Should The Government Pay Every American Child An Allowance
Should the Government pay every American Child an allowance? The general argument made by author Matt Bruenig in his work, “Why the government should pay every American child an allowance”, is that every American child should receive monthly benefits by the government. More Specifically, Matt Bruenig argues that child poverty is still a problem today and that if it is ever going to end then the government needs to start taking action. He says that they should start providing every American child with monthly benefits. He writes, “I’ve calculated that a universal child benefit program that paid parents $300 per month per child would have dramatic effects.” (2). In this passage, Matt Bruenig is suggesting that if the government paid parents monthly, for every child they had, then people would start to see a difference in child poverty. In conclusion, Matt Bruenig’s belief is that every American child should be provided with monthly benefits in order to end child poverty. In my view, Matt Bruenig is wrong, because not every American child needs an allowance. More specifically, I believe that if the government did do that, then they would be giving away money to children who may not even need that money. For all they know the parents of that child may not even use the money for their child. For example, a family could be paid $300 per month per child, but they could easily use that money to buy drugs or alcohol. Although Matt Bruenig might object that there are children that need the money, I maintain that while this is true, there are other ways to deal with this problem. For instance, the government could provide a family $300 per month per child, but only for necessities like food. Therefore, I conclude that American children should not be paid an allowance and that instead of giving money to children that do not need it, they could use that money for children that do need it.