Hacker News Reader

Comment by PietdeVries | Hacker News Reader

Hmm... So with everyone getting free money, including the children, there is no need for a father to take care of the family when he decides to diforce, right? Afterall, the family gets a good deal of income even when daddy is gone. So marriage will no longer be a bond forever, it will be a bond until something nicer comes along since there is no financial penalty anymore: no pressure to stay together for the kids. Mom and Dad can simply split up and move elsewhere. Wonder how that incease in broken families works out for the future kids...

Edit: my mother had me checked - I am not insane. Anyway: while you are right that keeping two unhappy people together might be much worse than them splitting up, I can imagine that a big organisation like the church (any church) will be a force opposing this idea once they figure this one out.

View on HN

Having economic shackles as the only incentive to keep two unhappy people together for longer than necessary seems like a terrible environment in which to raise happy and healthy children. Having experienced that as a child, it was miserable and set me up with unhealthy ideas about relationships.

Might as well make divorce illegal again. After all, something nicer might come along.

If the only thing holding your marriage together is needing to pay the bills or a judge, being forced to stay together only serves to make people like you feel righteous.

Your comment makes me wonder about what other unhealthy ideas about relationships you want to force upon others. Perhaps you should spend less time on r/MRAs and r/TheRedPill.

> So with everyone getting free money, including the children, there is no need for a father to take care of the family when he decides to diforce, right?

Having to pay child care costs and alimony above the poverty line are things that exist now and will have reason to exist even if a BI is implemented.

Equally snarky:

Is a family that's only together for the money worth keeping around?

It's worked for my family in a slightly different context.

> So with everyone getting free money, including the children, there is no need for a father to take care of the family when he decides to diforce, right?

It certainly would mitigate the social harms caused by deadbeat abandoning parents, but since neither child support nor alimony are currently limited to the amount necessary to provide basic survival necessities, a UBI mature enough to provide basic necessities would not seem to be a basis for eliminating existing child support and alimony provisions.

Obviously, even with existing formulas, the fact that more of the family's income wouldn't be leaving with the prime breadwinner would reduce the amount of support and alimony orders.

> So marriage will no longer be a bond forever

Marriage, in the US, is only a "bond forever" now to the extent that the parties decide to make it one; divorce is readily available, and frequently chosen.

Sooooo, what you're saying is that a significant number of families are currently together for economic rather than emotional / social reasons? I (a) find that somewhat difficult to believe and (b) find that somewhat troubling if true. (disclaimer: I'm in a love-filled marriage and my partner and I have decided to have no children)

Honestly, I'd rather see families split up, if by "split up" you mean "find independence from someone with whom you do not want to spend your life". There's levels here- children are a responsibility that someone needs to shoulder (and emphatically not just Mom), but if the alternative right now is being trapped economically in an emotionally traumatic relationship, that's not good either.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com