News Watch


(Andrew Downing) #21

Tucker’s not really my cup of tea, but he’s not particularly wrong in this case, possibly more so in USA than here though.

Their African American population has around 77% fatherless children now.
Just the fact of growing up in a single parent family means your opportunities are vastly diminished.
When it’s boys growing up without fathers, their chance of ending up in prison is crazy high in comparison to their peers growing up with fathers, regardless of race.
When it’s girls, their chance of repeating the cycle with teen pregnancy etc, is also vastly increased.

The right in USA hammers on about this a lot, and in terms of the next election, they are using this to build a wedge issue to lever a lot of the African American voters across to the Republican side. It might even work.
The key is in the way social security works. As a single mum, you get social security, but if the father moves in, you lose it, regardless of whether he earns anything.

edit: fyi, that’s one of the reasons I favour our UBI as NIT policy. It avoids poverty traps like this.


(Alex Jago) #22

Yep. It’s completely agnostic to the distribution of income within the household - the net tax paid (or welfare received) is identical. For this reason if we ever decide to, say, add a second bracket to it for very high income earners, we should also permit household averaging (with proof of joint finances if not living together).