Should people on goverment disability be allowed to have children?

[Infohawk]

They get to have kids, but you'll see that I didn't lock in hard $ amounts for Kids 3 and over. "Rich" people are going to have a % of both parents combined income (whether married or not) that is taken.

So if some couple with a $1M combined income decides to go for Kid 3, that's outstanding for them. That 15% tax on Kid 3 lets say will mean they pay an extra $150k, per year, for that absolutely necessary 3rd pregnancy.

Hope he/she was worth it....

Chuck

P.S. The %'s can be adjusted...maybe make Kid 3 20%, whatever. Point is, for those past a certain comfortable income, you make it d@mn painful for them...just like losing $6000, per year, would be for us peons.

I see. I guess that would work then.

 

[momeNt]

I see. I guess that would work then.

Are we just forgoing the argument about whether government should even have that sort of power over people's lives? Or just playing along and seeing how government COULD handle population and ignoring for the time being whether government SHOULD do this.

 

[chucky2]

Left to their own, the populace simply will not do what is necessary long term. On this we really don't have a choice as a human race...we need to start self limiting now/soon, else there are going to be some pretty big problems in the coming decades.

People have to pay for water and electricity, no reason they can't pay for having unnecessary kids...

 

[momeNt]

Left to their own, the populace simply will not do what is necessary long term. On this we really don't have a choice as a human race...we need to start self limiting now/soon, else there are going to be some pretty big problems in the coming decades.

People have to pay for water and electricity, no reason they can't pay for having unnecessary kids...

Water is a service, electricity is a service, both could be provided privately without government, there is profit to be made. "Paying" for kids can only be accomplished in this same sense by actually having to pay for them, and by that I mean providing food and shelter for them. The tax you refer to should simply be having to bear the cost.

Even idiots know they couldn't afford another child if they had no means to pay for it, but people now know government is there waiting to increase the check if another baby is on the way. You can't both tax extra kids and have entitlements, in the end you'd just be doing nothing which is what conservative minded folk are advocating.

 

[Infohawk]

Are we just forgoing the argument about whether government should even have that sort of power over people's lives? Or just playing along and seeing how government COULD handle population and ignoring for the time being whether government SHOULD do this.

I think this was mostly a discussion among non-conservatives about it. It was conceded that most of America is not really ready for this, especially the religious right. At some point thought, humanity is simply going to have to look at how it manages its reproduction. Letting people do what they want or letting the market sort it out is never going to be a long-term solution.

 

[JSt0rm]

I think this was mostly a discussion among non-conservatives about it. It was conceded that most of America is not really ready for this, especially the religious right. At some point thought, humanity is simply going to have to look at how it manages its reproduction. Letting people do what they want or letting the market sort it out is never going to be a long-term solution.

I remember reading somewhere that the world could support 11 billion people with total disregard for all other life. I expect we will come to that point and beyond.

 

[Infohawk]

I remember reading somewhere that the world could support 11 billion people with total disregard for all other life. I expect we will come to that point and beyond.

Definitely a possibility. One thing I wish "climategate" types would understand is that regardless of the fact that we CAN do something, we really want to ask whether we WANT to do something. We have enough people at this point to extract natural resources. We have enough people to be doctors, farmers, engineers, etc. We aren't gaining anything with our population increase at this point except the small chance of some genius scientist or artist changing the world. And if everyone's choking on fumes fighting over a rice cake that kid isn't going to have the chance to be a great scientist or artist anyway.

 

[Lanyap]

Liberals = yes
Conservatives = no

 

[chucky2]

Water is a service, electricity is a service, both could be provided privately without government, there is profit to be made.

It's a service that's necessary though (unlike having kids), and yet, people still need to shell out money for it.

"Paying" for kids can only be accomplished in this same sense by actually having to pay for them, and by that I mean providing food and shelter for them. The tax you refer to should simply be having to bear the cost.

The problem there is, just because a woman/couple can have the kid, put clothes on it, feed it something, doesn't mean that that 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th kids cost to society is just what the parent had to dole out. So it's just not the parent having to bear the cost of raising the kid, that part isn't what society needs to worry about, it's all the extra resources that kid, and his/her additional offspring (and so on, and so on) will be soaking up needlessly that is the problem. And the parent of kid 3/4/5/6 isn't going to come even order of magnitude close to that when you accout for scarcity, inflation, etc.

Even idiots know they couldn't afford another child if they had no means to pay for it

Them paying for it not being the problem aside (as I pointed out above), No, even idiots don't know they can't afford another child. People have unplanned kids all the time. They want to have unplanned Kid 1 or 2, not a problem. They want to have unplanned Kid 3 - whatever, that's now a societal problem.

, but people now know government is there waiting to increase the check if another baby is on the way.

Exactly. Reverse this and we'll be much better off long term.

You can't both tax extra kids and have entitlements, in the end you'd just be doing nothing which is what conservative minded folk are advocating.

As I said, once (and likely before, to front load) you enact a population control stategy like I posted, society (as in, Politicians) are going to have to understand the free ride is absolutely over, and start making policy decisions to handle the reduced taxes. This may mean, and this will be a total shocker, that Government is going to have to - gasp!!!!shift1!!! - spend less on sh1t we just don't need Gov to be spending on. We (the US) may in fact not be able to have 12 carrier groups...we might have to make do with like 3-4 or something. People might, gasp!!!!, have to actually help take care of their aging parents and in some cases aunts/uncles - the horrors!!!

Long term, if we go through this for 50 years, we'll be so much better off as a country.

Or, we can just reproduce like we are, have (effectively) unchecked immigration like we are, get as many people in the US as possible, so we can mask all our structural problems with the additional tax revenue all these people generate, and then when space is really not available, when resources really aren't available, then.....

....what? Too late then, can't just kill all those people, or send them back to Mexico. Can't create resources out of thin air. I guess we could invade Mexico and/or Canada, but that won't do much on a World scale with World scale resouce consumption.

I vote reigning sh1t in now....

 

[Carmen813]

So can you explain to me how and why the rates of teenage pregnancies, drop outs and crime stats amongst welfare recipients have trended so high despite the massive infusion into the welfare system over the decades that this system is supposed to alleviate if not eliminate?


Truth of what welfare does to the poor and how it continues to encourage bad decision making never smells right to folks like you I take it.

I would say that generations of societal and institutionalized racism, classism, sexism, ableism, unsafe environments, policies that reinforce drug use through punishments that target minorities, ineffective educational policies regarding sex education, lack of access to quality schooling due to poor funding policies and a focus on "standardized" tests that are culturally biased, unsafe neighborhoods created by a lack of opportunity, the loss of extended family supports among the poor, rapidly cultural change regarding sex, and individuals such as yourself ignoring the privileges they've been born into and then pointing their fingers at these people for failing when they never really had much of a chance to begin with have much more to do with the problems faced in these communities.

For what it's worth, I've never been one to advocate that our current welfare systems are perfect. But I do believe that stating that poor people are too stupid to recognize that they're being manipulated by the government (which is what your argument essentially boils down to) is not accurate. I also disagree fairly strongly with your statement about the primary purpose of welfare.

Irregardless, this is also an area that is completely unrelated to the topic the OP posted. If you want to continue the conversation, PM me. I'm eager to keep discussing it.

 

[Texashiker]

An update to this thread, the young lady I described in the OP is knocked up again.

 

[momeNt]

An update to this thread, the young lady I described in the OP is knocked up again.

Her welfare without the child probably doesn't cover her birth control, yet it would cover a future child. What do you think is going to happen?

She needs to be with a man with his nuts cut, that would help.