Should the US tax people for procreation?

The norm in our country has been to give tax benefits to those who decide to have large families. What if we turned this around and started to penalize those who decide to have more then one child?

I started this thread to get some opinions mainly due to the state of our world right now. There is a program on MTV called Teen Pregnancy or something like that. They started the show to promote abstinence in kids by showing them how hard it is to raise a child. I read recently that hordes of teenagers are having kids now just to get on the show!

This is similar to how other countries have controlled the population in the past. I am not saying it is wrong or right at this time but maybe there is something parallel to this that might work here in the US, not only for population control but also for 'cutting costs' for those who indiscriminately choose to pump out lots of kids when they are not financially able to care for them all.

Would love to hear your arguments!

Originally posted by AnteBellum
The norm in our country has been to give tax benefits to those who decide to have large families. What if we turned this around and started to penalize those who decide to have more then one child?

Why? We should have given even more incentive, in a few years we're going to have only 2 workers available to fund each retiree.

Originally posted by AnteBellum
I started this thread to get some opinions mainly due to the state of our world right now. There is a program on MTV called Teen Pregnancy or something like that. They started the show to promote abstinence in kids by showing them how hard it is to raise a child. I read recently that hordes of teenagers are having kids now just to get on the show!

This is similar to how other countries have controlled the population in the past. I am not saying it is wrong or right at this time but maybe there is something parallel to this that might work here in the US, not only for population control but also for 'cutting costs' for those who indiscriminately choose to pump out lots of kids when they are not financially able to care for them all.

Kids don't cost as much as people think, even if they spend half their childhoods on welfare they will more than make up for that expense when they start paying taxes (babies are generally a money maker for government).

abstinence teaching doesn't work...its stupid, and I am not sure why this is still a consideration.

You cannot roll back 4 billion years of evolution...you simply cant...its like trying to teach people not to enjoy being happy.

As far as tax for procreation...naa...just get a free birth control method out in the public that is easy to remove once you actually want a child.

the US is still pretty open and untamed..so we got room to spare, however, just because we got the space doesn't mean we can afford to pop out tons of unplanned children..there are considerations of parental worth and proper upbringing.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
abstinence teaching doesn't work...its stupid, and I am not sure why this is still a consideration.

You cannot roll back 4 billion years of evolution...you simply cant...its like trying to teach people not to enjoy being happy.

It worked for me. I didn't have sex until I got married. If you want a miserable life just get a girl that you don't love pregnant before either of you are ready to be parents. It's a very simple message, your life will probably suck if you do this. I think delivery of the message is the problem, it shouldn't be so polite.

"If you do this you're an idiot."

reply to post by AnteBellum


No need to tax people.

All we need to do is stop paying them to have kids.

Originally posted by SevenBeans
It worked for me.

Congratulations on being the exception to the statistics.

There is a mountain of data showing abstinance only education is a complete fail.
I can source a bunch of websites from neutral research that proves this, or you can google it...

The only thing that is going to work is introduction of birth control methods. the continuing growth of teen pregnancy and sex...in the face of abstinance only education...demonstrates this.

There will be no turning back the clock to 1950s. The choice must be made to either deal with what the reality is in society now, or bury your head in the sand and pretend anything you do not like simply doesn't exist.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by AnteBellum

 

No need to tax people.

All we need to do is stop paying them to have kids.

I would agree with that. However, if they still have kids, these kids are doomed to starvation and death, according to you, right?

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Congratulations on being the exception to the statistics.

There is a mountain of data showing abstinance only education is a complete fail.
I can source a bunch of websites from neutral research that proves this, or you can google it...

I'm not a proponent of "abstinence only" education, I'm a proponent of strongly encouraging abstinence in a very no-nonsense way (which is not being done at this time) - ie. "Sure you can wear a condom but they can fail and you're a moron to risk having kids with someone you don't love, before either of you are ready." If that was the manner in which the message was delivered I think it would be much more effective.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
The only thing that is going to work is introduction of birth control methods. the continuing growth of teen pregnancy and sex...in the face of abstinance only education...demonstrates this.

We've never had more birth control options than we have today. The issue is NOT a lack of birth control methods, the issue is a lack of strong, no-nonsense guidance from adults.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by AnteBellum

 

No need to tax people.

All we need to do is stop paying them to have kids.

I would agree with that. However, if they still have kids, these kids are doomed to starvation and death, according to you, right?

Assuming there are still people who want to adopt children, I don't think they would be doomed to starvation.

I doubt MTV started this '16 and Pregnant' nonsense as an abstinence message. MTV and Viacom are notably progressive....

