Unfair advantages to parents

SLUSK

Parents have a very easy ride in this society. Their kids get free education and they get money just for having kids. I myself will never get married or have children so why should I have to subsidize people having children?

I can't afford a Ferrari but I don't ask for subsidies so I can buy one. Why should people who can't afford to be parents have their expenses subsidized?

oppenheimer1

Because those children will pay for your pension and the other services you'll use when you are no longer contributing.

ei.sdraob

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Because those children will pay for your pension and the other services you'll use when you are no longer contributing.

will they?
* how many of those children would choose to work instead of going on dole
* how many will be able to find good jobs (considering our uncompetitiveness will drive job creation away)
* how many will emigrate


the whole we need children as an insurance policy line of thinking is somewhat perverse and a rather big pyramid scheme, what happened to working hard and saving up for retirement

gandalf

ei.sdraob wrote: »

will they?
* how many of those children would choose to work instead of going on dole
* how many will be able to find good jobs (considering our uncompetitiveness will drive job creation away)
* how many will emigrate


the whole we need children as an insurance policy line of thinking is somewhat perverse and a rather big pyramid scheme, what happened to working hard and saving up for retirement

Well to keep the systems of civilisation running you need tax take and you need new tax payers to ensure funds are there to run those systems when you have become a coffin dodger.

You are right it is a pyramid scheme of a kind. And you are already paying for childrens education from your tax monies. Consider it an investment so when you are retired and not paying the same level of taxes you are now these children will be paying for you. Isn't that wonderful.

Algernon

Because they maintain population levels. If everyone took your attitude, what would happen? Thankfully the majority of us follow our genetic urges.

oppenheimer1

ei.sdraob wrote: »

will they?
* how many of those children would choose to work instead of going on dole
* how many will be able to find good jobs (considering our uncompetitiveness will drive job creation away)
* how many will emigrate


the whole we need children as an insurance policy line of thinking is somewhat perverse and a rather big pyramid scheme, what happened to working hard and saving up for retirement

Are you seriously suggesting society could function without children? A luxury rather than a necessity?

Does it matter if some children go on the dole? Most won't as is the case at the moment.

Young people bring with them a new way of thinking and doing things. Our children and childrens children will be employed in ways we can never imagine.

In short children are fundamental to the success of of a society, but they are an expensive undertaking. It is only right parents get help from the state in their upbringing, in order to help the youth reach their full potential. Despite how much income a single individual may give to the state over their lifetime, a couple that produces a functioning family will have given more back. Always.

dvpower

SLUSK wrote: »

Parents have a very easy ride in this society. Their kids get free education and they get money just for having kids. I myself will never get married or have children so why should I have to subsidize people having children?

Eh. Children are people too, not the property of their parents.
You too got a free education I presume? You aren't subsidising anything; its just the way society works - you get your education free upfront and when you are working, you pay for it in taxes.

djsomers

Algernon wrote: »

Thankfully the majority of us follow our genetic urges.:)

What do you mean by this?

ei.sdraob

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting society could function without children? A luxury rather than a necessity?

i dont see point of encouraging more that 2-3 children (i.e. above replacement rate) per family

if a family wants to have more than 2 children, then fine their choice, but why should society pay for the child #3, #4 and so on (and this help increases with more kids)

dvpower

ei.sdraob wrote: »

* how many of those children would choose to work instead of going on dole

a lot less if we didn't provide free universal education.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

* how many will be able to find good jobs (considering our uncompetitiveness will drive job creation away)

a lot less if we didn't provide free universal education.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

* how many will emigrate

a lot more if we didn't provide free universal education.

trapsagenius

PLEASE tell me this thread is a piss take.

Algernon

djsomers wrote: »

What do you mean by this?

To reproduce. It is a fairly important trait of a self-replicating carbon blob. Try a few biology books, for more information. All the info you require can be found within them.

ei.sdraob

Algernon wrote: »

Because they maintain population levels. If everyone took your attitude, what would happen? Thankfully the majority of us follow our genetic urges.

you only need to 2 children per family to maintain population level

btw i think the OP is a bit extreme in his post.

but there is a valid question in this thread: why encourage population growth above replacement level of 2 children?

Algernon wrote: »

To reproduce. It is a fairly important trait of a self-replicating carbon blob. Try a few biology books, for more information. All the info you require can be found within them.

put a few carbon blobs (bacteria) in a petri dish and provide some sugar (food), watch what happens after some time once all food is gone

replace the carbon blobs with humans, petri dish with planet earth and sugar with resources and you understand why encouraging rampant population growth is not a good idea in long term

Algernon

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you only need to 2 children per family to maintain population level

i think the OP is a bit extreme in his thread

but theres a valid question: why encourage population growth above replacement level of 2 children

No, you are wrong.

Grindylow

Parents need extra money to fund for their children, obviously. You need money to fund yourself, that's all, you don't see parents going out buying Ferrari's from their child benefit. Seriously if it's that much of an issue with you, go have a child- problem solved.

ei.sdraob

Algernon wrote: »

No, you are wrong.

very informative post :rolleyes:

how so? please elaborate as to why population growth above replacement level is "good" TM and why it should be encouraged

dvpower

ei.sdraob wrote: »

but there is a valid question in this thread: why encourage population growth above replacement level of 2 children?

