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.
The government already does that in the form of income tax deductions.
Well, that is true... But it's definitely very tiny amount compared to the costs of raising a child. So, maybe it should be shaped as higher tax rates for all with much bigger deduction for first 2 (or 3 children)... I don't know.
The European-Heritage Americans are slowly turning into a minority... Something needs to be done in order to reverse this trend, rather than bringing more immigrants from Mexico.
Adoption... There are plenty of children in USA without parents.
And the reason being is because adoptions are hard. Most people can't afford the kids to begin with. Then you got people who are single and why should they be punished for choosing to stay single? What about those who have handicaps and can't legally take care of kids? Should they be punished?
No, this is so against the first amendment in every which way. Someone choosing to stay single or not have kids is protected under the first amendment.
Well, that is true... But it's definitely very tiny amount compared to the costs of raising a child. So, maybe it should be shaped as higher tax rates for all with much bigger deduction for first 2 (or 3 children)... I don't know.
The European-Heritage Americans are slowly turning into a minority... Something needs to be done in order to reverse this trend, rather than bringing more immigrants from Mexico.
Then penalize 3rd world people for having kids or better yet, deport them.
The European-Heritage Americans are slowly turning into a minority... Something needs to be done in order to reverse this trend, rather than bringing more immigrants from Mexico.
If you give an incentive for people to have more kids, that incentive is going to apply to non-white people as well as white people. Your tax breaks or whatever else you devise to get people to have more kids might end up being taken advantage of by non-white people at a greater rate than white people.
Rather than trying to come up with some sort of incentive for people to have more kids - an incentive which probably will make little difference - you might want to instead imagine completely reconstructing society. A large-scale, worldwide, structural issue such as declining birth rates probably isn't going to be changeable by tinkering around with tax codes or some other detail.
Those who receive more services and perks from tax money should be paying HIGHER taxes. Those with kids use more government services, thus should be paying MORE than those who are not burdening the system with more dependent children.
But then again, if you are leftist/collectivist, that notion will not make any sense to you at all. In my vision of the perfect world, people who use the services/products pay for them, not everyone else. I.E, folks do not pay for services rendered to others (unless they want to). As for kids, if you can't afford them, do not have them.
Those who receive more services and perks from tax money should be paying HIGHER taxes. Those with kids use more government services, thus should be paying MORE than those who are not burdening the system with more dependent children.
Those who receive more services and perks from tax money should be paying HIGHER taxes. Those with kids use more government services, thus should be paying MORE than those who are not burdening the system with more dependent children.
Each one of us will hopefully burden the society when we get older. Who is paying that burden then? The younger generation, that's who.
Given that Western society is aging, don't you think it would be a great idea to collect higher tax rates on each childless person? And, say, have the "normal" rate once a person parents 2 children (so, no advantage for having too many children either).
There could be also an "adoption" route for those who is not capable to give birth.
I must be overlooking something obvious, but why should childless people be charged more when they use less taxpayer money in almost every way -- the most obvious example being that they pay for schools but have no children to use them? Also, as they are not responsible for bringing more people into this world, this means that they are less responsible for environmental harm.
Last edited by katharsis; 04-04-2022 at 09:00 PM..
Aging country is dying country, immigration does not cure that.
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.
