Should People Without Children Be Given Tax Incentives

[Gravitymaster 0]

Should governments offer tax incentives for those citizens willing to forgo having children if they really want to start solving the worlds REAL problem? People who have chosen to not have children are being forced to pay higher taxes for schools they don't use, subsidized day care for those who can't afford their children and higher taxes due to the income tax deductions for those who choose to have children.

I don't want to live in a society of uneducated people but shouldn't we discourage behavior that is detrimental to society instead of encouraging it?

[chutem 0]

People who don't have children are not providing a future "tax base" for the country.

James

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Should governments offer tax incentives for those citizens willing to forgo having children if they really want to start solving the worlds REAL problem? People who have chosen to not have children are being forced to pay higher taxes for schools they don't use, subsidized day care for those who can't afford their children and higher taxes due to the income tax deductions for those who choose to have children.

idiotic - if the problem is too many incentives are unfairly given to guardians, then the fix isn't MORE incentives for non-guardians.

the fix would be to delete the incentives in the first place.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

People who don't have children are not providing a future "tax base" for the country.

reduce the spending and eliminate the pyramid scheme and this is moot

we should only spend in one year, the amount collected in the previous year

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DanG 1]

Quote

idiotic - if the problem is too many incentives are unfairly given to guardians, then the fix isn't MORE incentives for non-guardians.

the fix would be to delete the incentives in the first place.

+pi

- Dan G

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Should governments offer tax incentives for those citizens willing to forgo having children if they really want to start solving the worlds REAL problem? People who have chosen to not have children are being forced to pay higher taxes for schools they don't use, subsidized day care for those who can't afford their children and higher taxes due to the income tax deductions for those who choose to have children.

idiotic - if the problem is too many incentives are unfairly given to guardians, then the fix isn't MORE incentives for non-guardians.

the fix would be to delete the incentives in the first place.

I disagree. The reality is that there are always going to be tax incentives. To ignore this reality and to argue for something that will never happen is just futile ideology. Since most of the worlds problems center around too many people, it only makes sense to get to the root of the problem by offering incentives to reduce the population and to actually increase the taxes on those who choose to be parents.

[sxc 0]

It is not entirely true that we are not using the schools, even when we don't have children. We might not be using the school (for example) directly, but in the future, as we age, we are going to need doctors and other professionals. The professionals we will be using are the children that are in school now. It is in our best interest to educate and provide day care and other services, even if we don't use them directly.

One of these kids I pay to educate may find the cure to the disease that might be killing me later in life. I see it as an insurance policy!

[regulator 0]

I voted hell yes!... of course this could have something to do with the fact that I don't have any kids...unless you count my two dogs as kids.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

It is not entirely true that we are not using the schools, even when we don't have children. We might not be using the school (for example) directly, but in the future, as we age, we are going to need doctors and other professionals. The professionals we will be using are the children that are in school now. It is in our best interest to educate and provide day care and other services, even if we don't use them directly.

One of these kids I pay to educate may find the cure to the disease that might be killing me later in life. I see it as an insurance policy!

Fewer Patients means fewer doctors, means smaller and fewer schools, consumption of global resources, less crime etc. Offering incentives to reduce our population is the best long term strategy to solving problems caused by an ever growing population. In addition, any and all foreign aid should have some type of requirement that the recipient country take steps to reduce their populations and actually set goals to accomplish this.

[futuredivot 0]

Short answer-nah.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Short answer-nah.

Y-knot?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I disagree. The reality is that there are always going to be tax incentives. To ignore this reality and to argue for something that will never happen is just futile ideology. Since most of the worlds problems center around too many people, it only makes sense to get to the root of the problem by offering incentives to reduce the population and to actually increase the taxes on those who choose to be parents.

I disagree, taking money from people for the sole purpose of social engineering should not be the role of government. We need to eliminate incentives and breaks, and treat all individuals equally. Taking the biased benefits away from married people is fair. TIPPING the scales the complete other direction is just another form of bias.

And people thinking that making us all equal is "ignoring reality" are just fulfilling their own prophecy. "I give up, so I want mine too" is quitter talk.

but I understand your point, and you make it well - but I disagree

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,112]

>Should governments offer tax incentives for those citizens willing to forgo
>having children if they really want to start solving the worlds REAL problem?

