mnealtx 0 #26 November 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteI don't think the point he was trying to make was taking things that far. My view of it is: "Why is the government rewarding people for having a bunch of kids?" How many kids do you have? 0, why? I figured as much... If you *had* raised a child, you'd quickly realize that there's no "government reward" out there. There's definitely a reward, but it's not from the government - it's when that child looks into your eyes and says "I love you Daddy".Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kid_Icarus 0 #27 November 9, 2006 Please read my posts. I don't claim that parents are "getting away" with anything. I am no authority, just a human on a planet that we all share. I take it you have 2+ kids. Please justify why having more children than to replace yourself is conscious, responsible and respectful of your neighbors and your planet? ________________________________________ "What What..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #28 November 9, 2006 QuoteI did make up the number. I don't have the time or resources to figure out what amount to tax, and how you could actually quantify that. But if calculated, it would most certainly be higher than that Not really. Because you would have to factor in how much that person over their life would PAY in taxes. QuoteWhat business is it of mine...? Are you serious? How do people and over population affect me.... you....? Do you like to sit in traffic? Do you like urban sprawl? Do you like endangered species? Do you like bio-manufactured chicken? I don't sit in traffic. I live less than 10 miles from work. I rarely have to stop once. I live in an area that is being built....Do you like high house costs? QuoteThe world population doubled in 40 years.... don't you think that's a problem? Project out 80 years.... even if it doesn't double. Where are we goning to put all those people? What are we going to feed them with? Look bigger than your family. You have a passion, but nothing supports it. You spout numbers you make up to back your position. Your argument is invalid even if your passion and intent is good. QuoteI'm not asking the government to interfere, I'd be the last. However, you have to admit that if people cannot be responsible themselves, someone needs to step in. So, again, would you support not letting people below poverty have kids? They cannot support them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kid_Icarus 0 #29 November 9, 2006 QuoteThis global issue is not a domestic issue. Why are you trying to make it one? Because the United States resides on Planet Earth. That is a foolish statement. ________________________________________ "What What..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #30 November 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI don't think the point he was trying to make was taking things that far. My view of it is: "Why is the government rewarding people for having a bunch of kids?" How many kids do you have? 0, why? I figured as much... If you *had* raised a child, you'd quickly realize that there's no "government reward" out there. There's definitely a reward, but it's not from the government - it's when that child looks into your eyes and says "I love you Daddy". I don't have any kids, so of course I lack those experiences, but that still doesn't answer my question. Why should I pay more in taxes than someone who chooses to have kids? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #31 November 9, 2006 >This global issue is not a domestic issue. Why are you trying to make it one? Which is like saying that pollution is a global issue, so there's no reason to regulate emissions at local power plants. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kid_Icarus 0 #32 November 9, 2006 I spout 1 number, and I admitted to it's source, that of being arbitrary. I support anyone having children. I will have 2 of my own I hope, someday. Children are a blessing, a gift, a wonderful facet of life. Let us also be aware of the environment we are introducing them into. Ok, so for arguments sake, lets say I'm wrong. I would like to see the other side presented. Please convince me why 2+ kids are ok. This is a factual, social and moral issue. It's difficult, I think we all agree, to quantify and ascertain what is the best path for sustainable human existence. I don't plan to solve it. I only aim to make people look at their choices and see the affects on the global community. ________________________________________ "What What..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #33 November 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI don't think the point he was trying to make was taking things that far. My view of it is: "Why is the government rewarding people for having a bunch of kids?" How many kids do you have? 0, why? I figured as much... If you *had* raised a child, you'd quickly realize that there's no "government reward" out there. There's definitely a reward, but it's not from the government - it's when that child looks into your eyes and says "I love you Daddy". I don't have any kids, so of course I lack those experiences, but that still doesn't answer my question. Why should I pay more in taxes than someone who chooses to have kids? Most families have both parents working - between them, they pay MORE taxes than you, not less. They also pay more for goods/services, which is simple economics of scale. Tell me again how you're behind the 8 ball on this?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #34 November 9, 2006 Quote>This global issue is not a domestic issue. Why are you trying to make it one? Which is like saying that pollution is a global issue, so there's no reason to regulate emissions at local power plants. As I've already stated the total fertility rate in the US and in most industrialized countries is below the level needed to maintain a stable population. This "declining" situation is vastly different from the United States' contribution to global pollution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #35 November 9, 2006 QuoteOk, so for arguments sake, lets say I'm wrong. I would like to see the other side presented. Please convince me why 2+ kids are ok. Even if you were correct that it is immoral to have more than two kids (which I don't agree with), it doesn't necessarily follow that the answer is more government coercion. We've got enough of that already. Let's try to solve our problems without bullying from the government. This is America, after all. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #36 November 9, 2006 QuoteMost families have both parents working - between them, they pay MORE taxes than you, not less. But the relevant amount is how much does the family pay per person. If a family of six pays in three times as much in taxes than a single, childless person, they are only paying in half as much per person in taxes.