Limit on kids?

[Guyzerr]

I think you should have as many kids as you can afford.

With all due respect if that were the case most people wouldn't have any. The little buggers are expensive and parents are always making sacrifices from the day the first one comes out of the chute. When they leave the nest they still have their hand out at times. Ain't parenthood grand.

 

[Minor Axis]

How about you have more than 2 kids, you pay more taxes to pay for their education? My understanding is that most States in the U.S. use property taxes to pay for schools based on value of property, not based on how many kids couples pop out. Maybe the tax load should be reduced on those people with no kids. This in itself might have an impact on population growth.

 

[sierrabravo]

Maybe the tax load should be reduced on those people with no kids. This in itself might have an impact on population growth.

like us with no kids but they still gouge us in taxes

 

[Guyzerr]

Maybe the tax load should be reduced on those people with no kids. This in itself might have an impact on population growth.

I do agree with your statement but...........

Parents are the ones that are bringing the future taxpayers into the world. If everyone stopped having kids then what? ( devils advocate )

 

[StopUgly]

Have as many kids as you want; it's your human right. But don't ask me to support any of them!

I definitely agree with this. It's one thing to go through tough times for a year or so for being out of work and using assistance you've paid in to. It's quite another to have more children than you can afford (at least an 18 year endeavor) and expect the rest of society to pay for it. There are many large families that do well for themselves, save money, have nice things, or at least live within in their means. If you can't afford multiple children, you shouldn't be having them or believing you can raise them.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Yes I do, we are already over populated and it drives me nuts that people do this. BUT we should just say they get no benefits or tax deductions for any of the kids after they have had 3.(Like they still get benefits for those first 3, but their 4th and 5th won't) unless if they have multiples. (Like there third pregnancy is twins)

 

[sophie]

As much as I want to scream overpopulation and underthinking (in that GENERALLY speaking it is the deeply religious who have that many children), I simply cannot get past personal liberties. As many children as you can afford to have and you would like to have and you can amply care for, you should be (and are) allowed to have.

Otherwise, where do we draw the line on reproductive freedoms? If we allow the government control over how many children we have, where will it end? Next up they'll say anyone discovered to be carrying a special needs foetus will have to abort as it will end up costing heaps of money to support? Only WASPs will be allowed to have children? Only 18-34 year old women will be allowed? You'll need to apply to the government for permission to get pregnant? "We're sorry, Sophie...there are too many Australian, blue eyed babies of Brazilian descent already born this year. You're not allowed to have any more." I say we avoid the slippery slope altogether, frig setting a line and allow people their civil liberties that so many of our ancestors died in wars to protect.

That being said, some government needs to step in and sterilise the crap out of Nadya Suleman. Today.

 

[dt3]

donnie you lived here, so lets take houston as an example. here you can have 6, 7, 10 kids and no job. then we just "bail" you out and you dont have to work at all.

i have actually heard a mother tell her 16 year old daughter to get pregnant, so that way there would be more "income" coming into the household

:nod: And that is a sign that the system is FUCKED. It's more than just broken.

Yeah, like China.

They have a 'one child' policy implemented. So if you're not a fan of personal freedom, maybe you should move there.

Well, it happens here all the time. Not 12 but I was out yesterday and unless this woman was babysitting she had six children following her... And I've heard a few stories, of a family that just popped out kids so they could get benefits. So if society is already letting it happen why not put a stop to it?

You two reeeeeally missed my point, especially Merionnydd. It's not the couple's fault, there's is NO realistic way for a country that cares about liberties and rights to control the number of kids a family has. What that government CAN control is what they pay to these people, and the system they use to do it.

The system as it is right now is worthless. I'm not opposed to the concept of welfare, I'm opposed to the way it's implemented. I don't want kids starving in the streets any more than anyone else does. But in no way at all should welfare money be allowed to be spent on Sky HD (like the OP said) and "luxuries". It should provide the very basic necessities and nothing more.

