While we're on the topic of what I don't get, I don't understand the "allocations familiales" especially for well-off people. If I'm the Duchess of Moneybags with 5 kids, I get money from the State, right? Maybe someone can take a turn at explaining that one for me?
Maybe someone can take a turn at explaining that one for me?
It's part of a consistent pro-family policy for the past century. Families with kids are helped, full stop. Means testing was a Reagan/Thatcher invention. It may make apparent sense, but it sends the wrong signal.
You get a fixed amount per kid (more for later kids in large families), so it helps the poor a lot more, and it's simple, consistent, and it sends a clear message all around (together with other policy items that help). Considering the amount,s I'm not even usre you'd same much by means testing, and you'd create a detestable precedent. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I never bought into the cliched notion of the "welfare queen" and I don't think most women actually had more kids just to collect more money, though I suppose it might be true in some cases. I haven't studied the issue, honestly.
Giving money to rich families escape me. You do have means-testing with RMI and all kinds of warranted and useful social subsidies already, I really don't see the "detestable precedent" / "wrong precedent".
The notion that the President of, say, TOTAL gets allocations if he has 5 children baffles me.
Except that all these things are being eroded in the name of who knows what. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
Still seems odd to me.
Hmm.
It does show that we take a lot of things for granted until confronted with an outsider's viewpoint.
I stand chastised.
