he wasn't taken seriously. 6 years after his death is still quite some time.

And it's quite clear that he didn't mean what Lenin decided to go and do under his regime.

[vikingTON]

9 minutes ago, coprolite said:

Things have moved on since marx's day. You should try to keep up. Human capital is a factor in the productivity of labour and is an attempt to capture the fact that people's labour inputs (hours) have different outputs (money). This tends to increase with investment (time and money, through experience and education). 

Where individuals have higher levels of human capital their bargaining position tends to be improved and they can yield not only a higher marginal product from their labour but also a higher share of that product. 

'Increase their bargaining position' against whom, exactly? Oh that's right, those who own capital and the means of production after all. Getting a slightly larger slice of the pie from 'investing in yourself' is irrelevant when a slaphead like Jeff Bezos is earning the GDP of a small country on an annual basis but you keep kidding yourself that we've 'moved on' from the structural analysis of socialism towards neoliberal, self-help bullshit like yours. 

Quote

You hate children and parents, we get it. 

No, I just hate hypocrisy as well as interest groups getting up on their cross about how hard done to they are unless they get special recognition with either money or privilege, both of which are unjustified. Come to think of it, the Venn Diagram between the 'full-time mummy' brigade and the teaching profession in this country must be getting close to being just one large circle by now.