Do You Support Policies to Increase, Decrease or Keep Population the Same?

[GuitarStv]

The problem with getting rid of the poor is that the poor do all the jobs that the rich don't want to.  Who fills that void in your society?  The rich aren't going to be happy cooking for themselves, doing their own laundry, looking after their own children, and cleaning their own mansions.

[Pigeon]

Yes, but as with everything, the devil is in the details.  Lower birth rates go hand in hand with increased educational attainment (especially for women) and economic development, so globally I would be in favor of these things and with free or no-cost access to contraception.

I would be in favor in developed economies of some readjustment of the tax code to promote smaller families.

[Chris22]

The problem with getting rid of the poor is that the poor do all the jobs that the rich don't want to.  Who fills that void in your society?  The rich aren't going to be happy cooking for themselves, doing their own laundry, looking after their own children, and cleaning their own mansions.

I know you're being silly, but in most places in America, the poor aren't doing those jobs.  Restaurants pay middle class wages to food staff, lots of successful immigrants own dry cleaning businesses, have you priced a good nanny or daycare?  And even my cleaning lady makes a pretty solid $25/hr.

[GuitarStv]

The problem with getting rid of the poor is that the poor do all the jobs that the rich don't want to.  Who fills that void in your society?  The rich aren't going to be happy cooking for themselves, doing their own laundry, looking after their own children, and cleaning their own mansions.

I know you're being silly, but in most places in America, the poor aren't doing those jobs.  Restaurants pay middle class wages to food staff, lots of successful immigrants own dry cleaning businesses, have you priced a good nanny or daycare?  And even my cleaning lady makes a pretty solid $25/hr.

The picture you're painting sounds awfully rosy.  Median wage in the US is 26 grand a year.  Assuming your cleaning lady works eight hours a day, she's making what . . . 52 grand a year?  66% of people in the US earn 41 grand a year or less, which makes her rather exceptional.

http://www.mybudget360.com/how-much-do-americans-earn-what-is-the-average-us-income/

[Pigeon]

Daycare workers are often paid minimum wage as are cleaners who are hired by cleaning services.

[Chris22]

The problem with getting rid of the poor is that the poor do all the jobs that the rich don't want to.  Who fills that void in your society?  The rich aren't going to be happy cooking for themselves, doing their own laundry, looking after their own children, and cleaning their own mansions.

I know you're being silly, but in most places in America, the poor aren't doing those jobs.  Restaurants pay middle class wages to food staff, lots of successful immigrants own dry cleaning businesses, have you priced a good nanny or daycare?  And even my cleaning lady makes a pretty solid $25/hr.

The picture you're painting sounds awfully rosy.  Median wage in the US is 26 grand a year.  Assuming your cleaning lady works eight hours a day, she's making what . . . 52 grand a year?  66% of people in the US earn 41 grand a year or less, which makes her rather exceptional.

http://www.mybudget360.com/how-much-do-americans-earn-what-is-the-average-us-income/

Obviously she is not, commuting time between houses dictates that.  But I do know she is "maxed out" for clients (we've been asked by others for her name and she's turned them down) and named her price when we approached her.  I don't think she's raking in the dough, but she's an immigrant, her husband has a professional-ish job, and she's looking at houses with a budget of $250k.  She's not dirt poor, which is the point I was refuting.

[Jack]

I haven't bothered to read the thread, but I have to things to say:

• Population growth isn't exponential; it's logistic. A Malthusian catastrophe is by no means inevitable, or even likely.
• I don't support "policies" trying to influence how many kids people have in any way. That's a personal decision, not one the government should be concerned with. (Having kids without the means of taking care of them is perhaps a different story.)

[aceyou]

Yes, I support 2 policies to stabilize the world population...in no particular order, I just want them both:

1.  Increase education and access to the workforce for women in places where they don't have it.
2.  Help prevent the prevalence of things that drastically shorten life expectancy, like malaria and AIDS. 

- When families know that their children are going to live to adulthood, they have fewer babies. 
- When women know they have all the options that men do, they have fewer babies. 

[Shane]

I haven't bothered to read the thread, but I have to things to say:

• Population growth isn't exponential; it's logistic. A Malthusian catastrophe is by no means inevitable, or even likely.
• I don't support "policies" trying to influence how many kids people have in any way. That's a personal decision, not one the government should be concerned with. (Having kids without the means of taking care of them is perhaps a different story.)

Do you support current government policies designed to encourage people to have more children by giving them tax deductions?

[Leisured]

I worked as a technician for a Government agricultural research station all through the Green Revolution in the late sixties and seventies. Everyone involved knew that the Green Revolution could only be a short term measure; as food production rose, population rose. A dog chasing its own tail.

The world has changed. In the nineteenth century, we expanded across the vast plains of North and South America, Australia and Russia. Those days are long gone, and we need to limit world population. And we have birth control.

My experience of people with large families in Australia is that they know that many people despise them, but they develop thick hides. I know that many rich countries now have birth rates a bit below replacement, which I am glad about, but people in Africa and the Middle East seem to regard being irrational and dysfunctional as a way of life.

