There should be a tax penalty for every family that has more than 2 kids

[Taverner]

Seriously

Yes, you might find this discriminatory, but every kid born taxes our resources that much more. If a parent wants to do the utterly selfish thing of having more kids than two - then they should pay.

Oh, and by the way, I am a Parent.

[county worker]

1. Hell NO!

We should not get into the business of telling people what their family makeup should be. If you have lots of kids it's going to cost you a lot.

I don't want to be like China!

It seems to me that many DUers are about as totalitarian as the right!

[John Q. Citizen]

4. Better dead than red, eh?

[county worker]

6. What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Why do so many DUers think they have the right to define someone else????????????? That's the same kind of shit the freepers pull!

[John Q. Citizen]

24. You said you didn't want to be like China, so I made the joke of

"Better dead than red" because if we continue to reproduce world-wide as we are now it won't be too many years until the whole system experiences a massive die off, kind of like the fruit flies in science class. So we will be dead becasue of our success at reproducing.

Get it?

Instead of being red, like China. get it?

[county worker]

I don't want to tell people to limit their kids to just two like China did.

Better dead then red was used in the 60's to define the anti communist crowd who wanted to increase the military budget and close the missile gap and such.

I didn't think it was funny then either.

[Taverner]

34. Honestly, China had a good idea

Just because China came up with it doesn't mean its automatically bad

We're taxing this planet too much

[Lorien]

45. China really had no other choice

at this point they have mostly exhausted their farmlands-now turning into desert-and they are now buying up rainforest in OTHER countries to turn into short term plantations before those, too, turn to dust. We're killing the lungs of our planet to support our ever exploding population.

[John Q. Citizen]

75. India, unlike China, is growing. China got a handle on thier situation.

[Taverner]

77. You know, its as if these folks never heard of Malthus

[NeedleCast]

100. OMG! I never heard of Malthus!

Amazing that I've never heard of a 17th century guy who wrote a few papers on population growth!

Have you ever heard of David Klotz?

[Baikonour]

349. Haha. That was awesome.

[Hello_Kitty]

106. Oh but its so meeeeeean to point that out.

People literally can't handle the truth. The planet will finish us off if we don't do something now.

[mitchum]

251. True...I also really like China's idea of executing white collar criminals

[John Q. Citizen]

354. It has to give them pause. We are going through a long slow criminal trial of

WR Grace executives here in Montana.

They killed and maimed hundreds of people minimum in Libby MT and all across the world and they knew their product was deadly.

I really hope they can nail them. We'll see.

[eridani]

110. The OP didn't say that. Just that the choice would have tax penalties n/t

[Scout]

168. we're not telling anyone how many they can or can't have.....

you can have none or as many as you please. We will tax you for the 3rd and any subsequent children though.

That is not telling one what they can or cannot do. It is telling them what the consequences of their actions will be.

[Pithlet]

226. Yeah, and guess who that hurts? The poor.

No one else would really be effected by it all that much. But the poor would be affected by this. But you don't care about that, do you? This is some fuzzy wuzzy cause that sounds all environmental and all, so you get to look good, and who cares if it hurts some poor people's C D's huh, all the better, right? You get to claim you're a progressive. Fuck the poor. But, who cares if that makes you sound like a freeper from hell? You sound like you care about the environent! The world's popoulation, blah blah blah! So pats on the back for you.

[treestar]

236. True, for the poor, the kids might be their retirement

The poor tend to have more children - it is instinct to have enough survive to adulthood.

[Pithlet]

247. I don't think that's the only reason the poor tend to have more children.

Or even the primary reason. At any rate, the OP's suggestion truly would hurt them the most, and the argument posed by others that maybe they just shouldn't have them is simplistic and doesn't solve the problem, just as the OP's punitive suggestion doesn't solve it.

[Scout]

311. maybe they wouldn't be poor if they didn't have too many children n/t

[Pithlet]

313. Yeah. That's it.

:eyes:

[treestar]

351. that just isn't the way it works

It seems to go against logic, but it is instinct. Why do the wealthiest first world nations have the lowest birth rate?

They don't need to worry about any child surviving adulthood, and they can even make it through old age without the children's help.

[cascadiance]

216. How about any one that wants more than two children HAS to adopt them!

if they don't want tax penalities...

That way, if they really feel they're able and want to raise more than two children, they aren't bringing more kids in the world, and helping take care of those that are here.

[treestar]

237. Not a bad idea

[robinlynne]

26. I think people should make their own choices BUT be responsible for them.

My friends with children all think I should be paying for them to go to private schools and all their health care, and if you could put food and clothing and recreation on that list, I would be paying for that too. I don't even have a dog right now because I can't afford one, so I say free birth control if you want it. if you want lots of children you need to work to earn the money to pay for their expenses! There is always the option of NOT increasing the population thereby helping the world's resources to be there for all people to enjoy.

[Stargazer09]

145. I don't expect my children to have a free ride

All of the school-aged ones attend public schools, and my older boys are taking out loans for their (state) college education.

I pay my taxes, including some of the highest property taxes in the nation. My ex-husband, my current husband, and I all work to support all of our children.

I don't want or need handouts, or charity, or whatever. I just want to raise my children to love their fellow human beings.

Even if our fellow human beings hate them for existing.

[Hello_Kitty]

189. "Even if our fellow human beings hate them for existing"

:nopity: :eyes:

You know who else hides behind her kids?

[Stargazer09]

342. You are comparing me to Sarah Palin?

Why?

I'm not hiding behind my kids. I support them all the way, despite people like you, who think they are nothing but oxygen thieves.

[robinlynne]

287. hate them for existing? whoa. far cry from what we're talking about here.

[Stargazer09]

343. No, not everyone feels that way

But certain posters sure act like I was selfish or stupid for having my children.

[robinlynne]

350. The Op is about higher taxes for people with large numbers of children, instead of more and

more tax deductions....

[Taverner]

7. China outright destroys your life if you have more than 1

I'm just saying a tax penalty, or a lesser deduction

That woman having 16 kids, and then expecting everyone to take care of her is what got the bug up my butt

[Donnachaidh]

13. well if you're going to be that drastic -- RAFFLE the 8 kids off

I'm sure Brangelina or Madonna could come up with the coin. :eyes:

[dgibby]

277. Psssssst! It's "14"!

[Hello_Kitty]

15. Oh jeez not this shit again

"ZOMG UR FOR FORCED STERILIZATIONZ!! U WANT US TO BE LIKE CHINA WHERE THEY DROWN THE GURL BAYBEEZ!!1! ELEVENTY!1!"

Shit like this is why we will never be able to have a rational discussion about population. Fuck it then, let the planet take care of our species. We're going down, one way or the other.

[county worker]

41. You can discuss all you want. I'm not in favor of trying to force society into a mold.

I think the number of births in this country has been going down.

You act like you have a lock on the truth or something so if it isn't your way we're all screwed or something.

[Hello_Kitty]

63. Without immigration factored in, we have a .6% pop. growth rate.

Which sounds very low but any positive growth means you are steadily adding to the population. The algorithm used to determine doubling is 70/x = n (where x is annual percentage of growth and n is years it will take to double). So at a .6% growth rate the U.S. population will double in 116 years. With the current rate of immigration factored in it will take 77 years. Which puts in better stead than the rest of the world, where the current growth rate of 2% means that the population will double in about 35 years. Then again, we're part of the Earth so we get to go down with everyone else.

[Terran]

73. We hit 300,000,000 a few years ago...

in case you didn't notice. Eventually we will need to do something to restrict births. A lot of countries are closer to that than we are. This is just being rational in the face of a problem no one wants to discuss.

On the other hand, the effects of global warming will probably do a decent job keeping population in check.

[roguevalley]

210. actually, until birth control is free and universally understood, no.

only the poor get penalized. Although I wouldn't mind the duggars getting ass whipped, the smug idiots.

[NutmegYankee]

235. Remember your comments when you watch those children starve to death.

Right before your eyes. We have got to do something about the population or we as a species will die.

[scheming daemons]

2. Faulty way to look at things

"every kid born taxes our resources that much more."

False.

Every kid born also increases our productivity with respect to the world when they become of age and join the work force.



Human beings, especially when they are productive members of society, are resources.


Most kids will grow up to be productive people. They are not drains on our nation's wealth, but producers of it.


Yes... a small percentage will be drains. But not the majority.

[Taverner]

5. Think about your environmental footprint

How many resources do you take, vs the ones you make?

[scheming daemons]

10. Our kids will be the ones innovating our way out of this mess

And most of them will produce far more than they use.

[Taverner]

25. We hope that happens. But it might not

Its like thinking "oh when we run out of oil we'll invent something else"

[scheming daemons]

43. You're being flippant, but it is true

When we run out of oil, we WILL use something else.


"Necessity is the mother of invention" is not just a phrase.


Homo Sapiens has been on this planet for roughly a couple hundred thousands years. It has shown an amazing ability to adapt to massive changes.

Yes.. there's always an adjustment period - and that period can be painful for a time. But humanity finds a way.



While I share your pessimism for the short term... in the long term, humanity will be just fine.

[Taverner]

59. Every study deer populations in the wild?

When there aren't enough resources, and a lack of natural predators, the deer have as many deer as possible, and then deer do what is called a die off. Basically they starve to death until the population reaches a rate the environment can sustain

But it doesn't stop there, the ones that did live are in ill health and run the risk of snuffing it right then and there.

[scheming daemons]

62. Deer have brains the size of walnuts... they can't adapt

Really.. you're being very silly comparing deer to humans.


yes.. they're both mammals... but the relationship ends there.



The Wooly Mammoth and Sabre-Toothed Tiger didn't adapt quickly enough to survive the last ice age. But Homo Sapiens did.


Our big brains and reversible thumbs DO come in handy, ya know.

[Taverner]

71. They do but not without a die off first

Lets just say we run out of oil this year

What next?

Do you realize how much oil we use. Take a walk and count how much of what you see around you is there because of oil.

That stop sign you just passed was forged with fires from fossil fuels, transported and shaped by machines running on fossil fuels, treated with petroleum based products, painted with petroleum based products, and then finally transported on a truck using petroleum into apshalt which uses tar from petroleum. That's just the stop sign.

Look, I'm not saying the die off is inevitable. We have some time, but we need to act now, and reducing population is a big chunk of the solution.

[scheming daemons]

82. It doesn't work that way

We don't run out of something "instantly".

It's a gradual decrease in supply.... with prices going up as the resource becomes more and more scarce.

During that time... via necessity... alternatives become more cost-effective and begin to be used.



Even the ice age wasn't instantaneous.... it took hundreds of years of gradual cooling. During this time, Homo Sapiens migrated and adapted.


There is no danger of a resource being exhausted instantaneously... it will just gradually become more scarce.


The "necessity" of finding another resource as that happens will lead to the "invention" of something new.


6 billion people with big brains and reversible thumbs will make something happen as it needs to happen.

[Taverner]

84. Dude - read about Malthus. You've got a Malthusian-shaped hole in your education

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe

[scheming daemons]

93. I've read Malthus extensively... he was wrong.

[Taverner]

99. Wrong because you said so? Wow I'll try that next time I get caught speeding.

"Officer, honestly I was only doing 55. Its true because I said so!"

[scheming daemons]

103. Wrong because the past 300 years have disproved most of his theories.

[Taverner]

108. Um, not really

See: China in the 1920's

Read "The Good Earth" or anything else by Pearl S. Buck

She wasn't making that shit up

[NeedleCast]

114. Uh, yeah, pretty much totally

See: United States, 2008.

How about we work with some current numbers instead of stuff from the 1920's and works from 17th century authors?

[scheming daemons]

117. Here. Feed your own education a little

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2021

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Malthus-Got-It-Wrong/34801/

http://people.uleth.ca/~kent.peacock/Why%20Malthus%20Was%20Wrong%202004.pdf

[Taverner]

174. Look his concept was correct, his numbers were wrong

But the idea that there is a die off - that's never been disproved

[jberryhill]

242. So, there is a die-off, what is your problem?

Sounds as if the issue resolves itself.

Eventually, the sun expands, engulfs the earth, contracts, and goes nova.

And yes, eventually, the universe itself ends.

[Hello_Kitty]

176. In the third paper, the author acknowledges that we need to curb the population

His basic problem with Malthus what that Malthus assumed population-induced catastrophe was inevitable.

[jberryhill]

244. And yet.... we have deer

How have deer managed to last so long with periodic population contractions?

You seem to be worried about a self-correcting issue here.

[eridani]

120. In a geological time frame, we've been around for a few milliseconds n/t

[jberryhill]

243. Correct - and will likely not last either...

The root conceit on both sides of this silly argument is the same.

