Reducing Births

[Mina]

It can be frustrating that childless people and people with only one kid wind up subsidizing families with more kids (by way of child tax credits, benefits that are more available for people with more kids, and higher payments for things like public schooling, etc.) Yet, at the same time, we don't want to punish innocent kids by letting them sit in functional poverty just because their parents decided to have a "quiverfull" without an income to afford that without help.

So, here's an idea for a solution: give parents an option of whether or not to claim any benefits for kids beyond the first two (e.g., whether to claim them for child tax credit/welfare purposes, whether to send them to public school, etc.) If the parents opt-in, then they get those things the same as today.... but, in exchange, the parents have their Medicare/SS full eligibility age postponed by 5 years for each such kid.

So, if you want to claim four kids for tax purposes, and send four kids to public school, and so on, that's fine and is your choice. However, you'll effectively pay back the rest of society for your disproportionate take by way of postponing retirement. You'll work until 77 before the government gives you full SS benefits, where most get then them at 67. Want 6 kids? Fine, we'll help out with that, too -- but expect to work until you're 87 (or dead). It sort of takes the form of a loan, where the extra benefits your kids suck up when they're young wind up being partly reimbursed by you in your elder years.

That would discourage people from burdening the environment by overbreeding, but would ultimately leave that decision to the individual. It would avoid punishing the kids. And it would help to prop up SS and Medicare funding.

 

[Guno צְבִי]

So kids are takers ? And when the kids grow up they fund this country with taxes , going forward there is going to be a labor shortage, And who will fund SS

Not many families with a lot of children as there once was

There is a demographic now that is dying faster then they are replacing

 

[Mina]

So kids are takers ?

Of course they are.

And when the kids grow up they fund this country with taxes

And when they grow up they'll also continue to take in the form of benefits.

going forward there is going to be a labor shortage

If that were to wind up being true, then we could remedy that simply by boosting immigration -- which has the benefit of not creating an additional population burden on the global environment.

And who will fund SS

Those workers who have their retirements postponed will help. If we wind up needing more young workers, as well, then we can address that with boosted immigration, which doesn't increase overall planetary population burden.

Not many families with a lot of children as there once was

Yes. For most, my policy idea wouldn't be any kind of hardship, since they weren't going to overbreed to begin with. But, for those who do choose to have a bunch of kids, this would cause them to pay society back for the disproportionate burden that placed.

There is a demographic now that is dying faster then they are replacing

I'm not sure what you're saying.

 

[archives]

Is this just another subtle “Cadillac Welfare Queen” attack masqueraded in supposed concern for “kids sitting in functional poverty?”

 

[Walt]

but, in exchange, the parents have their Medicare/SS full eligibility age postponed by 5 years for each such kid.

So the more kids you have to support the Social Security system, the more you are punished? How does that make sense? Remember, kids grow up to be the workers who will support us directly, or indirectly in our old age. If we punish the production of such workers, we are destroying retirement for everyone.

 

[Code1211]

It can be frustrating that childless people and people with only one kid wind up subsidizing families with more kids (by way of child tax credits, benefits that are more available for people with more kids, and higher payments for things like public schooling, etc.) Yet, at the same time, we don't want to punish innocent kids by letting them sit in functional poverty just because their parents decided to have a "quiverfull" without an income to afford that without help.

So, here's an idea for a solution: give parents an option of whether or not to claim any benefits for kids beyond the first two (e.g., whether to claim them for child tax credit/welfare purposes, whether to send them to public school, etc.) If the parents opt-in, then they get those things the same as today.... but, in exchange, the parents have their Medicare/SS full eligibility age postponed by 5 years for each such kid.

So, if you want to claim four kids for tax purposes, and send four kids to public school, and so on, that's fine and is your choice. However, you'll effectively pay back the rest of society for your disproportionate take by way of postponing retirement. You'll work until 77 before the government gives you full SS benefits, where most get then them at 67. Want 6 kids? Fine, we'll help out with that, too -- but expect to work until you're 87 (or dead). It sort of takes the form of a loan, where the extra benefits your kids suck up when they're young wind up being partly reimbursed by you in your elder years.

That would discourage people from burdening the environment by overbreeding, but would ultimately leave that decision to the individual. It would avoid punishing the kids. And it would help to prop up SS and Medicare funding.

I'm not sure that consequences would discourage folks from their actions.

They don't seem to grasp the role played by intercourse in the process of becoming pregnant.

Why they would grasp the role played by delayed Social Security in retirement age seems optimistic in the extreme.