Shane thinks that we can plan for a lower world population. (Leisured falls about laughing). I think a third of the world's people are prepared to move up to an advanced society where we allow ourselves to be guided by the laws of Nature, (the A team), and two thirds will stay as  they are and will not assimilate into an advanced society, (the B team). The B team will continue to live where they are now, and the A team will migrate to emerging A team societies, by mid-century. The A team will include military scientists and military technicians, so I expect that the A team can fend off the B team, if things get sticky.

We can solve some problems, but we cannot solve other problems, and we need to know which is which. This is why I suggested that the B team be largely written off, and if they suffer occasional famines, so be it. The absurdity of indefinite population growth emerged about 1960, so everybody has had plenty of time to think things over.

[aceyou]

I worked as a technician for a Government agricultural research station all through the Green Revolution in the late sixties and seventies. Everyone involved knew that the Green Revolution could only be a short term measure; as food production rose, population rose. A dog chasing its own tail.

The world has changed. In the nineteenth century, we expanded across the vast plains of North and South America, Australia and Russia. Those days are long gone, and we need to limit world population. And we have birth control.

My experience of people with large families in Australia is that they know that many people despise them, but they develop thick hides. I know that many rich countries now have birth rates a bit below replacement, which I am glad about, but people in Africa and the Middle East seem to regard being irrational and dysfunctional as a way of life.

Shane thinks that we can plan for a lower world population. (Leisured falls about laughing). I think a third of the world's people are prepared to move up to an advanced society where we allow ourselves to be guided by the laws of Nature, (the A team), and two thirds will stay as  they are and will not assimilate into an advanced society, (the B team). The B team will continue to live where they are now, and the A team will migrate to emerging A team societies, by mid-century. The A team will include military scientists and military technicians, so I expect that the A team can fend off the B team, if things get sticky.

We can solve some problems, but we cannot solve other problems, and we need to know which is which. This is why I suggested that the B team be largely written off, and if they suffer occasional famines, so be it. The absurdity of indefinite population growth emerged about 1960, so everybody has had plenty of time to think things over.

The Middle East and Africa are two large places to be making a blanket statement like that.  Also, making a statement like that makes it sound like there's nothing the world can do to help out...I mean, people from those parts of the world are just irrational, right?  I would argue false.  In reality, there are plenty of places in both the Middle East and Africa where birth rates are falling...places where poverty is addressed.  They are the places where women are allowed education and access to the work place, and places in issues associated with extreme poverty like malaria and AIDS have been effectively addressed.  The world can help with these issues, and when it's done effectively, population naturally stabilized, as well as a multitude of other good things. 

Here's a TED talk on the subject that addresses it more articulately than I can:
https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth?language=en

[aceyou]

I worked as a technician for a Government agricultural research station all through the Green Revolution in the late sixties and seventies. Everyone involved knew that the Green Revolution could only be a short term measure; as food production rose, population rose. A dog chasing its own tail.

The world has changed. In the nineteenth century, we expanded across the vast plains of North and South America, Australia and Russia. Those days are long gone, and we need to limit world population. And we have birth control.

My experience of people with large families in Australia is that they know that many people despise them, but they develop thick hides. I know that many rich countries now have birth rates a bit below replacement, which I am glad about, but people in Africa and the Middle East seem to regard being irrational and dysfunctional as a way of life.

Shane thinks that we can plan for a lower world population. (Leisured falls about laughing). I think a third of the world's people are prepared to move up to an advanced society where we allow ourselves to be guided by the laws of Nature, (the A team), and two thirds will stay as  they are and will not assimilate into an advanced society, (the B team). The B team will continue to live where they are now, and the A team will migrate to emerging A team societies, by mid-century. The A team will include military scientists and military technicians, so I expect that the A team can fend off the B team, if things get sticky.

We can solve some problems, but we cannot solve other problems, and we need to know which is which. This is why I suggested that the B team be largely written off, and if they suffer occasional famines, so be it. The absurdity of indefinite population growth emerged about 1960, so everybody has had plenty of time to think things over.

"Military Scientists and Military Technicians" are not the ace in the hole that's going to make the world a better place for anyone, whatever that means.  Thinking of the world as an us vs them place doesn't help anyone (I'm not sure it ever did).  It guarantees that things WILL get sticky.  We are all making our way through this world together.  Weapons of are advancing in a way that small groups can do huge harm.  The chemical constituency of the atmosphere of our oceans is changing for the worse through carbon emissions at a crazy rate.  The issues that face the next 100 years aren't things that isolated groups can solve.  They are only things that can be solved if everyone works together.  The issues of the coming century can't be "fended off" with an us verse them mindset. 

[GuitarStv]

I haven't bothered to read the thread, but I have to things to say:

• Population growth isn't exponential; it's logistic. A Malthusian catastrophe is by no means inevitable, or even likely.
• I don't support "policies" trying to influence how many kids people have in any way. That's a personal decision, not one the government should be concerned with. (Having kids without the means of taking care of them is perhaps a different story.)

Do you support current government policies designed to encourage people to have more children by giving them tax deductions?

Have you ever met anyone who got pregnant for tax deduction purposes?  Because that's some shockingly bullshit reasoning.  A kid is ridiculously costly in both time, money, and general health (they eat your youth and poop out foul stuff that turns your hair grey).

