4 ms·

> Or punitive taxes on childless men & women, tax-supported tertiary education only for those with children, etc.. there are many sticks, why do you think only

> Or punitive taxes on childless men & women, tax-supported tertiary education only for those with children, etc.. there are many sticks, why do you think only women's rights And what about the people who can't have children due to fertility issues? Do they still get penalized? And what about people who have to abandon their kids in dumpsters after birth? Do they still get penalized? What do you think happens to a country where people are forced to have kids?

like_any_other 2y ago
> And what about the people who can't have children due to fertility issues? Do they still get penalized? Yes, as they don't have to bear the financial and time burden of raising children, but still benefit from living in a country where retirees don't outnumber working people - much like, in most of the world, the healthy also have to pay the taxes that fund hospitals. > And what about people who have to abandon their kids in dumpsters after birth? Do they still get penalized? Why would they have to abandon kids in dumpsters, instead of aborting them early or giving them up for adoption? This is nothing but a cheap emotional appeal, trying to equate encouraging fertility with horrific practices, with zero evidence. But to answer your question - no, infanticide would not give you a tax break. > What do you think happens to a country where people are forced to have kids? Another cheap emotional appeal - child-favoring taxes and education system becomes "forced to have kids". This is as true as saying Americans are forced to eat corn and attend church, because taxation favors corn-growing and churches. But to answer the honest version of your question, "what happens to countries where having children is not disincentivized and neglected" - the same thing that happened to nearly every country (or rather, every nation) from the dawn of time, up until the mid 20th century - they continued to exist. Unlike what will happen to nations with prolonged sub-replacement fertility.
- nine_zeros 2y ago
  > Yes, as they don't have to bear the financial and time burden of raising children, but still benefit from living in a country where retirees don't outnumber working people - much like, in most of the world, the healthy also have to pay the taxes that fund hospitals. This is unfair. People should not be penalized for medical issues that are not a fault of their own. I don't know about you but I cannot accept penalizing people for no fault of their own.
polski-g 2y ago
I think the survival of the human species is more important than your whinings about red herrings. Can you name a single country with a higher birth rate in 2024 than in 2014?
- nine_zeros 2y ago
  If survival of human species is so important, why is it an individual burden? Why can't the rich be made to pay for the duration or pregnancy and post partum?

like_any_other 2y ago

> And what about the people who can't have children due to fertility issues? Do they still get penalized? Yes, as they don't have to bear the financial and time burden of raising children, but still benefit from living in a country where retirees don't outnumber working people - much like, in most of the world, the healthy also have to pay the taxes that fund hospitals. > And what about people who have to abandon their kids in dumpsters after birth? Do they still get penalized? Why would they have to abandon kids in dumpsters, instead of aborting them early or giving them up for adoption? This is nothing but a cheap emotional appeal, trying to equate encouraging fertility with horrific practices, with zero evidence. But to answer your question - no, infanticide would not give you a tax break. > What do you think happens to a country where people are forced to have kids? Another cheap emotional appeal - child-favoring taxes and education system becomes "forced to have kids". This is as true as saying Americans are forced to eat corn and attend church, because taxation favors corn-growing and churches. But to answer the honest version of your question, "what happens to countries where having children is not disincentivized and neglected" - the same thing that happened to nearly every country (or rather, every nation) from the dawn of time, up until the mid 20th century - they continued to exist. Unlike what will happen to nations with prolonged sub-replacement fertility.

nine_zeros 2y ago
> Yes, as they don't have to bear the financial and time burden of raising children, but still benefit from living in a country where retirees don't outnumber working people - much like, in most of the world, the healthy also have to pay the taxes that fund hospitals. This is unfair. People should not be penalized for medical issues that are not a fault of their own. I don't know about you but I cannot accept penalizing people for no fault of their own.

polski-g 2y ago

I think the survival of the human species is more important than your whinings about red herrings. Can you name a single country with a higher birth rate in 2024 than in 2014?

nine_zeros 2y ago
If survival of human species is so important, why is it an individual burden? Why can't the rich be made to pay for the duration or pregnancy and post partum?