[Lorien]

50. Bwahahahaha! You can't really believe that

our kids will live very short lives because of our choices right now. See post #20.

[scheming daemons]

56. Your short-sighted thinking notwithstanding....

This planet WILL run out of SOME resources by 2050...


....but other resources, ones we don't even use right now, will replace them.



The sun will be burning bright for another 3 billion years. There's an energy source we haven't even really BEGUN to tap.

[The2ndWheel]

61. Until we find a way to escape physical reality, we're not getting "out" of anything

"And most of them will produce far more than they use."

So they'll be even more wasteful?

[scheming daemons]

67. Um.... it means they'll be net "plusses"

The amount of wealth and resources they produce will be GREATER than the amount they consume.


That's the opposite of wasteful.

[The2ndWheel]

85. So they'll have a bunch of stuff lying around?

They will have consumed resources to make product X, and then not use it. Why create more than you consume? We produce more than we consume today. Will our children actually be able to use magic? What will be so special about them?

That's like saying they'll produce a tree, and then eat only one leaf. Although, it won't be a tree, since to really increase production, you would have to cut the tree down, make product X out of that resource, and then create another tree out of some other material that was mined and processed, which then would do the same job as a tree, just not for free.

[scheming daemons]

107. Nope... they'll create wealth...

and raise the standards of living for everyone.


XBOXes for all!

;-)

[eridani]

125. Define "wealth" n/t

[The2ndWheel]

133. And when we reach the point where everyone has everything they need and want

What then? Do they stop creating wealth? If everyone has what they need/want, what more could they want/need? Or will they all end up like Wall St. players? Not that anything could go wrong there. They are masters of the universe.

[scheming daemons]

135. You think there will EVER be a point where everyone has everything they want?

Not human nature to be satisfied.

[Hello_Kitty]

171. Um, whatever they "produce" comes from the raw materials of the Earth

We humans don't "produce" anything. We take.

[Hello_Kitty]

102. Why can't we find innovators among the people we have now?

I'm sorry but "potential" is not a sufficient justification to keep adding to the population. Everyone thinks their kid will be Einstein but, I hate to break it to you, but the overwhelming majority of children born today will not be brilliant inventors.

[ima_sinnic]

201. what are they going to "produce" with?

"production" is a big part of why we are in this mess.

"production" uses resources, lots and lots of resources. Those resources get turned into plastic junk that gets thrown in a landfill very quickly.

"more production" by more and more people is NOT going to help ANYTHING.

If people are so stupid and irresponsible that they won't voluntarily lower their reproduction to simply replacing themselves, one to one, then some kind of penalty should be paid by those greedy pigs who think THEIR DNA is so special that it deserves more than everybody else.

[county worker]

49. That thinking is sort of like the 3rd reich's thinking.

Are you supporting the father land or not. We're becoming a group of environmental fascists I think.

[Taverner]

60. No the 3rd Reich outlawed abortions, and PROMOTED babymaking

Just like Putin is doing now.

And just like STALIN did after WWII.

BTW, you know once you mention the NAZI's you lose the argument.

Q-E-D

[county worker]

89. No the thinking not the actions.

[Taverner]

104. You do know you automatically lose the argument once you call someone Hitler

Game - Set - Match

[county worker]

124. You know I didn't call anyone Hitler

Check mate!

[John Q. Citizen]

88. Speak for yourself.

[JerseygirlCT]

318. Well, from that point of view, maybe it's more economically

feasible to just quit providing health care to older people - let 'em die off - they're not really productive anymore anyway, and still take up all that footprint stuff.

(And yes, I'm being sarcastic).

[eridani]

119. If you can't feed them, they don't produce squat

Feeding people requires good soil, air and water. Oil can't be substituted for those things indefinitely.

[LisaM]

3. At the very least - a diminishing deduction

I don't have kids, but it seems to me that if you decreased the deduction past a certain number of chidren (I don't want to say dependents, because what if you've adopted, or are taking care of parents), that it would be a good thing.

[Lorien]

20. Sounds good to me. As it is, the planet will run out of resources by 2050

which means that every child born today is facing an extremely bleak and hellish future. Not really fair to anyone, is it?


Earth 'will expire by 2050'

Our planet is running out of room and resources. Modern man has plundered so much, a damning report claims this week, that outer space will have to be colonised

The end of earth as we know it? Talk about it here

Observer Worldview

* Mark Townsend and Jason Burke
* The Observer, Sunday 7 July 2002


Earth's population will be forced to colonise two planets within 50 years if natural resources continue to be exploited at the current rate, according to a report out this week.

A study by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), to be released on Tuesday, warns that the human race is plundering the planet at a pace that outstrips its capacity to support life.

In a damning condemnation of Western society's high consumption levels, it adds that the extra planets (the equivalent size of Earth) will be required by the year 2050 as existing resources are exhausted.

The report, based on scientific data from across the world, reveals that more than a third of the natural world has been destroyed by humans over the past three decades.

Using the image of the need for mankind to colonise space as a stark illustration of the problems facing Earth, the report warns that either consumption rates are dramatically and rapidly lowered or the planet will no longer be able to sustain its growing population.

Experts say that seas will become emptied of fish while forests - which absorb carbon dioxide emissions - are completely destroyed and freshwater supplies become scarce and polluted.

The report offers a vivid warning that either people curb their extravagant lifestyles or risk leaving the onus on scientists to locate another planet that can sustain human life. Since this is unlikely to happen, the only option is to cut consumption now.

Systematic overexploitation of the planet's oceans has meant the North Atlantic's cod stocks have collapsed from an estimated spawning stock of 264,000 tonnes in 1970 to under 60,000 in 1995.

The study will also reveal a sharp fall in the planet's ecosystems between 1970 and 2002 with the Earth's forest cover shrinking by about 12 per cent, the ocean's biodiversity by a third and freshwater ecosystems in the region of 55 per cent.

The Living Planet report uses an index to illustrate the shocking level of deterioration in the world's forests as well as marine and freshwater ecosystems. Using 1970 as a baseline year and giving it a value of 100, the index has dropped to a new low of around 65 in the space of a single generation.

It is not just humans who are at risk. Scientists, who examined data for 350 kinds of mammals, birds, reptiles and fish, also found the numbers of many species have more than halved.

Martin Jenkins, senior adviser for the World Conservation Monitoring Centre in Cambridge, which helped compile the report, said: 'It seems things are getting worse faster than possibly ever before. Never has one single species had such an overwhelming influence. We are entering uncharted territory.'

Figures from the centre reveal that black rhino numbers have fallen from 65,000 in 1970 to around 3,100 now. Numbers of African elephants have fallen from around 1.2 million in 1980 to just over half a million while the population of tigers has fallen by 95 per cent during the past century.

The UK's birdsong population has also seen a drastic fall with the corn bunting population declining by 92 per cent between 1970 and 2000, the tree sparrow by 90 per cent and the spotted flycatcher by 70 per cent.

Experts, however, say it is difficult to ascertain how many species have vanished for ever because a species has to disappear for 50 years before it can be declared extinct.

Attention is now focused on next month's Earth Summit in Johannesburg, the most important environmental negotiations for a decade.

However, the talks remain bedevilled with claims that no agreements will be reached and that US President George W. Bush will fail to attend.

Matthew Spencer, a spokesman for Greenpeace, said: 'There will have to be concessions from the richer nations to the poorer ones or there will be fireworks.'

The preparatory conference for the summit, held in Bali last month, was marred by disputes between developed nations and poorer states and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), despite efforts by British politicians to broker compromises on key issues.

America, which sent 300 delegates to the conference, is accused of blocking many of the key initiatives on energy use, biodiversity and corporate responsibility.

The WWF report shames the US for placing the greatest pressure on the environment. It found the average US resident consumes almost double the resources as that of a UK citizen and more than 24 times that of some Africans.

Based on factors such as a nation's consumption of grain, fish, wood and fresh water along with its emissions of carbon dioxide from industry and cars, the report provides an ecological 'footprint' for each country by showing how much land is required to support each resident.

America's consumption 'footprint' is 12.2 hectares per head of population compared to the UK's 6.29ha while Western Europe as a whole stands at 6.28ha. In Ethiopia the figure is 2ha, falling to just half a hectare for Burundi, the country that consumes least resources.

The report, which will be unveiled in Geneva, warns that the wasteful lifestyles of the rich nations are mainly responsible for the exploitation and depletion of natural wealth. Human consumption has doubled over the last 30 years and continues to accelerate by 1.5 per cent a year.

Now WWF wants world leaders to use its findings to agree on specific actions to curb the population's impact on the planet.

A spokesman for WWF UK, said: 'If all the people consumed natural resources at the same rate as the average US and UK citizen we would require at least two extra planets like Earth.'

The world's ticking timebomb

Marine crisis:
North Atlantic cod stocks have collapsed from an estimated 264,000 tonnes in 1970 to under 60,000 in 1995.

Pollution:
The United States places the greatest pressure on the environment, with its carbon dioxide emissions and over-consumption. It takes 12.2 hectares of land to support each American citizen and 6.29 for each Briton, while the figure for Burundi is just half a hectare.

Shrinking Forests:
Between 1970 and 2002 forest cover has dwindled by 12 per cent.

Endangered wildlife:
African elephant numbers have fallen from 1.2 million in 1980 to half a million now. In the UK the songbird population has fallen dramatically, with the corn bunting declining by 92 per cent in the past 30 year

[bluestateguy]

8. You are kidding right?

So a couple that plans on having one child, and then has triplets is just shit out of luck?

That policy would lead us down a very ugly road.

[Taverner]

12. Well there would have to be several exceptions

The Multiple exception - and of course a BIG exception in the case of adoption. Snowflake babies would not count as adoption.

[Hello_Kitty]

9. Hate to tell you this but in the stimulus they want to INCREASE the tax credit for more than 3

Seriously. It's in the House package.

[John Q. Citizen]

11. Population is the elephant in the living room. I'm not sure if taxes is the way to go, because

taxation should be based on ability to pay.

Often those with the largest families have the least ability to pay.


Got any other good ideas on how to control the suicidal reproduction of humans?

[Taverner]

14. Well, If I were king (and thankfully I'm not) - automatic sterilization after #2?

Seriously, that would be cruel

But you are right it is the 800 lb elephant in the room

As the population goes up, so does crime, unemployment and environmental damage

[John Q. Citizen]

68. It's not a matter of crime or unemployment; It's a matter of

natural boundaries to natural systems.

Look at the frigging ocean. Lot's of places with no fish. At some point population will cause a major crash unless some other mechanism comes into play to moderate population growth.

and now all the Chinese and the Indians want cars too, just like my kids.


It's a no brainier, really.

The least intrusive solution would be to limit successful fertilization of eggs. That would be a far longer range approach instead of just waiting for the collapse. It would also be so much more compassionate.

Yet it's probably politically impossible forever.

[Taverner]

79. Oh I totally agree

I just wanted to put in an immediate, tangible example

Since no one here (except you, I and Lorien) ever heard of Malthus

[jberryhill]

246. "At some point population will cause a major crash unless some other mechanism comes into play"

Why the need for "some other mechanism"?

The way you put it, there IS a mechanism.

What's wrong with the mechanism we have?

[recoveringrepublican]

48. Much cheaper birth control!!! I'm one of the guilty ones, I have 3

All were conceived on BCP. My first I honestly have no idea what happen, I was religious about taking them, with my second i was on the low horomones one because I was till breastfeeding my first, and with my 3rd I was on antibiotics and miscalculated my menses.

Now that's no excuse, but obviously I need something that works better. I got the mirena. BUT I had to come up with over $800 because this is one instance where my insurance will only reimburse me if they feel it necessary, so far no check. If you are making under $15/hr it would assume that $800 is a lot to come up with. I know it is for my family and we do pretty well wage wise.

I doubt many families wanted tons of kids and yes maybe they should have made better choices in regard to when they have sex, but I think many women and men would jump at the chance for cheaper access to better birth control and sterilization. It doeesn't have to be forced on people, I think many would be willing.

Ok, off to talk to hubby about a vasectomy. I love all 3 of my kids, but NO MORE PLEASE!

[LisaM]

69. Population is SO the 800 pound gorilla, or elephant, as you put it

We seriously need to address it. 60 years ago, a family with 3 or 4 kids would easily live in a 3-bedroom house. Now a family with 3 kids wants a 4 or 5 bedroom house. The carbon footprint of an uber-consuming family of 5 is way more than it used to be.

[lumberjack_jeff]

128. The population growth rate in this country is both low and not affecting our standard of living.

People aren't starving here because of overpopulation. Our GDP remains steady at $44,000 per capita.

