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.
Originally Posted by katzpaw Poverty is not a gene.
And it isn't just about attitudes and upbringing. Poverty is very likely also a function of behavioral tendencies and inabilities that have a genetic basis. Some people are simply born with brains and bodies that function in a way as to make it more difficult for them to be successful. Incentivizing such people to have fewer kids makes sense.
This.
I understand wanting to incentivize people not to have children that they can't afford.
But the whole sterilization thing is just a non starter.
How about negative financial reinforcements?
Say, for every child someone on basic income has, they loose $200.00 a month off that income?
Or outside the scenario of basic income, negative tax credits instead of a tax deduction?
In another thread, someone suggested the following solution to poverty. I can't remember who this person was, so if you think this was your idea please speak up.
Here's the solution. Basic income for life of about ~$2000/month to anyone with one condition: voluntarily submit oneself to sterilization. Within a generation or so, the problem of poverty will be solved.
This suggestion was written on here a few weeks ago. On the outside, it sounds horrid, doesn't it? But I cannot find anything logically wrong with this policy. Put aside political correctness for a moment. What exactly is wrong with this solution?
I understand wanting to incentivize people not to have children that they can't afford.
But the whole sterilization thing is just a non starter.
How about negative financial reinforcements?
Say, for every child someone on basic income has, they loose $200.00 a month off that income?
Or outside the scenario of basic income, negative tax credits instead of a tax deduction?
This works, too. Remember that the goal is to discourage people from breeding out kids they cannot afford. So, sterilization is just a one method out of many possible ones. If sterilization is too much, come up with another way.
Right now, single mothers are rewarded with free money for having more kids they can't afford. What's wrong with coming up with ways to get them to stop having kids they can't afford?
I understand wanting to incentivize people not to have children that they can't afford.
But the whole sterilization thing is just a non starter.
How about negative financial reinforcements?
Say, for every child someone on basic income has, they loose $200.00 a month off that income?
Or outside the scenario of basic income, negative tax credits instead of a tax deduction?
That's ridiculous. Do you want to starve children? The poor people already can't afford their children and you want them to have even less money?
I think $2,000 with voluntary sterilization and forfeiting the voting right is a fair trade. The poor don't have to take the offer if they don't like it. This should be $2,000 per person. If they have 3 children, a single mother would get $8000 a month.
I'd even suggest to make the existing welfare available so that they have choices.
That's ridiculous. Do you want to starve children? The poor people already can't afford their children and you want them to have even less money?
I think $2,000 with voluntary sterilization and forfeiting the voting right is a fair trade. The poor don't have to take the offer if they don't like it. This should be $2,000 per person. If they have 3 children, a single mother would get $8000 a month.
I'd even suggest to make the existing welfare available so that they have choices.
That's $96000 a year, roughly $42000 more than the Median Family Income for the US. Is that really a good idea? Think about that for a minute.
It's also $12000 a year more than I made as a 30 year teacher with a Master's degree plus enough credits for a second one.
That's $96000 a year, roughly $42000 more than the Median Family Income for the US. Is that really a good idea? Think about that for a minute.
It's also $12000 a year more than I made as a 30 year teacher with a Master's degree plus enough credits for a second one.
This is why I said we can make this fair and make this option available to everyone. You can apply to get the extra $2k/month, or however much they decide on. Remember, people, that the 2k figure is just a number I pulled out of my ass. The point is just an incentive for people to not breed kids they cannot afford. So please don't get hung up on moot details and try to look at the general idea.
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.
