$179,000 Tax per child, for over 2 per couple

[dorbie 0]

You are always free to retroactively apply your anti-reproduction policy to your parents "irresponsible" decision.

[pleasebequiet 0]

a better idea would be the Fair Tax.

http://www.fairtax.org/

Liberalism today translates into a whimpering isolationism in foreign policy,a mulish obstructionism in domestic policy, and a pusillanimous pussyfooting on the critical issue of law and order.
Spiro

[Royd 0]

Quote

You may also obtain zero population growth by euthenizing all elderly who have outlived their societal usefulness. "Social responsibility" may very well mean not being a burden to society. The elderly take up a large amount of our healthcare dollars. The socially responsible thing to do would therefore be to either kill them or let them die, a la "euthenasia day" in Death Race 2000.

I think that we should include obese couch potatos, who spend the majority of their day on websites filled with BS.

Think of the amount of potatos used to make chips, that we could save and send to starving people in Darfur.

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Quote

You may also obtain zero population growth by euthenizing all elderly who have outlived their societal usefulness. "Social responsibility" may very well mean not being a burden to society. The elderly take up a large amount of our healthcare dollars. The socially responsible thing to do would therefore be to either kill them or let them die, a la "euthenasia day" in Death Race 2000.

I think that we should include obese couch potatos, who spend the majority of their day on websites filled with BS.

Think of the amount of potatos used to make chips, that we could save and send to starving people in Darfur.

You should read The Giver

Not just you, royd, but in general. This post just reminded me of the book....and it's a great bedtime story to read to 10-12 y/o kids.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Kid_Icarus 0]

I chose two because that is the number that when my wife and I die, our 2 children replace us in the grand scheme of the global population. Yes there are early deaths, and long lives and so on. But when you have 4 kids, you are adding 2, in essence, to the population.

"Simple, if I can afford them, feed them, take care of them, then it is clearly OK."

That is exactly the problem. You nailed it on the head. THAT IS NOT OK. You are creating strain on limited resources, and finite space. What happens when we run out of open space to build homes for all the new human. It's gonna happen. Not in the next 100 years, but it's going to happen. Do you understand that the world is not limitless?

Think of a fish bowl. Start off with 10 fish. You have enough supplies to keep all of them alive. How many more fish can you fit in there before there isn't enough water, enough space, enough food? If one fish dies, you replace it with 1 fish. You still have 10 fish. If 3 fish die, you replace it with 3 fish. I understand that human intervention is the key here, but in reality you have the choice to reproduce, and the number of times you do, with the exception of twins.

"My secondary point is what business is it of yours if I can afford and want more kids? "

It IS my business if you have more children than to replace you because it puts a strain on nearly every facet of life. Not directly YOUR children, but in the larger sense of aiding overpopulation. Which leads to points I've made earlier. How can you not see that overpopulation affects everyone, on a global scale?

"My third point is it didn't work for China...What makes you think it will work here?"

China had a 1 child policy, a "net loss." Not enough to replace the population. 2 = replace, 3 = net gain. Get it.....?

"My fourth point is that it is a GLOBAL problem, and the US is not the leading producer of people.... "

You are correct. We need to start somewhere. Someone needs to take the lead and be an example. I'm not saying that my answer is the correct one, but I would like people to be aware that they alone can help the current situation. this problem can be corraled in 2 generations. you could almost freeze the growth by only having 2 children. Our actions will not help India's problem. But if everyone add to overpopulation, like we currently do now, then you get massive population growth, like we have now....

________________________________________
"What What.....

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I chose two because that is the number that when my wife and I die, our 2 children replace us in the grand scheme of the global population. Yes there are early deaths, and long lives and so on. But when you have 4 kids, you are adding 2, in essence, to the population.

You don't need your scheme for that. The average number of children per family is already below 2.

Utah and Idaho are the only two states with an average above 2. 2.01 and 2.21 respectively.

[mailin 0]

Professor Richard Lynn (http://www.rlynn.co.uk/) has shown that the least intelligent of the world are the ones that are reproducing at above replacement levels, while the cognitive elites are having below replacement levels of offspring. The result: the world is getting dumber each generation, and it's genetic. Not much of a future for our descendents. Of course, Transhumanists believe that technology will cure all problems, much speculation though, but who knows.

Arianna Frances

[Kid_Icarus 0]

"Utah and Idaho are the only two states with an average above 2. 2.01 and 2.21 respectively."

(whispers........ it's the mormons.....)

________________________________________
"What What.....

[mailin 0]

You seem to subscribe to Paul Ehrlich's 'science'.

You may find this interesting:

http://www.junkscience.com/news/fumento.htm

Arianna Frances

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

"Utah and Idaho are the only two states with an average above 2. 2.01 and 2.21 respectively."

