(May 30, 2015 at 11:48 am)Nestor Wrote:(May 30, 2015 at 8:47 am)Rhythm Wrote: Your suggestion...btw, might be construed as a call to sterilize the poor.........just tossing that out there in case you hadn't considered it.Meh. If someone would rather take advantage of the cash and obviously isn't committed to the idea of having children, then rich or poor, I see it as a win-win.
I agree. And I don't think people should be getting tax breaks for having children at all. If anything, people should be taxed more for having children, but I think I would just leave it neutral for tax purposes.
(I do, however, think that education and health care should be provided free, which would be coming from general taxes, which is indirectly giving people money to have children. But I don't think they should be given actual cash for having children.)
I think, though, that aside from getting a cash payment up front for being sterilized (with the payment being more, the younger you get it), that one should also be given a tax break for it, so it continues to be paying you year after year, as you are continuing to benefit society year after year. If there is one thing the world does not need more of, it is people.
If we don't take care of overpopulation in a relatively nice way, it will be taken care of in very nasty ways, like starvation, wars over resources, etc. So people who advocate doing nothing about the problem, are really advocating starvation and war for the future. They may pretend that they are not doing that, but it is mere pretense. Advocating something that causes something else, is essentially advocating that something else. Overpopulation is something that has been studied with various animals, and the outcome is always very unpleasant.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.