This sort of economic blind spot is shockingly common, and presumably stems from the belief that economics is zero-sum. The idea behind subsidizing single mothers and keeping teens in school (which is the case that your parent comment was describing) is that the cost of this subsidy is theoretically lower than the expected cost of losing productive members of society or even worse, losing them to gang activity, which has further costs (single-parent households and high school dropouts are both _strongly_ linked to gang activity).

You may as well be saying "Why should I be paying taxes to put out a fire at the house down the street"? Well, if/when the fire spreads, you're going to be paying for it like it or not, so it seems like common sense to address the problem before the total cost is far higher.

The relationship between gang activity and dropout rates is something of a chicken-and-egg problem, but given that "stopping gang activity" is damn near impossible through enforcement alone (this is basically the tactic we've been trying), it's strange that our culture is such that attacking the problem from the other side is anathema.

Don't forget the moral hazard. Women could choose to get a child instead of working. I personally don't think that it is a good idea to grow up in a family where no adult is gainfully employed.

These are complex issues and should be evaluated by each individual. You have different criteria than I and should have every right to donate your income to causes you see as worthy. If I was interested in reducing US crime and poverty, I'd donate to http://www.projectprevention.org/

>Women could choose to get a child instead of working.

This is a fallacy. A woman working is not going to "choose" this any more than you are going to go from being gainfully employed to sitting on your ass all day playing video games. Setting the right thresholds on both the income and the reductions removes any incentive to become a non-working drag on society. If however, you did make that choice, a basic income allows you to realize quickly how crap life is and then correct yourself, rather than slide further down the have not scale.

What's more, even if you did choose to sit around playing video games on $10K a year or whatever, you are fed and likely housed, and therefore not stealing from me, getting arrested and now costing me $75K a year in prison expenses.

> You have different criteria than I and should have every right to donate your income to causes you see as worthy

Taxation is not fucking charity. We do have every right to choose where our taxes go. They're called elections. However, considering (as I stated and you conveniently ignored) that your wealth was entirely derived from the society at large, the sustainable maintenance of said society is in your utmost interest, whether you think so or not. I have more interests than I can possibly afford to donate to. That's why I contribute to a collective fund and then hire managers to disperse said dollars with an eye to betterment of society as a whole.

> We do have every right to choose where our taxes go. They're called elections.

That just means that others decide what happens to my money.

> However, considering that your wealth was entirely derived from the society at large

This is just a false assertion. My wealth is derived from my work.

> That's why I contribute to a collective fund and then hire managers to disperse said dollars with an eye to betterment of society as a whole.

You also force everybody else to do the same. Those altruistic managers then spend the money on foreign wars and bailouts.

>So why should I want to subsidize single mothers?

You aren't subsidizing anything. You are allowing the mother to raise their child with more options available to them. At the very least, it increases the chances of the child's success, and overall the chances that you are not paying for programs, prisons, social services in the future.

> Why should I disincentivize teenagers from gaining their first work experience?

Because they are "gaining that experience" instead of completing their schooling in many occurrences. I don't need to explain why it's a good idea to have as many people as possible stay in school, do I?