It could be adjusted to age to prevent "farming" your children.
That being said, the costs of having children being downloaded only to parents is the root cause of why first world countries are having such severe issues with birth rates right now.
Fewer children means fewer people in the future, and less future economic potential. I'm not saying we need to keep growing at a stupid rate, but declining population is a huge problem.
Just look at what's happening in Japan right now.
It's only if you look under 25 here...
Think about that critically for a moment. Do children not have needs? Shelter, food, clothing?
Why should they not get a basic income?
Had the same problem, now I've got a touch of grey hair at my temples and it has helped immensely.
I got carded for alchohol up into my late 30s.
Why only adults?
Yes, you're right about the savings on other programs assuming the amount for the basic income is high enough to cover those people.
Labor is too expensive for US manufacturing without significant price increases, and given those price increases consumers are purchasing fewer total goods because they simply can't afford more. Too much of their income is going to housing and food costs, neither of which are highly reliant on manufacturing jobs. Consumer spending in dollars may be up, but total goods consumed has to be down at this point.
UBI is funded by taxes, it's actually not has hard as it seems because people always do the math in the "logical" way and it isn't actually the right way to consider the cost.
If you give a UBI of say $10,000 a year to everyone (let's just keep it simple) for every citizen in Canada (let's say 40 million people) you'd think that the total cost would be $400 Billion dollars a year, right?
Except that's not how it actually works, what you'd do at the same time is raise taxes (preferably on property, but stupid politicians gonna put it on income instead) so that it balances around a specific income level getting nothing, with people above that level paying in, and people below that amount receiving a benefit. So if you've got a family of 4 (2 adults, 2 kids) with a median family income of say $80k (again, just keeping it simple) you'd raise their taxes by $30,000 a year, and then give them $40,000 a year in basic income. Then you've got a well-to-do family making $150,000 a year that pays $60,000 more in taxes, and only gets $40,000 a year back.
The total "cost" of the program is actually only the net amount transferred. It's easy to understand this if you think through a situation, when you tax someone $40,000, then give them $40,000 the total cost of that transfer is zero.
If you tax one person $20,000, give them $10,000, tax another person $10,000, and give them $10,000, and tax a third person $0 (not working) and give them $10,000 then the ACTUAL cost for the whole program is only $10,000, despite total taxes being $30,000, and total payouts being $30,000. So instead of costing $400 Billion for all of Canada, depending on what number they balance the whole thing around, it could be a reasonable amount and still cost under $100 billion a year.
There's actually a study from the Parliamentary Budget Office of Canada that outlines the more realistic cost.
This would apply similarly to any other country attempting to implement such a policy.
Gloss-ter-sher?
Choosing to be happy is the most important thing you can do in life. Good for you, and lucky husband.
I found this, which lists their "first deploys"
https://pawpatrol.fandom.com/wiki/Skye/Appearances
https://pawpatrol.fandom.com/wiki/Chase/Appearances
each character has one, you could cross-reference for values
Protect workers from ai?
Wtf...
Are we back to buggy whips again?