I strongly suspect that current policies are designed to make things a tiny bit easier when you have kids (and maybe allow some families to afford learning/social opportunities that would otherwise not be possible - thereby making better and more productive future citizens) rather than incentive to have children.

[onlykelsey]

Have you ever met anyone who got pregnant for tax deduction purposes?

Agreed.  People get pregnant for dumb reasons sometimes, but I don't think tax deduction is ever given as one of them.

I'd favor a cash transfer or subsidized government daycare over the now convoluted childcare tax credit system.  It could be the same economically, but we'd have to call it a "handout" so I imagine it wouldn't get very far politically.  Deductions are also handouts, folks! 

[smalllife]

Subtle incentives are still incentives

-free birth control and comprehensive sex education, as well as encouraging female education where it is not currently encouraged
-no tax deductions, credits, etc. for having children
-people need to learn how to die with dignity (not spending hundreds of thousands to spend an extra miserable month in the hospital, or force your heart to keep beating because relatives can't let go).  The freed up funds can go to aforementioned sex education, and creating paths other than parenthood for fulfillment as well as reduce the fear of dying that seems to encourage procreation.  Win win.

[GuitarStv]

-people need to learn how to die with dignity (not spending hundreds of thousands to spend an extra miserable month in the hospital, or force your heart to keep beating because relatives can't let go).  The freed up funds can go to aforementioned sex education, and creating paths other than parenthood for fulfillment as well as reduce the fear of dying that seems to encourage procreation.  Win win.

So, will you be the one to pull the plug on every family's grandma?  I suspect that there will be a teensy bit of blowback on this one.

A step in a similar direction that would probably be met with less argument is legalizing suicide.  It boggles my mind that in this day and age you don't have the right to end your own life.

[smalllife]

I think you misunderstood.  Our culture tries to avoid death at great expense, even after a long and fufilling life. Acknowledging that people die and not trying to "live" at the expense of life would go a long eay to improving quality of life and most likely also reduce the population - via less children and fewer vegetables in old age.

[Proud Foot]

Subtle incentives are still incentives

-free birth control and comprehensive sex education, as well as encouraging female education where it is not currently encouraged
-no tax deductions, credits, etc. for having children
-people need to learn how to die with dignity (not spending hundreds of thousands to spend an extra miserable month in the hospital, or force your heart to keep beating because relatives can't let go).  The freed up funds can go to aforementioned sex education, and creating paths other than parenthood for fulfillment as well as reduce the fear of dying that seems to encourage procreation.  Win win.

Point 1 - I agree
Point 2 - I disagree with the deductions. I have no problem with deductions which can reduce your tax down to $0. I do not like refundable credits such as EITC. I do not think the government should be paying you back more than you had withheld throughout the year.
Point 3 - I agree in principal though this would be a hard thing to change with our culture.

[onlykelsey]

Our culture tries to avoid death at great expense, even after a long and fufilling life.

Agreed.  I think most people have seen it first hand, if they think about it.  Often grandpa is more ready to go than his kids are ready to see him go, but ultimately HIS wishes should prevail, especially in an old age/sickness situation (putting aside the more conventional suicide question for a moment). There's a decent article on costs to the system here: http://time.com/money/2793643/cutting-the-high-cost-of-end-of-life-care/ ("With the process frequently driven by the medical system’s focus on performing aggressive interventions at any cost — and the reluctance of families to talk about death — many people who are dying do not get the care they want.

Worse, they often suffer through unnecessary, even harmful treatments. Says Ira Byock, director of palliative medicine at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center and author of “The Best Care Possible”: 'When patients have a terminal illness, at some point more disease treatment does not equal better care'.")

[Cottonswab]

I support policies to decrease population (in the United States), which include, but are not limited to:

- Eliminating incentives for having children in the tax code and government welfare
- Legalizing suicide, euthanasia, abortion, etc.
- Reducing suburban sprawl by applying high-population center development planning standards to suburbs and reclaiming large tracts of privately held land for public use (High density housing with more public parks and shared amenities.  Requiring environmental impact statements for development of undeveloped land.
- Improving public education on wilderness conservation

On the discussion of financial incentives for having children, I think they do make a difference.  It is analogous to fines and jail time for violent crime.  In the heat of passion, these consequences are not always considered, but some people are more likely to avoid putting themselves in a situation where the act of passion may occur.

[Chris22]

- Reducing suburban sprawl by applying high-population center development planning standards to suburbs and reclaiming large tracts of privately held land for public use (High density housing with more public parks and shared amenities.  Requiring environmental impact statements for development of undeveloped land.

This sounds terrible, assuming you mean pushing people away from single family homes.  That's a no-go for lots and lots of people.  I have no problem living on my little postage stamp (7500sq ft lot), but I'm not interested in sharing walls.

[GuitarStv]

- Reducing suburban sprawl by applying high-population center development planning standards to suburbs and reclaiming large tracts of privately held land for public use (High density housing with more public parks and shared amenities.  Requiring environmental impact statements for development of undeveloped land.

This sounds terrible, assuming you mean pushing people away from single family homes.  That's a no-go for lots and lots of people.  I have no problem living on my little postage stamp (7500sq ft lot), but I'm not interested in sharing walls.

What if walls between condos were built to be fully soundproof?  It would be a little more difficult/costly, but is doable.