(whispers........ it's the mormons.....)

I know. Both states also have a relatively low number of families. So, in the grand scheme, as in your national average, it really barely makes a difference.

End result. plan isn't needed for the stated objective.

[Kid_Icarus 0]

you're right! overpopulation isn't a problem... and never will be. Keep buildin those cookie cutter homes.... keep slashin that rainforrest to feed people...

... honey (yelling to my wife) let's go a makin babies......yuk yuk yuk....

________________________________________
"What What.....

[mailin 0]

Umm... I think a more constructive reply would lend more credence to what you are saying here...

Quote

you're right! overpopulation isn't a problem... and never will be. Keep buildin those cookie cutter homes.... keep slashin that rainforrest to feed people...

... honey (yelling to my wife) let's go a makin babies......yuk yuk yuk....

huh??

Arianna Frances

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

you're right! overpopulation isn't a problem... and never will be. Keep buildin those cookie cutter homes.... keep slashin that rainforrest to feed people...

... honey (yelling to my wife) let's go a makin babies......yuk yuk yuk....

I'm guessing reproduction in the US isn't what's bother you.

[Kid_Icarus 0]

Yes, it is. Global overpopulation is what bothers me.

________________________________________
"What What.....

[NCclimber 0]

Are you saying we should force reproduction levels below replacement levels in the US?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Yes, it is. Global overpopulation is what bothers me.

And as stated before the US is not really adding to that in any number worth mentioning. You would be better spent trying to control China (Their paln didn't work) or India.

Fact is the *US*can support an increased population. In fact there are less wage earners NOW than a few years ago. And the adults today are ALREADY having less kids than before. So your target group is off.

You may not like overpopulation, but your plan will not work. So, lets say a person has a third child and cannot pay your FEE? Manditory Abortions? China did it.

[wmw999 2,545]

If you look at the maps, China is at about the same rate as the US. Most of Africa is well above replacement rate. OTOH, when child mortality is also high, it's not surprising. There is a strong desire for many families to ensure their succession, and when babies die, you keep having them.

However, those of us in the developed, industrialized countries are using a disproportionate amount of natural resources, and contributing a disproportionate amount of waste to the handling stream.

We in the US want it now, and we want it our way, and we'd prefer if we can either drive through or have it delivered. Why contribute when you can tailor your world?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Royd 0]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that we should include obese couch potatos, who spend the majority of their day on websites filled with BS.

Think of the amount of potatos used to make chips, that we could save and send to starving people in Darfur.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

You should read The Giver

Not just you, royd, but in general. This post just reminded me of the book....and it's a great bedtime story to read to 10-12 y/o kids.

It looks like a good book.

I was being a wiseass, pointing out the amount of time people actually waste doing nothing.

Honestly, If the leftist, socialists in this country had their way, that's exactly where they would take it.

We already discard millions of unwanted children without a second thought.

[champu 1]

Does this thread remind anyone else of Ender's Game?

Quote

Who can say whether it will be the 1st or 2nd child, or the 4th or 5th child who grows up to invent a cure for cancer, or revolutionizes nuclear physics & invents the first fusion reactor, or becomes a musical or artistic genius, or whatever?

No love for the thirds eh? Anyway, this post is definitely one of the stronger arguments against implementing any kind of law like this. If I tell you a couple is going to start a family, and that for sure they will have four kids, you have absolutely no idea which kid will create the greatest net burden on (or provide the greatest net service to!) society. Furthermore, trying to determine how truncating the family to two kids would impact the societal contributions of the first two kids is an even more ridiculous task. This is just as true for poor families as it is for families that would be able to pay your arbitrary tax figure and have the kids anyway.

But as for the following...

Quote

You've still not explained how you have more money going out than that family for the necessities of life, so there's no "concept" to understand.

I have to agree with Justin on this one, what he's trying to say really isn't that complicated. In family A, both adults work and pay taxes but have no kids. In family B, both adults work and pay taxes and have a kid. The taxes from both families go towards public works (schools, roads, tax credits for corporations, bombs, etc...) But family B makes more thorough use of these public works on account of there being three of them.

Technically, it wouldn't even be fair if nothing was done, but less than nothing is done. Family B gets tax breaks for having the kid, and pays less in taxes than family A. The fact that family B spends their post tax dollars on diapers and formula and family A uses the money to wine and dine is irrelevant.

Quote

Also the Social Security system is based on CURRENT workers paying for the CURRENT group or retired workers. Due to the Baby Boomers stepping out the current work force has a greater amount to pay since....And here is something you missed....They had LESS kids than their parents did.

Social Security is a mandatory participation pyramid scheme. The sooner it falls apart and goes away, the less severe the crash will be, and the better off we'll all be in the long run.