4 ms·

Don't worry, you'll long dead by then.

by Zelmor 10y ago

solatic 10y ago
We will, but the government won't. And because the government needs to keep tax income flowing, it will promote native procreation.
- Arizhel 10y ago
  > We will, but the government won't. And because the government needs to keep tax income flowing, it will promote native procreation. I disagree with this, and I cite reality as proof: what western governments are actually successfully promoting native procreation? Governments might give some lip-service to native procreation, but they sure don't do much, and as a result, people aren't procreating. Look at Japan for instance: they're in NPG now, so whatever half-hearted attempts the government is making aren't having much of an effect. Even here in the US we'd be NPG if it weren't for immigrants. What exactly does the government do to promote native procreation anyway? Here again in the US, I sure don't see much. I see 1) a child tax credit that doesn't amount to much if you're not poor, and certainly doesn't come close to making up for the cost of having a kid; 2) different tax treatment for married couples, but while this gives you a small benefit if one partner doesn't work, it ends up being a big penalty if both work. On the other hand, I see: 1) government-run public schools which are an utter disaster, where you can expect your kids to be tormented to the point of suicide; 2) government enforcers arresting parents who let their kids play outside for "child neglect"; 3) astronomical college tuition costs and a student-loan trap; 4) fewer and fewer jobs, meaning you're more and more likely to have your kids living with you well into adulthood and beyond and unable to take care of themselves; 5) astronomical day-care costs so that one partner's entire income is used just so they can leave the kid in day-care while they work; 6) companies which penalize workers and their long-term careers for taking time off for raising kids (which is why people work just to pay for day-care in #5); 7) a horrible and expensive healthcare system where you'll get socked with thousands or tens of thousands in medical bills just for having a single kid, even with insurance; 8) a high possibility of divorce (probably contributed to greatly by all these societal stressors I mentioned above), which would leave one parent struggling to raise the kid(s) by themselves with a single income. All in all, having kids is a gigantic risk, an enormous expense, and the government isn't helping much with it, and instead is making it much more expensive and risky with its actions (e.g., by giving us a terrible and expensive healthcare system).
sixbrx 10y ago
That's probably not the insult you think it is, to people that have kids that they love.
- Arizhel 10y ago
  What about people who have kids they don't love? I knew someone like this; she was an older lady (50s at the time), with a really wonderful personality but disabled. She had one son from a prior marriage. She finally had to break off all contact with him when it became obvious that he was only hanging around her trying to convince her to sign over power-of-attorney of herself and her social security benefits to him so he could take all her money. He was a sociopath.

Don't worry, you'll long dead by then.

by Zelmor 10y ago

Don't worry, you'll long dead by then.

We will, but the government won't. And because the government needs to keep tax income flowing, it will promote native procreation.

Arizhel 10y ago
> We will, but the government won't. And because the government needs to keep tax income flowing, it will promote native procreation. I disagree with this, and I cite reality as proof: what western governments are actually successfully promoting native procreation? Governments might give some lip-service to native procreation, but they sure don't do much, and as a result, people aren't procreating. Look at Japan for instance: they're in NPG now, so whatever half-hearted attempts the government is making aren't having much of an effect. Even here in the US we'd be NPG if it weren't for immigrants. What exactly does the government do to promote native procreation anyway? Here again in the US, I sure don't see much. I see 1) a child tax credit that doesn't amount to much if you're not poor, and certainly doesn't come close to making up for the cost of having a kid; 2) different tax treatment for married couples, but while this gives you a small benefit if one partner doesn't work, it ends up being a big penalty if both work. On the other hand, I see: 1) government-run public schools which are an utter disaster, where you can expect your kids to be tormented to the point of suicide; 2) government enforcers arresting parents who let their kids play outside for "child neglect"; 3) astronomical college tuition costs and a student-loan trap; 4) fewer and fewer jobs, meaning you're more and more likely to have your kids living with you well into adulthood and beyond and unable to take care of themselves; 5) astronomical day-care costs so that one partner's entire income is used just so they can leave the kid in day-care while they work; 6) companies which penalize workers and their long-term careers for taking time off for raising kids (which is why people work just to pay for day-care in #5); 7) a horrible and expensive healthcare system where you'll get socked with thousands or tens of thousands in medical bills just for having a single kid, even with insurance; 8) a high possibility of divorce (probably contributed to greatly by all these societal stressors I mentioned above), which would leave one parent struggling to raise the kid(s) by themselves with a single income. All in all, having kids is a gigantic risk, an enormous expense, and the government isn't helping much with it, and instead is making it much more expensive and risky with its actions (e.g., by giving us a terrible and expensive healthcare system).

sixbrx 10y ago

That's probably not the insult you think it is, to people that have kids that they love.

Arizhel 10y ago
What about people who have kids they don't love? I knew someone like this; she was an older lady (50s at the time), with a really wonderful personality but disabled. She had one son from a prior marriage. She finally had to break off all contact with him when it became obvious that he was only hanging around her trying to convince her to sign over power-of-attorney of herself and her social security benefits to him so he could take all her money. He was a sociopath.