[Chris22]

- Reducing suburban sprawl by applying high-population center development planning standards to suburbs and reclaiming large tracts of privately held land for public use (High density housing with more public parks and shared amenities.  Requiring environmental impact statements for development of undeveloped land.

This sounds terrible, assuming you mean pushing people away from single family homes.  That's a no-go for lots and lots of people.  I have no problem living on my little postage stamp (7500sq ft lot), but I'm not interested in sharing walls.

What if walls between condos were built to be fully soundproof?  It would be a little more difficult/costly, but is doable.

No.  Not interested.  I don't want shared entryways, I want my car in my garage right outside my door in my garage, I don't want to walk long distances or see anyone when I need to take my dog out at 3AM in my underwear.    I don't want to tell my kid she can't run around the house.  I want my own private outdoor spaces for things I want to do like my kid to play, my stuff outside, want to leave my grill unattended while I go to my garage to get another beer etc etc etc etc. 

[Jack]

- Reducing suburban sprawl by applying high-population center development planning standards to suburbs and reclaiming large tracts of privately held land for public use (High density housing with more public parks and shared amenities.  Requiring environmental impact statements for development of undeveloped land.

This sounds terrible, assuming you mean pushing people away from single family homes.  That's a no-go for lots and lots of people.  I have no problem living on my little postage stamp (7500sq ft lot), but I'm not interested in sharing walls.

What if walls between condos were built to be fully soundproof?  It would be a little more difficult/costly, but is doable.

No.  Not interested.  I don't want shared entryways, I want my car in my garage right outside my door in my garage, I don't want to walk long distances or see anyone when I need to take my dog out at 3AM in my underwear.    I don't want to tell my kid she can't run around the house.  I want my own private outdoor spaces for things I want to do like my kid to play, my stuff outside, want to leave my grill unattended while I go to my garage to get another beer etc etc etc etc. 

Hey, that's fine... as long as you're okay with paying the full cost of your excessive infrastructure and service (e.g. police & fire) requirements instead of making urban folks subsidize you.

[Chris22]

- Reducing suburban sprawl by applying high-population center development planning standards to suburbs and reclaiming large tracts of privately held land for public use (High density housing with more public parks and shared amenities.  Requiring environmental impact statements for development of undeveloped land.

This sounds terrible, assuming you mean pushing people away from single family homes.  That's a no-go for lots and lots of people.  I have no problem living on my little postage stamp (7500sq ft lot), but I'm not interested in sharing walls.

What if walls between condos were built to be fully soundproof?  It would be a little more difficult/costly, but is doable.

No.  Not interested.  I don't want shared entryways, I want my car in my garage right outside my door in my garage, I don't want to walk long distances or see anyone when I need to take my dog out at 3AM in my underwear.    I don't want to tell my kid she can't run around the house.  I want my own private outdoor spaces for things I want to do like my kid to play, my stuff outside, want to leave my grill unattended while I go to my garage to get another beer etc etc etc etc. 

Hey, that's fine... as long as you're okay with paying the full cost of your excessive infrastructure and service (e.g. police & fire) requirements instead of making urban folks subsidize you.

My property tax bill (on a dinky 1700sq ft $350k house) would make your eyes bug out of your head.  Probably about $9k.  Plus another $7k on my rental house. 

[Jack]

My property tax bill (on a dinky 1700sq ft $350k house) would make your eyes bug out of your head.  Probably about $9k.  Plus another $7k on my rental house.

And it's still probably subsidized compared to the actual cost of the services you (and your tenant) receive.

[onlykelsey]

And it's still probably subsidized compared to the actual cost of the services you (and your tenant) receive.

My money is also on that property tax bill being heavily subsidized.  A few good articles (from slightly different political viewpoints):

• http://www.theamericanconservative.com/urbs/the-conservative-case-against-the-suburbs/ (I think it pulls heavily from CATO: http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/policy-report/1999/9/cpr-21n5.html)
• http://grist.org/cities/starving-the-cities-to-feed-the-suburbs/ (focused on mortgages, though)
• http://betterblock.org/subsidizing-sprawl/

[justajane]

- Reducing suburban sprawl by applying high-population center development planning standards to suburbs and reclaiming large tracts of privately held land for public use (High density housing with more public parks and shared amenities.  Requiring environmental impact statements for development of undeveloped land.

The irony of you using this as a proposed way to decrease population is that those who live in the suburbs likely have smaller families but, because of their 2,000-3,000 sq. ft homes on large lots, consume more fossil fuels per person.

Usually the "breeders" who people like to criticize and blame for supposed overpopulation (pssst: we really don't have a problem with overpopulation in this part of the world) are the ones living in smaller homes, apartments, or trailers with more people living together (think multi-generational homes and the like). Thus, they actually use our world's resources more efficiently.

[Chris22]

My property tax bill (on a dinky 1700sq ft $350k house) would make your eyes bug out of your head.  Probably about $9k.  Plus another $7k on my rental house.

And it's still probably subsidized compared to the actual cost of the services you (and your tenant) receive.

Oh well. 

[RFAAOATB]

- Reducing suburban sprawl by applying high-population center development planning standards to suburbs and reclaiming large tracts of privately held land for public use (High density housing with more public parks and shared amenities.  Requiring environmental impact statements for development of undeveloped land.