If the real issue you're having is overconsumption, that is a different discussion. Childless singles jetting off to europe contribute far more than their fair share to *that* problem.

[Hello_Kitty]

200. Funny, when I visited Europe a couple years ago there were a lot of families on the plane

Guess we childless folk aren't the only jetsetters.

[lumberjack_jeff]

256. That one trip contributed more to CO2 emissions than my entire family did in a whole year.

Thanks for the global warming.

[Hello_Kitty]

259. Well your family contributed 4 or more times as much to landfills as I did. eom

[lumberjack_jeff]

263. If your production of gibberish is any reflection.

I doubt it.

[Hello_Kitty]

267. Awwww

Someone's getting testy! Is the cross giving you splinters?

:nopity:

[Hello_Kitty]

283. You know who REALLY makes a large CO2 footprint?

People who have kids and then send them to Europe every year!

[Pithlet]

202. That point is always ignored, it seems.

I suspect the reason is that these threads are really just an excuse to judge. I find that people who are genuinely concerned and really know a thing or two about the population problem know that punitive measures aren't the way to go about dealing with the issue, and know it really is much more nuanced as you suggest. I think these threads are more about judgment. It's all about judging people for the choices they make. It's not a choice they would make, it's not how they would live their life, so punish that person for doing something differently. Bonus points for making it look like a progressive, environmental issue so they can really feel smug and superior and get more pats on the back from the peanut gallery. But, it's really no different than the myriad other issues that pop up on DU, like smoking, being overweight, driving SUVs, or making some other unpopular choices. Judge, judge, judge. Punish, punish, punish. A popular pastime on the internet, it seems. And if you don't join in, or if heaven help you you're one of the people who engage in said lifestyle choice, you're one of the enemy, too.

[Hello_Kitty]

282. Do you even know what the population growth rate of the U.S is?

[lumberjack_jeff]

293. *Fertility* (the topic of this thread) is 2.1 births per woman.

At this rate our population will double in about 15 generations. Call it 300 years to be generous.

OMG A CRISIS! HAIR ON FIRE TIME! PUNISH THE MOMMIES AND DADDIES!

[Hello_Kitty]

294. Wrong.

It's .9%, 1/3 of which is from immigration. The formula (I used an incorrect one elsewhere on this thread) is 72/x = n to determine time it takes to double. 72/.9 = 80. At our current growth rate the population of the US will double by 2089. Remove immigration from the equation and it's 116 years.

I got that growth rate at http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/populationgrow.htm

[lumberjack_jeff]

299. See what I mean about gibberish?

Why are you talking about population increase (which is almost entirely due to immigration) in a discussion about fertility?

http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/natproj.html

[Hello_Kitty]

302. I'd hardly call 1/3 "almost entirely"

From your census link: Almost one-third of the current population growth is caused by net immigration. By 2000, the Nation's population is pro-jected to be 8 million larger than it would have been if there were no net immigration after July 1, 1992. By 2050, this difference would increase to 82 million. In fact, about 86 percent of the population growth during the year 2050 may be due to the effects of post-1992 net immigration.

That means 2/3 is from fertility. Damn dude, it's not that hard. Yes, they're saying that population growth in 2050 will be from the "effect" of immigration, but that factors in the fertility of the immigrants and their offspring.

[lumberjack_jeff]

307. Immigrants and the children they will have

are not relevant to the OP.

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/rb/RB_402LHRB.pdf

[Hello_Kitty]

308. Right, because when immigrants have children it's not fertility.

It's something else. Oh, and the kids they have...um...aren't really there.

:crazy:

[Pithlet]

312. Immigration is a population shift, though.

It's the same amount of people on the planet. They just live somewhere else. They haven't increased the amount of people on the planet by coming here. So, are you concerned about the planet? Or are you concerned about the population of our country? Which is it? Two different discussions, here. Plenty of immigration threads to take part in. If there isn't a current thread brewing, you could always start one.

[Hello_Kitty]

319. Yes, and if you factor out immigration the fertility rate is .6% today

Some of that is from immigrants having children here but let's assume that no more immigrants came here from this day forth: The population of the U.S. would double in 116 years at current fertility rates.

[Pithlet]

324. Well, I'd assume they'd have children in their home country, too.

So, again. Immigration isn't "Oh, mother earth! We must save you!" now, is it? You claim your wailing and gnashing of teeth over people having babies is due simply to your concern for the planet (although the fact you thought "crotch droppings" was hilarious is oh so telling, but whatever). If that's so, then immigration shouldn't have one whit to do with your concern, now, should it? Since it's all about the planet, right? But, yeah, that fertility rate. Do you know what we also have a much higher incidence of in our country as compared to other industrialized countries, and factors into that rate considerably? Unintended pregnancies. I wonder why that would be? Don't you? See, maybe instead of wasting time worrying about whether people should be making the same life choices we affluent types who jet off to Europe and "worry about the planet" make, and thinking about punitive steps we should be taking to teach them a lesson and try to get them to live more like us, we could actually do things that might actually make a difference.

Because it would be just as easy for someone who's never been to Europe or even taken a trip outside of the US, to point the finger at you and say "Why didn't you think of our precious mother earth before taking such a wasteful trip! You should live more simply like I do. I would never think of doing such a wasteful thing. Mother Earth will think of ways of punishing us! Shame on you." And you'd probably write them off as a judgmental. But what you're doing is no different when you wag your finger at someone who's had more kids than you personally judge right. A family of 5 who lives simply and never travels could have less impact on this Earth than a single person who does things like jets off to Europe. That is a fact. Regardless of what the populations are in the future, if we all started living more simply and consumed less, we'd all be better for it. That is a fact. So, there are choices you've made that others could just as easily judge you for. And there's no point to any of it.

We all need to collectively work together to do the best we can and work toward solutions. NOT judge and punish.

[Hello_Kitty]

326. Y'all made it about immigration, not me

You and your friend lumberjack are touting this false notion that we have "low" birthrates here in the US, when in fact, those birthrates will still grow our population.

You claim your wailing and gnashing of teeth over people having babies is due simply to your concern for the planet (although the fact you thought "crotch droppings" was hilarious is oh so telling, but whatever).

Speaking of wailing and gnashing of teeth, there's that martyr-complex of yours and lumberjack's showing again. I'm so sorry, I'll never again laugh when someone calls Teh Precious Little Miracles From Jesus "crotch droppings". :nopity:

Regardless of what the populations are in the future, if we all started living more simply and consumed less, we'd all be better for it. That is a fact. So, there are choices you've made that others could just as easily judge you for. And there's no point to any of it.

Yes, but dicussions about use of resources, and incentives to curb people's behavior WRT that, ARE acceptable while discussions about population are verboten. The OP suggested a possible, non-coercive solution and people are hyperventilating about it. We're going to breed ourselves into extinction because it's "meeeeeean" to suggest people should be having a lot fewer children.

[Pithlet]

327. You are too much.

What martyr complex are you even talking about? You seem to be the only one who sees it. If pointing out a disgusting sense of humor and noting how that points to an obvious bias means martyr complex, then you have an odd definition of the word.

It isn't mean to point out that there is indeed a population issue that we need to address. No. It isn't even mean to do what the OP did. I think the suggestion is ludicrous, because it isn't even remotely progressive. But, there is a difference between raising awareness and proposing solutions, and being an ass about it.

For instance. I'll see if I can more emulate your way of doing things, only I'll use the issue of use of resources. Ahem:

Affluent spoiled types who think the world is their plaything really piss me off. Who do they think they are? Do they think oil is just always going to be there, and never run out? Do they think the emissions just disappear? Do they not give a shit about the planet? No. Having to jet off to Europe matters more to them then the fucking planet. Spoiled fucking yuppies. I think we need to tax them more heavily. That will teach them. They should just stay home. Haven't they ever hear of the library? What, just because they went to Europe doesn't mean they're rich? Huh. They could afford to go to Europe? They're rich. Tax the hell out of them until they can't afford stuff like that anymore. The fewer people jetting around the planet, the better. And they don't care about the planet, like I do. I don't fly around the world. I stay home and read a book about Europe. Because I care about the impact I have on the planet. Stupid, entitled brats who were raised to think the world just revolves around them. Never think about anyone but themselves. They'll be sorry when the Earth makes us all pay! Mommy must have always given them an award no matter what place they came in.

Yes. All this time, the solution has just been to be an ass and shame people into change, and tax and punish them into doing the right thing. Yeah. Do you see how ridiculous that is? No. You probably don't. And you'll continue to go around guffawing about breeders, loathing them, and thinking you're so superior. It's everyone else who has a martyr complex. It isn't you who could possibly have the issue. Of course not.

[Hello_Kitty]

330. Hon, you're a little late for that

I got laid off a year ago and my unemployment and savings are about to run out. Can't tax any blood out of this turnip.

As for taxing people who cause a lot of pollution, why not? Carbon taxes are a great idea. Add them to plane fares.

[Pithlet]

331. You're not getting it. I'm not being serious!

I wouldn't berate and insult people who fly in planes. I wouldn't judge them and think myself superior. Even if I would suggest such a tax, which, in fact, I wouldn't necessarily be against. You really are missing the point, aren't you? Of course not everyone who's ever flown in a plane overseas is a spoiled, affluent selfish person. Just as not everyone who's had multiple kids is a selfish, stupid breeder. Get it?

[Hello_Kitty]

334. Oh but I am being serious right now.

Tax plane fares to reflect the pollution they cause.

[lumberjack_jeff]

315. If you want to limit population growth, punishing US parents does nothing useful.

The topic of this thread is tax treatment given to Americans and its effect on overpopulation. We have essentially replacement fertility rate. This observation alone makes your argument specious. The current tax treatment yields a replacement rate of mostly adequately socialized young adults.

If you want to limit population growth, you're meowing up the wrong tree. You need to look at immigration policy.

[Hello_Kitty]

320. Seriously, and with all due respect

The problem with talking about "2.1 children per woman" and "replacement levels" as you have been is that it ignores population momentum. We are not salmon that die after spawning. If a couple has 2 children that means there are now 4 people. If their 2 children each have 2 children and no one dies, that means there are 8. Even so-called 0 population growth means that the actual numbers of people on Earth would continue to increase until about 2050 when we'd reach 9 billion or so, unless there is a sharp increase in mortality for some reason. If mortality improves (fewer people die) we will continue to see population growth beyond 2050.

[lumberjack_jeff]

322. You can't have it both ways.

Either population growth is the source of imminent cataclysm, or population will continue to grow in the face of declining birth rates because people live much longer lives.

In the last 30 years, life expectancy in the US has only gone up about 5%. I see no reason to believe that lifespans will take a big jump any time soon.

Speaking of momentum, in the same timeframe fertility rates among the US-born have dropped, and there are no obvious reasons that that trend won't continue.

[Hello_Kitty]

333. You're absolutely right. I can't have it both ways.

Either population growth is the source of imminent cataclysm, or population will continue to grow in the face of declining birth rates because people live much longer lives.

Yep. We don't know what our fate will be.

Of course, there's also the option of dropping the birthrate dramatically now but that's unlikely, given how incendiary the subject is.

[Pithlet]

314. She's trying to use immigration of all things to pad the numbers!

And she won't believe me when I say I'm genuinely amused.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

16. I can't tell if I should be punished

My wife and I have 3 kids: one each from a previous marriage, and the third from our marriage. So we're clearly over the limit. But, if you consider that the 3 kids came from a total of 4 adults (me, my wife, ex1, and ex2), that works out to be 3/4 of a child per adult. So, since my wife and I file married/joint, I think we're responsible for only 1.5 of the 3 children. Anyway, I'm wondering if I'll get hit with the tax penalty. Brilliant idea, by the way; this should bring about the advent of lots of online child-splitting calculators.

[Taverner]

21. Hmmmm idea

If a couple chooses not to have kids, they can "sell" their tax deduction to a couple that wants more

There's my stimulus package!

[FiveGoodMen]

32. How about a simple compromise: no penalty, no deductions -- for any kids.

Parents can have the kids they can afford, but they can't expect anyone else to support their habit.

[Critters2]

72. This seems fair to me. Having kids is a choice, not a necessity.

If you can afford that choice, go crazy. If not, don't expect me to support your habit.

[orleans]

186. or deductions for one or two kids and that's all. ?? (possibly to "encourage"

a limitation on population growth)

[Bill McBlueState]

190. there has to be some deduction

At the least, a kid needs to be considered the same as any other non-working dependent.

On the other hand, tax *credits* can be up for debate.

