Limit on kids?

[kelvin070]

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:

China has a population of 1.3 billion. If they keep producing how they gonna finance USA's debts? Who is gonna buy US Treasury Bonds??? :24::24::24::24::24:

 

[Accountable]

For those who want to limit family size, what would be the punishment for having extra kids? Are you willing to have forced abortions like China does?

Here in the States we give tax breaks per child. I think that should stop. If you can't afford kids, don't have them. If you do have them and find you can't afford them, give them to a loving family who can afford to raise them right (adoption).

Welfare should pay a set amount per family, regardless of how many kids they have. Christian churches can supplement the rest. That's part of their charter from God, anyway.

 

[kelvin070]

One has to be practical. With a population of 1.3 billion there are no two ways about it.

 

[Springsteen]

For those who want to limit family size, what would be the punishment for having extra kids?

Well I'd just have benefits in for the first 3, then for any more you get no money. It'd work because people would quickly realise that they can't just have kids just for the sake of having them in order to get hundreds and hundreds of pounds.

 

[Tangerine]

I would take it even further. Agree, there should be no additional welfare-type benefits for additional children beyond 2 or 3. But I also like the idea that tax rates go up dramatically, and dependant deductions vanish as the number of kids you have goes up. That way, the net effect could be both cost savings for the Government AND an incentive to not overpopulate, while at the same time still allowing personal freedom to choose. Nothing says that "choices" cannot also have associated costs with them.

 

[kelvin070]

Studies in Singapore show a declining fertility rate. So the govt here is giving a generous bundle of goodies to have more babies. We have no such thing as SS cuz its unsustainable in the long run and subject to abuse.

 

[Thornless]

If you have more than one you're a fucking idiot.

Guess I'm an idiot..

We only have two and do not plan on any more, I wouldn't be able to work if we did... and we'd have even less time to ourselves, not to mention financially on one pay cheque.

I don't like all the programs they have for these families that have so many kids and live better than families with less children and when both parents work... If Bryan and I were not able to work and afford to care for our kids, I'd hope someone would take them from me to someone who could.

 

[Guyzerr]

If Bryan and I were not able to work and afford to care for our kids, I'd hope someone would take them from me to someone who could.

Because you are caring parents you would find a way.

Putting your kids up for adoption in North America isn't the way to go. There are enough kids languishing in the system as it is cuz everybody wants cute babies.

 

[Accountable]

I would take it even further. Agree, there should be no additional welfare-type benefits for additional children beyond 2 or 3. But I also like the idea that tax rates go up dramatically, and dependant deductions vanish as the number of kids you have goes up. That way, the net effect could be both cost savings for the Government AND an incentive to not overpopulate, while at the same time still allowing personal freedom to choose. Nothing says that "choices" cannot also have associated costs with them.

I say no tax breaks for kids. No tax breaks for marriage. We're not building a nation of family farms anymore. People say they want fairness, but they want their own breaks from that fairness. No family tax break.

 

[Accountable]

Because you are caring parents you would find a way.

Putting your kids up for adoption in North America isn't the way to go. There are enough kids languishing in the system as it is cuz everybody wants cute babies.

Then the decision should be made while they are still cute.

 

[Guyzerr]

Then the decision should be made while they are still cute.

:homo: I've got room for a couple 19 - 22 year olds.

 

[Accountable]

:24: Repped!

 

[Peter Parka]

How could you possibly enforce this? Take their kids off them or enforce abortion like in China? You might not like people who have loads of kids and live on benifits but despite the propaganda in the media, they are in the minority and they are not living in the lap of luxoury. This idea is a non started because it's impossible to enforce humanely and there are much, much bigger problems which need addressing. Want to get unemployed with loads of kids back to work and not living on benifits? Better child care options and job training would seem a more constructive way to go.

 

[GameCrazed]

Hmn...I'm not sure I'm...quite getting this...*pondering* ':\ ...

OH! I get it! Instead of working on the wealfare issus in this country, let's just put a cuckhold on every sing human being(and their life legacy) so that you can feel just a little bit better about tkg it up the dick every few months when you're paying your taxes! But there in no gelatin for that. And making yourselves more of a bitch to them doesn't make things better for everyone.

I have a better idea for whomever came up with this idea: Let's just cut out the women's clits. Then maybe they won't be so inclined to express their sexuality!

Or just burn the babies alive.

 

[Accountable]

You really should come out of your shell.

 

[StopUgly]

I would take it even further. Agree, there should be no additional welfare-type benefits for additional children beyond 2 or 3. But I also like the idea that tax rates go up dramatically, and dependant deductions vanish as the number of kids you have goes up. That way, the net effect could be both cost savings for the Government AND an incentive to not overpopulate, while at the same time still allowing personal freedom to choose. Nothing says that "choices" cannot also have associated costs with them.

They should pay no more and no less. A free society doesn't claim to that you can make your own choices in your personal life (like the number of children you have) and then tax you to death for the choices you make. It's not anyone's decision to tell people how many kids they're allowed to have or to take money out of their pockets. "Nothing says that 'choices' cannot also have associated costs with them"? If this is so, why doesn't the government tax you for saying things they don't feel are helpful to society?

Aside from that, this arbitrary "additional children beyond 2 or 3" is absurd. One family with five children could live within their means and raise 5 very productive members of society while a family with one child could spend more on that one child (in terms of space and resources) than the other family did on five children, spoil him and let him become an unemployed date rapist.

 

[Dana]

How could you possibly enforce this? Take their kids off them or enforce abortion like in China? You might not like people who have loads of kids and live on benifits but despite the propaganda in the media, they are in the minority and they are not living in the lap of luxoury. This idea is a non started because it's impossible to enforce humanely and there are much, much bigger problems which need addressing. Want to get unemployed with loads of kids back to work and not living on benifits? Better child care options and job training would seem a more constructive way to go.

U don't live around here....

 

[Margene]

How could you possibly enforce this? Take their kids off them or enforce abortion like in China? You might not like people who have loads of kids and live on benifits but despite the propaganda in the media, they are in the minority and they are not living in the lap of luxoury. This idea is a non started because it's impossible to enforce humanely and there are much, much bigger problems which need addressing. Want to get unemployed with loads of kids back to work and not living on benifits? Better child care options and job training would seem a more constructive way to go.

Right freaking on! Well said.

 

[Peter Parka]

U don't live around here....

You're right, taxi drivers are pretty ok here. :fing27