The irony of you using this as a proposed way to decrease population is that those who live in the suburbs likely have smaller families but, because of their 2,000-3,000 sq. ft homes on large lots, consume more fossil fuels per person.

Usually the "breeders" who people like to criticize and blame for supposed overpopulation (pssst: we really don't have a problem with overpopulation in this part of the world) are the ones living in smaller homes, apartments, or trailers with more people living together (think multi-generational homes and the like). Thus, they actually use our world's resources more efficiently.

And half the point of thinning out the population is so I can afford more acreage and not have to live in some tenement slumhole.

[GuitarStv]

- Reducing suburban sprawl by applying high-population center development planning standards to suburbs and reclaiming large tracts of privately held land for public use (High density housing with more public parks and shared amenities.  Requiring environmental impact statements for development of undeveloped land.

The irony of you using this as a proposed way to decrease population is that those who live in the suburbs likely have smaller families but, because of their 2,000-3,000 sq. ft homes on large lots, consume more fossil fuels per person.

Usually the "breeders" who people like to criticize and blame for supposed overpopulation (pssst: we really don't have a problem with overpopulation in this part of the world) are the ones living in smaller homes, apartments, or trailers with more people living together (think multi-generational homes and the like). Thus, they actually use our world's resources more efficiently.

And half the point of thinning out the population is so I can afford more acreage and not have to live in some tenement slumhole.

Some of my favorite times in life were had while living in cramped conditions in tenement slumholes with a bunch of close friends in university.

[Chris22]

- Reducing suburban sprawl by applying high-population center development planning standards to suburbs and reclaiming large tracts of privately held land for public use (High density housing with more public parks and shared amenities.  Requiring environmental impact statements for development of undeveloped land.

The irony of you using this as a proposed way to decrease population is that those who live in the suburbs likely have smaller families but, because of their 2,000-3,000 sq. ft homes on large lots, consume more fossil fuels per person.

Usually the "breeders" who people like to criticize and blame for supposed overpopulation (pssst: we really don't have a problem with overpopulation in this part of the world) are the ones living in smaller homes, apartments, or trailers with more people living together (think multi-generational homes and the like). Thus, they actually use our world's resources more efficiently.

And half the point of thinning out the population is so I can afford more acreage and not have to live in some tenement slumhole.

Some of my favorite times in life were had while living in cramped conditions in tenement slumholes with a bunch of close friends in university.

Me too...when I was a college student, living with other college students.  I'm not a college student, I have different needs than a college student, and there is much less control on who gets to share a wall with me than there was when I was a college student.  It's not a reasonable comparison. 

[Lyssa]

As already discussed in the "Does Charity cause more harm than good" thread I'd like to see the world population to decrease.

At this point I'm afraid that we're already past the threshold where anything but Chinese style coersion (which I'm not advocating) would cut it but just in order to at least give it a try the following should be implemented:

- Education and empowerment of women. Education alone does not help if the educated girls are married of to men twice their age and forced to have a child every other year. Under those cicumstances education will only make them more miserable.

- Free access to birth control around the globe. Any NGO (including religious ones) blocking that should lose all their tax priviledges and access to state funding immediately. Why? Because the problem is that huge. If they are insisting on being part of the problem they should suffer some kind of consequences.

- Active promotion of small families in the developing world. E.g. the following offer: If you have 0-2 children we'll provide x amount of financial help, build you a house, pay for schooling your 1-2 kids etc. Oh, and we'll pay double for a girl (to avoid selective abortions. fear not for the male fetuses, the wish for a son would be stronger than the financial incentive), IF she goes to school, remains unmarried till 18, and is not subjected to FGM.

- Concentrating foreign aid on countries that go along with that agenda. Nothing but vaccinations and food in case of urgent famine for places with insanely high birthrates. The latter is going to be ugly. But not as ugly as anything in store if the current madness continues. If we can extend the offer described above to individual families living in those places we should do so. If this is not possible due to local rules/kleptocrats that's unfortunate but nothing we can change.

- For first world countries above 2.1 children: Limit tax cuts and welfare paid in cash to 2 children. No further cuts/benefits for any additional child.

- For any first world country: Promote and incentivize less consumerism and more sustainability. While I don't think there is a moral obligations or even right to impose the living standards of Somalia everywhere in order to enable the planet to carry the maximum number of humans (I admit freely that I have zero interest leading such a live and will not do so in order to preserve resources) there is clearly much room for improvement in the sustainability department.

[Silverado]

Subtle incentives are still incentives

-free birth control and comprehensive sex education, as well as encouraging female education where it is not currently encouraged
-no tax deductions, credits, etc. for having children
-people need to learn how to die with dignity (not spending hundreds of thousands to spend an extra miserable month in the hospital, or force your heart to keep beating because relatives can't let go).  The freed up funds can go to aforementioned sex education, and creating paths other than parenthood for fulfillment as well as reduce the fear of dying that seems to encourage procreation.  Win win.

Point 1 - I agree
Point 2 - I disagree with the deductions. I have no problem with deductions which can reduce your tax down to $0. I do not like refundable credits such as EITC. I do not think the government should be paying you back more than you had withheld throughout the year.
Point 3 - I agree in principal though this would be a hard thing to change with our culture.