[Withywindle]

340. Awesome, I'll put mine on eBay!

And throw in some slightly-past-their-sell-by-date eggs and one uterus, never used but still painful and cranky, to sweeten the deal.

I'm glad people are still breeding, because that means I don't have to, but DAMN do they have to be so self-righteous about it? We're not California condors. As a species, we are not rare, endangered, or valuable. We have no obligation to reproduce, to bend over backwards to coddle reproduction, or to treat the biological drive to do so as if it's some kind of sacred calling.

[The2ndWheel]

17. But more people are required for the system to grow

And the more people there are, the greater the pressure to increase efficiency, since more people will have more access to resources, which is the fair thing to do. Which is why increasing efficiency always leads to an increase in total consumption. Consumption is what drives our economy. If we don't have more people consuming more...well, what have the last few months looked like?

Any organization that plans on sticking around a while, and at the same time decreasing the burdens of society on each person, requires more people.

[Lorien]

28. Consumption will be the end of our species

no ifs, ands, or buts about it. We MUST find ways of living that are not based on consumerism. I'll post it again:

Earth 'will expire by 2050'

Our planet is running out of room and resources. Modern man has plundered so much, a damning report claims this week, that outer space will have to be colonised

The end of earth as we know it? Talk about it here

Observer Worldview

* Mark Townsend and Jason Burke
* The Observer, Sunday 7 July 2002

Earth's population will be forced to colonise two planets within 50 years if natural resources continue to be exploited at the current rate, according to a report out this week.

A study by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), to be released on Tuesday, warns that the human race is plundering the planet at a pace that outstrips its capacity to support life.

In a damning condemnation of Western society's high consumption levels, it adds that the extra planets (the equivalent size of Earth) will be required by the year 2050 as existing resources are exhausted.

The report, based on scientific data from across the world, reveals that more than a third of the natural world has been destroyed by humans over the past three decades.

Using the image of the need for mankind to colonise space as a stark illustration of the problems facing Earth, the report warns that either consumption rates are dramatically and rapidly lowered or the planet will no longer be able to sustain its growing population.

Experts say that seas will become emptied of fish while forests - which absorb carbon dioxide emissions - are completely destroyed and freshwater supplies become scarce and polluted.

The report offers a vivid warning that either people curb their extravagant lifestyles or risk leaving the onus on scientists to locate another planet that can sustain human life. Since this is unlikely to happen, the only option is to cut consumption now.

Systematic overexploitation of the planet's oceans has meant the North Atlantic's cod stocks have collapsed from an estimated spawning stock of 264,000 tonnes in 1970 to under 60,000 in 1995.

The study will also reveal a sharp fall in the planet's ecosystems between 1970 and 2002 with the Earth's forest cover shrinking by about 12 per cent, the ocean's biodiversity by a third and freshwater ecosystems in the region of 55 per cent.

The Living Planet report uses an index to illustrate the shocking level of deterioration in the world's forests as well as marine and freshwater ecosystems. Using 1970 as a baseline year and giving it a value of 100, the index has dropped to a new low of around 65 in the space of a single generation.

It is not just humans who are at risk. Scientists, who examined data for 350 kinds of mammals, birds, reptiles and fish, also found the numbers of many species have more than halved.

Martin Jenkins, senior adviser for the World Conservation Monitoring Centre in Cambridge, which helped compile the report, said: 'It seems things are getting worse faster than possibly ever before. Never has one single species had such an overwhelming influence. We are entering uncharted territory.'

Figures from the centre reveal that black rhino numbers have fallen from 65,000 in 1970 to around 3,100 now. Numbers of African elephants have fallen from around 1.2 million in 1980 to just over half a million while the population of tigers has fallen by 95 per cent during the past century.

The UK's birdsong population has also seen a drastic fall with the corn bunting population declining by 92 per cent between 1970 and 2000, the tree sparrow by 90 per cent and the spotted flycatcher by 70 per cent.

Experts, however, say it is difficult to ascertain how many species have vanished for ever because a species has to disappear for 50 years before it can be declared extinct.

Attention is now focused on next month's Earth Summit in Johannesburg, the most important environmental negotiations for a decade.

However, the talks remain bedevilled with claims that no agreements will be reached and that US President George W. Bush will fail to attend.

Matthew Spencer, a spokesman for Greenpeace, said: 'There will have to be concessions from the richer nations to the poorer ones or there will be fireworks.'

The preparatory conference for the summit, held in Bali last month, was marred by disputes between developed nations and poorer states and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), despite efforts by British politicians to broker compromises on key issues.

America, which sent 300 delegates to the conference, is accused of blocking many of the key initiatives on energy use, biodiversity and corporate responsibility.

The WWF report shames the US for placing the greatest pressure on the environment. It found the average US resident consumes almost double the resources as that of a UK citizen and more than 24 times that of some Africans.

Based on factors such as a nation's consumption of grain, fish, wood and fresh water along with its emissions of carbon dioxide from industry and cars, the report provides an ecological 'footprint' for each country by showing how much land is required to support each resident.

America's consumption 'footprint' is 12.2 hectares per head of population compared to the UK's 6.29ha while Western Europe as a whole stands at 6.28ha. In Ethiopia the figure is 2ha, falling to just half a hectare for Burundi, the country that consumes least resources.

The report, which will be unveiled in Geneva, warns that the wasteful lifestyles of the rich nations are mainly responsible for the exploitation and depletion of natural wealth. Human consumption has doubled over the last 30 years and continues to accelerate by 1.5 per cent a year.

Now WWF wants world leaders to use its findings to agree on specific actions to curb the population's impact on the planet.

A spokesman for WWF UK, said: 'If all the people consumed natural resources at the same rate as the average US and UK citizen we would require at least two extra planets like Earth.'

The world's ticking timebomb

Marine crisis:
North Atlantic cod stocks have collapsed from an estimated 264,000 tonnes in 1970 to under 60,000 in 1995.

Pollution:
The United States places the greatest pressure on the environment, with its carbon dioxide emissions and over-consumption. It takes 12.2 hectares of land to support each American citizen and 6.29 for each Briton, while the figure for Burundi is just half a hectare.

Shrinking Forests:
Between 1970 and 2002 forest cover has dwindled by 12 per cent.

Endangered wildlife:
African elephant numbers have fallen from 1.2 million in 1980 to half a million now. In the UK the songbird population has fallen dramatically, with the corn bunting declining by 92 per cent in the past 30 year

[The2ndWheel]

47. Obviously

But it won't be easy stopping thousands of years of complexity, momentum, and history.

[sinkingfeeling]

Yep, that's the irony of the free market capitalism model... must always have an expanding market.

[The2ndWheel]

126. I don't think it's just capitalism, of any kind

[ejpoeta]

18. that is just ridiculous.

you can't determine where you draw the line on 'selfish' for having kids. why not tax more than one kid. that's selfish!! it's ludicrous. some people have multiple children because they don't believe in birth control. sometimes people who intend to have one or two end up with another one sneaking in there. it's not practical to tax people for the number of kids they have and it's not american either. as much as I think there are cases where people should be cutting it out (Duggars) I also recognize that they have that right.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

19. I would rather 100,000 fat cat millionaires give up their wealth

America is too top heavy with greedy people.

[cobalt1999]

22. Anything to reduce the human population

Either we do it voluntarily or it'll happen to us involuntarily.

Warning: No one wants to talk about it though.

[Taverner]

30. Yep

If we don't reduce the population now, the Die-off will

Sometime around 2050 I believe

[cobalt1999]

53. Ocean fish stocks will collapse in the next 50 years at current fishing rates.

Once that happens, it's going to get very ugly.

[Taverner]

66. Yep - and the toll on the environment from the beef industry is a danger too

Keep in mind I'm a hypocrite here, I love a good burger and steak

But the less people, the more sustainable our practices are.

For me, 8 billion is already too much

You guys don't see it, but in many countries people are STARVING because of overpopulation

China knew it wasn't going to solve any of its problems until it solved that one first

[Lorien]

35. Isn't that the truth. It's one of the last taboos, yet the reality that

overpopulation will destroy our species (and most others) is unavoidable. This is set to happen within the next forty years, but like the economic meltdown, no one will even whisper of doing anything about it (like encouraging people to have smaller families) until it's much too late.

[SergeyDovlatov]

188. Where on the earth do you get the information that we are facing overpopulation?

UN puts population peak at 9.22 billion at 2075 and going down slightly after that reaching 8.97 in 2300.

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

A lot of developed and somewhat developed countries have demographic issues of low birthrate and shrinking population.

[lumberjack_jeff]

91. Starvation: a progressive value.

A new progressive paradigm! Congratulations!

[cobalt1999]

101. Sticking your head in the sand is a neocon value though.

Whether it's Global Warming, pollution, or over-population.

[lumberjack_jeff]

118. Americans make $44,000 per capita.

But admittedly, a policy of infanticide might bring that up to $45,000.

I think I'll buy a tv with mine.

[cobalt1999]

138. This isn't about American over-population.

Just like Global Warming isn't an American only problem.

Do you have any comprehension of how unsustainable feeding 8 billion people is?
Do you have any knowledge of how we are supplying food for the world today?
Do you realize how that model is nearing collapse?

Jeez, go educate yourself a little before talking how much US dollars a person makes here in this one country.

This is a GLOBAL discussion. :eyes:

[spoony]

172. Um, the OP is ostensibly about American population

Unless they're talking about a global tax, which there is no reason to presume they were.

[lumberjack_jeff]

269. So the topic of the OP was tax breaks for... who? Somalis? Pakistanis?

If you think that overpopulation in central africa is a problem, then attacking tax breaks for US families is an odd venue.

So what is your GLOBAL tax bill?

[SergeyDovlatov]

165. Where did you get the idea that world population will explode?

UN puts population peak at 9.22 billion at 2075 and going down slightly after that reaching 8.97 in 2300.

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

A lot of developed and somewhat developed countries have demographic issues of low birthrate and shrinking population.

Where on the earth do you get the information that we are facing overpopulation?

[spoony]

170. Then why should we oppose war?

Anything that eliminates some surplus, right? And why bother trying to cure anything, clearly nature is saying the sick should die off...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

23. This OP Just Inspired A Different Idea: How Bout We Tax Stupidity Even More?

:hi:

[scheming daemons]

44. How would members of the Republican party feed themselves?

[NeedleCast]

98. I'm not sure I see the problem?

[jmg257]

27. So who's gonna pay our social security? Who's gonna pay the deficit?

Most kids will grow up and pay taxes, just like you. God knows we will need them to, too.

If you are worried about their "footprint" or some such crap, then pass a consumption tax.

On the other hand, some ass having a litter of kids she KNOWS SHE CAN'T AFFORD really is plain selfish, and SHE should be the one to pay for them.

[Squatch]

29. You know who else imposed a tax on people for having kids, right?

[Taverner]

31. Yes and it worked

Just because China came up with the idea doesn't make it automatically a bad one

They came up with Paper too ya know

[Bill McBlueState]

33. Right now, there's a $1000 per child federal tax credit

What you're trying to point out, and what a number of people are missing, is that there's nothing crazy or drastic about tweaking that a little.

Maybe kids 3 through 6 result in only a $500 per child credit, and kids 7+ result in no credit. Or maybe it goes slightly negative above some level.

[Taverner]

37. Your solution seems to be the sanest n/t

[seabeyond]

36. get off the damn dictating life choices. you want to dictate this life choice?

i get to dictate mine own.... and each person. then none of us makes any choics of any kind. just a long ass list of exactly the choices we all consistently make, which in essense e,iminates choice by definition and we just live as told

this is just stupid and fuckin tired of it

[Taverner]

39. So you find it perfectly OK to rape and destroy this planet

...just so the Duggars can please their invisible friend?

[seabeyond]

46. snip every male, tie every female. and that is the world you chose to live in? n/t

[Taverner]

54. Nope - I just think after the 2nd kid you shouldn't be able to claim any more deductions

[seabeyond]

97. take away the deductions, i dont give a shit. so it will hurt those strugglin, what the hell

we are only dems that tend to look out for those less able, but fuck it. it is all about ones own self interest so if you have no kids, go after those with kids, that are hurting.

big thumbs up

[Scout]

173. maybe if they would think before reproducing, they wouldn't have to struggle, eh? n/t

[seabeyond]

180. i couldnt agree with you more scout. a lot of them also lack desire to parent. pisses

me off a whole hell of a lot more the inability or desire to be parent to these children than a mere deduction, but wtf, money is irrelevent at this point.

do you understand what group you are going after with this scorn? the economic class youa re attacking here? the least, the very least the people on this rant would be honest enough to say this is a direct slap at our lower class, poor and undereducated.

but no one has the balls to call it what it is.

