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.
We need to keep birth rates at a reasonable healthy level and yet not implode this country's and its people's finances.
The first child is incentivized as it is. Starting the second one, the government should stop incentives.
This will:
Help families make better financial decisions and build wealth in the long run
Focus resources on the quality of education instead of quantity of children
Reduce tax payers burden and allocate resources to where they should go
Do you even know what the birthrate is in the US? Its primarily two Countries on this planet that are leading to overpopulation, India and China. Neither the US nor Europe are the Cause of overpopulation.
We need to keep birth rates at a reasonable healthy level and yet not implode this country's and its people's finances.
The first child is incentivized as it is. Starting the second one, the government should stop incentives.
This will:
Help families make better financial decisions and build wealth in the long run
Focus resources on the quality of education instead of quantity of children
Reduce tax payers burden and allocate resources to where they should go
I'm not in favor of micro-managing households. The public does have alternatives - proper (not abstinence only!) sex education in schools, and birth control support in the same manner as Planned Parenthood would go a long way at curbing families with crazy numbers of kids living in poverty.
Unless I field taxes with the wrong country this is the US not China. Big Brother cannot tell me how many children I have.
You may want to present that idea to China and India. In particular the better off families who invest in US birthing vacations.
Eh, to be fair he did say "incentivize" rather than regulate. Currently the US tax code already incentivizes children with the child tax credit. But I do not agree that our population in this country is bursting at the seams. Otherwise the more appropriate way to control the population would be the boycotting of immigration, not preventing births.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,619 posts, read 81,316,164 times
Reputation: 57872
Quote:
Originally Posted by thatguydownsouth
Eh, to be fair he did say "incentivize" rather than regulate. Currently the US tax code already incentivizes children with the child tax credit. But I do not agree that our population in this country is bursting at the seams. Otherwise the more appropriate way to control the population would be the boycotting of immigration, not preventing births.
I agree, this would punishing US citizens and limiting their free choice of family size to compensate for a lack of control on immigration, legal and otherwise. Who decides what is a reasonable healthy level for birthrates? In a capitalist economy like ours that's dependent on tax revenue for social services, a growing population is essential. That's why cities like San Jose (+.9%/year) are doing so much better than cities like Detroit with decreasing population by .79% in 2013 after 60 years of decline, some years gradual and some faster.
I agree, this would punishing US citizens and limiting their free choice of family size to compensate for a lack of control on immigration, legal and otherwise. Who decides what is a reasonable healthy level for birthrates? In a capitalist economy like ours that's dependent on tax revenue for social services, a growing population is essential. That's why cities like San Jose (+.9%/year) are doing so much better than cities like Detroit with decreasing population by .79% in 2013 after 60 years of decline, some years gradual and some faster.
You'll always have a free choice, that's not what's being talked about here. What's being talked about is whether your "free choice" should continue to have government intervention to support it. The fact that you have the choice to drink and smoke doesn't mean the government should subsidize those.
And depending on a growing population to sustain your operation model is just a pyramid scheme. It works great as long as you can continue to increase the base, but eventually the whole thing will fall apart. I'm not sure a government policy incentivising a future generations in debt to current generations is the right way to go.
Unless I field taxes with the wrong country this is the US not China. Big Brother cannot tell me how many children I have.
You may want to present that idea to China and India. In particular the better off families who invest in US birthing vacations.
Big brother already provides incentives to those who have children. You are not completely free. What is a fine for the government to incentivize having children and not fine for the government to disincentivize having children?
I agree, this would punishing US citizens and limiting their free choice of family size to compensate for a lack of control on immigration, legal and otherwise. Who decides what is a reasonable healthy level for birthrates? In a capitalist economy like ours that's dependent on tax revenue for social services, a growing population is essential. That's why cities like San Jose (+.9%/year) are doing so much better than cities like Detroit with decreasing population by .79% in 2013 after 60 years of decline, some years gradual and some faster.
Lol. US government already limits peoples free choice of family size by incentivizing bigger families and disincentivizing singletons. Therefore, it is more financially beneficial for people to have children than to not have children.
I'm not in favor of micro-managing households. The public does have alternatives - proper (not abstinence only!) sex education in schools, and birth control support in the same manner as Planned Parenthood would go a long way at curbing families with crazy numbers of kids living in poverty.
Lol. The US government is already micromanaging households. It's tax codes punish singletons and reward bigger families that smaller families. Imagine if you get tax breaks for owning three iPads instead of one. Conservatives and the tea party have no problems getting the government involved in being a nanny state when it comes to an issue that they want to shove down peoples throats.
When did we become a society where skillful engineers must to share their wealth and people get benefits simply because of their successful intercourse? Talk about being in anti intellectual!
Last edited by Costaexpress; 08-18-2014 at 02:53 PM..
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.
