Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Childless Tax
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 9   Go Down

Author Topic: Childless Tax  (Read 47773 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

kalmia

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 385
    • View Profile
Re: Childless Tax
« Reply #45 on: April 20, 2009, 04:07:02 PM »

open immigration [...]

This problem isn't national, in fact the United States is faring better than just about any other first world nation.  (Except Israel, if you can call it that, and them oily emirates.)  Aging Japan would need to import almost a billion people (no, that's not a typo) to keep the same worker-to-retiree ratio!  :shock:

And, like I said've above, you can't import people from outside this planet - there just aren't any.  Fertility rates are declining everywhere: Mexico is down to 2.37 kids per woman (and you need more than 2.15 there to break even due to higher mortality), Muslim Turkey is down to 1.87, Iran down to 1.71, etc.


[...] polyamory [...]

I support that, and I've always stated that less government intervention in family life would cause the birth rates to increase.  There's a certain psychological value of being a king of one's castle that encourages people to have children and more children, while having social workers poke around and second-guess your authority diminishes that.  But that may not be enough.  As the world becomes more secular and more urban, birth rates will be in free fall.

It's a huge problem, and people who understand it are thinking "it's a huge problem, but let someone else take care of it".  Thus the unfortunate need for government violence that I am here trying to minimize.


We can move to New Hampshire and secede.  Then open up immigration.  There are many that would come if aloud (and possibly funded).  Some Asian countries have many unwanted girls.  We could take them, and they would eventually benefit us.

I think they could immediately benefit us...  :mrgreen:

I agree. But I mean eventually in terms of baby making, the topic of this thread.

kalmia

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 385
    • View Profile
Re: Childless Tax
« Reply #46 on: April 20, 2009, 04:15:48 PM »



...

I'm a very big fan of South Asian girls, but it takes at very least $10,000 a year to raise a child (including education).  I don't think this problem can be solved by a few rich guys taking on some third world wives.

...



I'm sure we could manage to do it for far less.  Many of them make far less than this where they are.  They would help us make do. 

I'm suggesting poorer countries because many of us don't have a lot as it is and it would be more workable.

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: Childless Tax
« Reply #47 on: April 20, 2009, 05:05:02 PM »

But the idea that everybody will have as many kids as Rand or Ian is not remotely plausible.

We agree the collapse of the human population to 0 in one generation isn't remotely plausible, but negative birth rates are a crisis in of themselves.


That somebody has to breed for the human race to continue is not what is being denied. What is being denied as that this gives anybody a right to take my property off me if I choose not to breed, or contribute to those breeding.

Right shmight.  You already have a coercive entity called "the government" violating your right to life, liberty, and property.  What I am saying is that some small fraction of what that coercive entity does is beneficial.  Not moral, not "a good idea", but nonetheless factually beneficial to that society's long-term economic growth.  In this thread I propose a way to accomplish the same thing without centralization and with far less waste.  Looks like I have to tell my "benefits of gradualism" parable again...

Imagine two nearly-identical countries starting off with similar levels of government tyranny and economic development as the United States, but taking two very different approaches to libertarian reform.

  • The first country elects someone like me president and goes through the gradual Minarchist approach, cautiously taking away government programs that do not constitute a competitive advantage, privatizing public property, etc - but keeping the coercive programs that do constitute a competitive advantage, like court subpoenas or this Childless Tax.  Eventually centralized government shrinks to just 2% of GDP, and 8% of GDP is coercive government-enforced transfer of wealth to competing non-governmental charities, including those financed by the childless for the benefit of those who have or adopt children.  Birth rates are high, economic growth is awesome, and there's talk of reducing coercion even further, like gradually phasing out the "childless tax" to see if the free market manages to keep the birth rates high enough.