As the OP stated, the show glamorizes teen pregnancy to some extent. I'm sure there are some teenage girls out there that think that show is the coolest # ever. Get pregnant and you can be the next star of '16 and Pregnant'.

As to the topic of taxing people for procreation, I am of two minds about this. Yes the world could use less consumers. I mean how many kids do you really need? Yes it's a personal choice, but when is it enough? Eight kids? 12? Or like that creepy Duggar family from Arkansas who have 20? Where Mama Duggar has so many kids she has to have the older children take care of the newest ones she keeps pumping out?

But on the other hand, more births=more workers=more people paying into social security, and maybe someday it will be fiscally solvent again.

Hard for me to say. Good question to think about.

The problem with this Idea, is that it would go against (in my opinion) a basic Human Right.

Originally posted by thewholepicture
The problem with this Idea, is that it would go against (in my opinion) a basic Human Right.

I can agree with this, but is that human right subject to change?

How about when the human population reaches 10 billion? 50 billion? 75 billion? Will it still be a human right then?

There are countless articles on the web of skyrocketing food prices, and the prediction is as the population grows it is going to get worse. There are only so many wheat fields and fresh water supplies to go around....

Originally posted by Darkrunner

Originally posted by thewholepicture
The problem with this Idea, is that it would go against (in my opinion) a basic Human Right.

I can agree with this, but is that human right subject to change?

How about when the human population reaches 10 billion? 50 billion? 75 billion? Will it still be a human right then?

There are countless articles on the web of skyrocketing food prices, and the prediction is as the population grows it is going to get worse. There are only so many wheat fields and fresh water supplies to go around....

Simple Solution (at least in the united states)

Stop giving tax incentives and welfare checks based on how many kids you have.

It doesn't matter that the families get tax breaks. The government makes far more money over the course of a child's lifetime upon reaching adulthood. The money they give to families is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount the government makes from taxing those children later in life. It wouldn't change a thing. It just makes it easier for families to raise more taxpayers and ensures that the government will never run out of taxpayers.

reply to post by thewholepicture


I agree it goes against my opinion of our basic human right also but this is why I indicated for families that have more then one child. This figure can be increased to meet certain criteria as necessary.

I have a problem with the each child will generate taxes as a worker for right now unemployment is rampant and social securities future is unstable. Do we really need more people in our work force or should we concentrate our efforts to fewer, giving them more opportunities for success and achievement?

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by SaturnFX
abstinence teaching doesn't work...its stupid, and I am not sure why this is still a consideration.

You cannot roll back 4 billion years of evolution...you simply cant...its like trying to teach people not to enjoy being happy.

It worked for me. I didn't have sex until I got married. If you want a miserable life just get a girl that you don't love pregnant before either of you are ready to be parents. It's a very simple message, your life will probably suck if you do this. I think delivery of the message is the problem, it shouldn't be so polite.

"If you do this you're an idiot."

edit on 17-12-2010 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)

Agree; worked for me too ( married now 29 years) Absolutely nothing to do with religion or the church just good choices;You know if you think a little bit and put willy away at that early teen age; life becomes exponentially easier...I fail to see how giving up on abstinence is anything but a "cop out".

Why not? What is one more unConstitutional tax on top of the myriad of others?

Hell, why not go a step farther and require licenses to procreate? Why not make sex illegal unless it is licensed for procreation by a bunch of bureaucrats who know what is best for everyone?

/sarcasm

I believe the government does tax people for this already.

Condoms and many forms of Birth control.

Just my thoughts.

Originally posted by AnteBellum
reply to post by thewholepicture

 

I agree it goes against my opinion of our basic human right also but this is why I indicated for families that have more then one child. This figure can be increased to meet certain criteria as necessary.

I have a problem with the each child will generate taxes as a worker for right now unemployment is rampant and social securities future is unstable. Do we really need more people in our work force or should we concentrate our efforts to fewer, giving them more opportunities for success and achievement?

The use of violence against the innocent is unjustified under any circumstance.

Therefore any social engineering that requires the use of violent force to achieve its goals is morally wrong under any circumstance.

Ï dont think taxes are the way to go. Just limit child welfare to 2 children, provide state-subsidized anticinception for families with 3 and more children and low income, and make popping out clearly more children than you can afford to take care of a criminal offense of unresponsible procreation, punishable by mandatory reversible sterilization. Problem solved.
I dont think procreation should be a basic unalienable personal human right, since it affects at least one other person without consent - the child. So in cases when this right comes into conflict with childs right to grow up in good conditions, we should uphold the latter, not the former.