I think the childless should be taxed

[Seedle]

Originally posted by Felch
Everybody who thinks the planet is overpopulated, please kill yourselves. Otherwise STFU.

This really makes no sense. Now if you changed it to:

"Everybody who thinks the planet is overpopulated (or is heading towards over-population) and has more than 2 biological children, please kill your excess children."

That would make sense. Not saying I agree with the sentiment, but it attacks the actual hypocrites, instead of all who hold a certain belief.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by DanQ

Never said it was, but why make it less so?

I don't see policies that contribute to a healthier society as necessarily unfair. Whether that is encouraging child rearing or immigration is not something I get fussed about.

I don't see what is unfair about taxation to support child rearing or immigration, if those things are going to help maintain the system.

We tax people to pay for programs they do not personally use all the time. We do it because society will work better if we do, or at least that should be why we do.

I guess what I am saying is that personally fair is not the measure that should be used. Like I said, childless people pay for schools. That is fair because educated citizens are needed for society to operate.

Whether we tax childless people and give the cash to parents, or we tax everyone and give a bit more to parents to make up for the taxation to reach the desired effect, doesn't really bother me that much. What matters is that the idea is sound in an environment where society needs more future citizens to remain healthy.

[DanQ]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I guess what I am saying is that personally fair is not the measure that should be used. Like I said, childless people pay for schools. That is fair because educated citizens are needed for society to operate.

Whether we tax childless people and give the cash to parents, or we tax everyone and give a bit more to parents to make up for the taxation to reach the desired effect, doesn't really bother me that much. What matters is that the idea is sound in an environment where society needs more future citizens to remain healthy.

I didn't bring fairness into my argument until you raised it, but I can see how my reference to it implied that I was using it in it. I don't. I agree that we must do what we can to make our societies healthier than they already are, but having more citizens does not necessarily make that so.

I don't agree that the suggestion to tax the childless is sound. You are penalizing those who have chosen not to have children, at least for now (and in some cases those who cannot). Yes, childless people pay taxes for schools -- that is to (in theory anyway) provide direct benefits to children and their parents/guardians and society in general in turn. To me, that tax is 'positive' in response to the presence of the children as opposed to a 'negative' tax where they are not present.

At the same time, I have always been weary of giving financial incentives to those who choose to become parents -- directly anyway -- for fear of possible abuse (e.g. spend the money on things that have nothing to do with the welfare of the children and possibly even to their detriment). It depends on how such a well meaning intention were implemented and safeguarded, but I'm for exploring the option anyway as it comes across to me as a 'positive' measure. It's not just the desired result that is important to me, in this case a healthier society, but also how we get there.

I am all for making our society a better place to live for all too. By choosing not to be apart of bringing one or more children into this world at this time in my life, given my circumstances, I see myself as doing just that.

[Jon Miller]

If you can't make society a better place by having children, shoudn't you be aiding those who can to have healthy children so society is being made a better place?

JM

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
The OP's original suggestion is a ridiculous idea, and was followed by a myriad of nutball statements, including a confession of being "rabid", which just about sums it up.

The OP suggestion has been seriously considered by major political parties in several European countries.


Also I'm a rabid environmentalist which means that I'm as much in favor of curbing population growth as the next tree hugging hippy but I'm not willing to sacrifice European civilization for this.


You on the other hand have contributed nothing of value and are just a troll I am feeding since I'm such a nice guy.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Hera, immigration is just fine. The only issue is that right now there are a maximum of around 45 million people available, given a worldwide TFR of 2.4, and assuming places like Africa replace themselves at 2.1, (which isn't the case).

It won't be long before the immigrants just aren't there because of drops in the fertility rates in the developing world, and competition. China is going to have a massive labour shortage and will compete with everyone else for workers.

That is...

...quite reasonable actually. Why are only right wing people making sense in this thread?

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
If you can't make society a better place by having children, shoudn't you be aiding those who can to have healthy children so society is being made a better place?

JM

And people are forgetting this tax makes the lives of people who have kids easier. My intention was to make the job competition between people with kids and those without them a bit more fair.


Actually this might work better if the tax was on the employer. This would encourage them to employ people with kids. It wouldn't be a high tax, just something to make them think twice rather than automatically hiring a 22 year old girl straight out of college rather than a 30 year old mom with two kids even if they are identically qualified.



There is another thing European and Western society needs to work for. We need to end discrimination against old people. Old people & middle aged can be very productive individuals with modern medicine and are not despite popular stereotypes inflexible and difficult to bring up to speed.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


That is...

...quite reasonable actually. Why are only right wing people making sense in this thread?

You're just trying to predict the future. You're both like screaming crazy bums on the street corner.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Kidicious




You're just trying to predict the future. You're both like screaming crazy bums on the street corner.

Oh and someone preaching about how the proletariath will free itself is different how?


BTW Would you be interested in living out your fantasy of a succesfull communist revolution in a European country in 2009? Link to the post with the proper link.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
Oh and someone preaching about how the proletariath will free itself is different how?

That's a prescription, not a prediction. Even if it were a prediction, it's a far cry from predicting the end of civilization.

BTW Would you be interested in living out your fantasy of a succesfull communist revolution in a European country in 2009? Link to the post with the proper link.

$60? Sucker!

[DanQ]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
If you can't make society a better place by having children, shoudn't you be aiding those who can to have healthy children so society is being made a better place?

I already am -- I am a secondary teacher. And you?

[Felch]

Originally posted by Seedle


This really makes no sense. Now if you changed it to:

"Everybody who thinks the planet is overpopulated (or is heading towards over-population) and has more than 2 biological children, please kill your excess children."

That would make sense. Not saying I agree with the sentiment, but it attacks the actual hypocrites, instead of all who hold a certain belief.

Nonsense. Think globally, act locally. Nothing is more local than ending your own overpopulation of the Earth. It's not your kid's fault that you're a misanthrope.

[Alinestra Covelia]

If you tax the childless then what happens if a brother and sister grow up and have sex and have kids to get around the tax?

...

Sorry, I appear to have crossed the threads. My bad.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
If you tax the childless then what happens if a brother and sister grow up and have sex and have kids to get around the tax?

...

Sorry, I appear to have crossed the threads. My bad.

Well you know on my stance on the illegality of incest.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by DanQ

I already am -- I am a secondary teacher. And you?

A childless physicist.

If I could meet a nice girl, I wouldn't be childless though.

JM