Isn't that what always happens, everywhere on these here boards?
Anyway Gil, I think we'll have to disagree on how we interpret Gas's posts. He said "it should have been a very prominent option in your mind", he did not say " it's what you should've done". Either way, he's entitled to think it would've been the better decision (I don't agree with him there) to give up the child, one way or another. Even if it
was in some weird way possible to prove what the "better" option would be, it still wouldn't matter, as I think we can at least all three agree that it's a decision that's up to you (and the mother).
And I know you didn't say people should be given a living wage if there's other options. I think Gas would say that both a living wage AND those other options are unnecessary, because the market will adjust - if lower wage jobs aren't viable, they'll disappear, be replaced, or become better-paid, or some such. You and I would probably both agree that would be a bad idea, since it'd plunge thousands into poverty and starvation.
The difference between a better-paying job and no welfare, or lower-paying jobs with welfare paid from taxes on wages of other people is, in my mind, relatively small, depending on how social security taxes are collected and how the taxation on lower wage works. Finding a good balance between those is essential to having a system that works. Both the Belgian and the American system seem to be horribly flawed at several different levels, as far as I'm concerned.