  • In the second country, everyone is suddenly enlightened by Anarcho-Capitalism one day and they get rid of government right off the bat.  Poof, no more government!  Yaay?  But what ensues is chaos.  People don't know whether they can take their kids to school anymore - who runs those schools?  They don't know whether to stop at a red light - why should they?  Birth rates collapse - people know they should save money first, since there's no public schooling, no free health-care for kids, etc.  Before natural order has a chance to set in, gradually and painfully, people declare Anarcho-Capitalism a failure and restore their statist government the way it was, or even more tyrannical than before.

Which is the better scenario?

Well, I suspect that a voucher system may be a good transitional method between full state schooling and free-market schooling, but that doesn't mean that I am going to argue that justice requires that people pay taxes to fund the school vouchers.

There are more costs associated with children than just education.  Pregnancy and the birth itself is a tremendous effort and risk, which has many medical expenses associated with it.  Then kids need lots of on-going doctor visits.  And food.  And clothing.  And other baby stuff.  And living space - in fact a bigger house with a large backyard would be nice.  And toys.  And more toys.  And a babysitter.  And a computer.  And braces.  And then there's the risk that Tommy will trip Jimmy in the playground, causing Jimmy's mommy to sue Tommy's mommy.  And somebody needs to spend the time cooking, cleaning, parenting, teaching, etc, etc, etc.  And eventually you have to teach them to drive.  ...  ...  ...  Did I mention that suicide was a possibility?


I'm not sure that mere survival is normatively attractive.  What is great about merely surviving? The reason to live cannot be to live.

Beats the alternative.  Survival is prerequisite for everything else, good or bad, moral or immoral.


[...] it takes at very least $10,000 a year to raise a child (including education) [...]
substantiate your claim without using ANY gooberment lies...

Yes, the government actually spends more than that per pupil just for crappy public schooling alone!  What the costs would be like in a freer market, without public schools, semi-socialist health-care, and so on is anybody's guess.  The exact amount is irrelevant, the bottom line is that kids aren't cheap. 


I see what Alex is pushing for here. He wants a larger population of children to chose to abuse from. Maybe, just maybe with all these new children running around he can find that magical one that does not mind the abuse.

Once again - I am not a pedophile, I'm a libertarian.  Your failure to see the difference is your own.  You get a free pass with me, but you should be careful - some people would sue you for libel and win.  Or reciprocate by spreading rumors about you.  Which some people do more effectively than others.


everyone else seems to be against his eugenics / Invisible Social contract

This isn't a democracy.  And I'm not advocating eugenics.  Nor is the "social contract" my philosophy recognizes "invisible", it is based on empirical science and is mostly expressed through the principle of self-ownership.  I'm still an Anarcho-Capitalist, I just don't suffer from blind faith nor from any delusions about its practical flaws.  This thread highlights one of them.


(I'll come back to this thread and finish replying... eventually...)
« Last Edit: April 20, 2009, 06:06:38 PM by Alex Libman »
Logged

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: Childless Tax
« Reply #48 on: April 22, 2009, 07:01:12 PM »

Statistics before the "economic crisis" showed USA sitting on the very fence between neutral and negative fertility rates, and now a negative feedback cycle is about to kick in...

From Reuters via Yahoo News -- Recession linked to more abortions, vasectomies --

Quote
The pregnancy was unexpected, and for one 32-year-old single mother in Syracuse, New York, the ailing economy became a factor in her decision to have an abortion.

"More so now that we are in a recession ... I felt I had to go through with the procedure because I cannot afford another child," said the woman, a registered nurse who spoke on condition of anonymity.

With a recession on, she was worried about job security.

"People say, 'You're a nurse, you'll always have a job.' I think it's not as true as people think it is."

The recession may be a factor influencing more Americans to opt out of parenthood with abortions and vasectomies, although there is no data available yet to suggest a trend.

Even so, there is some anecdotal evidence that would-be parents are factoring the rough economic times into the most personal of reproductive choices, some experts said.

