4 ms·

I think the one child policy is a great idea. How do you deal with those who defy it, deliberately or otherwise?

newjersey 11y ago
They don't get any subsidy. Possibly taxes, garnished wages and so on. This is not a completely fleshed out idea. How do we deal with twins, triplets and so on?
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  What subsidy? When you mentioned "society at large," I was assuming some hypothetical communal or kinship arrangements. You should be more clear. The second idea is vile and destructive. Someone elects to have more than one child, and you come in storming to deduct from their payrolls and tax their income as if you deliberately want to wage a war of attrition against the parents' standard of living for raising a child.
  - newjersey 11y ago
    > What subsidy? That is the reason for this whole exercise. We'd create a subsidy to encourage more people to have a first child or first two children. I acknowledge that society needs children. I just think that we're better off if 80% of people have one kid vs 10% of the people have eight kids or something. If you want more children, you must pull your own weight. I did say there has to be some kind of exemption for natural twins and so on.
    - analog31 11y ago
      We do pull our own weight. Our kids will produce more than they consume, over their lifetimes. A fraction of the surplus goes to the government, and is in fact the source of any subsidy being considered.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    > What subsidy? At least in the US, we provide a credit for each child someone claims as a dependent on a tax return. > The second idea is vile and destructive. Someone elects to have more than one child, and you come in storming to deduct from their payrolls and tax their income as if you deliberately want to wage a war of attrition against the parents' standard of living for raising a child. Uhh, that's how tax policy works. You tax things you don't want people to do, and provide deductions or credits for things you do want them to do.
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      That doesn't make the maneuver any less abhorrent or coercive, unless you regard attacking the development of your country's infants as a positive, of course.
      - toomuchtodo 11y ago
        You're free to your opinion! As someone without children, I don't want tax dollars subsidizing having children. I don't think you should be stopped, but please pay for them yourselves.
        vezzy-fnord 11y ago
        I don't have children either, and I oppose any subsidy in general. I interpreted you as arguing in favor of it.
        fucking_tragedy 11y ago
        It's okay that children will needlessly suffer so long as they aren't a tax burden.
- ohazi 11y ago
  They have more mouths to feed, and you want to take away money that they would use to do that?
  - fucking_tragedy 11y ago
    You don't understand, my right to pay less in taxes trumps a child's need to be provided for by their parents. The child should have known his birth would have significant tax penalties.

They don't get any subsidy. Possibly taxes, garnished wages and so on. This is not a completely fleshed out idea. How do we deal with twins, triplets and so on?

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
What subsidy? When you mentioned "society at large," I was assuming some hypothetical communal or kinship arrangements. You should be more clear. The second idea is vile and destructive. Someone elects to have more than one child, and you come in storming to deduct from their payrolls and tax their income as if you deliberately want to wage a war of attrition against the parents' standard of living for raising a child.
- newjersey 11y ago
  > What subsidy? That is the reason for this whole exercise. We'd create a subsidy to encourage more people to have a first child or first two children. I acknowledge that society needs children. I just think that we're better off if 80% of people have one kid vs 10% of the people have eight kids or something. If you want more children, you must pull your own weight. I did say there has to be some kind of exemption for natural twins and so on.
  - analog31 11y ago
    We do pull our own weight. Our kids will produce more than they consume, over their lifetimes. A fraction of the surplus goes to the government, and is in fact the source of any subsidy being considered.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  > What subsidy? At least in the US, we provide a credit for each child someone claims as a dependent on a tax return. > The second idea is vile and destructive. Someone elects to have more than one child, and you come in storming to deduct from their payrolls and tax their income as if you deliberately want to wage a war of attrition against the parents' standard of living for raising a child. Uhh, that's how tax policy works. You tax things you don't want people to do, and provide deductions or credits for things you do want them to do.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    That doesn't make the maneuver any less abhorrent or coercive, unless you regard attacking the development of your country's infants as a positive, of course.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      You're free to your opinion! As someone without children, I don't want tax dollars subsidizing having children. I don't think you should be stopped, but please pay for them yourselves.
      - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
        I don't have children either, and I oppose any subsidy in general. I interpreted you as arguing in favor of it.
      - fucking_tragedy 11y ago
        It's okay that children will needlessly suffer so long as they aren't a tax burden.
ohazi 11y ago
They have more mouths to feed, and you want to take away money that they would use to do that?
- fucking_tragedy 11y ago
  You don't understand, my right to pay less in taxes trumps a child's need to be provided for by their parents. The child should have known his birth would have significant tax penalties.