What is the logic behind tax deductions for having kids? Same as the logic behind deducting mortgage interest, which I also don't fully understand?

Seems like more people should mean more taxes, but I would meet in the middle and just get rid of the deduction.

[Leisured]

aceyou, you seem to follow the ‘Indulgent’, or ‘Poor Darlings’ approach to social matters, which I first saw in the late sixties. Does not work. You also seem to imply that, eventually, the scientifically enlightened, the A team, will be more numerous than the B team, in which case political separation should not be necessary. I hope you are right, but I fear you are not.

The political separation I described in my earlier post is similar to modern gated communities, but on a regional scale. Global warming will open up large areas of Canada and Russia, and areas in Northern Europe, and these regions know that. The A team might move into those areas. Many rich people may choose to join the A team, but many might stay behind in the B team, in gated communities.

If the A team attracts most of the military scientists and technicians in the world, leaving few in the B team, then this military imbalance can persist indefinitely. Distasteful, you may say. It is not clear that people in the B team areas will be interested in military action against the A team areas, even if conditions in the B team areas slowly deteriorate.

[RetiredAt63]

Population growth can be exponential or logistic, depends on the population's reproductive strategies and environment.  Any ecology textbook covers this in much more detail than I will here.

Some species are what ecologists call r type, they grow exponentially, run out of resources, and crash to very small numbers.  Most of these actually usually exist at low numbers until conditions are really good, then do that huge growth until condition go back to usual, and crash.  Locusts are an obvious example.  Dry weather, few eggs laid and few hatch, low populations, two years in a row of rains, lots of eggs laid, hatch, grow to adulthood, lay more eggs that hatch, and voila - locust swarms.

Other species are K type.  Their populations are sensitive to density, so when they are at low density they grow quickly (look a lot like r type species).  But when they get more crowded, they increase mortality or decrease births or both, so that by the time they reach the carrying capacity of their environment their births=deaths and the population is stable.  Of course in reality the numbers go up and down, because the carrying capacity is not really a constant.

How does this apply to people?  As far as we can tell, early humans were k type and at low numbers.  Then agriculture was developed and increased the carrying capacity and populations grew, but leveled out again at a much higher number.  So we do seem to act like a K type species.  However, agriculture changed our reproductive behaviour (more babies, closer together).  The industrial revolution (and I am lumping the green revolution in here) caused our carrying capacity to increase again, and our numbers went up again.  Presumably we will level off again.  The question is at what number?  Or this time will we be an r type globally and overshoot and crash?  It has happened locally many times - any time a group of people are pushing their environment (and for people the reasons can be economic, not just physical environment) they crash - think potato famine in Ireland, black death in Europe.

Ecologists tend not to talk too much about this, except a bit among themselves, because it is so depressing and most people tell us we are worrying too much.   But if you look carefully, we tend to have few children.

• Population growth isn't exponential; it's logistic. A Malthusian catastrophe is by no means inevitable, or even likely.

[/list]

[Shane]

I haven't bothered to read the thread, but I have to things to say:

• Population growth isn't exponential; it's logistic. A Malthusian catastrophe is by no means inevitable, or even likely.
• I don't support "policies" trying to influence how many kids people have in any way. That's a personal decision, not one the government should be concerned with. (Having kids without the means of taking care of them is perhaps a different story.)

Do you support current government policies designed to encourage people to have more children by giving them tax deductions?

Have you ever met anyone who got pregnant for tax deduction purposes?  Because that's some shockingly bullshit reasoning. A kid is ridiculously costly in both time, money, and general health (they eat your youth and poop out foul stuff that turns your hair grey).

I strongly suspect that current policies are designed to make things a tiny bit easier when you have kids (and maybe allow some families to afford learning/social opportunities that would otherwise not be possible - thereby making better and more productive future citizens) rather than incentive to have children.

People don't have to consciously "get pregnant for tax deduction purposes" for the current system to encourage families to have more children. I'm not saying families make a conscious decision about how many children to have only because of the tax deduction, and I'm not saying the positive societal side effects of the current laws you mentioned aren't valid. They are. You can dress the reasoning up however you like, but the fact is that our current tax structure incentivizes having more children by giving tax deductions to people who do so.

When you allow people to take a tax deduction for certain behaviors, say, taking out a mortgage to buy a home or having a child, it encourages more of that behavior. Have you ever heard of anyone taking out a mortgage just to get the tax deduction? No, of course not. It would be absurd to take out a loan just to get a tax write off. But does the tax structure have a subtle effect on people's behaviors? I'm pretty sure it does, otherwise the government wouldn't do it. Generally we tend to give deductions for behaviors we want to encourage more of and collect more taxes on goods, e.g., cigarettes, alcohol and marijuana, or behaviors we don't consider essential or we want to discourage.

The U.S. federal government and most states collect taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. Have you ever heard of anyone choosing not to order a beer because he didn't want to pay the $.05/bottle federal tax on alcohol? Of course not. No one makes a conscious decision to avoid beer because of taxes. Overall, though, when our governments make certain items more expensive by taxing them, people tend to consume less of them. On the other hand, when governments give out tax deductions for things like having children or taking out a mortgage, people tend to engage more in those behaviors. It doesn't have to be a conscious choice.

