Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The premise of pro-natalist policies is that (1) it's good for the human population to grow, (2) it's even better for our nation's population to grow (lest we be out-bred by our competitors or adversaries), and (3) a "healthy" demographics has a steady stream of children and young-adults to eventually support the elderly. As a corollary, even bad parenting is superior to no parenting at all, because children from broken homes at least have some potential, whereas hypothetical children never-born have by definition zero potential.
Governments have almost always been pro-natalist. Even governments interested in population control (such as modern China) would prefer for the oldsters to drop-dead, replaced by younger workers and their children.
According to this premise, breeding is a civic duty. Parents who can't afford to have children, who lack the wherewithal (material, emotional, intellectual) to raise them properly, nevertheless are doing their part. All parents are superior to all non-parents in discharging this civic duty. Therefore all parents deserve subsidies, accolades and benefits.
Even those who worry about overpopulation, and who aren't impressed by the nation-vs.-nation demographic competition, have no good answer to the generational compact, where workers' taxes goes to pay for retirees' benefits. Too large of a retiree/worker ratio causes unsustainable fiscal imbalance. The only apparent solution is to breed more, and to encourage more breeding by policy such as tax breaks.
I am an anti-natalist. I favor human extinction. This isn't the place to debate pro-natalism vs. anti-natalism, but here I will merely say this: if we buy into the pro-natalist mindset, then something like asymmetric tax burden between breeders and non-breeders becomes inevitable.
According to this premise, breeding is a civic duty.
With a large part of that being rooted in their religious views
Quote:
Even those who worry about overpopulation, and who aren't impressed by the
nation-vs.-nation demographic competition, have no good answer to the generational compact...
Some do. But talking about "solutions" is premature.
The first step is a far more general recognition that the natalist model is, at best, faulty.
At that point the solutions (most of which will be rooted in individual behavior) can begin.
Quote:
I am an anti-natalist. I favor human extinction.
I'll settle for reduction (to about 180M in the US) and then stasis... but I get your point.
Quote:
This isn't the place to debate pro-natalism vs. anti-natalism, but here I will merely say this: if we buy into the pro-natalist mindset, then something like asymmetric tax burden between breeders and non-breeders becomes inevitable.
BZZT! In Michigan your assertion is not fully true.
Rental property is taxed for schools at FOUR TIMES the rate levied on owner-occupied homes.
My rented home generates far more school revenue than does the owner-occupied home nest door; over $1,000 more per year.
Obviously, school taxes are only one component of the aggregation of property taxes that are levied in this country. In Michigan, school districts are discrete entities, separate from municipal government. In addition to the Nonhomestead Tax and the State Education Tax which provide property tax revenue for schools, there will always be township, village, or city property taxes wherever you live in Michigan.
The SCHOOL property tax rate on rental property is four times the SCHOOL property tax rate on owner-occupied homes. Other property taxes are levied uniformly, thank God, so the TOTAL property tax rate on rental property is 'ONLY' 40 percent higher than on owner-occupied homes.
BZZT! In Michigan your assertion is not fully true.
Rental property is taxed for schools at FOUR TIMES the rate levied on owner-occupied homes.
My rented home generates far more school revenue than does the owner-occupied home nest door; over $1,000 more per year.
Obviously, school taxes are only one component of the aggregation of property taxes that are levied in this country. In Michigan, school districts are discrete entities, separate from municipal government. In addition to the Nonhomestead Tax and the State Education Tax which provide property tax revenue for schools, there will always be township, village, or city property taxes wherever you live in Michigan.
The SCHOOL property tax rate on rental property is four times the SCHOOL property tax rate on owner-occupied homes. Other property taxes are levied uniformly, thank God, so the TOTAL property tax rate on rental property is 'ONLY' 40 percent higher than on owner-occupied homes.
That doesn't make it right, and it's still wrong.
Then how else can we tax the bejeezus out of the evil landlords?
It amazes me that after my spouse and I have refrained from imposing children on the school system (at an average cost of $10,000 a year per kid x 13 years, or $130,000 to put one child through school), and have subsidized parents for our entire working lives day via the tax system (that absolutely crucifies the child-free) and the insurance system (where the costs for insuring one or two are hugely inflated to cover the costs of insuring large families)--that some lunatics want to tax me EVEN MORE, as punishment for being fiscally responsible and not asking other working people to subsidize my choices.
Newsflash to those who love government Ponzi Scams: all those kids that were produced in the last 20 or 30 years will NOT be generating the tax revenues you hope for, for reasons both within their control and out of it.
First of all, at the beginning of the process: education. If any of you know college professors in the STEM fields that have been around for 30 years or so (say, those up at UNH), just ask them how far they had to drop their standards and demands, just to ensure that SOME can get these degrees today. Unfortunately for all of us, the sheer amount of knowledge in our technical fields today requires even a brilliant student to put in 60 or 70 hours a week studying all through college, and then another 60/70 hours a week working in the field and learning at a rapid pace, to reach the knowledge required to be in a position of responsibility.
Now to things outside of the control of young adults: the ravaging of the American Dream by the political class. Thanks to "Free Trade" and open-door immigration, almost all the well-paying jobs have been sent overseas. Wages have been dropping for decades as the number of workers far exceeds the number of jobs (and yet open-door immigration continues!). The cost of benefits are rapidly being shifted to the employee--meaning those benefits will no longer be pre-tax, but will now cost much more because they must be bought with your after-tax dollars.
And we all know now that the security of working for even large companies is also a distant memory. Forget pensions (unless you're working for government; in that case, congratulations); if they haven't been stolen yet, they will be. But on the other hand, the Welfare State is thriving and nobody starves, nobody is denied health care, and in fact the people who never work a day in their lives seem to have every luxury that those who sold their lives to a corporation get. No wonder young adults don't think wasting your entire life working is smart.