 

[PoopaSwoof]

I understand the concept and in some ways I would LOVE to incorporate some sort of level on the amount of children and/or have a way in which unfit to parent people stopped having children....HOWEVER.....it's a dangerous route and I believe MORE in people having the right to lead their lives as they want to

I completely agree with TD.
I would like to figure a way to require parental responsibility into the deal though.

 

[RedRyder]

...... but but but..... babies are so cute!

I pretty much agree that people need to only have as many children as they can afford to support. There are some figures out there for those who don't know the cost of raising one child for 18 years.

And as far as helping out a family in times of need due to death, loss of income, disability, etc., I have no qualms about that at all. However..... those with lots of children living off the state... tsk tsk.... Make them work or volunteer to earn it, if they are able.

 

[Minor Axis]

I do agree with your statement but...........

Parents are the ones that are bringing the future taxpayers into the world. If everyone stopped having kids then what? ( devils advocate )

I'd counter with there are enough people in the world. and no, my tax proposal would not stop people from having at least 2 kids.

 

[StopUgly]

How about you have more than 2 kids, you pay more taxes to pay for their education? My understanding is that most States in the U.S. use property taxes to pay for schools based on value of property, not based on how many kids couples pop out. Maybe the tax load should be reduced on those people with no kids. This in itself might have an impact on population growth.

Not a good idea.

While I feel that compulsory education is wrong and that schools should be allowed to dismiss (aka: education is a privilege, not a right, and should be a choice), the impact of education does not stop with parents. A childless person or family who lives in a nice area of town may pay higher property taxes but also enjoys higher equity in their home, mostly because of the good schools in the area which ensure the area housing is always in high demand.

 

[Guyzerr]

I'd counter with there are enough people in the world. and no, my tax proposal would not stop people from having at least 2 kids.

But if you stop someone from having 10 kids you just eliminated 8 future taxpayers. Enough people in the world means nothing when the greatest majority probably live in poverty and don't pay taxes to begin with.

 

[Margene]

I do agree with your statement but...........

Parents are the ones that are bringing the future taxpayers into the world. If everyone stopped having kids then what? ( devils advocate )

But if you stop someone from having 10 kids you just eliminated 8 future taxpayers. Enough people in the world means nothing when the greatest majority probably live in poverty and don't pay taxes to begin with.

I agree Guyzerr, there have to be new taxpayers to replace those in retirement. Not only for taxes but workers as well. 2 children in each family is not enough to replace the population, we need just over 2 per family.

 

[kelvin070]

Seriously, should we bring this in as a law? I only ask because I read another story today about one of these families that have 12 kids (Literally) and they get loads of money in benefits for them, the parents haven't worked a day in their lives, and the family has all the luxuries which the familes near them don't have even though they work!

Now all this wouldnt have been possible if they had not had as many kids, so I ask, should we bring in a limit as to how many kids a family can have?

I'd set it at 3, then when one reaches 16, you can have another, and so on.

What say you?

This is not a production line like the Ford assembly plant. You can't produce kids as and whem you wish.

 

[Springsteen]

The parents that churn kids out just to get the benefits can.

 

[Meirionnydd]

This topic of discussion is almost as retarded as the 'Fat people on the bus should pay more because they take up two seats' thread.

 

[Codrus]

I agree Guyzerr, there have to be new taxpayers to replace those in retirement. Not only for taxes but workers as well. 2 children in each family is not enough to replace the population, we need just over 2 per family.

replaceing tax payers isnt the problem.......its the government overspending and dipping into the SS money

 

[kelvin070]

This is one of the flaws of Capitalism. How abt emulating Communist China's one child policy.

 

[dt3]

This is one of the flaws of Capitalism. How abt emulating Communist China's one child policy.

Not oppressively controlling the number of children in a family is a flaw? :24: :24: :24: :24: :24:

Damn the freedom to choose what's right for you and your family! :willy_nilly: