4 ms·

The problem takes care of it's self when those people who cannot have kids' can have because their hard work has value. Because current welfare society over val

The problem takes care of it's self when those people who cannot have kids' can have because their hard work has value. Because current welfare society over values looks. Undervalues other aspects of humans. This is unethical, and will bite your decedents back in the ass even if it doesn't bite you. You think your so good looking? Imagine if your grand son was in that place where he wasn't that good looking. Would you want him to end up like that? Is that really fair to him. Aren't we supposed to make the world a better place? When we realize that some things are wrong? You're doing every man who does hard work injustice. You can defer the problem by importing women from 3rd world countries, but for how long? Not only is it unethical, but immoral. Remember, no matter how privileged you are, there is no guarantee that your decedents will have the privilege'. Even if you're the most selfish man/woman, it's in your interest to advocate for it. There's no woman/man who is a better human except for their character. We need to put incentives for these traits in humans. Not discourage them.

buran77 6y ago
This particular comment feels more like a rant that's not aimed at anything in particular. But with the previous comment you tried making a clearer point: > So in the end men who never father children are being taxed for other men's children. Is that moral? Don't those kids grow up, enter the working force and contribute with taxes? Rough math would suggest a father with 2 kids will contribute together via taxes over their lifetimes more than a single person (no kids) would. I'm sure most governments already made the same calculation. If at 50 or 60, when some parents have their offsprings already contributing, they got 2-3 times more than you get from the state (pension, welfare, subsidies, whatever else you can imagine) you'd probably not be happy with the explanation "you contributed alone, they contribute together". If you don't care for contributing for someone else's kid, why would someone else's kid contribute anything for you? This can be taken further with anything that works based on pools of contributions like insurance, pension, schools, public transport, internet, etc. They're all working exclusively because not all contributors actually need to benefit equally from all services. Some need more education, some need more health services, some need more transportation. Trust me, you get plenty of things you didn't pay for.

buran77 6y ago

This particular comment feels more like a rant that's not aimed at anything in particular. But with the previous comment you tried making a clearer point: > So in the end men who never father children are being taxed for other men's children. Is that moral? Don't those kids grow up, enter the working force and contribute with taxes? Rough math would suggest a father with 2 kids will contribute together via taxes over their lifetimes more than a single person (no kids) would. I'm sure most governments already made the same calculation. If at 50 or 60, when some parents have their offsprings already contributing, they got 2-3 times more than you get from the state (pension, welfare, subsidies, whatever else you can imagine) you'd probably not be happy with the explanation "you contributed alone, they contribute together". If you don't care for contributing for someone else's kid, why would someone else's kid contribute anything for you? This can be taken further with anything that works based on pools of contributions like insurance, pension, schools, public transport, internet, etc. They're all working exclusively because not all contributors actually need to benefit equally from all services. Some need more education, some need more health services, some need more transportation. Trust me, you get plenty of things you didn't pay for.