Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I think the childless should be taxed

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 12
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 12 template Next
  • #16
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think the childless should be taxed

    Originally posted by Heraclitus
    All that China needs to do is lift its once child restriction and they get a decade long boost in population.
    They really don't need that restriction anymore. Chinese people don't desire large families anymore. Chinese demographic pattern will be just like that of Japan and the rest of the industrialized world.
    I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
    - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

    Comment

    • #17
      A 2004 U.S. Census Bureau report predicted an increase of one third by the year 2050.[11] A subsequent 2008 report projects a population of 439 million, which is a 44% increase from 2008.
      Clearly the US does not have a demographic crisis.

      Does it strike anyone as odd that the only Americans (in fact all who have bothered to post) and no Japanese or Europeans have posted their opinion against this tax?
      Modern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.”
      The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
      The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man. -Nicolás Gómez Dávila

      Comment

      • #18
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think the childless should be taxed

        Originally posted by Kidicious


        They really don't need that restriction anymore. Chinese people don't desire large families anymore. Chinese demographic pattern will be just like that of Japan and the rest of the industrialized world.
        And this is special why? All former communist states have bad demographic situations, China is no exception.
        Modern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.”
        The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
        The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man. -Nicolás Gómez Dávila

        Comment

        • #19
          Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles
          Why should we be punished for not overpopulating the world?

          European demographic crisis =/= solution to overpopulation

          European demographic crisis = proof of the superiority of strongly patriarchal societies



          Is this what you really want?
          Modern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.”
          The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
          The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man. -Nicolás Gómez Dávila

          Comment

          • #20
            Why are you calling it a crisis? Because there will be less people in your country?
            I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
            - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

            Comment

            • #21
              Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
              I support this one
              That is because you know what I'm talking about.



              USAians and to a lesser extent Canadians don't really understand the problems of subreplacement fertility in a Social Democracy or if they do they think that Social Democracy is evil and deserves to collapse like communism anyway.


              They also don't understand the Euros can't assimilate their immigrants like they can Mexicans.
              Modern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.”
              The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
              The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man. -Nicolás Gómez Dávila

              Comment

              • #22
                Originally posted by Kidicious
                Why are you calling it a crisis? Because there will be less people in your country?
                Because we will have to leave our elders to die in poverty and squalor as our pensions and universal healthcare become impossible to maintain.


                France 2003

                More and more of our elders will die due to neglect in circumstances unbefitting human dignity.
                Modern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.”
                The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
                The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man. -Nicolás Gómez Dávila

                Comment

                • #23
                  We already have some financial support per children. Given that it is paid via taxes, it is already some kind of indirect taxation of those without kids, since they pay into it, but don't receive it, while those with kids do.

                  Afaik many Euro countries have some form of "money for kids". Taxing those without kids extra doesn't make much sense then IMO.
                  Blah

                  Comment

                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Heraclitus


                    Because we will have to leave our elders to die in poverty and squalor as our pensions and universal healthcare become impossible to maintain.


                    France 2003

                    More and more of our elders will die due to neglect in circumstances unbefitting human dignity.
                    So you want people to have more children? Children have to be supported too, unless you plan to put them to work.
                    I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
                    - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                    Comment

                    • #25
                      Originally posted by BeBro
                      We already have some financial support per children. Given that it is paid via taxes, it is already some kind of indirect taxation of those without kids, since they pay into it, but don't receive it, while those with kids do.

                      Afaik many Euro countries have some form of "money for kids". Taxing those without kids extra doesn't make much sense then IMO.
                      Fiscally it isn't much different, but psychologically it changes the way employers will look at working mothers.
                      Modern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.”
                      The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
                      The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man. -Nicolás Gómez Dávila

                      Comment

                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Kidicious


                        So you want people to have more children? Children have to be supported too, unless you plan to put them to work.

                        This is not a problem in Europe, our families are small and wealthy, and our strong social states helps out those from poorer families to have a better opportunity of making something of themselves.


                        Also kids become less expensive to maintain over a certain age (large chunks of Europe have free university education) while old people become more and more expensive to maintain until they die.
                        Modern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.”
                        The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
                        The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man. -Nicolás Gómez Dávila

                        Comment

                        • #27
                          Children grow up to be taxpayers overhear in Europe.
                          Who will then pay taxes to suppor themseleves.

                          No kids = No future taxpayers
                          Fewer kids means fewer people to support.
                          "The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.

                          Comment

                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Heraclitus
                            This is not a problem in Europe, our families are small and wealthy, and our strong social states helps out those from poorer families to have a better opportunity of making something of themselves.
                            By that reasoning the growth in the number of elderly shouldn't be a problem. It's the same type of problem.
                            Also kids become less expensive to maintain over a certain age (large chunks of Europe have free university education) while old people become more and more expensive to maintain until they die.
                            Like when they need shoes that cost $60, or when they start college?

                            I can tell you don't have children.
                            I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
                            - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                            Comment

                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Patroklos


                              Who will then pay taxes to suppor themseleves.
                              The kids will once they grow up.

                              Originally posted by Patroklos

                              Fewer kids means fewer people to support.
                              And killing everyone eliminates crime. Your point?
                              Modern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.”
                              The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
                              The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man. -Nicolás Gómez Dávila

                              Comment

                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Kidicious

                                By that reasoning the growth in the number of elderly shouldn't be a problem. It's the same type of problem.
                                No it isn't! Investing into kids is a smart decision economicaly as well as ethically, investing into elders is only an ethical obligation!


                                Everything you invest into a kid you get back with large interest. Everything you invest in an elder is lost.



                                In any case elders far outweigh children, we could cut all support to our kids and the situation of the elderly would not markedly improve.
                                Modern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.”
                                The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
                                The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man. -Nicolás Gómez Dávila

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 12 template Next
                                Working...
                                X