No. Nor should they offer tax incentives for people who do have kids. Educate people on birth control and let them decide.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

I disagree. The reality is that there are always going to be tax incentives. To ignore this reality and to argue for something that will never happen is just futile ideology. Since most of the worlds problems center around too many people, it only makes sense to get to the root of the problem by offering incentives to reduce the population and to actually increase the taxes on those who choose to be parents.

I disagree, taking money from people for the sole purpose of social engineering should not be the role of government. We need to eliminate incentives and breaks, and treat all individuals equally. Taking the biased benefits away from married people is fair. TIPPING the scales the complete other direction is just another form of bias.

And people thinking that making us all equal is "ignoring reality" are just fulfilling their own prophecy. "I give up, so I want mine too" is quitter talk.

but I understand your point, and you make it well - but I disagree

This man is wise beyond his plentiful years. There's no need for tax incentives for not having children, just take away the incentives for having them.


Under the current system, families with kids get tax breaks for said kids, who in turn use public schools. I.e. they pay less taxes and use more goverment services. On the flip side of that coin, families without kids pay more taxes and use fewer government services. In what world is this not backwards, besides one in which government is relying on the future earnings of those children to fund the welfare given to their retired parents?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I disagree. The reality is that there are always going to be tax incentives. To ignore this reality and to argue for something that will never happen is just futile ideology. Since most of the worlds problems center around too many people, it only makes sense to get to the root of the problem by offering incentives to reduce the population and to actually increase the taxes on those who choose to be parents.

I disagree, taking money from people for the sole purpose of social engineering should not be the role of government. We need to eliminate incentives and breaks, and treat all individuals equally. Taking the biased benefits away from married people is fair. TIPPING the scales the complete other direction is just another form of bias.

And people thinking that making us all equal is "ignoring reality" are just fulfilling their own prophecy. "I give up, so I want mine too" is quitter talk.

but I understand your point, and you make it well - but I disagree

OK, try this.

Since we both acknowledge that taxes are a reality, should we increase taxes for those who choose to have children? Or said another way, would you support "user fees" for schools etc. so we don't have to call it a tax? Or are you of the mind that the public school system should be abolished? In which case the same goal is achieved with just the money going to the private sector? To me just taxing the school system is short-sighted as an ever growing population also increases the needs and costs of more and more infrastructure in addition to more air pollution and of course the ever growing belief in global warming.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Should governments offer tax incentives for those citizens willing to forgo
>having children if they really want to start solving the worlds REAL problem?

No. Nor should they offer tax incentives for people who do have kids. Educate people on birth control and let them decide.

We tried that, it doesn't work.

[billvon 3,112]

>We tried that, it doesn't work.

Doesn't work to accomplish what? Educated people? Works pretty well for that; our birthrate is below replacement rates now, which is a good thing since we still see a lot of immigration (both legal and illegal.)

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I disagree. The reality is that there are always going to be tax incentives. To ignore this reality and to argue for something that will never happen is just futile ideology. Since most of the worlds problems center around too many people, it only makes sense to get to the root of the problem by offering incentives to reduce the population and to actually increase the taxes on those who choose to be parents.

I disagree, taking money from people for the sole purpose of social engineering should not be the role of government. We need to eliminate incentives and breaks, and treat all individuals equally. Taking the biased benefits away from married people is fair. TIPPING the scales the complete other direction is just another form of bias.

And people thinking that making us all equal is "ignoring reality" are just fulfilling their own prophecy. "I give up, so I want mine too" is quitter talk.

but I understand your point, and you make it well - but I disagree

This man is wise beyond his plentiful years. There's no need for tax incentives for not having children, just take away the incentives for having them.


Under the current system, families with kids get tax breaks for said kids, who in turn use public schools. I.e. they pay less taxes and use more goverment services. On the flip side of that coin, families without kids pay more taxes and use fewer government services. In what world is this not backwards, besides one in which government is relying on the future earnings of those children to fund the welfare given to their retired parents?

Blues,
Dave

Taking them away for having children wouldn't be as effective as increasing them even more for having them. I say if you want to bring children into this world who will consume resources, that the parents should have to pay a heavy price.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>We tried that, it doesn't work.

Doesn't work to accomplish what? Educated people? Works pretty well for that; our birthrate is below replacement rates now, which is a good thing since we still see a lot of immigration (both legal and illegal.)

I think people respond more to things that hit them harder in their wallet than any other methods. Imposing heavy taxes on those who want to have children is the most effective way of controlling population growth. Something has to be done. The Earth is quickly reaching it's tipping point on population growth.