In 2005, the last year for which data is available, the U.S. abortion rate fell to the lowest level since 1974, according to the Guttmacher Institute in New York, a nonprofit group focusing on reproductive issues.

But at the National Abortion Federation, a hotline for women seeking abortion information has been "ringing off the hook," according to the group's president, Vicki Saporta.

"We are currently getting more calls from women who report that they or their partner have recently lost their job, and we are also hearing from more women facing eviction," she said.

One recent inquiry came from a 24-year-old married woman in Colorado who was evicted after her landlord went into foreclosure. Another came from a 32-year-old pregnant mother in Virginia who had lost her job and health insurance.

"As more and more women and families are struggling due to the crisis, it's affecting more than just low-income families. Now more middle-class and working class families are facing the types problems that we've heard from low-income women," Saporta said.

As with many other nonprofits, abortion assistance groups are being inundated with requests for aid just as funding is drying up.

In the first quarter of 2009, the New York Abortion Access Fund increased funding for abortions 60 percent from year-ago levels, and the number of women receiving assistance more than doubled.


The reach of the recession may stretch beyond women's reproductive decisions to those of men.

Lawrence Ross, a urologist and former president of the American Urological Association, said he and his colleagues have noticed a roughly 50 percent increase in vasectomies in the past four to six months, which he attributes in part to the ailing economy.

About half a million men opt for vasectomies in the United States each year, a number which has remained flat over the years, Ross said.

"Many of them are afraid that they are going to lose their jobs and their health insurance. So while they are covered, a lot more patients, it pushed them over the edge to get it done more quickly," he said.

"A lot of them are saying that we've decided to limit our family, the costs of education and raising kids is so high."

At the same time, urologists have seen a drop in the number of men seeking vasectomy reversals.

While a vasectomy is a relatively simple procedure and typically costs between $1,000 to $1,500, a reversal costs roughly ten times as much.

« Last Edit: April 22, 2009, 07:04:38 PM by Alex Libman »
Logged

davann

  • Guest
Re: Childless Tax
« Reply #49 on: April 22, 2009, 07:21:34 PM »

Statistics before the "economic crisis" showed USA sitting on the very fence between neutral and negative fertility rates, and now a negative feedback cycle is about to kick in...

From Reuters via Yahoo News -- Recession linked to more abortions, vasectomies --

Quote
The pregnancy was unexpected, and for one 32-year-old single mother in Syracuse, New York, the ailing economy became a factor in her decision to have an abortion.

"More so now that we are in a recession ... I felt I had to go through with the procedure because I cannot afford another child," said the woman, a registered nurse who spoke on condition of anonymity.

With a recession on, she was worried about job security.

"People say, 'You're a nurse, you'll always have a job.' I think it's not as true as people think it is."

The recession may be a factor influencing more Americans to opt out of parenthood with abortions and vasectomies, although there is no data available yet to suggest a trend.

Even so, there is some anecdotal evidence that would-be parents are factoring the rough economic times into the most personal of reproductive choices, some experts said.

In 2005, the last year for which data is available, the U.S. abortion rate fell to the lowest level since 1974, according to the Guttmacher Institute in New York, a nonprofit group focusing on reproductive issues.

But at the National Abortion Federation, a hotline for women seeking abortion information has been "ringing off the hook," according to the group's president, Vicki Saporta.

"We are currently getting more calls from women who report that they or their partner have recently lost their job, and we are also hearing from more women facing eviction," she said.

One recent inquiry came from a 24-year-old married woman in Colorado who was evicted after her landlord went into foreclosure. Another came from a 32-year-old pregnant mother in Virginia who had lost her job and health insurance.

"As more and more women and families are struggling due to the crisis, it's affecting more than just low-income families. Now more middle-class and working class families are facing the types problems that we've heard from low-income women," Saporta said.

As with many other nonprofits, abortion assistance groups are being inundated with requests for aid just as funding is drying up.