[Shane]

Subtle incentives are still incentives

-free birth control and comprehensive sex education, as well as encouraging female education where it is not currently encouraged
-no tax deductions, credits, etc. for having children
-people need to learn how to die with dignity (not spending hundreds of thousands to spend an extra miserable month in the hospital, or force your heart to keep beating because relatives can't let go).  The freed up funds can go to aforementioned sex education, and creating paths other than parenthood for fulfillment as well as reduce the fear of dying that seems to encourage procreation.  Win win.

Point 1 - I agree
Point 2 - I disagree with the deductions. I have no problem with deductions which can reduce your tax down to $0. I do not like refundable credits such as EITC. I do not think the government should be paying you back more than you had withheld throughout the year.
Point 3 - I agree in principal though this would be a hard thing to change with our culture.

The EITC is one of the best strategies I've heard of to encourage people to work. Up to a certain point, the more people work and earn, the more they get back from the federal government under the EITC when they file their taxes. Normally, the more you work, the more you pay in taxes, which acts as a disincentive to work. We need more incentives for lower-income people to work and fewer disincentives. The EITC gives people incentives to work harder and earn more money and is phased out, gradually, as the people's incomes get up into the range of the middle class.

[GuitarStv]

I haven't bothered to read the thread, but I have to things to say:

• Population growth isn't exponential; it's logistic. A Malthusian catastrophe is by no means inevitable, or even likely.
• I don't support "policies" trying to influence how many kids people have in any way. That's a personal decision, not one the government should be concerned with. (Having kids without the means of taking care of them is perhaps a different story.)

Do you support current government policies designed to encourage people to have more children by giving them tax deductions?

Have you ever met anyone who got pregnant for tax deduction purposes?  Because that's some shockingly bullshit reasoning. A kid is ridiculously costly in both time, money, and general health (they eat your youth and poop out foul stuff that turns your hair grey).

I strongly suspect that current policies are designed to make things a tiny bit easier when you have kids (and maybe allow some families to afford learning/social opportunities that would otherwise not be possible - thereby making better and more productive future citizens) rather than incentive to have children.

People don't have to consciously "get pregnant for tax deduction purposes" for the current system to encourage families to have more children. I'm not saying families make a conscious decision about how many children to have only because of the tax deduction, and I'm not saying the positive societal side effects of the current laws you mentioned aren't valid. They are. You can dress the reasoning up however you like, but the fact is that our current tax structure incentivizes having more children by giving tax deductions to people who do so.

When you allow people to take a tax deduction for certain behaviors, say, taking out a mortgage to buy a home or having a child, it encourages more of that behavior. Have you ever heard of anyone taking out a mortgage just to get the tax deduction? No, of course not. It would be absurd to take out a loan just to get a tax write off. But does the tax structure have a subtle effect on people's behaviors? I'm pretty sure it does, otherwise the government wouldn't do it. Generally we tend to give deductions for behaviors we want to encourage more of and collect more taxes on goods, e.g., cigarettes, alcohol and marijuana, or behaviors we don't consider essential or we want to discourage.

The U.S. federal government and most states collect taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. Have you ever heard of anyone choosing not to order a beer because he didn't want to pay the $.05/bottle federal tax on alcohol? Of course not. No one makes a conscious decision to avoid beer because of taxes. Overall, though, when our governments make certain items more expensive by taxing them, people tend to consume less of them. On the other hand, when governments give out tax deductions for things like having children or taking out a mortgage, people tend to engage more in those behaviors. It doesn't have to be a conscious choice.

I think the use of incentivizing is ridiculous in this case.  The costs of having a child so wildly outweigh the benefit of any tax breaks received, that there is no incentive whatsoever.

Your example of tax on beer is a good one.  Adding an extra 4 cents to cost of a can of beer has a similar behavioral effect to refunding a couple hundred dollars to people who have children.  None.  If you could afford the beer before the 4 cent tax, you can afford it afterwards.  Just as if you couldn't afford the kids before getting a pittance of a tax break, you couldn't afford them afterwards.

[Shane]

I support policies to decrease population (in the United States), which include, but are not limited to:

- Eliminating incentives for having children in the tax code and government welfare
- Legalizing suicide, euthanasia, abortion, etc.
- Reducing suburban sprawl by applying high-population center development planning standards to suburbs and reclaiming large tracts of privately held land for public use (High density housing with more public parks and shared amenities.  Requiring environmental impact statements for development of undeveloped land.
- Improving public education on wilderness conservation

On the discussion of financial incentives for having children, I think they do make a difference.  It is analogous to fines and jail time for violent crime.  In the heat of passion, these consequences are not always considered, but some people are more likely to avoid putting themselves in a situation where the act of passion may occur.

P.S.  If you read The Forever War, the solution conceived by the author is interesting.  Homosexual propaganda to the point of making homosexuality rare.

See bold above.

This is a really good suggestion for improving our standard of living by concentrating human impacts on the planet to smaller, more dense, urban areas. This is one way to have the same or even more people with less effect on the environment.

Suburbs suck!

[Shane]

As already discussed in the "Does Charity cause more harm than good" thread I'd like to see the world population to decrease.