From what I'v seen, when the recent generations work at all, they work just enough to pay for their next trip overseas, or multi-month vacation. They don't buy houses in their mid-20s like we did; if they think of it at 40, it will be unusual. In any case, they won't be "doing their part" of keeping the housing market afloat.
They won't be getting married and having families--instead, they'll be having children without the benefit of marriage, because that's just fine with everyone nowadays--plus, that way you get others to pay for YOU, rather than you contributing taxes to pay for others!
A final note on the open-door immigration that Washington has insisted on since 1965: this misguided policy not only sent wages and benefits into a 50-year downward spiral, but it will NOT save the Baby Boom's retirement by propping up the Social Security Ponzi Scam. First of all, there aren't enough of them working "on the books" (i.e., not getting paid under the table). Second, they don't get paid very much. Third, as Washington increases SS taxes (as it MUST, with $2.7 trillion needed by and owed to the Baby Boom), less and less people will be willing to work since they cannot net enough to live on, after taxes. And finally, the taxpayer is always on the hook to subsidize the insanely-expensive cost of educating immigrant children, providing Welfare and Medicaid, and the thousand other programs that provide benefits to the poor. Because Washington gets the SS tax benefits of immigrants but then just shifts the COSTS of those immigrants to the State and Local governments, it doesn't care that they cost more than they generate in taxes.
The premise of pro-natalist policies is that (1) it's good for the human population to grow, (2) it's even better for our nation's population to grow (lest we be out-bred by our competitors or adversaries), and (3) a "healthy" demographics has a steady stream of children and young-adults to eventually support the elderly. As a corollary, even bad parenting is superior to no parenting at all, because children from broken homes at least have some potential, whereas hypothetical children never-born have by definition zero potential.
Governments have almost always been pro-natalist. Even governments interested in population control (such as modern China) would prefer for the oldsters to drop-dead, replaced by younger workers and their children.
According to this premise, breeding is a civic duty. Parents who can't afford to have children, who lack the wherewithal (material, emotional, intellectual) to raise them properly, nevertheless are doing their part. All parents are superior to all non-parents in discharging this civic duty. Therefore all parents deserve subsidies, accolades and benefits.
Even those who worry about overpopulation, and who aren't impressed by the nation-vs.-nation demographic competition, have no good answer to the generational compact, where workers' taxes goes to pay for retirees' benefits. Too large of a retiree/worker ratio causes unsustainable fiscal imbalance. The only apparent solution is to breed more, and to encourage more breeding by policy such as tax breaks.
I am an anti-natalist. I favor human extinction. This isn't the place to debate pro-natalism vs. anti-natalism, but here I will merely say this: if we buy into the pro-natalist mindset, then something like asymmetric tax burden between breeders and non-breeders becomes inevitable.
if that is the case then ban condoms and give subsidies to every man and woman to procreate.
you also need to ban gay/lesbianism as that destroys the chances of babies no?
you may as well give a hooker to every guy and a pimp to a gal that cannot have a bf/gf as well
just to pro create.
so what is this about governments being PRO natalist?
note: they are not right now at least
natalists are against gays and lesbians btw
they do not mix too well.
gays would not be needed at all and can be taxed to death then no?
and lesbians can just be seeded at the donor banks.
no?
why not have every man donate their sperm then?
and then at random women will be seeded with them. they would have no choice if they go to the sperm bank unless they are rich to pay just to have diversity.
Why not eh? some are already doing something like that.
geez.
NOT very good people.
If you want the responsible poor people to procreate stop stealing from them.
Then they could maybe find love more easily.
warning:
the people that favor only parents and want to kill/tax/make slaves all non parents are insane.
perhaps non parents should band together to combat parents that want to steal from non parents...I sense a war brewing to enslave the non parents further than it is now
Normally I wouldn't even complain about the fact that parents already get many times the subsidies that singles get.
But the topic creator is complaining like welfare queen now.
I would like to vote now to abolish all parental subsidies to punish their complaining when they have so many perks already which have been coming from those with no babies.
perks parents get that non parents do not get
1. head of household deduction worth 3000-4000 dollars per year
2. tax credit per child 3900 per child per year
3. free public school for child 10000-20000 per child per year
4. medicaid benefit for child if poor 44k or less likely 1-2k per year
those are just some of the ones parents get. I bet there are lots more.
so over 18k-28k in free money STOLEN from non parents and parents are still not satisfied?
I wish I get that instead so that I can actually get a home and start a family instead on my own.
Shall we abolish public school? no child credits? no head of household? no medicaid?
Why not I don't mind I would plan to send the child to private school myself anyway if I had one.
geez.
Where do parents spend all their money anyway geez.
perhaps learn to cook instead you know?
stop hiring a baby sitter call your mom to baby sit if you need to go to work.
If work doesn't pay more than the baby sitter then do not work go baby sit instead and or put up for adoption as you cannot afford the baby in the first place.
Just because you are a parent doesn't make you a victim of anything.
You consume thus you pay more simple as that.
sigh. so stop wasting money please.
do not be lazy
cut coupons
be smart about it.
I need to cut coupons as well especially during college years when I am dirt poor because college students have no money remember?
Thanks to idiots that want to tax us so much we will never have families.
We should thank you guys for taxing us so much.
Even though we get nothing out of it and you get so many perks.
SO PARENTS that want more tax breaks when you have so much,
WHILE TAXING those that didn't even START LIFE YET? SHUT UP!!!
if that is the case then ban condoms and give subsidies to every man and woman to procreate.
I think you have completely misunderstood every word said.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