I'm not talking about how to control it in the US. I'm also talking about how the US can affect the worlds population growth. Don't you think we at least need to try so that future generations will not be left with a world stripped bare of natural resources?

[billvon 3,112]

>Imposing heavy taxes on those who want to have children is the most effective
>way of controlling population growth.

But again, our birthrate is below replacement levels; our population is growing because of immigration, not because people are having a lot of kids. If your goal is reducing US population taxes won't work.

>I'm also talking about how the US can affect the worlds population growth.

By far the best thing we can do is help other countries increase their standards of living. Get them access to medical care (including contraceptives) so that families don't have 10 kids in the hopes that 3 survive. Get them education so they better understand how to plan for a family. The best indicator for how well a society controls its population is their prosperity, and by helping other countries improve their people's standards of living, we can help reduce overall population growth.

Of course, that's going to be _very_ expensive, so you also have to ask yourself if it's worth it.

[Gravitymaster 0]

As high-minded as that suggestion is, I think we both know that it's unrealistic. Culturally many societies such as those in 3rd world countries believe in having many childeren. I think financial incentives will bring about more immediate and dramatic change that education. Sure, education would be best in the long term but you are talking about overcoming many generations of culture.

[david3 0]

Quote

Quote

>We tried that, it doesn't work.

Doesn't work to accomplish what? Educated people? Works pretty well for that; our birthrate is below replacement rates now, which is a good thing since we still see a lot of immigration (both legal and illegal.)

I think people respond more to things that hit them harder in their wallet than any other methods. Imposing heavy taxes on those who want to have children is the most effective way of controlling population growth. Something has to be done. The Earth is quickly reaching it's tipping point on population growth.

I'm not talking about how to control it in the US. I'm also talking about how the US can affect the worlds population growth. Don't you think we at least need to try so that future generations will not be left with a world stripped bare of natural resources?

Quote

I think people respond more to things that hit them harder in their wallet than any other methods.

Then why are you against taking away the tax incentives that encourage people to have children. You're suggesting giving incentives for having children AND not having children.


.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>We tried that, it doesn't work.

Doesn't work to accomplish what? Educated people? Works pretty well for that; our birthrate is below replacement rates now, which is a good thing since we still see a lot of immigration (both legal and illegal.)

I think people respond more to things that hit them harder in their wallet than any other methods. Imposing heavy taxes on those who want to have children is the most effective way of controlling population growth. Something has to be done. The Earth is quickly reaching it's tipping point on population growth.

I'm not talking about how to control it in the US. I'm also talking about how the US can affect the worlds population growth. Don't you think we at least need to try so that future generations will not be left with a world stripped bare of natural resources?

Quote

I think people respond more to things that hit them harder in their wallet than any other methods.

Then why are you against taking away the tax incentives that encourage people to have children. You're suggesting giving incentives for having children AND not having children.


.

Huh??

[david3 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>We tried that, it doesn't work.

Doesn't work to accomplish what? Educated people? Works pretty well for that; our birthrate is below replacement rates now, which is a good thing since we still see a lot of immigration (both legal and illegal.)

I think people respond more to things that hit them harder in their wallet than any other methods. Imposing heavy taxes on those who want to have children is the most effective way of controlling population growth. Something has to be done. The Earth is quickly reaching it's tipping point on population growth.

I'm not talking about how to control it in the US. I'm also talking about how the US can affect the worlds population growth. Don't you think we at least need to try so that future generations will not be left with a world stripped bare of natural resources?

Quote

I think people respond more to things that hit them harder in their wallet than any other methods.

Then why are you against taking away the tax incentives that encourage people to have children. You're suggesting giving incentives for having children AND not having children.


.

Huh??

Rehmwa suggested “the fix would be to delete the incentives in the first place”.

You said you disagree.
Taking away tax breaks for people that have children would "hit them harder in their wallet"

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

The Earth is quickly reaching it's tipping point on population growth.

I'm not talking about how to control it in the US. I'm also talking about how the US can affect the worlds population growth.

One your first point, people have been saying this for hundreds of years. Maybe it is true this time or maybe there is a dynamic, rather than a static limit and something will come along that will change that limit.

Messing around w/ the U.S. tax code won't do anything to affect world population growth. If we wanted to do that then increasing worldwide economic growth (particularly targeted on those with low economic advancement) is the best way. As a country gets wealthier its' population growth declines or even reverses.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"