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.
And where does the money to pay for these incentives come from? What would motivate the ~70% of the population that does have children to vote for these incentives? I'd say most of the country doesn't even like the idea of not having children...never mind incentivizing it.
With the kind of electorate we have, people won't support it. If most of them have children, what do they care about others? They are the ones getting incentives.
Where do their incentives come from? It has to come from some place right.
Think about the now grown up children that weren't taken away.
My assertion is that they won't be putting themselves or their kids in this position...
and won't need to be bribed to come to that decision.
Those grown up children would screwed up mentally, likely in jail.
Why not just put a tax on sex across the board, and be done with it ?
The way government is going they are going to know when you pee, what color your poop is, and if you brushed your teeth.
Oh, you're being so melodramatic.
Instead of taxing people who have children, why not just put a stop to all the tax breaks married couples and people with children get? If people want to have one child or procreate like those Duggars, fine with me. But they shouldn't get perks from the government to do it. People with no children, especially those who choose not to marry, as well as not to have kids, are discriminated against.
And above all, speaking of the Duggars, municipalities should stop the practice of allowing people to declare their home a "church" so they can avoid paying property taxes. Even real churches should pay property taxes.
One more thing. I'm 100% in favor of the LGBT community's right to marriage, on the basis of equality under the law. BUT, for people who are against it, the quickest way to slow it down would be to take away all the financial incentives to marry.
Instead of taxing people who have children, why not just put a stop to all the tax breaks married couples and people with children get? If people want to have one child or procreate like those Duggars, fine with me. But they shouldn't get perks from the government to do it. People with no children, especially those who choose not to marry, as well as not to have kids, are discriminated against.
* Families who pay taxes, stay off of welfare, and raise their children are not the issue. Those are the people you will penalize with this suggestion. Its been mentioned several times in this thread.
* The problem are families who cannot support their decision to have multiple children, not responsible parents, and rely on welfare to do so. Those families generally do not pay income taxes thus removing tax breaks would mean very little. Its been mentioned several times in this thread.
* Removing tax breaks for married couples? Wouldn't that simply mean less people getting married? We want more unwedded couples having children?
Furthermore the tax credit offsets the cost of dependent care rather than an incentive to have more children. This is the reason why the tax credit phases out based on household income. If the goal of the credit was to provide incentives for having children, why would we phase out the tax credit for higher incomes? Some would argue those are the families we WANT to have more children as they are more likely to provide the proper opportunities for that child and do so without welfare. Anyone who is responsible and paying taxes should know that the tax credit IS NOT AN INCENTIVE TO HAVE CHILDREN. The cost of raising a child far outweighs the tax credit. No responsible adult going through family planning process places the child tax credit as the number one reason for having children. That notion is just silly.
I would argue that if tax credit is to be removed, all forms of dependent care credits should also be removed in order to remain fair.
My opinion is that to lessen the burden on the system,
1) Deal with illegal immigration.
2) Provide freely available contraception. Provide incentives for the responsible use of contraception. Support the option of abortion without messaging it as a form of contraception.
3) Consistent messaging and education to the young through the school system. Teach responsible contraception. Teach responsible parenting. Most importantly, teach being financial responsibility.
Will this happen. Not in my lifetime. Incompetent government (#1). Religious right (#2). Failed educational system (#3).
Or we can be draconian... get rid of welfare. That certainly would eliminate the incentive on that end.. or at least the perception of that. OF course, there will be people who simply had a bad hand dealt to them in life be thrown to the wind. Is that the society we wish to live in? Maybe its ok for some..... Let's just start doing what we do to cats and dogs... neuter them. (Yes... I'm being melodramatic / silly)
We have people talking about population in decline, not enough future home owners, not enough people to care for baby boomers, etc - how does disincentivizing having more than one child help this situation? Yes the poor having 2+ children can be a burden on society now, but they are all potential drivers of the economy in the future (assuming the cycle of poverty can be broken). Right?
I agree with this. The real problem is the wrong people are having kids. Poor people have kids they can't afford and the middle and upper middle class have fewer kids because they say they can't afford them.
I was going to suggest having the government pay the full cost for people who voluntarily want to get a vasectomy or have their tubes tied.
The problem is that poor people are not interested in birth control. They're operating in survival mode, so birth control is the last thing they're thinking about.
The problem is that poor people are not interested in birth control. They're operating in survival mode, so birth control is the last thing they're thinking about.
That's also idiotic. Survival mode means they need to cut back on costs so they can survive and thrive. Having more children means that they believe the future is better, and that somehow they will be able to make it. Much of it is precisely because of irresponsible encouragement on irresponsible behaviors.
The middle class are the suckers paying for all this.
That's also idiotic. Survival mode means they need to cut back on costs so they can survive and thrive. Having more children means that they believe the future is better, and that somehow they will be able to make it. Much of it is precisely because of irresponsible encouragement on irresponsible behaviors.
The middle class are the suckers paying for all this.
You have no clue how the lower class thinks as it relates to child bearing. The last thing in their mind is cost. The next to last thing is how their children's futures will be better. In fact, they fully expect those futures to be exactly like their presents.
Your theories don't have any correlation to reality.
That's also idiotic. Survival mode means they need to cut back on costs so they can survive and thrive. Having more children means that they believe the future is better, and that somehow they will be able to make it. Much of it is precisely because of irresponsible encouragement on irresponsible behaviors.
The middle class are the suckers paying for all this.
You know, this is actually a very weird phenomenon and it occurs on a global scale - with or without external encouragement. The places with the highest birth rates are the places (people) least able to provide. Education and religion is a much more significant factor than income is (or so it seems). In Russia, the more you make the larger your family is, but in Africa the opposite is true. The same can be seen in Brazil and even within the USA. Some African countries have a birth rate close to 8, but only a fraction of those kids end up surviving to adulthood. People, subconsciously or not, can either have a few kids and devote more resources to making sure they survive or more kids and devote fewer resources and hope some survive. It's very weird, but when you believe you should "go forth and multiply" it kind of makes sense.
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.
