evince
Truthmatters
The parents are part of that village
Right winger think too much in blacks and whites
Too much they and thems
Reducing Births
- Thread starter Mina
- Start date
The parents are part of that village
Right winger think too much in blacks and whites
Too much they and thems
ThatOwlWoman
Leftist Vermin
It's really a non-issue. From Statista:
The Quiverfull fundies are a tiny minority. They deliberately choose to live in or near the poverty line in order to have a boatload of kids that they hope to brainwash into their religious practices. There was one of them on our former forum. Most of them homeschool so they're not burdening their local school system with actual education. In these large families the mom typically does not have a paying job -- who could afford the daycare for such large broods? So the only one who would have to worry about collecting social security would be the dad, who probably won't collect for long, if at all.
Maybe reducing the income levels to quality for the child tax credit would be a better idea. If your combined income is $150,000/year why do you need a tax credit for the kids?
evince
Truthmatters
Here’s the thing about such ideas as the OPs
The cost of aiding families and yes the OLD is a small cost compared to the pay off of doing it
The right pretends it’s some MASSIVE COST
That’s crap
It’s a drop in the bucket and all those funds should be increased so we can do a better job of it
It’s called decency and compassion that makes the whole nation a better place for everyone
Stop breaking your brains to pretend it’s some overburdening cost
Quit being part of the BROKE mob
The cost of aiding families and yes the OLD is a small cost compared to the pay off of doing it
The right pretends it’s some MASSIVE COST
That’s crap
It’s a drop in the bucket and all those funds should be increased so we can do a better job of it
It’s called decency and compassion that makes the whole nation a better place for everyone
Stop breaking your brains to pretend it’s some overburdening cost
Quit being part of the BROKE mob
Now that is true. China's growth coincides with the one child policy. People could invest more in fewer children.
The problem was that now China is running out of young people to support the old. Four grandparents have two parents who in turn have only one child. Like everything in life, the Chinese Communist Party overdid it.
A better deal is to make birth control and education easily available. Both reduce the number of children to a reasonable level, without having to be totalitarian about it.
In fact it is.
What makes you think that?
What makes you think that?
As you presumably know, periods when taxes became more progressive, like after Clinton took office or after Obama did, were periods of falling deficits. By comparison, periods when taxes became LESS progressive, as with The Reagan, Bush, and Trump presidencies, were periods when deficits spiked, increasing the rate at which debt burden for subsequent generations was growing.
It's really a non-issue. From Statista:
The Quiverfull fundies are a tiny minority. They deliberately choose to live in or near the poverty line in order to have a boatload of kids that they hope to brainwash into their religious practices. There was one of them on our former forum. Most of them homeschool so they're not burdening their local school system with actual education. In these large families the mom typically does not have a paying job -- who could afford the daycare for such large broods? So the only one who would have to worry about collecting social security would be the dad, who probably won't collect for long, if at all.
Maybe reducing the income levels to quality for the child tax credit would be a better idea. If your combined income is $150,000/year why do you need a tax credit for the kids?
Spouses can collect SS.
No it's not. Treating everyone the same, again, is the exact opposite of social engineering. No doubt you will continue to deny this simple logic with no explanation, because you have none.
Yet, as you're aware, it is.
Yes, I think they overdid it a bit -- though I am certain they're far better off today than if they'd just left breeding to chance, with no state-level attempt to control it.
I saw an interesting idea once in a sci-fi novel, where everybody gets an allotment of of 0.75 credits to have a kid, and then those can be bought or sold at will, at whatever price the open market sets. For most couples (combined 1.5 credits) this would wind up being a choice between having one kid, and selling off the spare half credit to help finance raising the child well, or buying up someone else's half credit and having two kids. On average, population would stabilize after a while, and later slowly decline (making our environmental challenges more manageable). It would also tend to help fight wealth stratification (since the rich would tend to have more kids than the poor, diluting the wealth of the former and concentrating the wealth of the latter in the next generation, in addition to those credit-transfer payments). If eventually environmental challenges eased, due to new technologies, you could just boost people's credits to stabilize total population at a higher level.
Population growth is falling around the first world with no need to force people into things. I am just saying that maybe we could leave it all to people to work out for themselves.
If the first world truly was a world, in the sense of a separate planet with a separate environment, that might matter. But it's a global ecosystem and we're all on the same planet, so when you have flat populations in rich countries and soaring populations in poor countries, the environmental challenge is just going to get worse and worse. We are basically "leaving it all to people to work out for themselves" and the result is rapid global population growth and an accelerating climate catastrophe. I think there are better options.
There's nothing to argue, since you haven't offered any logic. Instead, you've just asserted what you imagine is a self-evident truism: Treating everyone the same is the opposite of social engineering. I could as easily assert: Treating everyone the same is social engineering. In neither case is it an argument. At best, it's a semantic game. Either treating people the same or different could be social engineering, if that rule is designed to bring about a particular social result.
Nice if you can chance the definition of terms at will. Yet here is the commonly accepted meaning, in the political context, is government attempt to influence human behavior by manipulating government policy. And in the context of our conversation, this is done with the tax code. Currently we have a complex system that treats married fold differently that single, high earners differently that low, farmers differently than a factory owner. These are all done in attempts to steer human behavior.
If all that complexity goes away and everyone is taxed at the same rate, no "attempt to influence human behavior" can be made. Instead, pure capitalism, which is the natural state of man and therefore needs no government intervention, prevails.
As you're well aware, that's exactly what you tried to do, so there's no point whining when you're called out about it. Social engineering does not mean, and has never meant "not treating everyone the same." If you try to invent your own language, don't be surprised when others refuse to adopt it.
Incorrect. If the system is made less progressive, that will result in more wealth being concentrated into fewer hands, which very much engineers a different society than we have today.
As you know, pure capitalism is not the natural state of man. Stone age tribes look very little like capitalist systems. Rather, there are social rules dictating the flow of goods and services. A tribe's hunters, for example, do not come back from the hunt and auction off the kill to whoever offers them the most. They are expected to share that bounty according to set social rules, which will include feeding children, the injured, and the elderly, who had nothing to do with the hunt, the shaman, and so on. The natural state of man is much closer to a communist ideal, where there is very little private property and generally things are shared from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs. Most will have communal housing of various sorts, and there will be a lot of top-down direction of productive activities (e.g., tribal elders deciding when and where to build new huts, when and where to migrate to find new game, and so on).
Now, if you want to socially engineer a less natural situation, by trying to bring about pure capitalism, at least be honest about your social engineering effort.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
so let me guess. the answer is to open the border?
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
government is how the social rules are introduced in a national context.
pretending corporations give a fuck will not serve libertarians well.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
MIna and the big guy are both legion.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Easy problem to solve. Increase the legal immigration quota.