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.
I would rather see a bond required to have children... so when we have to raise and pay for them at least we could recoup some of our money
Now... if you want to sterilize all felons of the dangerous type... that I would go for immediately... and thus reduce generations of new damaged humans
Negative. That is based on the incorrect assumption that the progeny of felons will grow up to be felons themselves. (I'm hearing echoes of the old eugenics practices from years past. I sure don't to revisit that chapter in German history, as well as that of other countries.) Many of them grow up to be upstanding individuals, and the reverse is true as well. I agree with OP. I've been dinged with much more taxes than others in years past as a single without kids. But that's how our tax system works.
You really should read more than the shrill polemics of the environmental left. In truth, we are looking at a global population decline beginning sometime in the next 35 years.
Why? Because a large proportion of the world's nations are not producing children at anywhere close to the replacement rate. Already, Japan's population is in decline, with a 25% plunge expected over the next few decades. China's fertility rate is around 1.4 children for every couple, while 2.1 is what is required to simply maintain a stable population. As a result, China's working-age population is expected to decline by 250,000,000 between now and 2050.
Russia, most of Europe, Brazil, many Asian countries all are having the same issues. Latin America is barely at replacement rate. Even India is seeing a fertility rate around 2.5 that's dropping fast. Globally, the fertility rate is 2.5 children per couple, a rate half that of 50 years ago, one that is also dropping.
Here's the thing. Economies need workers to do the labor and support the rest of the population. If you have a shrinking labor pool versus an elderly population. Automation only goes so far.
Why is population reduction so bad? Our world got along just fine with the population size we had in the 1950's or even 1970's. We don't need to always replace what we have and create more? I'm not a liberal lefty that is worried about global warming but you would have to be a complete idiot to see how open land is shrinking at a fast rate, and how grandpa says in the old days you could catch fish every cast now days lucky to even catch one fish in the spots he fished in all day our oceans are being depleted of fish. Every person you add that requires so much consumption. We are used to paying $1.29 for a can of Tuna at Walmart we can't sustain this. Every person drives a car that car eats up oil.
My co workers that have 3-4 kids get back 5000 a year while I'm paying 3-4k at the end of the year in taxes with my wife and I both at 0 deductions on our W2. I don't see how it's fair for us to pay more taxes then people who choose to have 3-5 kids.
It greatly bothers me that people get tax credits for having children. Having children is a personal CHOICE, much like my having a cat and not having children.
I also feel like this MAY encourage people to NOT have abortions when they should. I find it amusing that those who argue that there are "women have kids for welfare" NEVER argue AGAINST the tax credit.
I half joke that i should be able to deduct my cat as a dependent but i'm also half serious. Study after study shows that having pets INCREASES your state of HEALTH. I am pro tax deduction to anything that saves your health as the taxpayers will be paying for it when i'm eventually on Medicare.
Children not only do not improve your health (when they are young) but they are a drain on society's resources via education, social service agencies, etc.
Here's the thing. Economies need workers to do the labor and support the rest of the population. If you have a shrinking labor pool versus an elderly population. Automation only goes so far.
And it will go MUCH further in the future. Even if the population is declining (which is regional specific), many resources on earth have been used raising previous generations. The last thing we need is more generations who are unable to find employment like we have today.
We need responsible population control to correct for dwindling resources and automation. Having a "child tax credit" at this point in history is irresponsible.
I understand that we need people to pay for all of our Medicare, but if these kids do not contribute to the labor force and deplete more of our energy, then the parent should not be rewarded w tax credits.
If we give tax credits to encourage reproduction, why does the federal ACA require that we give everyone free birth control?
(For that matter, if we are against drunk driving, why do bars have parking lots?)
We have no children, but 56% of my state income tax went to... county schools. Hmmm. Environment aside, the OP has a point. Why am I paying for everyone else's kids?
Don't think of it like that...you are helping provide an education for tomorrow's doctors that could possibly cure you of the cancer you may get. Educating the next generation is important to EVERYONE, not just the people with children.
If we give tax credits to encourage reproduction, why does the federal ACA require that we give everyone free birth control?
(For that matter, if we are against drunk driving, why do bars have parking lots?)
We have no children, but 56% of my state income tax went to... county schools. Hmmm. Environment aside, the OP has a point. Why am I paying for everyone else's kids?
a buddy of mine suggested a long time ago that the govt will give 5k to anyone who agrees to be "fixed" man or woman.
I agree what you say that anyone who chooses not to have kids ought to benefit in some way, not be forced to pay for OPK.
Why is population reduction so bad? Our world got along just fine with the population size we had in the 1950's or even 1970's. We don't need to always replace what we have and create more? I'm not a liberal lefty that is worried about global warming but you would have to be a complete idiot to see how open land is shrinking at a fast rate, and how grandpa says in the old days you could catch fish every cast now days lucky to even catch one fish in the spots he fished in all day our oceans are being depleted of fish. Every person you add that requires so much consumption. We are used to paying $1.29 for a can of Tuna at Walmart we can't sustain this. Every person drives a car that car eats up oil.
Because the way safety net programs are set up there won't be enough workers to support retirees which will play havoc with programs like social security with the way it is currently set up. As far as food and energy production and consumption goes we have never had it better then we currently do now. We are far more energy efficient and we have more food available in the United States and worldwide then ever before. Could we sustain unlimited population growth on this planet? No eventually it would get to be to many people but considering we can support more people then we have now and the world wide population is going to decrease I really don't see problems going into the future regarding food and energy consumption and production.
The population needs to expand in order to ensure the survival of our Nation, and in turn our tax revenues. If we don't have kids then the govt will just make it up via immigration.
When I saw the title of this thread I thought it was going to be about couples who don't have kids but are still required to pay taxes to support the local school system. If it was then I would have said it is a tough pill to swallow but those kids are the future and will be taking care of us when we are old.
Instead it is about people having kids they cannot afford or kids having kids. What is the answer to that besides education? With the sexed up society we live in I don't think it is possible to slow down the explosion. The trouble is there are too many kids being born into less than ideal situations that cost everyone.
Every person that is added uses more resources that is a good way to control global warming.
The tax credits aren't really all that much money. Kids cost a whole lot more than those tax credits are worth.
Don't really believe in Global Warming although I think our use/waste of resources has a high polluting effect that may harm us in other ways. I think if you really want to make a difference in the number of people, you require sterilization of those who make babies without the financial and other resources to do so. You get one free baby and then you are done.
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.