In the first quarter of 2009, the New York Abortion Access Fund increased funding for abortions 60 percent from year-ago levels, and the number of women receiving assistance more than doubled.


The reach of the recession may stretch beyond women's reproductive decisions to those of men.

Lawrence Ross, a urologist and former president of the American Urological Association, said he and his colleagues have noticed a roughly 50 percent increase in vasectomies in the past four to six months, which he attributes in part to the ailing economy.

About half a million men opt for vasectomies in the United States each year, a number which has remained flat over the years, Ross said.

"Many of them are afraid that they are going to lose their jobs and their health insurance. So while they are covered, a lot more patients, it pushed them over the edge to get it done more quickly," he said.

"A lot of them are saying that we've decided to limit our family, the costs of education and raising kids is so high."

At the same time, urologists have seen a drop in the number of men seeking vasectomy reversals.

While a vasectomy is a relatively simple procedure and typically costs between $1,000 to $1,500, a reversal costs roughly ten times as much.



I believe the headline here should read "Increased Abortions, Vasectomies possibly related to Recession".
Logged

Low-Eight

  • The Emancipator
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 218
  • Aint no thang but a chicken wing!
    • View Profile
    • Emancipation!
Re: Childless Tax
« Reply #50 on: April 22, 2009, 07:37:05 PM »

This is something a rational minarchist might advocate to solve the one fatal flaw of secular libertarianism: inevitable cultural and/or economic collapse due to very low birth rates.

Here's how it would work: each person is responsible for fathering / birthing and raising two children (unless you have a good medical excuse of course, but being gay ain't it).  If you fail to have your first child by 30 and second child by 40, you pay a hefty tax until you do.  The money would be used to care for orphans, expand free / "open source" educational resources for children, and help poor people with lots of kids.  It can be facilitated like Islamic taxation: forced through violence, but you can pay it to any valid cause, avoiding centralized government: reputable charities / orphanages or directly to people who have / adopt lots of kids, and so on.

Brace yourselves.  If by mind can conceive of such evil, so can others.

And start having babies!  I mean it!

And I'm totally going to impose this on myself when I turn 30.



Why exactly would libertarians not have babies?
Logged
Feel free to add me to facebook, or contact me on MSN.

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: Childless Tax
« Reply #51 on: April 22, 2009, 07:44:44 PM »

Because no one is forcing / brainwashing them to do it.
Logged

orangedog

  • Guest
Re: Childless Tax
« Reply #52 on: April 22, 2009, 09:13:25 PM »

If birth rates are going down it's for a damned good reason. Big  brother government and it's supporters who have an authority fetish have figured out that if you control the children, you own the parents. You think that 50%+ divorce rate is an accident?! Go buy a fucking clue. I'll tell you what's happened: after a couple of generations young men have looked at what has happened to at least half of the men in their lives. Their fathers, brothers, uncles, cousins, friends, who wound up on the losing side of that game. And they have decided to say "no thanks."

Tell you what...walk up to someone on the street and offer them a bet on a coin toss. Heads, they get to go on with their life and maybe live happily ever after. Tails, they get to see their kids 4 days a month, lose half of what they have worked for, have large amounts of money snatched from their paycheck before they get a chance to cash it with zero say over how it's spent, get threatening letters from the state every few years demanding to know where you work, how much you make, what you have in a safe deposit box, how much cash you have on hand, etc. All because you had the temerity to start a family. He would either scoff at you or punch you in the nose.

Oh, and it's not just the men who get fucked in this game. The women do, too. They just don't see it right away. And the biggest losers are the kids who the state uses to play this sick game with his parents, using him as the pawn.