 

[Melchizedek = Michael]

It can be frustrating that childless people and people with only one kid wind up subsidizing families with more kids (by way of child tax credits, benefits that are more available for people with more kids, and higher payments for things like public schooling, etc.) Yet, at the same time, we don't want to punish innocent kids by letting them sit in functional poverty just because their parents decided to have a "quiverfull" without an income to afford that without help.

So, here's an idea for a solution: give parents an option of whether or not to claim any benefits for kids beyond the first two (e.g., whether to claim them for child tax credit/welfare purposes, whether to send them to public school, etc.) If the parents opt-in, then they get those things the same as today.... but, in exchange, the parents have their Medicare/SS full eligibility age postponed by 5 years for each such kid.

So, if you want to claim four kids for tax purposes, and send four kids to public school, and so on, that's fine and is your choice. However, you'll effectively pay back the rest of society for your disproportionate take by way of postponing retirement. You'll work until 77 before the government gives you full SS benefits, where most get then them at 67. Want 6 kids? Fine, we'll help out with that, too -- but expect to work until you're 87 (or dead). It sort of takes the form of a loan, where the extra benefits your kids suck up when they're young wind up being partly reimbursed by you in your elder years.

That would discourage people from burdening the environment by overbreeding, but would ultimately leave that decision to the individual. It would avoid punishing the kids. And it would help to prop up SS and Medicare funding.

Nonsense! It takes a village to raise a child!

 

[Damocles]

Nonsense! It takes a village to raise a child!

Maybe, however it takes parents to raise a functioning adult who can contribute.

 

[Melchizedek = Michael]

Maybe, however it takes parents to raise a functioning adult who can contribute.

That's a luxury for a lot of kids

 

[MAGA MAN]

It can be frustrating that childless people and people with only one kid wind up subsidizing families with more kids (by way of child tax credits, benefits that are more available for people with more kids, and higher payments for things like public schooling, etc.) Yet, at the same time, we don't want to punish innocent kids by letting them sit in functional poverty just because their parents decided to have a "quiverfull" without an income to afford that without help.

So, here's an idea for a solution: give parents an option of whether or not to claim any benefits for kids beyond the first two (e.g., whether to claim them for child tax credit/welfare purposes, whether to send them to public school, etc.) If the parents opt-in, then they get those things the same as today.... but, in exchange, the parents have their Medicare/SS full eligibility age postponed by 5 years for each such kid.

So, if you want to claim four kids for tax purposes, and send four kids to public school, and so on, that's fine and is your choice. However, you'll effectively pay back the rest of society for your disproportionate take by way of postponing retirement. You'll work until 77 before the government gives you full SS benefits, where most get then them at 67. Want 6 kids? Fine, we'll help out with that, too -- but expect to work until you're 87 (or dead). It sort of takes the form of a loan, where the extra benefits your kids suck up when they're young wind up being partly reimbursed by you in your elder years.

That would discourage people from burdening the environment by overbreeding, but would ultimately leave that decision to the individual. It would avoid punishing the kids. And it would help to prop up SS and Medicare funding.

How about screwing this whole social engineering thing and taxing everyone the same? From the first dollar to the last. No complicated deductions and a post card sized form to the IRS.

 

[Damocles]

That's a luxury for a lot of kids

And a lot of kids are raised to be children because of that. The goal shouldn't be to raise children. We should work to get children parents rather than pretend villages are enough to raise functioning adults.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

It can be frustrating that childless people and people with only one kid wind up subsidizing families with more kids (by way of child tax credits, benefits that are more available for people with more kids, and higher payments for things like public schooling, etc.) Yet, at the same time, we don't want to punish innocent kids by letting them sit in functional poverty just because their parents decided to have a "quiverfull" without an income to afford that without help.

So, here's an idea for a solution: give parents an option of whether or not to claim any benefits for kids beyond the first two (e.g., whether to claim them for child tax credit/welfare purposes, whether to send them to public school, etc.) If the parents opt-in, then they get those things the same as today.... but, in exchange, the parents have their Medicare/SS full eligibility age postponed by 5 years for each such kid.

So, if you want to claim four kids for tax purposes, and send four kids to public school, and so on, that's fine and is your choice. However, you'll effectively pay back the rest of society for your disproportionate take by way of postponing retirement. You'll work until 77 before the government gives you full SS benefits, where most get then them at 67. Want 6 kids? Fine, we'll help out with that, too -- but expect to work until you're 87 (or dead). It sort of takes the form of a loan, where the extra benefits your kids suck up when they're young wind up being partly reimbursed by you in your elder years.

That would discourage people from burdening the environment by overbreeding, but would ultimately leave that decision to the individual. It would avoid punishing the kids. And it would help to prop up SS and Medicare funding.

