Kid_Icarus 0 #1 November 9, 2006 I propose a one-time tax of $179,000 per child (at birth) for those couples, who are socially irresponsible enough to have more than 2 children. Currently our government rewards greedy families for overpopulation. They give them tax credits for straining our schools, our teachers, and our children’s quality of learning. The government gives large families an incentive to deplete our drinkable water supply, and encourages them to contribute to urban sprawl. Apparently our government rewards our planets imminent demise instead of supporting a sustainable population I currently live in Utah, home to the nation’s highest average family size, where many many many families have 4 children and often up to 9. No matter what state or country you live in, having more than 2 children is extremely irresponsible and ignorant to our current global situation. Resources are stressed, wildlife and open lands are being encroached on, good intentioned government programs are being overcrowded, and food is becoming scarce and more importantly, grossly unnatural. Many of our world’s current problems can be attributed to overpopulation. My proposition of a tax for those who feel the urge to have more than 2 children puts the inherent responsibility of paying more to those who use more. They alone choose to stress our schools, our transportation systems, increase our air pollution, deplete our oceans of marine life, permanently destroy our open lands, and aide global warming. This greed, this addiction to have more than 2 children needs to stop now. Right now. I’m not against life, families, or children. Obviously there should be a grace period of 10 months from the taxes inception to consider the currently pregnant. And of course instances of nature like triplets or higher should be exempt. Let’s be human about this. We all need to be conscious of our environment, our neighbor’s quality of life and how we as individuals affect our surroundings. Having more children than enough to replace you and your spouse is a negative contribution to the planet and human existence. This tax’s dollar figure has no basis and if it did would be extremely higher. Think about all the needs of one individual, both personal and societal. At the very least, maybe this proposed tax will be a deterrent for those who reproduce like rabbits for whatever reason they believe. (note: people, you don’t need farmhands anymore) edited: to delete attachment of random 10 kid family that didn't need to be my poster child. ________________________________________ "What What..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #2 November 9, 2006 QuoteI propose a tax of $179,000 per child for those couples, who are socially irresponsible enough to have more than 2 children. I come from a state where average families have 4 children and very often up to 9. Yes, Utah. I find this extremely irresponsible and ignorant to our current global situation, no matter what state or country you live in. Resources are stressed, wildlife and open lands are being encroached on, oceans are depleting, and food is becoming scarce and more importantly, grossly unnatural. Many of the world’s current problems can be attributed to overpopulation. My proposition of a tax for those, who for some reason, feel the urge to have more than 2 children, thereby contributing to rapid over population, should take the inherent responsibility of paying more. They alone choose to stress our schools, our transportation systems, increase our air pollution, deplete our oceans of marine life, permanently destroy our open lands, and aide global warming. This greed, this addiction to have more than 2 children needs to stop now. Right now. At the very least, maybe this proposed tax will be a deterrent for those who reproduce like rabbits for whatever reason they believe. (note: people, you don’t need farmhands anymore) $179,000 is kinda high and seemingly arbitrary. I'd entertain the notion of increasing taxes on people who have children rather than decreasing them. Right now, the system is backwards...the more kids a family has, the more they use our roads and schools and water and electricity. For that increased use, they pay decreased taxes while the single person who opts not to have children pays more and more to cover the expenses of those children? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kid_Icarus 0 #3 November 9, 2006 Agreed. The current situation a tax break is ludicrous. The number is arbitrary. I wanted it high enough to make prohibitive to have more than 2 children, more than an actual itemized tax. ________________________________________ "What What..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #4 November 9, 2006 Perhaps it is important to consider human beings as being more than just numbers. There's this mentality that all a human being is is another dang mouth to feed. But human beings also create & work & invent & well, LIVE as human beings, not just numbers. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #5 November 9, 2006 QuotePerhaps it is important to consider human beings as being more than just numbers. There's this mentality that all a human being is is another dang mouth to feed. But human beings also create & work & invent & well, LIVE as human beings, not just numbers. Maybe I'm just cynical, but what percentage of humans would you say actually improve the world around them? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #6 November 9, 2006 QuoteQuotePerhaps it is important to consider human beings as being more than just numbers. There's this mentality that all a human being is is another dang mouth to feed. But human beings also create & work & invent & well, LIVE as human beings, not just numbers. Maybe I'm just cynical, but what percentage of humans would you say actually improve the world around them? Blues, Dave I don't think there's anyway to quantify that. But another question would be: What is the value of a human being? Is a human being like a carpenter ant? Is s/he only important to the extent that s/he contributes to The Collective? Because that is the mentality of people who want the government to control our lives for the Benefit of the Allmighty Collective. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kid_Icarus 0 #7 November 9, 2006 I'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. People are not numbers. They are fingerprints of the divine. However, we all need to be conscious of our environment, and our neighbors. Having more children than enough to replace your own family is a negative contribution to the planet and human existence. ________________________________________ "What What..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #8 November 9, 2006 QuoteBut another question would be: What is the value of a human being? Is a human being like a carpenter ant? Is s/he only important to the extent that s/he contributes to The Collective? Because that is the mentality of people who want the government to control our lives for the Benefit of the Allmighty Collective. I was just about to say I'm not one of those people, but on further reflection I guess I am. I want the government to step in where people are harming the collective, e.g. murderers, rapists, thieves, vandals, etc. In fact, that's the *only* way I want the government to control our lives. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #9 November 9, 2006 QuoteI'm not asking the government to interfere, I'd be the last. So then, you were kidding about the tax? QuoteHowever, you have to admit that if people cannot be responsible themselves, someone needs to step in. Of course. There's always a REASON for people to resort to statism. Usually it involves fear of some impending danger or other. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #10 November 9, 2006 And those people "stressing the system" are paying more in food costs, gas costs, clothing costs, healthcare costs, vehicle costs... still think the singles are getting such a raw deal, money-wise? Please feel free to show what expenses you're having to cover for those folks - I'm not seeing the connection.