Semi-Ethics Question - What if Gov gave checks to those that didn't have kids?

[BRUTALITOPS]

Having children, especially among the poor, is a burden on our society. That's another kid needed to be fed, another kid that resources have to be spent on, rising healthcare costs, etc.

We already have tax benefits and special bonuses for those that get married. Why not single people that are providing a smaller footprint on society?

I say, After the age of 18, every 5 years you don't have a child, you get a rebate from the government, maybe 2500-5k. No kids by 23? Boom, you get your no kid bonus. still no kids at 28? Bonus time. 33? Cha-ching $$

You might have to fiddle with the prices a bit, but maybe this will stop all the rampant unwanted children just taking up space.

Thoughts?

 

[/MSG/]

Having children, especially among the poor, is a burden on our society. That's another kid needed to be fed, another kid that resources have to be spent on, rising healthcare costs, etc.

We already have tax benefits and special bonuses for those that get married. Why not single people that are providing a smaller footprint on society?

I say, After the age of 18, every 5 years you don't have a child, you get a rebate from the government, maybe 2500-5k. No kids by 23? Boom, you get your no kid bonus. still no kids at 28? Bonus time. 33? Cha-ching $$

You might have to fiddle with the prices a bit, but maybe this will stop all the rampant unwanted children just taking up space.

Thoughts?

Well, kids are kinda required for society to progress and expand.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

yeah, but that doesn't mean we can't cut back.

 

[/MSG/]

yeah, but that doesn't mean we can't cut back.

It'd be too difficult to establish who should and shouldn't get the stipend.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

simple age. if you are a certain age with no children/dependents then you get a nice bonus.
so fucking retarded that people that have kids actually get tax breaks, it should be the other way around.

in any case this is theoretical so stop being mr. impossible pants.

 

[/MSG/]

simple age. if you are a certain age with no children/dependents then you get a nice bonus.
so fucking retarded that people that have kids actually get tax breaks, it should be the other way around.

in any case this is theoretical so stop being mr. impossible pants.

Well....I suppose in principle it'd be ok.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The first thing I have a problem with, is the mindset that government has money to give away. Why is it, whenever we have some problem, whether it's a real problem or a made-up problem like this, we run to government for some money from the mythical pile of endless money, to solve the problem? Why don't we just have the government send us all a check for a million bucks, so we can all be millionaires? Then, none of us would have to even work, we could just sit at home in our underwear, playing video games and eating cheet-o's all day!

We can much more easily do what you advocate here, by eliminating the deductions for children and dependents on your income tax. Let's start by repealing the Earned Income Credit, which allows people to "get a gub'ment check" for their brats, even when they didn't pay taxes. It would make no sense to have the government sending out checks to people to not have kids, then turning around and sending out checks to people based on how many kids they have!

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

dixie, don't think of money being given away, I am fine with tax rebates too. In that case, it's just government taking less.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I don't support this, it just makes me drool thinking about it, because I hold parents and children in such spite.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

I don't support this, it just makes me drool thinking about it, because I hold parents and children in such spite.

LOL

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I find it amusing that based on the argument you are a smaller footprint on society you want to increase the size of your footprint.......

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

dixie, don't think of money being given away, I am fine with tax rebates too. In that case, it's just government taking less.

Well that was what you proposed, giving money away to people to not have kids, right? Why am I not supposed to think of it that way? And what sense does it make, even in your infantile mind, to give people money to not have kids, while at the same time, giving people money based on how many kids they have? I have a BETTER idea, why not let taxpayers keep their money, and don't give money away to anyone?

 

[Althea]

It could be argued that those without kids are already ahead of the game, because they don't have the added expense that comes w/child rearing.

And, the govt gives breaks to parents, because they need future soldiers.

Notice they cut back on education?

The govt. needs mindless masses. They're going to get them, one way or another.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

Well that was what you proposed, giving money away to people to not have kids, right? Why am I not supposed to think of it that way? And what sense does it make, even in your infantile mind, to give people money to not have kids, while at the same time, giving people money based on how many kids they have? I have a BETTER idea, why not let taxpayers keep their money, and don't give money away to anyone?

you are arguing semantics. giving money/taking less in the form of rebates. you now know what I am implying.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

you are arguing semantics. giving money/taking less in the form of rebates. you now know what I am implying.

What you are implying is not logical. You suggested we pay people to not have kids, but we are already paying people for the number of kids they have, through income tax deductions and credits. Putting your idea in place, we would be paying people to not have kids, while at the same time, paying people to have more kids. What I proposed, would accomplish what you claim to want, while actually SAVING money, we just eliminate all the deductions and credits we are giving to people with kids.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

I would agree with not giving rebates to people having kids. I wouldn't eliminate rebates for those that don't have kids though. Not having kids could help our society tremendously.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

"Not having kids could help our society tremendously. "

Especially if you are a Republican...

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

also, you don't know what logical means, I never advocated paying for other people to have kids. I think the implication in my op is quite clear, that I think having kids is a drag on society.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

also, you don't know what logical means, I never advocated paying for other people to have kids. I think the implication in my op is quite clear, that I think having kids is a drag on society.

Then stop paying people $1500 per kid with the EIC tax credit! Stop allowing deductions on income tax! The "effect" would be the same, and instead of being stupidly illogical and costing us way more money, it would actually SAVE money! And by the way, YOU are the real drag on society, can we just get rid of YOU?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I would agree with not giving rebates to people having kids. I wouldn't eliminate rebates for those that don't have kids though. Not having kids could help our society tremendously.

Well, that brings me to the next illogical point you make. So we have eliminated all credits and deductions for people with kids, and we are now paying people to not have kids... what happens in 50-60 years, when there is no younger generation to speak of? When all the old people become too old to have kids, and need someone to care for them in old age? No young people working anymore, because, well, there are no more young people! No one to pay tax anymore, because the old people are too old to work, and... there are no young people! So what's your idea for then? Grab some more money from the mythical pile and take care of the old people? At some point, perhaps your idiocy will catch up with you?