[jdlh8894]

80. This Planet

Has survived for millions of years without our help. Maybe it will last another million?

[Taverner]

87. Oh its not going away - WE ARE

[NeedleCast]

96. Apparently you do

Selfish parent...

[Bill McBlueState]

179. Tax policy is routinely altered

to encourage some life choices and discourage others. It's not "dictating"; it's providing incentives.

[seabeyond]

184. it absolutely is and we have become a nation of it, a party of it and a board of it

that is who we are as a people.

not working very well. really fuckin a whole lot of shit up. but then why fuckin address it and deal with it when we can just continue pushing our ideals in everyones face.

[Bill McBlueState]

194. are you in favor of eliminating the per-child tax credit?

Because a credit of $1000 per child is itself a statement about the value of having children.

[EndersDame]

225. /would you be comfortable with a tax on big time polluters

More than two kids is a serious drain on resources. You do realize that land (land to grow food for livestock and veggies and to raise them and land for people and land for waste)Gas and other resources are finite and that is not even mentioning the amount of pollution put out by people.Perhaps in conjunction with free contraceptives and better sex ed. No I don't think forced abortions are the answer but there has to be some way to discourage unrestricted population growth until we discover a way to get us out into space is in order

[Ilsa]

38. Anything punitive or just eliminating the extra child credits will have to be

grandfathered in. I'm in favor of gradually reducing the number of child credits you can receive for numbers of kids in excess of three or four, not including adopted kids.

[Taverner]

42. Oh definitely

It would not only be unfair, but would qualify as Ex Post Facto, and thus unconstitutional

[kestrel91316]

40. We don't even need a penalty. Just give tax deductions for only the first

two kids, and no deductions/credits/subsidies for any more than that. That's not penalizing, it's just NOT giving special financial privileges.

As a single woman with the good sense not to have children she can't afford, I get tired of underwriting the cost of raising other people's kids.

We need ZPG at the very least. This unending population growth is NOT going to end well.

[Catherine Vincent]

51. There should be no tax penalty whatsoever for having kids.

But how about a bonus award for those that don't have kids? :)

[gollygee]

52. I don't know about that

I'm not a fan of telling people how many kids they should have. (I'm a parent too - just had #2 a week ago. And there will not be any more, for a huge number of reasons.)

How about a tax incentive when people are surgically sterilized? Like the year you get sterilized, you receive some kind of credit.

And just plain easier access to birth control. I used to work someplace where the insurance didn't cover birth control. I wonder how many people are in situations like that. National health care with easily accessible birth control options.

[Taverner]

57. Hmmmm I kinda like that - the Vasectomy Prize

"Hey Bill, did ya get your V-Check yet?"

[GinaMaria]

55. seems like tax breaks/deductions are to incent certain behaviors

home buying, having children and others. It may be a matter of adjusting the tax code to make having children or buying a home for that matter neutral instead of positively reinforced. That's about as far as I'm willing to go with it. Having children is a choice, but I'm not sure it's a choice we need to reward, but maybe it is :shrug: I'm open to hearing all sides.

Maybe the discussion should be about identifying which behaviors will benefit us most as a society right now and in our future and looking for ways to incent these. Do we benefit if more people are homeowners or more people are parents or if people have large families? Would we benefit from more education? Would that be something better to incent? Would we be a stronger society if people had more savings? Would it be worth it to incent that?

I think there's a discussion here that could get lost because the primary response is about freedom or the perception of limiting freedom. This has the potential to turn into a flame war. But taking a step back and assessing what we really need to move forward and advance ourselves as a society and culture and asking if we are incenting the right things may be more productive.

Please share your thoughts.

[DevonRex]

58. Better idea: Democrats need to procreate more. Republicans should be limited to one or less.

We could turn this nation around in a generation. :)

[dysfunctional press]

65. how so?

children aren't always the same political stripe as their parents.

besides- there are already WAY more dems than repugs- it's just that not enough of them go to the polls.

[DevonRex]

83. I was mostly just joking around, you know. Although in my family of 5 kids

I'm the only one who changed party. The rest are RW wackos.

[NeedleCast]

64. Hurray Authoritarianism!

As a SINK, I think it's utterly selfish for you to have ANY kids.

Why is having one or two kids okay, but having more than two utterly selfish?

[Taverner]

76. ZPG - Zero Population Growth

You are merely replacing yourselves.

After that, you are adding to the population

[NeedleCast]

90. Why not NPG?

Glad you authoritarians got it all figured out. Two kids each. Ja Vohl!

Seriously, this shit belongs in Free Republic...and I never say that. Suggesting that anyone who has more kids than you be punished for it...I can't even wrap my brain around how moronic it is to suggest that.

Still, if you're planning on sticking to this plan, I'm planning on sticking to mine. Place additional tax burden on ANYONE who has children. My tax dollars are already helping pay for your rug-rats to go to school, I might as well see something out of this bizzaro world plan.

[WolverineDG]

70. How do you like your fascism?

How much further do you want the government to intrude into your personal life? :eyes:

dg

[Taverner]

74. Reducing tax breaks for more than 3 kids is not fascism

Unless you're Rik off the Young Ones, in which case that nail you stepped on getting to bed last night was a result of nasty fascists

[WolverineDG]

215. You want a tax PENALTY

you didn't say "reducing tax breaks." In your OP, said you wanted to penalize people for having larger families than you find appropriate. And that reeks of government intrusion into very private matters.

dg

[Sanctified]

78. Ummmm, wtf are you serious? How about we just tax everyone 55 or older they use more resources. n/t

[Taverner]

81. So you are content to let our population spiral out of control?

Just so you can have one more kid?

Seriously - have you even heard of Malthus?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthus

[NeedleCast]

94. Hell yeah!

And most of them aren't giving back much anymore, especially after they retire!

This is a great plan.

(until I turn 55).


Do I need the sarcasm smiley?

[lumberjack_jeff]

86. A parent of two kids, no doubt.

People are such assholes.

Where did we get the idea that taxes are entirely for the purpose of rewarding the virtuous and punishing the icky?

I'm thinking that the third child wants to eat too, but I guess I'm old fashioned that way.

[Critters2]

92. It's the responibility of the parents to see that the 3rd kid eats.

My cats like to eat, too. When will you be sending me a check to help with that?

[lumberjack_jeff]

109. I know. Welfare queens piss me off too.

:eyes:

[Critters2]

123. So, I SHOULD pay for that 3rd kid?

Can I raise him/her, too? Cuz I'm unable to have kids, but would've liked to. If I'm gonna pay for 'em, I'd like to actually be their parent. That seems fair.

[lumberjack_jeff]

129. Yes, actually. It's part of being a society.

If for no other reason that a starving street urchin will take your stuff.

[Hello_Kitty]

116. It's our responsibility to subsidize breeding dontchaknow.

And it's entirely unreasonable to expect people to give consideration to the number of children they have, their ability to care for them properly, or their effect on the planet. Yep, just have as many as you want and keep sticking your hand out for more tax breaks and benefits. At the same time whine constantly about how underfunded the schools are and how other people need to have their taxes raised to pay for them. But not yours because raising kids is soooo expensive dontchaknow.

[lumberjack_jeff]

131. Let's pick on fat people. It's funner, because they're here to try to defend themselves.

Kids? Not very sporting.

[Hello_Kitty]

146. Oh please

Get off the cross, dude. Other people need the wood.

[Scout]

175. no one is picking on kids

we are commenting on what should be done about the selfish adults

fucking duh

but hyperbole and exaggeration are so much more fun, so sporting!

[Hello_Kitty]

183. It's kinda like Munchausen's By Proxy

Except instead of physically hurting the kid to get attention they just claim anything you say to them hurts their kid.

[lumberjack_jeff]

255. In my experience, most kids eat food that has been purchased with money.

Maybe it doesn't work that way in your world.

[Pithlet]

260. Maybe that explains the warped views.

It's some alternative universe where poor children actually live a middle class lifestyle, and aren't effected by the economic status of their parents. So, it's perfectly okay to implement these policies that Repubs would drool over. :crazy:

[lumberjack_jeff]

265. The idea that you can punish the parents without harming the kids is a fairly Reaganesque view.

:hi:

[Hello_Kitty]

261. Oh good grief!

No really, other people need the wood. :nopity:

BTW, the tax policy doesn't have to be applied to existing families, just future ones. And make contraception and abortion free so people have no excuse.

[lumberjack_jeff]

266. Sooo... future kids aren't kids?

I'm fine with making contraception free, I'm not fine with increasing taxes on families because the parents pissed you off.

[Hello_Kitty]

270. They're not kids.

They're not here yet, hence, "future".

[Pithlet]

274. This just gets more entertaining by the post.

:rofl:

[Hello_Kitty]

276. Oh I'm totally fucking with lumberjack jeff at this point

It's rather fun. Quite the martyr-complex on that one.

[Pithlet]

280. Oh, I think I know who's fucking with whom. n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

281. I think it's obvious who is getting upset and who isn't.

Sorry, I didn't realize he was your pal. :shrug:

[Pithlet]

286. I don't know about anyone else. But I'm amused

by your self righteous flailing about in this thread, and your projection of it onto others.

Tell me. Did you berate your own mother for her choice to have you? Do you self flagellate for your own existence on this planet and the resources you yourself take up? Are you at this very moment feeling remorseful for the very resources you're using right now mashing away at that keyboard? I have to wonder. Somehow, I doubt it. I doubt you've paused to consider that every single individual you disdainfully wrinkle your nose at for their very gall for taking up the planet you yourself also exist is just an individual trying to make their way in the world, and are no more or less responsible for the general world's ills than you yourself are. You're righteous in your cause, and they should have to pay because their choices are different than yours, and that's that. Poor people are hurt? Who cares. Planet Earth! Hooah!

See, I don't have a problem with people who are concerned with our planet. People who actually know a thing or two about how to go about fixing it, really want to do something about it and actually propose solutions that might actually work. You? I find laughable. I am genuinely amused.

[Hello_Kitty]

288. Amused? Really?

Because that was quite the self-righteous diatribe you just typed. I see ol' lumberjack got off the cross so you could get on it.

[Pithlet]

303. Yes, really.

You might actually be surprised to know that some people might not take you all that seriously. That wasn't a diatribe, although being on the receiving end I can see how it would seem that way to you. Really. Your whole "Poor Mother Earth! All these other people beside me taking it up is just so icky and it's hurting it! Punish! Punish!" routine is genuinely amusing to me.

[lumberjack_jeff]

289. Oh, the OP upsets me.

But you?

Let's just say that I'm finding the topic more fun than I had anticipated.

[Hello_Kitty]

292. Sure you are. eom

[Pithlet]

208. Edited

Post was deleted

[lumberjack_jeff]

253. Oh. I misunderstood.

I thought your plan was to take money away from the parents of those kids.

Since you've got a plan for doing it in a way that doesn't harm the kids, I stand corrected.

:eyes:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

95. Would you support cutting off government assistance to families of more than 2 kids?

[Taverner]

105. Not at all - at that point the kids already exist and we HAVE to take care of them

Seriously!

I am anti-fetus/pro-child

[lumberjack_jeff]

111. You get tax breaks for being pregnant? n/t

[Dappleganger]

112. So why is two the perfect number?

Because you're so perfect and that's what YOU have decided for yourself?

Fuck off.

BTW, I'm a parent too and don't give a damn how many bratty little kids anyone has, as long as they take care of them.

[NeedleCast]

113. Can I sell my Kid Creds?

As as SINK with no intention of having children, I think I should be able to sell the rights to the two children I'm not having to the highest bidders.

If I have zero, can someone else have four?

[Stargazer09]

115. So much for Democrats supporting the life choices of others

Now we're back to "my way or the highway." You chose to have the number of children you have, and thankfully, you have that freedom in America.

But you want to penalize others for their choices, calling us selfish for bringing our children into this world and loving them with all of our hearts.

I have a large family, but the only taxpayer money I'm receiving is from the military. My husband and I both serve our country and are willing to put our lives on the line for the freedom of all Americans, even ones who think that we were selfish to have children.

You make me sick.

[Hello_Kitty]

122. So much for Democrats caring about the planet they live on

Fuck it. I've had it. You know what? Have all the kids you want. Let Mother Earth will sort us out. We're fucked, because most people refuse to see the truth that is staring them right in the face.

[NeedleCast]

127. So what is the accetpable number of children that adults are allowed to have

your highness?

[Hello_Kitty]

134. Honestly? One.

And we should be giving people incentives not to have any at all. I'm not saying this because I'm an asshole who doesn't think babies are cute. Babies are cute. They're adorable. But the planet is fucked if we don't do something drastic. We've already done irreversable damage with the population we have now.