Nah. Far too draconian, and not in keeping with democratic ideals that we're all in this together. And what about all the states now banning abortion -- should someone who wanted one but couldn't get one be penalized? Besides, like most industrialized nations, our birth rate has been steadily falling.

"Rather, the U.S. birth rate has continued a steady descent. As of 2020, the U.S. birth rate was 55.8 births per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44, a decline of almost 20 percent from the rate of 69.3 in 2007. The decline in births cannot readily be explained by changing population composition."

The U.S. birth rate has fallen by 20% since 2007. This decline cannot be explained by demographic, economic, or policy changes.

 

[Mina]

So the more kids you have to support the Social Security system, the more you are punished?

The more you burden the environment with excess population, the longer you work to make up for it. If you're worried about Social Security, that's easy to fix simply by admitting more young workers as immigrants.... which gives us the SS contributions without the added global population.

 

[Walt]

The more you burden the environment with excess population, the longer you work to make up for it. If you're worried about Social Security, that's easy to fix simply by admitting more young workers as immigrants.... which gives us the SS contributions without the added global population.

Social Security is not paid for by the environment, it is paid for by people. Environmental damage is a separate problem.

Even there, reasonable population is good for technology, and therefore good for the environment.

 

[Mina]

I'm not sure that consequences would discourage folks from their actions.

They don't seem to grasp the role played by intercourse in the process of becoming pregnant.

Why they would grasp the role played by delayed Social Security in retirement age seems optimistic in the extreme.

Possibly. But to the extent this results in them eventually taking less out of SS, and paying more in, through delayed retirement eligibility, that helps as well.

 

[Mina]

Social Security is not paid for by the environment, it is paid for by people. Environmental damage is a separate problem.

Yes, but they can be treated together.

Even there, reasonable population is good for technology, and therefore good for the environment.

We're already burdening the atmosphere with carbon faster than it can be taken up, and all the innovation in the world hasn't changed that. Rising population makes things much harder.

 

[Mina]

Nonsense! It takes a village to raise a child!

The village can raise the children better if there are fewer of them.

 

[Mina]

How about screwing this whole social engineering thing and taxing everyone the same?

That's a form of social engineering, too. The quiverfull movement is very much an experiment in social engineering. I'm talking about something that would help counterbalance that.

From the first dollar to the last. No complicated deductions and a post card sized form to the IRS.

Sounds like you're talking about a flat tax. Do the math. In order to collect federal income taxes at about the same level as presently, you'd need to said the rate around 9.4%. That would be a massive tax increase for the bottom 80% of earners, in order to finance a tax cut for the top 20%.

 

[Mina]

Nah. Far too draconian, and not in keeping with democratic ideals that we're all in this together. And what about all the states now banning abortion -- should someone who wanted one but couldn't get one be penalized? Besides, like most industrialized nations, our birth rate has been steadily falling.

"Rather, the U.S. birth rate has continued a steady descent. As of 2020, the U.S. birth rate was 55.8 births per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44, a decline of almost 20 percent from the rate of 69.3 in 2007. The decline in births cannot readily be explained by changing population composition."

The U.S. birth rate has fallen by 20% since 2007. This decline cannot be explained by demographic, economic, or policy changes.

I'm fine with us all being in it together, if we all have a say in what "it" is. But in this case, we're talking about a unilateral right of people to create as many babies as they want and then demand that the rest of us subsidize their upbringing by way of our labor. That strikes me as unfair. I don't want to punish the children for that, so I'll do my part, but in exchange, I want those who are imposing that burden on society to do their part to pay us back, after those kids are grown.

As for our falling birth rate, that's a very good thing. I just wish it were falling more rapidly. We should be doing less to contribute to environmental over-burden. If we decide we want the US population to grow, it should be by way of immigration, not by adding to that global burden with higher birth rates. The preference for environmental over-burden in lieu of simply going with immigration strikes me as a product of nativism and xenophobia.

 

[MAGA MAN]

That's a form of social engineering, too. The quiverfull movement is very much an experiment in social engineering. I'm talking about something that would help counterbalance that.



Sounds like you're talking about a flat tax. Do the math. In order to collect federal income taxes at about the same level as presently, you'd need to said the rate around 9.4%. That would be a massive tax increase for the bottom 80% of earners, in order to finance a tax cut for the top 20%.

Nope, it's not social engineering. In fact just the opposite. Fact.

I don't care about a "massive" tax increase or cut. The only fair way to tax is treat everyone the same. The Founders warned us against progressive taxation; we ignored it and now we have massive debt that subsequent generations have to pay for.