And you want to use the force of government to punish people who refuse to play this sick game? Fuck you. Fuck you and everyone who looks like you.  May you die choking on your own vomit. Really, I can't think of enough unpleasant yet naturally occurring  ways for people like you to expire, and I have quite an imagination. Spontaneous human combustion would, while entertaining, not be sufficient for people like you.   
Logged

Low-Eight

  • The Emancipator
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 218
  • Aint no thang but a chicken wing!
    • View Profile
    • Emancipation!
Re: Childless Tax
« Reply #53 on: April 22, 2009, 09:42:55 PM »

Because no one is forcing / brainwashing them to do it.

Can't people just have kids that want them? 
Logged
Feel free to add me to facebook, or contact me on MSN.

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: Childless Tax
« Reply #54 on: April 22, 2009, 09:51:49 PM »

If birth rates are going down it's for a damned good reason.  [...]

Agreed.  I've always said that once a free society stabilizes the birth rates would rise due to more flexible family arrangements (polygamy, easier surrogate birth contracts, etc) and the psychological effect of parents being the kings of their castle again.  But this upward tick would be a drop in the bucket compared to a tsunami of downward trends: improving economic conditions, access to contraceptives, decline of religion, urbanization, more career-oriented lifestyles, etc.  I don't see what can fix that except a rational (i.e. not based on a made-up religion) social pressure for all people to try to pull their demographic weight.


Can't people just have kids that want them?

Not enough people want to have kids, and people that do are more likely to be idiots.  Libertarians have particularly low birth rates.  (One exception: Ron Paul.)

The free market just doesn't work when it comes to reproduction because there is no reward for accomplishment, as there is with any other beneficial economic activity.  Thus, if we want to survive and prosper, we need an iron fist.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2009, 09:58:05 PM by Alex Libman »
Logged

Low-Eight

  • The Emancipator
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 218
  • Aint no thang but a chicken wing!
    • View Profile
    • Emancipation!
Re: Childless Tax
« Reply #55 on: April 22, 2009, 09:58:12 PM »

Not enough? To who's standard?
Logged
Feel free to add me to facebook, or contact me on MSN.

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: Childless Tax
« Reply #56 on: April 22, 2009, 10:01:15 PM »

Reality's standard.  (Read the thread more carefully.)  When population ages and shrinks, productivity gains are wasted to make up for that, and eventually they can't.  Then the economy shrinks, bad things happen.  And when natural selection, the fundamental engine behind all life and civilization, is thrown in reverse...  BOOM!

You can't fool basic mathematics.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2009, 10:06:01 PM by Alex Libman »
Logged

orangedog

  • Guest
Re: Childless Tax
« Reply #57 on: April 22, 2009, 10:02:03 PM »



Quote

The free market just doesn't work when it comes to reproduction because there is no reward for accomplishment, as there is with any other beneficial economic activity.  Thus, if we want to survive and prosper, we need an iron fist.


And again, I'm back to FUCK YOU! (emphasis added). You and the soccer moms and assorted statists should get together and go bowling sometime. You have a lot in common. Get people like you out of the way and others might take the risk of screwing and having kids again.
Logged

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: Childless Tax
« Reply #58 on: April 22, 2009, 10:08:17 PM »

I'm not a statist, and I'm not in anyone's way.  I am simply pointing out basic economic reality here.  Don't shoot the messenger.  I know life would be easier if 2 + 2 didn't have to add up to 4 sometimes, but it still does.
Logged

orangedog

  • Guest
Re: Childless Tax
« Reply #59 on: April 22, 2009, 10:18:53 PM »

I'm not a statist, and I'm not in anyone's way.  I am simply pointing out basic economic reality here.  Don't shoot the messenger.  I know life would be easier if 2 + 2 didn't have to add up to 4 sometimes, but it still does.


Pal, you're not a messenger bringing the word of some 21st century version of "new math" to the ignorant masses, you're advocating using the full force of government to herd people into a rigged game of poker. Do you work in the divorce industry or just get off using kids to control others? Gotta hand it you you, you've taken "...for the children" to an entirely new and twisted level.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 9   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Childless Tax

// ]]>

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 33 queries.