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #11 November 9, 2006 Quote Please feel free to show what expenses you're having to cover for those folks - I'm not seeing the connection. I didn't say they're stressing me personally. I have a child who went to public school, so the taxes I spent on education got me something (just not as much as those parents who have 6 kids). Beyond that, those people are getting a tax break for each child...those taxes still have to be collected to cover the government's expenditures, therefore they are collected from the rest of society (including me). Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #12 November 9, 2006 What if a couple has triplets? What if pregnancy #2 is twins? That'd suck. I also find it difficult to agree that having more than one child is "socially irresponsible." I think that the inquiry is far deeper than that. It would force one to seriously consider that while it is "socially irresponsible" for members of many demographics to have even one child (teenagers), or to have more than one child (the poor, those with inherited genetic diseases like carriers of Tay Sachs, Cystic Fibrosis, hemophillia, etc). Are you gonna tax the poor or are you gonna let them get away with it? Why not pull what China did and force abortions? 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. QuoteMany of the world’s current problems can be attributed to overpopulation. Yes, those are problems in the "world." Many of the world's current problems also can be attributed to lack of sanitation. Should we in developed countries therefore do the socially responsible thing and quit taking dumps? Or should we recognize that problems in other parts of the world don't match our own? Quotewho are socially irresponsible enough to have more than 2 children. As a final note, my personal thought is that if people were individually responsible, there would be no need for "social responsibility." If we knocked off this "social responsibility" stuff, aka "socialism" people would have to take "individual responsibility" and figure out that, goodness gracious, "If I have a kid, I will have to support it." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #13 November 9, 2006 QuoteQuote Please feel free to show what expenses you're having to cover for those folks - I'm not seeing the connection. I didn't say they're stressing me personally. I have a child who went to public school, so the taxes I spent on education got me something (just not as much as those parents who have 6 kids). Beyond that, those people are getting a tax break for each child...those taxes still have to be collected to cover the government's expenditures, therefore they are collected from the rest of society (including me). Blues, Dave Ok... you have to pay more in taxes than they would, all else being equal. Income tax is the ONLY break they're going to get, monetarily...they'll still end up paying more for everything else.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #14 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. If your concern is about stemming worldwide population growth you might want to look outside the US. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kid_Icarus 0 #15 November 9, 2006 I’m not against life, families, or children. Obviously there should be a grace period of 10 months from the taxes inception to consider the currently pregnant. And of course instances of nature like triplets or higher should be exempt. Let’s be human about this. ________________________________________ "What What..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #16 November 9, 2006 QuoteThe number is arbitrary So you just made up a number? That makes no sense. QuoteMany of the world’s current problems can be attributed to overpopulation. My proposition of a tax for those, who for some reason, feel the urge to have more than 2 children, thereby contributing to rapid over population, should take the inherent responsibility of paying more. They alone choose to stress our schools, our transportation systems, increase our air pollution, deplete our oceans of marine life, permanently destroy our open lands, and aide global warming. This greed, this addiction to have more than 2 children needs to stop now. Right now. And if a family can support the 3-9th child, what business is it of yours if they have them? Would you support people below the poverty line not being allowed ANY children? They are a bigger drain on society than some family that can support more children. Overpopulation is a problem, but we are no where near that level. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kid_Icarus 0 #17 November 9, 2006 I 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. Again at the very least "maybe this proposed tax will be a deterrent for those who reproduce like rabbits " What 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? The 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. ________________________________________ "What What..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kid_Icarus 0 #18 November 9, 2006 QuoteAnd those people "stressing the system" are paying more in food costs, gas costs, clothing costs, healthcare costs, vehicle costs... still think the singles are getting such a raw deal, money-wise? Please feel free to show what expenses you're having to cover for those folks - I'm not seeing the connection. Granted they pay for their use, as they well should. Agreed? This isn't about money or a tax in the larger sense. This is the only way I could think of to help people realize the affects of overpopulation, since education obviously doesn't work. I'm talking about stressing the model of a sustainable earth. More farmlands needed for more food for more mouths. Forrests slashed to accommodate these. More waste and methane from more animals. More oil exploration (and attributed wars) for more gas, for more cars. More sweat shops and more children needed to produce more clothes to bundle your 5th kid. More open space bulldozed to make room for more hospitals and doctors offices, and rising health care costs. I'm talking about putting more cows in a pen. You don't think that stresses the environment of the cows? This is everyone’s problem. The Earth is a finite space. ________________________________________ "What What..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #19 November 9, 2006 QuoteI'm talking about putting more cows in a pen. You don't think that stress the environment of the cows. This is everyone’s problem. The Earth is a finite space. And what good is that 179k going to do - you planning on leasing farmland in the asteroid belt with it?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #20 November 9, 2006 I 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?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kid_Icarus 0 #21 November 9, 2006 Again.... it's a deterrent. The money has no significance. It's to prohibit people from making irresponsible decisions. Are you honestly saying that 4-6 kids is a good thing? Justify this if you are. ________________________________________ "What What..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #22 November 9, 2006 QuoteI 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?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #23 November 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteI 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? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #24 November 9, 2006 QuoteAgain.... it's a deterrent. The money has no significance. It's to prohibit people from making irresponsible decisions. Are you honestly saying that 4-6 kids is a good thing? Justify this if you are. And again...who are you to say that more than 3 kids is irresponsible? You're already incorrect on your claims that the parents are somehow getting away with paying less...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #25 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. Again at the very least "maybe this proposed tax will be a deterrent for those who reproduce like rabbits " What 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? The 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. This global issue is not a domestic issue. Why are you trying to make it one? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
