Comments on: Baby Tax As Population Control? http://smokeringsandcoffeestains.com/?p=452 "If I'm rambling ignore me, if on the money then adore me, now the pearls are cast before me - oh, what do do?" ~Blues Traveler Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:22:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Leslie http://smokeringsandcoffeestains.com/?p=452&cpage=1#comment-781 Leslie Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:16:10 +0000 http://smokeringsandcoffeestains.com/?p=452#comment-781 We already pay through the nose with Welfare and tax breaks for children here in the States. Countries like China pay for it emotionally through their population control of forced abortion and/or sterilization after a certain number of children. We currently reward people here in America for having kids. In the face of the world population stressors this is a completely wrong approach. I think Austalia has touched on a possible way to handle the population boom in a manner that speaks to people in a way they understand, their wallets, without restricting what may still be their personal choice to have nearly 20 kids, a la the Duggars. We already pay through the nose with Welfare and tax breaks for children here in the States. Countries like China pay for it emotionally through their population control of forced abortion and/or sterilization after a certain number of children.

We currently reward people here in America for having kids. In the face of the world population stressors this is a completely wrong approach.

I think Austalia has touched on a possible way to handle the population boom in a manner that speaks to people in a way they understand, their wallets, without restricting what may still be their personal choice to have nearly 20 kids, a la the Duggars.

]]> By: Leslie http://smokeringsandcoffeestains.com/?p=452&cpage=1#comment-14084 Leslie Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:16:00 +0000 http://smokeringsandcoffeestains.com/?p=452#comment-14084 We already pay through the nose with Welfare and tax breaks for children here in the States. Countries like China pay for it emotionally through their population control of forced abortion and/or sterilization after a certain number of children. We currently reward people here in America for having kids. In the face of the world population stressors this is a completely wrong approach. I think Austalia has touched on a possible way to handle the population boom in a manner that speaks to people in a way they understand, their wallets, without restricting what may still be their personal choice to have nearly 20 kids, a la the Duggars. We already pay through the nose with Welfare and tax breaks for children here in the States. Countries like China pay for it emotionally through their population control of forced abortion and/or sterilization after a certain number of children.

We currently reward people here in America for having kids. In the face of the world population stressors this is a completely wrong approach.

I think Austalia has touched on a possible way to handle the population boom in a manner that speaks to people in a way they understand, their wallets, without restricting what may still be their personal choice to have nearly 20 kids, a la the Duggars.

]]> By: pippa http://smokeringsandcoffeestains.com/?p=452&cpage=1#comment-780 pippa Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:00:03 +0000 http://smokeringsandcoffeestains.com/?p=452#comment-780 You are in a "down with breeders" mood aren't you? It wouldn't do a thing except increase poverty. People who are already at poverty level wouldn't have the funds to pay it anyway, so you'd have the non-child households sucking up THAT tax burden as well. People like me would be penalized money we don't have, which would push us even further toward poverty, even though the extra child/ren were not only unplanned, but actively being avoided. And you are advocating more government through tax legislation, there. ;) You are in a “down with breeders” mood aren’t you?

It wouldn’t do a thing except increase poverty. People who are already at poverty level wouldn’t have the funds to pay it anyway, so you’d have the non-child households sucking up THAT tax burden as well.

People like me would be penalized money we don’t have, which would push us even further toward poverty, even though the extra child/ren were not only unplanned, but actively being avoided.

And you are advocating more government through tax legislation, there. ;)

]]> By: pippa http://smokeringsandcoffeestains.com/?p=452&cpage=1#comment-14083 pippa Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:00:00 +0000 http://smokeringsandcoffeestains.com/?p=452#comment-14083 You are in a "down with breeders" mood aren't you? It wouldn't do a thing except increase poverty. People who are already at poverty level wouldn't have the funds to pay it anyway, so you'd have the non-child households sucking up THAT tax burden as well. People like me would be penalized money we don't have, which would push us even further toward poverty, even though the extra child/ren were not only unplanned, but actively being avoided. And you are advocating more government through tax legislation, there. ;) You are in a “down with breeders” mood aren’t you?

It wouldn’t do a thing except increase poverty. People who are already at poverty level wouldn’t have the funds to pay it anyway, so you’d have the non-child households sucking up THAT tax burden as well.

People like me would be penalized money we don’t have, which would push us even further toward poverty, even though the extra child/ren were not only unplanned, but actively being avoided.

And you are advocating more government through tax legislation, there. ;)

]]>