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 don't advocate population expansion. However, I'm not sure that lowering and already low fertility rate will solve any problems. Does a fertility rate closer to Japan's benefit the US? Increasing the tax burden on those that pay taxes would seem to heavily reduce working/middle class fertility rates.
Fertility rates do not take into consideration immigration.
And it's also missing the point. That is people who don't have children have to suck up and subsidize those who have and those who have what they can't afford.
People then talk vague about these issues, such as our economic future and whatever, as if these differences should be ignored. Of course, those who take advantage always ignore their actions. At the end of the day, someone will just say it's all why we are "civilized." Just accept it. No questions asked. It's automatically right. Don't be a trouble maker. This country's system is anything but civilized.
So why not tax the first child instead of the 2nd?
The country isn't procreating like rabbits - fertility rates are at an all time low. The OP's proposal would further lower fertility rates - perhaps drastically. Does further lowering the birth rate positively impact the US economy?
It helps the environment. And the environment is important for the economy. Over population is an environmental disaster. It is a factor in the destruction of livelihoods.
So why not tax the first child instead of the 2nd?
Are you proposing taxing the first child?
I think that's too strict. One child is natural for those who want a family. More than one is sort of asking other people to pay for your own luxury. It's nice that you have a big family, but you can't take advantage of other people, especially the childfree who choose not to have children.
Don't use economic future as an excuse. We are talking about distribution here.
It is cowardly to ask responsible people to pay for someone's accident because they are just too horny, or didn't plan, or thought the society would pay for them to have caregivers. How nice. It sort of signals to people to never grow up and take responsibility for literally what comes out of their body. People no longer have to clean up after themselves.
If people want to shoot without thinking, then put on a condom.
It helps the environment. And the environment is important for the economy. Over population is an environmental disaster. It is a factor in the destruction of livelihoods.
I think that's too strict. One child is natural for those who want a family. More than one is sort of asking other people to pay for your own luxury. It's nice that you have a big family, but you can't take advantage of other people, especially the childfree who choose not to have children.
Don't use economic future as an excuse. We are talking about distribution here.
It is cowardly to ask responsible people to pay for someone's accident because they are just too horny, or didn't plan, or thought the society would pay for them to have caregivers. How nice. It sort of signals to people to never grow up and take responsibility for literally what comes out of their body. People no longer have to clean up after themselves.
If people want to shoot without thinking, then put on a condom.
It seems that "too strict" and "natural" are very subjective terms. So why not tax the first child? If that makes having one child too expensive - don't have any. Right? It's not really written in the stars that we all have a right to at least one child. No children = less environmental impact and no possibility of having its needs subsidized by those that choose to be child free.
It seems that "too strict" and "natural" are very subjective terms. So why not tax the first child? If that makes having one child too expensive - don't have any. Right? It's not really written in the stars that we all have a right to at least one child. No children = less environmental impact and no possibility of having its needs subsidized by those that choose to be child free.
We could eliminate incentives for having children all together. That doesn't mean that we won't have children. Instead it means people will begin to make an effort to think about the consequences of their decisions and choose wisely. Some will still have more children if they can afford it. Some sacrifice other luxuries for it.
This is a much better system than kidnapping everyone. We are becoming much more diverse with very different lifestyles. With third world immigration we will also have very different demographics and interests and values. It's time to particularize these things.
We could eliminate incentives for having children all together. That doesn't mean that we won't have children. Instead it means people will begin to make an effort to think about the consequences of their decisions and choose wisely. Some will still have more children if they can afford it. Some sacrifice other luxuries for it.
This is a much better system than kidnapping everyone. We are becoming much more diverse with very different lifestyles. With third world immigration we will also have very different demographics and interests and values. It's time to particularize these things.
If you turn the clock back 75 years - did the poor have less children? I know a lot of elderly people that came from very large families that were dirt floor poor - going hungry or quitting school in 3rd grade wasn't uncommon.
It seems that as a society we have decided two things: one's body is their's to do as they wish (i.e. we don't force sterilization) and that all children are innocent beings that deserve some basic standard of living. We decided that no child should go hungry (hence all the subsidized food programs). We decided that children should go to school until a certain age (it cost a lot to school every child for at least 16 years). We decided that children shouldn't be allowed to work (no 12 year old factory workers anymore). We decided that everyone should have access to healthcare (hence all the government provided healthcare programs). Therefore, financially "punishing" the parents of poor children violates one of the two pillars we chose to establish. If you would like to reduce the financial impact of these children on society, perhaps you should vote against policies that "help" them. This would perhaps be described as a natural selection ideology. Let the poor go hungry. Let the children quit school at 8 or whenever the parents can no longer afford or want to send them. Accept that 8 people will live in a tiny shack with no running water, poor sanitation and little to no health care. Perhaps the poor will retreat into their own little underworld instead of hanging on the coattails of those that pay in more than they get out.
If you turn the clock back 75 years - did the poor have less children? I know a lot of elderly people that came from very large families that were dirt floor poor - going hungry or quitting school in 3rd grade wasn't uncommon.
It seems that as a society we have decided two things: one's body is their's to do as they wish (i.e. we don't force sterilization) and that all children are innocent beings that deserve some basic standard of living. We decided that no child should go hungry (hence all the subsidized food programs). We decided that children should go to school until a certain age (it cost a lot to school every child for at least 16 years). We decided that children shouldn't be allowed to work (no 12 year old factory workers anymore). We decided that everyone should have access to healthcare (hence all the government provided healthcare programs). Therefore, financially "punishing" the parents of poor children violates one of the two pillars we chose to establish. If you would like to reduce the financial impact of these children on society, perhaps you should vote against policies that "help" them. This would perhaps be described as a natural selection ideology. Let the poor go hungry. Let the children quit school at 8 or whenever the parents can no longer afford or want to send them. Accept that 8 people will live in a tiny shack with no running water, poor sanitation and little to no health care. Perhaps the poor will retreat into their own little underworld instead of hanging on the coattails of those that pay in more than they get out.
We do not have to penalize people. The government already provides help. It has now become that getting rid of privileged entitlement is somehow a punishment. These people did not raise their kids by themselves. Everyone helps them significantly. They did not build that.
They have the benefits, of course, they don't notice it. This is exactly why this country should take away the parenting lobbyists preferential treatment. People need to look in the mirror and critically examine their entitlement.
That whole talk about people dropping into poverty is irrelevant. Without incentives, people make better decisions as adults finally. Cutting back on the number of children only increases ones chances of prosperity. I would say that the dim scary images you described would exactly be the results of a government encouraged family program. More poverty, and yet more help needed. It creates across the board misery.
Or the government can at least stop incentives for people to have children. It doesn't make sense.
It's not having children that is a problem. It's people having children and expecting others to pay the bills as if they are all deserving.
If a person can afford to have four kids, and pay for their bills, then it's their business and more power to them. The problem is that people are acting like douche bags and feeling natural about it.
I would like to give a people a financial incentive for NOT having children. You get $3,000 (or whatever number you want) a year for NOT having children, regardless of income. Incentivized people to not have children, and if you are financially able to care of them without the rebate, then it won't matter (and also tells me you care more about having children than money. A good sign). If you're poor, that $3,000 will help you, but as soon as you have one child, you lose it.
However, you'll need to limit the safety nets for those who do have children if make it work so they don't double-dip.
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.