But of course, I realize there's no chance of this happening since people freak the fuck out when the subject is even raised. So population growth will continue unabated until Mother Nature disposed of us. IOW, we're fucked.

[jmg257]

137. Hmmm...drastic...more babies - less old people (they aren't nearly as cute).

[Hello_Kitty]

142. My grandma was adorable

And if you're suggesting what I think you are, sod off.

[jmg257]

149. Mine are passed already. Hmm...can I have 4 more kids instead?

[Hello_Kitty]

153. Go ahead. No one's stopping you.

Have all the kids you want. Pretend the 800 lb. gorilla in the room isn't there.

[jmg257]

161. Thanks! But I will pass - coincidentally, 2 was good for us.

[NeedleCast]

150. The planet is fucked?

Wrong.

Humanity might be fucked, but I'm betting the planet will go on quite nicely without us. This planet has withstood the impact of gigantic planetesimals in the past. We are going to break it. We might make it uninhabitable for human life, but we aren't going to break the planet.

I just think it's funny as shit when so called progressives who (I would hope) support freedom of choice when it comes to the abortion issue think dictating how many children people can have is perfectly acceptable.

I guess it would be too much to point out that NPG would cause a crippling decline in the short term as there would not be enough resources (in terms of people) to take care of the aged.

Really though, as a person with no children who doesn't plan to have any, I've got no pony in this race. I'll be worm food long before it matters much. Still fun to watch authoritarians debate just how much authoritarianism we need.

[Hello_Kitty]

191. I'm amused when pull the "who will take care of the old people?" card

As if every single old person alive now has his or her own personal attendent. Really, it doesn't take that many people to provide care to the elderly. Also, if the population did decrease maybe the people who do the work would be paid and treated better.

[Hello_Kitty]

193. It's fun to watch people quibble about the relative authoritarianism of population policies

When the world is fucked because of all the breeding people are doing. It's like switching deck chairs on the Titanic.

[Name removed]

177. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hello_Kitty]

197. Crotch droppings

:spray:

[Pithlet]

205. You post at a website owned by people who have children.

You realize, that, don't you?

Classy.

[Stargazer09]

132. Do you honestly think...

That my choices are going to make any difference? Even if I had NO children, that's not stopping the Duggars and the mother of those octuplets from more than making up for my choice.

At least my children are being raised to be ecologically conscious and productive members of society.

If you don't want to contribute to the Earth's population, that's your choice. But stop trying to take my choices away from me. If I wanted to be treated like that, I would move to China or some other backward country.

[Hello_Kitty]

136. Hey, whatever fib you have to tell yourself to get you through the day.

I don't care. :shrug:

[Stargazer09]

147. Sure you do

That's why you keep replying. :D

[DonCoquixote]

121. Answer this

I understand why China did what they did, but if you are going to ponder this idea, you better be prepared to patch some holes up. This is not to say we will not have to take measures against overpopulation, but there are some arguments that no one who brings up the subject seems willing to address.

ONE: How do you prevent this from being used as a political tool? Of course, everybody will interpret it as a means of getting rid of "those" people not them, in other words, Whites will assume the Blacks are cheating, the Black will assume the Whites are, Both will attack Hispanics and Asians, and throughout all of this, those with money will somehow be punished less than those who do not.

TWO: How do you avoid the charge that it is used to target religions? In China, one of the groups that gets attacked are the Muslims, because the Muslim culture encourages Large families. You know that if you try to limit people to two families, there will be the inevitable cry of "islamophobe!" as well as "Mormomophobe! and "Catholic-phobe!" After all..

THREE: Numbers equal power. The reason that certain tribes rise to prominence is because they do have large numbers. Yes, India and China are starving, but they also use these large numbers to make large armies and large labor pools. There is also the outright use of population as political tool, after all, many papers and blogs (including this one) often brag about how since Palestinian women have more children they will eventually outnumber Israelis, which leads to the last segue

FOUR: Brown people are growing, White people are not. As a Hispanic living in Florida, I have had to hear umpteen rants on talk radio about how "We will be foreigners in our own homeland!" and the "They breed like Rats!" line. It may be coincidence, but to many, it will look like population only became a "problem" when White numbers dropped. What also hurts is that in Europe, the same nations that bay about population control as also sponsoring programs to "increase population" giving money and support to working class whites. Not that working class people did not deserve support period, but it does have a taint, since the proponents used the fear of no native French/Swedes/English to get the support they needed.

Now, let me say something to make it clear, I am NOT saying that population control is some evil conspiracy to keep those of us darker than cream in their place. Yes, if we could get our minds around the concept of family planning we would ALL be better off, however, I do see various elephants in the room that will need to be answered if you want to make progress. Also, if any Muslims are reading this and offended, let me say this. Long before White Americans were Islamophobes, they were Hispaniphobes. I say this as someone who has gotten the business end of racism, and I need to tell the population controllers that the measures they want to do could easily be hijacked to serve bigoted ends.

[Taverner]

130. Here are my attempts at filling in the holes

Let me start with 2 since that's going to be the most controversial. If their hobby (aka religion) makes them have more than 2 kids, then, like any other hobby, you have to pay out of pocket.

Now I'm sure many people will say this is discriminatory, and how dare I call their faith a "hobby."

Well it is - there is no proof so it remains the largest role playing game going on in the world - religion. Except sometimes they actually kill people over it.

Let me think about the others - I just wanted to get #2 off my chest

[Hello_Kitty]

139. To #4

You are correct that the notion that certain populations are "shrinking" and have "low birth rates" is so much racist bullshit. There is one race, the human race, and its global population is growing at 2% per year. Which doesn't sound like much but it means we will be DOUBLE in 35 years.

[DonCoquixote]

212. That does not change the fact

That if you were to introduce population measures, you have to do it in such a way that does NOT become a political football. In China, Muslims are targeted. Granted, we tend to give America's conflicts with Islam the spotlight, but in China, or for that matter Europe, it is the Brown person that gets heat for "breeding like rats." Yes, the population must be brought to reasonable levels, but the question still needs raising. HOW do you do this and not have it be one more club to swing at minorities? It is not just about convincing more soccer moms in New York to breed less, it also implies a head on conflict with places for whom large families are not just part of the culture, but have provided the most tangible means to force the rich cultures (which is to say, the White Ones) to pay attention to them.

[cherokeeprogressive]

140. Nope. Tax EVERY human being based on body weight.

I am 47 yo, 6' tall, and weigh 210 lbs. The WHO says I should weigh no more than 171.

There shouldn't be a tax for families of five or more, when there is no tax on families of three or less. The only fair way would be to tax everyone. Every consumer of planetary resources. Every human should be elligible for the tax at age 13. The tax should be collected by the United Nations. Parents shouldn't be liable for the dietary tax debt of their children, rather the children should be deemed to be individuals liable for their own debts. Let the children repay their tax debt with community service.

By my example above, I should be taxed on the 39 lbs the WHO says I am overweight.

I should also be taxed on the amount of calories over 3026 (the number of calories required for me to maintain the 171 lb ideal weight) that I consume each day.

If consumption is what you're concerned with, tax EVERY consumer the same. It's the only non-discriminatory way.

I don't think my proposal is any sillier than yours.

[Hello_Kitty]

148. You know what's silly?

People freaking out over a discussion about population when the world is on track to double its population in 35 years.

[NeedleCast]

155. You know what's even sillier?

Assuming that technological levels will stay exactly the same for the next 35 years while the population doubles.

[Hello_Kitty]

195. Ah yes, innovation....That's the ticket!

Oh wait, don't tell me! We have to keep having lots of kids because some of them will be brilliant inventors!

[NeedleCast]

222. Hey, I've got zero and don't plan to have any

So I'll tell ya what, when you figure out how to control the population in a non-draconian way, let me know.

Until then, you're just another authoritarian who thinks they know what's best for everyone else.

[Hello_Kitty]

233. No need to worry about "authoritarians". Mother Earth will deal with us.

She's a harsh mistress when you fuck with her.

[NeedleCast]

272. and here you are, making things worse

with your carbon footprint.

No matter what you're doing, it's not enough.

[Hello_Kitty]

285. You're right about that.

But I'm also not adding more humans, and then justifying it with the crap reasons I'm seeing on this thread.

[SergeyDovlatov]

141. Russia: Mothers Skeptical About Putin's 'Cash-For-Babies' Scheme

Lol. Other countries are giving away money for the second and third child, and you are talking about taxing the second child.

http://www.rferl.org/content/Article/1068513.html

That's bad news for Russia. Experts worry that by 2050, Russia's population will have fallen from 142 million to below 100 million. The most fertile group of women, those in their 20s, is also expected to decline sharply.

In his recent state-of-the-nation address, Putin effectively proposed a new national program to nudge up the birthrate. He offered to double state child benefits to 1,500 rubles monthly for the first child, and to 3,000 rubles for the second child.

[Hello_Kitty]

143. There's no such thing as a "shrinking birth rate"

The world population is expanding. If Russia wants more people, it should pursue immigrants, not enact ridiculous sexist racist natalism policies.

[SergeyDovlatov]

151. Hello_Kitty!!! We meet again. UN puts population peak at 9.22 billions in 2075 and slight decline

afterwards reaching 8.97 in 2300.

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

Are you worrying about earth not being able to sustain 3 more billion people or you don't trust the UN numbers?

[Hello_Kitty]

158. Assuming the UN numbers are correct (and no I don't trust them)

No, I don't think the world can sustain 9 billion people.

[SergeyDovlatov]

162. Do you have any reasons to suspect why UN is wrong on this?

Developed countries at the moment have low birth rates, some of the countries below replacement rate.

Developing countries are likely to follow the trend and as they become richer will have lower birth rates.

Why do you think this is not a plausible development?

[Hello_Kitty]

163. Why do you think that the Earth has infinite resources?

It doesn't.

[NeedleCast]

164. Why do you think the earth is the only resource

we'll be able to tap in the next 20 years?

[Hello_Kitty]

167. Wishful thinking about space colonies will not get us out of this

Sure, it might happen but we better plan like it won't.

[SergeyDovlatov]

178. Do not repond to strawman. Hello_Kitty need to face the reality and

give rational argument why he / she does not trust UN population projections.

[Hello_Kitty]

278. Because they are based on unfounded assumptions. eom

[SergeyDovlatov]

169. No. It does not. What I've asked you: What is your line of thinking to doubt UN population ...

projections?

Also, in the post I gave you a laymen version of explanation of why population growth should stop due to countries becoming wealther, as opposed to hitting Malthusian starvation wall.

[SergeyDovlatov]

159. lol @ sexist racist natalism policies -- what would you call OP tax policy then? n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

187. I'd call it something to have a rational discussion about.

Whereas the gov't paying people to have more babies because of a "shrinking birth rate" is just absurd. It makes a lot more sense to import skilled workers (this is a situation where I can actually see a justification for insourcing labor) than it does to make more people and hope that they grow the economy. People don't buy things. Money does.

[SergeyDovlatov]

214. I need to clarify my lol @ your racist accusations

Russian Federation is multiethnic country it has about 160 ethnic groups that speak 100 different languages.

Even at the top level of Russia's government you can observe a lot of different ethnicities.
Just a quick scan of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Russia page I counted at least 5 people who were etnically not russian. (and those were just the ones which last name stood up and I had to look up the ethnic origin)

Foreign Minister: Lavrov - armenian
Minister of Civil Defense: Sergey Shoigu: - tuva
Minister of the Interior: Raschid Nurgalijev: Kazakh
Elvira Nabiullina: Minister for Economic Development - tatar
Dmitri Kosak: Deputy Prime Minister - ukranian

So, your accusation of a Russian Federation government policy to increase birthrate to be racist is baseless.

[Hello_Kitty]

223. If not racist, then chauvinistic. You're quibbling.

Russia needs to attract profitable industries and migrants. Using natalism to improve your economy not only never works but it often results in devastation. See: Romania

[SergeyDovlatov]

157. self-delete

[deleted post]

144. I agree...Too many parents feel entitled...

Like in the workplace, if you have kids, you automatically get to take time off for all their things. What if we are child-free and like to go sky-diving?

[L0oniX]

152. Maybe make it so you get a standard deduction for up to 2 kids and no deduction for more than that?

[NeedleCast]

156. I want a deduction for having no kids

Screw the breeders!

[fizzgig]

353. i'm not going to say screw the breeders

but those of us without kids should not be punished for choosing (or not being able) to have kids

[CBGLuthier]

154. I think there should be a tax on IDIOTS having children

Which would make you seriously delinquent.