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kid_Icarus 0 #37 November 9, 2006 "the total fertility rate in the US and in most industrialized countries is below the level needed to maintain a stable population" Then why did the US population DOUBLE in 40 years....? ________________________________________ "What What..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #38 November 9, 2006 QuoteThis is a factual, social and moral issue. I agree. We have a social and moral obligation to maintain a stable population level in this country. What is the benefit (for Americans) of seeking to decrease our population, while the rest of the world continues to grow at an alarming rate? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kid_Icarus 0 #39 November 9, 2006 Maybe this should be applied world wide? I don't know. We can all start by doing our own part. ________________________________________ "What What..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #40 November 9, 2006 Quote"the total fertility rate in the US and in most industrialized countries is below the level needed to maintain a stable population" Then why did the US population DOUBLE in 40 years....? Immigration. It's about people relocating, not reproducing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #41 November 9, 2006 QuoteQuote"the total fertility rate in the US and in most industrialized countries is below the level needed to maintain a stable population" Then why did the US population DOUBLE in 40 years....? Immigration. It's about people relocating, not reproducing. The graph Kid Icarus posted showed world population, not US population. Immigration does not alter world population.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #42 November 9, 2006 QuoteMy view of it is: "Why is the government rewarding people for having a bunch of kids?" The same logic would be, "Why is the government punishing people for having a bunch of kids?" Kids are expensive - that is certain. The government realizes that with kids, you may want to let the parents save some of that tax money to raise the kids, lest the government need to step in and assist. My point is that the government should simply take out the write-off for kids and lower taxes altogether. To do this, is should start by stopping socialist programs. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kid_Icarus 0 #43 November 9, 2006 So is no one going to step in and argue the other side? ________________________________________ "What What..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #44 November 9, 2006 Quote My point is that the government should simply take out the write-off for kids and lower taxes altogether. To do this, is should start by stopping socialist programs. I agree completely, but seeing as how our congressmen are more worried about gay marriage and steriods in baseball, I don't see anything happening anytime soon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #45 November 9, 2006 we did. I argued that government intrusiveness is not the automatic solution to all of life's problems. I also argued that the mentality you are asking us to embrace is the mentality that a human being is just a number, an "it." If all you can see in a human being is something that can be summed up on an Excel spreadsheet titled "Resources Consumed" then you'd be absolutely correct. 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? Anyway, if the choice is A) risk associated with large families possibly contributint to problems associated with overpopulation or choice B) Increased government control over our lives, I will take my chances with choice A. If you think you have a case that no one should have more than 2 kids, then you are perfectly free to try to get people to follow your advice by persuasion, not by government persecution. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #46 November 9, 2006 QuoteImmigration does not alter world population. That's my point. If you take immigration out the equation, there is no population growth in the US. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #47 November 9, 2006 Quote Most families have both parents working - between them, they pay MORE taxes than you, not less. Duh, two people will naturally pay more taxes than one. Quote They also pay more for goods/services, which is simple economics of scale. Okay, so why should they get a tax break because they buy more stuff? Quote Tell me again how you're behind the 8 ball on this? Tell me again how you don't understand the concept ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #48 November 9, 2006 China is now starting to reap what it sowed with it's restrictions on the number of children per couple. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/906114.stm Who is going to pay for your upkeep when you are old?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #49 November 9, 2006 QuoteLet us also be aware of the environment we are introducing them into. OK, but that is not an arbitrary number of children .Tell me, why did you choose two, not three or one? QuoteOk, so for arguments sake, lets say I'm wrong. I would like to see the other side presented. Please convince me why 2+ kids are ok. Simple, if I can afford them, feed them, take care of them, then it is clearly OK. If I can't afford one then it is not OK. 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. Also, as Kallend pointed out, limiting the number of children didn't work for China...What makes you think it would work here? So my primary point is as long as I can afford them, then I am ADDING people to pay taxes, not adding people to draw taxes. (BTW I have no kids, nor do I plan on having them) My secondary point is what business is it of yours if I can afford and want more kids? My third point is it didn't work for China...What makes you think it will work here. My fourth point is that it is a GLOBAL problem, and the US is not the leading producer of people and we have been able to support them so far. Your concerns being set on the US will not help India's problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #50 November 10, 2006 QuoteQuote Most families have both parents working - between them, they pay MORE taxes than you, not less. Duh, two people will naturally pay more taxes than one. Quote They also pay more for goods/services, which is simple economics of scale. Okay, so why should they get a tax break because they buy more stuff? Quote Tell me again how you're behind the 8 ball on this? Tell me again how you don't understand the concept ? 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.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
