I think the childless should be taxed

[Winston]

Man, that map in post #13 screwing up the page is annoying.

[Jon Miller]

It's below replacement rates in much of europe. This is bad for the state.

People look out for themselves, if raising children is bad for you, less people will do it.

The planet isn't overcrowded Kid, it just faces some inefficiencies.

JM

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Winston


I think the question is why some people think there won't be any kids unless we pay people to have them. It's worked fine without government subsidies for millions of years. I think by now we can say that childbirth is here to stay.

Yes, I agree that some people will have children, so there is no reason to punish those that don't.

But governments have been subsidizing population growth for a long time. I think the motive is mostly nationalistic or religious for people to promote population growth. Look where it has gotten us.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Ah, but you want Europeans to have more kids which will increase the amount of energy and resources that the entire society uses. You're saying that having more kids is worse for the earth!

Yes I am!

I'm trying to make you understand that sustainable development must be just that sustainable. If nations that are ecofreindly & socially just can't reach replacement fertility simple logic dictates they will be displaced by less ecofriendly & socially just societies.


We must show that our system works, if we expect developing nations to embrace it and reduce their own ecofootprint.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
It's below replacement rates in much of europe. This is bad for the state.

True, but it's not bad for the people of Europe who will enjoy smaller population levels in future.

People look out for themselves, if raising children is bad for you, less people will do it.

People will always have children for the life experience. People don't have children anymore for the money.

The planet isn't overcrowded Kid, it just faces some inefficiencies.

No it's overcrowded. How long has it been since you were stuck in traffic? Notice the price of rent, food and energy these days. That's due to overcrowding.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


Yes I am!

I'm trying to make you understand that sustainable development must be just that sustainable. If nations that are ecofreindly & socially just can't reach replacement fertility simple logic dictates they will be displaced by less ecofriendly & socially just societies.


We must show that our system works, if we expect developing nations to embrace it and reduce their own ecofootprint.

By growing your populations! WTF???!!! What kind of example is that!

[Garth Vader]

People with kids already get a hell of a lot of tax deductions that the childless don't get. Plus we pay the extra taxes for schools that go for other peoples kids. I think it's already pretty fair.

[Jon Miller]

The non-industrial nations have to industrialize, to improve their quality of life. If we are around to help them, they might agree to do so in an eco-freindly way. If we aren't (because we are spending all our production keeping up our old people), than they will industrialize the way we did, by raping the planet.

The current first world nations have taken a lot in the last 200+ years to reach the point we are at now. We need to give back. To do this, we need productivity. This means having people who take care of our own requirements (the elderly) as well as to produce to help others.

If we don't have this productivity, if we just use our resources to take care of our own elderly, then we have essentially just raped the planet (both the environemnt, and the other cultures/peoples) without repaying anything.

Most of you are extremely short sighted.

Additionally, the tax credits/etc don't even make having children be a economically neutral choice. How than are you complaining about the few subsidies that children get currently? We pay a lot more for the elderly, than for children. This is screwed up.

JM

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
The non-industrial nations have to industrialize, to improve their quality of life. If we are around to help them, they might agree to do so in an eco-freindly way. If we aren't (because we are spending all our production keeping up our old people), than they will industrialize the way we did, by raping the planet.

The current first world nations have taken a lot in the last 200+ years to reach the point we are at now. We need to give back. To do this, we need productivity. This means having people who take care of our own requirements (the elderly) as well as to produce to help others.

If we don't have this productivity, if we just use our resources to take care of our own elderly, then we have essentially just raped the planet (both the environemnt, and the other cultures/peoples) without repaying anything.

Most of you are extremely short sighted.

That's ridiculous. We don't help them by using up energy and producing more goods. It hasn't been that way in the past. It's not that way now, and it won't be that way in the future. Nations develop when they create trade surpluses, and inputs are cheap.

[Lancer]

An interesting thought Heraclitus, but the womens lib types that helped bring about the situation you refer to would never allow it. Nope, it is the end of our (western) time. That's not such a bad thing really though, we've made such a mess of things...and gave the world the atom bomb.

Btw, are there really cheap places to rent in western europe now because of the population decline?

[Jon Miller]

We already make food cheaper... which might be a bit of a bad thing. And we already make medicine more available as well.

What we don't do, and we should, is subsidize power/etc. China is building coal plants because they are cheap, if we subsidized nuclear than maybe they would build nuclear? And than the air wouldn't become so horrible?

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Lancer

Btw, are there really cheap places to rent in western europe now because of the population decline?

There are still lots of elderly taking up space.

JM

[Lancer]

Elderly don't 'take up space'. Remember Jon, we all get old, yes?

No, I heard that the population of Germany was 89 million, now 80 million. Just makes sense that there's some housing available, yes?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
We already make food cheaper... which might be a bit of a bad thing. And we already make medicine more available as well.

What we don't do, and we should, is subsidize power/etc. China is building coal plants because they are cheap, if we subsidized nuclear than maybe they would build nuclear? And than the air wouldn't become so horrible?

JM

Cheap food is a good thing to keep population in check. Third world farmers have large families.

Also, the reason China needs so many coal plants is because of so many people in the West.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Lancer
Elderly don't 'take up space'. Remember Jon, we all get old, yes?

No, I heard that the population of Germany was 89 million, now 80 million. Just makes sense that there's some housing available, yes?

It's now around 82 million. If Wiki isn't telling lies it was never much above. There are a lot of scenarios around how it will develope, from down to 60 by 2050 (IIRC) to 75 or just stagnation around 80. It's certainly an issue, but it's far from "dieing out".