[Hello_Kitty]

160. Here's an interesting site if you want to see the impact we're having.

http://www.worldometers.info/

[tomg]

166. So tell me how that would work

for my family? We are a blended family. I had a son; my wife had two sons; we have one son together. So collectively, we have four, but there were four people involved. Does that add up to one apiece? Or do I have two and my wife have three, at which point she pays a tax and I don't? Or possibly, my ex and I have one ( no tax), my wife and I have one ( no tax), and my wife and her ex have two ( no tax there. Of course, it gets a little more complicated when you add in our exes and there respective new families. If I have to pay a tax and have a falling out and disown my child, can I get a tax refund?

I agree with your sentiments about responsible family size. I think you might have a bit of a problem working it all out though.

[earth mom]

181. Population control is something that has been swept under the carpet ever since the 70s.

And it's no doubt why we have so many problems now-there are just too many people on this planet!

What pisses me off is that I have a couple of friends with 3 kids or more and they didn't get it when I told them that having so many kids taxes the planet and it's something they need to think about before having more kids. Of course they went ahead and popped the kids out anyway.

IMO they behaved very selfishly and the respect I had for them went down several notches after that.

[SergeyDovlatov]

198. too many people on the planet? -- What is the approriate number of people in your opinion?

[earth mom]

258. You tell me your number first.

:eyes:

[SergeyDovlatov]

284. Say, about 12 billion. The reason is

people in the richer countries have lower birth rate. As more and more countries grow wealthier, the population of earth will stabilize.

UN estimates that in 2075 world population will peak at about 9.8 billions and start going down slowly.

Russia and US have plenty of free space, there are a lot of room for 4 more billion people to go.

[earth mom]

332. Who in the hell wants to live in overcrowded countries?

Maybe you should move to India or China to see the effects of overcrowding.

Because it ain't pretty.

No Thanks! :puke:

[soleiri]

239. I’m just imagining this scenario:

Proud new parents invite family and friends over to meet the newborn baby… and they get a lecture on population growth.

And the nerve of them not listening! Harrumph!

[earth mom]

257. Nah, I said it long before they got pregnant with the 3rd.

After that I wished them well, but have little sympathy these days when they worry about how they will pay for college etc.

[Pithlet]

182. I think there should be a tax penalty

for people who think others screw for teh tax breaks. We would end up saving us all a lot of money in the long run, when we don't end up paying more for the children were born anyway who ended up suffering under such a hairbrained scheme.

ETA you're a parent, huh? Explain how your child(ren) take up less resources than anyone elses? Why is it that you get a pass, exactly? If you are so hell fired concerned about it that you think such a punitive measure is needed, then why didn't you offset those who are procreating too much? Your progeny doesn't automatically require less because you're so conscious about the issues, you know.

[rug]

185. Why don't we just cut your balls off after two?

[handmade34]

192. may I suggest a "modest proposal"....

.... eat 'em

[SergeyDovlatov]

217. good one!

A Modest Proposal

For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Ireland
From Being Aburden to Their Parents or Country, and
For Making Them Beneficial to The Public

By Jonathan Swift (1729)


...
”I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled ...”

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

[Kansas Wyatt]

196. Why not, there's a tax PENALTY on those who don't have kids.

Being single and without children is penalized in this country. Why? By all fucking means, someone please justify it.

[WI_DEM]

199. NO! Only smokers should be taxed!!

[Neecy]

203. personally, I'd get rid of all tax credits for kids

I'm gay, don't have children and I'm tired of paying taxes through the nose (since I can't marry and file a joint tax return) for everyone else's kids. I pay for their tax credits, their schools, their PELL grants and on and on and on....all this and I don't even have the full rights of citizenship. It's bullshit.

[DonCoquixote]

249. You should have full rights

The right to marry, adapt, etc, but you do not have the right to say "screw those kids, I do not have any." Because said kids will be the people who are your doctors, lawyers, clerks, plumbers, and cops. I say this as a Floridian, who has seen what sort of culture is made when children are not valued.

[Neecy]

252. I'm not saying screw the kids

I'm saying that the people having the kids should pay their fair share for them instead of getting tax breaks. Single people - either by choice or, by law, forced to be - pay a disproportionate share for other people's kids. When said single people have their marriage rights voted away, forcing a larger tax burden on us, we tend to get a little snippy about things such as this.

[crimsonblue]

204. If all parents only had two kids, society would eventually die out. n/t

[cascadiance]

220. Why?

[Pithlet]

230. LOL n/t

[Dawgs]

206. Only 5 recs? WTF!! I thought this was a liberal community.

Are you people nuts. Population growth is probably this world's biggest problem.

[slay]

224. Glad to be #7

I too agree that planetary overpopulation is and will be a HUGE problem. Nice to see other true like minded liberals like yourself recognize that as well. :hi:

[WI_DEM]

227. Bobby Kennedy was a liberal but he had, what? 12 kids.

of course he was Catholic too.

[NeedleCast]

228. It might be the world's biggest problem

but it's not a big problem in the US or most of western Europe.

In the US, the average number of children is 2.1

How do you suggest we go about passing legislation for the rest of the world?

[Seen the light]

305. Exactly

Perhaps this would be a good thing to implement in Asia or the Middle East.

But there is no population problem in this country.

[Pithlet]

240. Gee. Now, why would a suggestion that would do nothing but primarily hurt the poor

and really not do much to affect the population of the United States, and do absolutely squat to help the world's population, get not much support on a progressive board.

Hmmmmm. It's a mystery!


For me, it actually gives me renewed hope for this community that it gets so few recs.

[Political Heretic]

341. We are a liberal community - which is why your idea is fucking stupid.

[Midlodemocrat]

207. Sure hope that vasectomy took, Taverner.

:eyes:

[NNN0LHI]

209. I just suggested financial incentives for people who choose not to have kids here once and ...

... I got chewed up.

Good luck with this idea man.

Don

[slay]

219. Some of us are with ya Don!

Most on this board aren't as logical or forward thinking, oh well. But there are quite a few of us who are indeed with ya. :hi:

[we can do it]

211. Sounds Like a Plan - the Litter Whores Won't Like It Though

[NeedleCast]

229. How many kids is a litter?

are you implying that having a lot of children makes a woman a whore?

That's progressive of you.

[we can do it]

347. Silly Me - I Was Referring To the Octulets Whore, Forgot Sarcasm

Fuck irresponsible parents

[lumberjack_jeff]

316. You're talking about someone else's mom? n/t

[Gregorian]

213. Happy to recommend.

More than happy. Satisfied. I'm finally not so lonely. I have been too shy to post something as brave as you. So thanks for doing my work for me.

[slay]

218. Same here - glad to see some true forward thinking here!

I too knew the OP would be attacked hardcore over this, but he/she is right! Do we really have to continue to overpopulate the planet? I mean, if you want to go ahead, but yes - definatly tax any over two. At least there are a few people on this board who do think about the future and our impact on the planet. :hi:

[NeedleCast]

232. You think taxes are going to curb world wide population

You really don't understand that math here at all, do you?

You think most people who want to have large families are going to say "well, we want more children but dang, we better not, cause we wont get a tax credit!"

Please tell me you're not that naive.

Average family size in the US is 2.1 children. The US is not the problem, so changing a tax code that only effects the US is not going to have any bearing on the problem.

How do you suggest we control population in other countries?

[Pithlet]

234. See, I don't think they truly think it will

It's all about judging and punishment. People all having kids, and living that bourgeois suburban yucky Republican like lifestyle, and it's disgusting, and their kids are noisy in restaurants and on planes and I hate it! *pout* and I'm tired of my parents bugging me about when I'm going to have them, and really this must stop. But how to go about punishing this without coming across as a whacko authoritarian nutjob. How convenient! The overpopulation problem. Voila! Instant mechanism for judgment that looks valid and progressive. Blow it out of proportion and you can really push some draconian measures and attempt to make them seem completely rational and reasonable.

[slay]

250. Ugh - no, those are your words, not mine

I'm tired of having to justify myself to other DU members but here we go AGAIN:

It is purely to offset the effect that more people will have on the environment. That's all. Now like you said to me "You really don't understand that math here at all, do you?"

Genius. :eyes:

Sure I would like to see people choose to have less kids, but I'm not out to force it like China does.

So anyways, I consider this conversation terminated.

Bye!

[NeedleCast]

268. Yes, I understand it's annoying when you make an argument

and other people disagree with you. I mean, who would expect that you'd have to justify a position on a political message board...

The OP suggested that we stop giving tax credits on families with more than two children, an OP with which you seem to agree. However, the OP implies that the problem is here, in the US. It's not. That's the problem.

NO amount of tax leveraging or rule making in western countries is going to stop the population of the world from growing at a rapid pace because the issues doesn't really lie in western countries where families are usually right around 2 children/family already.

[lumberjack_jeff]

273. What it WILL do.

Kids are the single most likely demographic to live in poverty. Raising taxes on their parents forces even more of them into poverty. Poorly nourished, poorly educated and raised in a substandard environment, they eventually become adults which, with each generation, are increasingly unproductive. The result of this is reduced productivity by americans, a reduction in our standard of living and reduced ability to influence problems in other countries.

The bigger risk is not that kids (and their "breeder" parents) get too many resources, it is that they get too little.

[Pithlet]

279. You obviously just don't care enough about the environment

And haven't thought this issue through to any logical conclusions the way our better environmentally educated peers have. Hang your head in shame.

[Hello_Kitty]

291. According to the OECD, the elderly are more likely to live in poverty

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/2/41528678.pdf

[lumberjack_jeff]

295. Those under the age of 18 were the most likely to be impoverished.

In 2006 the poverty rate for minors in the United States was the highest in the industrialized world, with 21.9% of all minors and 30% of African American minors living below the poverty threshold.<7> Moreover, the standard of living for those in the bottom 10% was lower in the U.S. than other developed nations except the United Kingdom, which has the lowest standard of living for impoverished children in the developed world.<8> According to a 2008 report released by the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire, on average, rates of child poverty are persistently higher in rural parts of the country relative to suburban areas and share similar rates with many central cities.<9><10>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

[Hello_Kitty]

296. Meh. You say wikipedia and I say OECD. eom

[Pithlet]

297. So?

That means children aren't affected by poverty?

Look. The fact is there are far more progressive and effective ways of dealing with the population problems the planet faces. The fact this robs you of your opportunity to judge those who have kids with impunity is unfortunate, but there it is. The fact is people don't have kids just to piss you off, and do damage to the planet. Therefore, punitive measures like taxing them won't do squat. Sorry.

[Hello_Kitty]

300. It means children aren't the only ones.

BTW, I'm still not sensing that you're amused.

[Pithlet]

304. Oh, well. Lulz. n/t

[nichomachus]

221. Can we at least sell our right to have kids?

We could do it like pollution credits.

I'm allowed to have two kids -- but I don't have any. So, why couldn't I auction off my kid credits to people who want to have 10 or 11 kids?

It's win-win. They get to raise enormous families and I get some money for a vacation.

[Norrin Radd]

231. kr

[BlancheSplanchnik]

238. Been around the world and saw that all the stupid people are breeding...

the cretins cloning and feeding.......


don't know why breeders are so defensive when it's ever suggested that the planet needs us to practice self control.

Animal studies show clearly the results of overpopulation. But when it comes to our little bundles of idealized, romanticized joy, there is no end to denial and rationalizing.

I like a diversity of flora and fauna more than I like more and more and more "little miracles", or is that little shoppers?

and for those who say, "but that child may be the next Einstein"? Or the next Jeffrey Dahmer. The bell curve works both ways.

[onenote]

241. And if you find a terminally ill member of congress who doesn't plan to serve for more than another

week, you might find someone willing to introduce such a politically suicidal idea.

Not saying its a bad idea, just that its DOA politically and would destroy the career of anyone who introduced it.

[readmoreoften]

245. And free abortion and family planning, I assume.

[dawgmom]

248. We do need some kind of public policy that encourages family planning, that is certain

Clearly, there are a lot of Americans who simply don't "get it" when you try and talk about the importance of population control. The same people here who would jump down your throat about driving an SUV would be the first ones to scream bloody murder if you tell them they're irresponsible if they deliberately produce more than two kids. "Hey, if I can afford to feed them, that's my right!" Sure, it's their right. But is it being a responsible citizen of the planet, when we look at the world's resources that the U.S. gobbles up, disproportionately? I remember when the population of the U.S. was 200 million, and it was a whole lot less crowded, with a lot less congestion and traffic, etc. The planet that overpopulaters are leaving their children is going to be crowded and ugly, with a lot less green space and a whole lot of shortages of food, water, etc. Love children? Then leave them a better world, with fewer siblings.