We are currently at 1.85, so we better get to it.

ei.sdraob

dvpower wrote: »

We are currently at 1.85, so we better get to it.

thats fair enough imho (once again i dont agree with OPs extreme stance but neither do i agree going wild on the other end and encouraging unsustainable population growth)

will the subsidies stop once we get to 2.01?

Algernon

ei.sdraob wrote: »

very informative post :rolleyes:

how so? please elaborate as to why population growth above replacement level is "good" TM and why it should be encouraged

Each couple having two children does not maintain levels, over the generations. The answer why is obvious.

I never once stated anything about encouraging growth above replacement. Maybe you are referring to someone else...

dvpower

ei.sdraob wrote: »

will the subsidies stop once we get to 2.01?

I guess if we ever got to a point where our growth levels were unsustainable, the government would have the option of cutting child benefit rates to act as a disincentive.

I don't see the free education system as a subsidy. Every tax paying adult was once a child, and every child (who grew up in Ireland) benefited from a free education.

Scofflaw

ei.sdraob wrote: »

thats fair enough imho (once again i dont agree with OPs extreme stance but neither do i agree going wild on the other end and encouraging unsustainable population growth)

will the subsidies stop once we get to 2.01?

I appreciate that you meant replacement rate, and to save on the quibbling, I'll just state that because of various factors - infertility, people choosing never to marry/have kids, infant mortality etc - the replacement rate is actually somewhat above 2 (ranging from 2.1 in developed countries to more than 3 in developing ones).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater

I would tend towards SLUSKs side of things but in fairness he doesn't have the best way of expressing himself!


I don't believe (in principal) in social welfare for having children. I think having a child should be solely the responsibility of those involved. The main reason I came around to this view was the way I saw child social welfare influencing decision making.

I think that there are a group of people out there who have children but who wouldn't have had them if there didn't exist all the associated benefits. I know its a nasty thought, but I'm being honest. If the tipping point in someones decision to have a child is that they will get "free money" from the state then I would have my doubts about their suitability as parents.

Social welfare eases the decision making process. Splitting up from your parter isn't that bad because of the lone parent allowance. It provides incentives for what I would deem irresponsible parenting decisions.


I say all this, by the way, as someone who would be disappointed if he didn't have children in the future.

SLUSK

I don't like this type of society where everyone has their hands inside each others pockets trying to get everything they can steal. This theft is legalized through the process of voting where parents can vote to take money from non-paretns via various benefits.

Algernon

SLUSK wrote: »

I don't like this type of society where everyone has their hands inside each others pockets trying to get everything they can steal. This theft is legalized through the process of voting where parents can vote to take money from non-paretns via various benefits.

Ok, you are therefore against all forms of taxation and capital redistribution? I mean, simply taxing a person is the state "putting their hands in someone else's pockets", so you are now arguing for a zero-government state? A volunteer government, with volunteer state services? Or are you saying everything should be privatised like some ultra-Friedman society?

Do tell.

*grabs chair*

SLUSK

Algernon wrote: »

Ok, you are therefore against all forms of taxation and capital redistribution? I mean, simply taxing a person is the state "putting their hands in someone else's pockets", so you are now arguing for a zero-government state? A volunteer government, with volunteer state services? Or are you saying everything should be privatised like some ultra-Friedman society?

Do tell.

*grabs chair*

Free state project...

Algernon

This?

Joey the lips

Put simply our constitution is designed to support the family.

Algernon

From the website above:

The Free State Project is an agreement among 20,000 pro-liberty activists to move to New Hampshire, where they will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property. The success of the Project would likely entail reductions in taxation and regulation, reforms at all levels of government, to expand individual rights and free markets, and a restoration of constitutional federalism, demonstrating the benefits of liberty to the rest of the nation and the world.

and yet...

There's no better place for freedom-loving Americans than New Hampshire... In a vote that ended in September 2003, FSP participants chose New Hampshire because it has the lowest state and local tax burden in the continental U.S., the second-lowest level of dependence on federal spending in the U.S., a citizen legislature where state house representatives have not raised their $100 per year salary since 1889, the lowest crime levels in the U.S., a dynamic economy with plenty of jobs and investment, and a culture of individual responsibility indicated by, for example, an absence of seatbelt and helmet requirements for adults.

So the government's role in protecting life does not extend to passing laws that... protect life?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Joey the lips

Its a fact of society that the prefered model is the christmas tree. ie the top represents the elderly and the bottom the young. But most societies are becoming inverted.

If the truth is to be known(aside from general layabouts and wasters) those who have kids are the protectors of the future as its those kids who will actually pay your pension dividends as yours is already being spend careing for your parents.

Inother words if we all thought like the op... Guess what! we would not be here! Puffff!!!!

drive3331

Google data has a great link where you can compare fertility rates in other countries.

Fertility Rates