I would never want to see a public policy that punishes the children themselves -- but for families of a high enough income, who simply choose to breed like crazy because they can "afford it?" I say tax the hell out of them for the privilege, and for the burden they're placing on public resources of all kinds.

[yodoobo]

254. oh how dumb

Most children born will be taxPAYERS for about 60 years.

Yes a certain % of children will require public support, and a larger % of children will provide the support.

As the number of children increases, the ratio will be about the same.

I could easily say that parents of more than 2 children deserve more more tax breaks because their extra children provide more taxes and and support to our nation.

My children will be improving the world for many years after I'm gone.

[tavalon]

262. Works in China

:sarcasm:

[SoCalDem]

264. Choose one: ..1)-spay.. 2)-neuter.. 3)-guillotine..

um wait.. we had three kids.. nevermind

[rucky]

271. How about tying income taxes to INCOME instead of sperm count?

[dgibby]

275. Or, perhaps the government should just get out of of the business of subsidizing

procreation altogether. No more tax deductions for having children in the first place. That wouldn't be discriminatory, either for parents or non-parents.

[varelse]

290. I see this as very, very regressive as well as discriminatory

It would hurt completely blameless infants and children born to poor and low income families more than it could ever possibly help any other group. Poverty isn't borne equally by all races here, so it would have the additional effect of discriminating against minorities.

Want to curb population growth in a progressive way? Urge your state and Congressional elected representatives to vote for legislation that provides funds for sex education, contraception, health care, and postsecondary education for everyone. Work to promote equal rights, education, and reproductive rights (including the right to CHOOSE when to bear children) for the women and girls of the WORLD, and reap the benefits of a lower birthrate in every nation where this succeeds.

[rd_kent]

298. I dont know about a tax penalty, but certainly no tax break

for having even a single child. It boggles my mind that the government makes people pay LESS when they use MORE! People are going to have as many kids as they want to, we dont need to make incentives to have more.

[hughee99]

301. We might as well scrap Social Security, then...

Who's going to pay for it?

[Hello_Kitty]

306. Or we could just scrap the ecology.

Let's see...Social Security...or the PLANET.... Which one should we save? :shrug:

[hughee99]

309. You're right, if Americans have only 2 (or fewer) kids, the planet will be saved

3 or more and we're all fucked. Other countries will thank us for saving them.

[Hello_Kitty]

336. But if we don't have enough, Social Security is DOOOOOOOMED!!1!

Of course, the kids we have now to pay for SS will one day need to collect it, necessitating subsequent larger generations to foot that bill. And so on, and so on. Funny how people will claim there's no need to worry about overpopulation because ingenious human beings will devise innovations and strategies to stretch the Earth's resources to accomodate them. But somehow, they can't contemplate how that same kind of human inventiveness could figure out ways to provide for aging people in a declining population.

[hughee99]

338. It wasn't me who said there's no need to worry about overpopulation...

On the other hand, this isn't really about overpopulation, it's about taxation. If you want to slow the population growth in the US (not that we're one of the major contributers to this particular issue), then get serious about it and do what China did. All this will do is raise more revenue for the government at the expense of it's people. Poor people will suffer, rights will be curtailed, and it will have no noticeable impact on worldwide population growth.

[Hello_Kitty]

339. Oh I know it wasn't you. But you did bring up SS.

Which led me to make that observation.

Upthread, someone I was arguing with brought up air travel, and I said that a carbon tax on that would be a great idea. Along those lines, there are probably better and more targeted ways to get people to pay for their impact on the planet than simply taxing people for having more than x number of children. Of course, even if there were a way to tax families by their actual carbon footprint rather than their numbers, they'd probably just come up with special carbon tax deductions/credits for parents and we'd be right back where we started.

[hughee99]

345. I agree that overpopulation is a problem.

or more specifically, that it will be one before we realize it. I just think trying to address it this way won't fix the problem, and will create other ones.

[madeline_con]

310. A bigger house is more expensive....

more expensive homes means higher property tax.

[JerseygirlCT]

317. And every kid born turns into a worker, who will then be among those

contributing to people like you and me in our old age.

It all comes around.

The point is to offer enough support to children so that they can grow up to be productive members of society and contribute (financially and otherwise) to the general good.

That means we actually have to take on that old H. Clinton view of it taking a village. They're all of our children, and it's a disgrace that any one of them wants for food or shelter or clothing or a good education.

[David Zephyr]

321. No.

But we can encourage smaller families.

Population explosion is one of the greatest threats to the globe now, but taxing families with large families is not the right spirit.

[Mother Of Four]

323. Read the whole thread before responding-

Here's your original post, and what I'm going to respond to instead of all the finger pointing and insulting from upthread. (Examples: Breeder, selfish, fascist, racist plans etc etc ad nauseum.)

(Quote)

"There should be a tax penalty for every family that has more than 2 kids

Seriously

Yes, you might find this discriminatory, but every kid born taxes our resources that much more. If a parent wants to do the utterly selfish thing of having more kids than two - then they should pay.

Oh, and by the way, I am a Parent."

(END QUOTE)


As you can see by my name, I have four children.

The REASON having a large population is such a problem isn't because of the little tykes themselves but the amount of resources we use to get the items we consume.


I'm not going to go into some sort of spiel about "How dare you!" etc. That's never productive. I'm not going to insult you like so many people in this thread have insulted people who choose, or have unintentionally had more than "replacement level" of kids or no kids at all.

What I am going to point out is that you're traveling down a very dangerous road if you start talking about who uses resources, or who is a drain.

What about people in hospitals, who are terminally ill?
What about paraplegics, quadriplegics?
What about down syndrome children who grow into adults that still need care?
What about the elderly in homes, who have to have assistance to survive?
What about the morbidly obese, whether by eating or a disorder...who end up on disability?
What about inmates in asylums, who have no future due to insanity?
What about inmates on Death Row, who eat up a ton of resources for years just waiting to die or to appeal?

I fully recognize that there is a small bit of panic, maybe a hint of worry, and a whole heck of alot of frustration about what's going on with our world.

You have every right to feel that way, it's warranted.

However, this is where we begin to disagree. If you want change in this world, the best way to go about it is education. Our taxes help pay for each and every one of the demographics I listed above. Some just a little, some alot, some all. Every demographic could be considered a "drain" on the worlds resources without being a contributing member of society. What would you have us do, tax them? Euthanize them to make room on our earth?

Education on birth control is needed, education to make us more productive while consuming less of our natural resources. Motivation to pursue different avenues of innovation, without focusing on things like viagra- and how big a guys penis is.

Education is what is going to cause this to turn around, not penalization. And yes, in your OP you DID state that you wanted a penalty instead of stopping the credit/rebate/whatever after two children.

Do we consume, as a family of 6? Yes, we do. But we don't live outside our means, we have one vehicle and it isn't a huge one, It's a smaller one that gets the job done. I stay at home with the kids, even with how old they are, we shop frugally. We pay our taxes on time, and don't fudge on our returns. My kids don't have cell phones, or cars of their own even though one is 18. We have a "family" cell, that they can use if they want to go somewhere.

Here's an example, how many in this thread do you think have top loading washing machines as compared to front loading?
Front loading machines save 15 GALLONS of water per load. 15 multiplied by a conservative 8 loads a week...=6240 gallons of water a year.

So a good solution would be to tax every person that still uses a top loading machine correct? It would directly effect how much water a person uses each day, how many of our natural resources would be saved if this were the case? Do you have a top loader, or a front loader- and if you do have a top loader would you consent to the government taxing you say an additional (.10 cents per average gallon used over a frontloader...) 624.40 dollars a year until you changed it?

How many people in this thread do you think own both a laptop and a PC? Or a PDA, or really cool phone for work?
How many have TWO tv's? (ridiculous in my view we do just fine with one.)

How many don't set their thermostat on 68 or below during the winter, or 74+ in the summer?

How many have upgraded to energy-star compliant dishwashers that use 33 percent less electricity and water?

Do you see where I'm getting at with this? Just because a person has more than what you would allot for children, doesn't mean they are parasites on our world. What you are doing is blanketing an entire demographic with a single perception.

That isn't very cool.

Our world has become a consumption based world, everyone wants the next best or shiniest thing. It's gotten to the point where it's insane. People don't recycle, they don't curb spending until it becomes a recession and starts hitting their McDonald's burger fund. Young women growing up don't know how to do anything but shop and be Diva's :puke: and for heavens sake don't even TRY to teach them how to make their own laundry or dish washing soap. The tempest that would ensue if you actually asked one to cook? Hide the plates because someone will be throwing something.

I have EDUCATED my children not to be materialistic. They don't care about fashion, they don't care about the latest/greatest- My kids know how to make bread from scratch, how to cook without reading a box, and how to clean up without being wasteful.

So tell me, which do you think would be more of a drain on the worlds resources...
My kids, all FOUR of them who are taught to be frugal, cunning and ingenious with what they do-
Or the spoiled two kids of someone who gives them anything they want?

This is all just food for thought, yes something needs to change. But penalizing people with children isn't the answer.

[deaniac21]

325. Are you chinese?

[nini]

328. how many do you have?

I'm guessing it's not more than 2 which is a convenient number you came up with. Why don't we just tax for all children? If you really believe this then ANY child should be taxed - how many shouldn't be in question.

[specimenfred1984]

329. Weeeeeee, a screech thread! I think every 3rd kid should be aborted too!

and then Soylent Green can be produced from every 4th kid!

[Lyric]

335. Wow. Who'd have ever thought that Orson Scott Card, the Mormon nitwit, would be right?

I wonder who the first little "Third" is going to be?

*sigh*

In the meantime, if you're truly worried about worldwide overpopulation, I suggest worrying less about penalizing American families with "thirds," and more about battling conservative religion; religion is the biggest obstacle to overcome in the struggle to convince third-worlders to use contraception. In case you hadn't noticed, those folks are breeding a LOT faster than we are, and (save for AIDS-ravaged Africa) steadily increasing their lifespans. We have an enormous Baby Boomer generation that's going to be dying off in droves in 20 years or so, thus vastly improving our birth-to-death ratio here in America. The rest of the world? Not so much.

People who are serious about fighting overpopulation (and not just blowing hot air to piss people off) will understand that fighting conservative religion is a HELL of a lot more immediately effective than imposing tax penalties. Poor people in America--the ones having most of the babies--don't PAY taxes. The worst that's going to happen to them might be a slight reduction to their EITC check come springtime. Tax penalties are not a serious tactic when most of your "targets" are poor. You'd just be punishing the middle class disproportionately.

Fight fundie religion. Get people past the "God wants me to make countless sacred babies!" brainwashing. That's the tactic that's going to have the biggest long-term, positive impact on birth rates.

[Hello_Kitty]

337. I'm cool with that. Tax the shit out of churches. eom

[MrSlayer]

344. Why don't we just kill off a billion or two of the third world dirt eaters?

They have a pathetic, tortured, meaningless existence anyway. Why not just kill them off and spare the resources so more Americans can be born?





:sarcasm:

[Jack_DeLeon]

346. I dont think it should be a "penalty" but they should get rid of the deduction...

its stupid that people get more money for having kids they cant afford.

[MiniMe]

348. We don't need to act like China

[Oregone]

352. Your just going to hurt the kids. They didn't choose to have siblings

Yeah, its a really, really tough issue in general. No one wants to encourage people to have too many kids, but you want to encourage everyone that has them to provide the best environment for them.

Another idea is you take the 3rd child away, and train them to be a butler for families with 2 kids. This gives them a job and education, as well as a safe environment, and makes it where the original parents are not rewarded. Also, what would be cooler than a 10 year old butler?

[Doughboy71]

355. How would your tax work?

I see more abortions because of your tax. Some families may not be able to pay your tax if they get pregnant with kid number 3 so they may only have one option.

How about you? How many kids did your parents have? Are you number 3? What if they said, well we really can't afford the tax, we will just abort the fetus.

If your idea became law, just think about how many abortions you would be personally responsible for.

[KoKo]

356. You are a Democrat?

:eyes:

[blues90]

357. If this economy was not so fucked up then this would not be an issue

If people had a job they were secure in if it were not for this horrid last 30 years and they had insurance at a reasonable price and time to actually care for the children menaing a living wage where daycare was the only choice since now both parents have to work then there would be no problem as they should not have been.

But now since everything is so very screwed up it's almost a gamble to have children , even one is a gamble no days.

But it is not my place to tell people what to do it is their own personal choice.

All I can say is know the odds and toss the dice because this is what it's come down too.