At this point I'm afraid that we're already past the threshold where anything but Chinese style coersion (which I'm not advocating) would cut it but just in order to at least give it a try the following should be implemented:

Why do you think coercion is the only way to reduce population? Has anyone coerced Japan or Germany to reduce birth rates to below replacement levels? Education and economic development seem to work nicely to lower birth rates. Why not concentrate on those positive things?

- Education and empowerment of women. Education alone does not help if the educated girls are married of to men twice their age and forced to have a child every other year. Under those cicumstances education will only make them more miserable.

- Free access to birth control around the globe. Any NGO (including religious ones) blocking that should lose all their tax priviledges and access to state funding immediately. Why? Because the problem is that huge. If they are insisting on being part of the problem they should suffer some kind of consequences.

- Active promotion of small families in the developing world. E.g. the following offer: If you have 0-2 children we'll provide x amount of financial help, build you a house, pay for schooling your 1-2 kids etc. Oh, and we'll pay double for a girl (to avoid selective abortions. fear not for the male fetuses, the wish for a son would be stronger than the financial incentive), IF she goes to school, remains unmarried till 18, and is not subjected to FGM.

- Concentrating foreign aid on countries that go along with that agenda. Nothing but vaccinations and food in case of urgent famine for places with insanely high birthrates. The latter is going to be ugly. But not as ugly as anything in store if the current madness continues. If we can extend the offer described above to individual families living in those places we should do so. If this is not possible due to local rules/kleptocrats that's unfortunate but nothing we can change.

Sounds like all good, solid suggestions.

- For first world countries above 2.1 children: Limit tax cuts and welfare paid in cash to 2 children. No further cuts/benefits for any additional child.

Agreed

- For any first world country: Promote and incentivize less consumerism and more sustainability. While I don't think there is a moral obligations or even right to impose the living standards of Somalia everywhere in order to enable the planet to carry the maximum number of humans (I admit freely that I have zero interest leading such a live and will not do so in order to preserve resources) there is clearly much room for improvement in the sustainability department.

Especially in the U.S.!

If we all lived like we were Somalis, probably we could continue growing world population to the 10 or 11 billion people they're predicting by the end of this century with few problems to speak of. If everyone on the planet lived like typical suburban Americans, our planet could maybe support 1 billion people, max.

It seems like there has to be some middle ground between Somalia and the U.S., though, a way of treading lightly on the planet we all live on while at the same time having what most of us would consider a fairly high standard of living. If we can find that middle ground, where we can be comfortable but not gluttonous pigs, then we should be able to gradually reduce world population to a level that will be sustainable.

[Shane]

What is the logic behind tax deductions for having kids? Same as the logic behind deducting mortgage interest, which I also don't fully understand?

Seems like more people should mean more taxes, but I would meet in the middle and just get rid of the deduction.

Agreed. Originally, I argued taxes should be lowest for families who have 0 children and highest for those who choose to have the most kids. Someone pointed out to me that it might be unethical, illegal, or both to tax people, so I changed my stance to just doing away with deductions. :)

[justajane]

Shane, I also feel like we've covered this in the other thread. You are suggesting micro-solutions here in North America to a problem that doesn't exist here, namely overpopulation. Now if we were talking about globally, this would be a more compelling discussion. But you are so focused on U.S. tax deductions here and in the other thread with SNAP and low income housing that it makes me think that your real problem isn't with overpopulation but really with entitlements. This is just my sense, based on the thrust of most of your arguments and preoccupations in this thread and the other thread you started about charity. 

[Lyssa]

As already discussed in the "Does Charity cause more harm than good" thread I'd like to see the world population to decrease.

At this point I'm afraid that we're already past the threshold where anything but Chinese style coersion (which I'm not advocating) would cut it but just in order to at least give it a try the following should be implemented:

Why do you think coercion is the only way to reduce population? Has anyone coerced Japan or Germany to reduce birth rates to below replacement levels? Education and economic development seem to work nicely to lower birth rates. Why not concentrate on those positive things?

- Education and empowerment of women. Education alone does not help if the educated girls are married of to men twice their age and forced to have a child every other year. Under those cicumstances education will only make them more miserable.

- Free access to birth control around the globe. Any NGO (including religious ones) blocking that should lose all their tax priviledges and access to state funding immediately. Why? Because the problem is that huge. If they are insisting on being part of the problem they should suffer some kind of consequences.

- Active promotion of small families in the developing world. E.g. the following offer: If you have 0-2 children we'll provide x amount of financial help, build you a house, pay for schooling your 1-2 kids etc. Oh, and we'll pay double for a girl (to avoid selective abortions. fear not for the male fetuses, the wish for a son would be stronger than the financial incentive), IF she goes to school, remains unmarried till 18, and is not subjected to FGM.

- Concentrating foreign aid on countries that go along with that agenda. Nothing but vaccinations and food in case of urgent famine for places with insanely high birthrates. The latter is going to be ugly. But not as ugly as anything in store if the current madness continues. If we can extend the offer described above to individual families living in those places we should do so. If this is not possible due to local rules/kleptocrats that's unfortunate but nothing we can change.

Sounds like all good, solid suggestions.

- For first world countries above 2.1 children: Limit tax cuts and welfare paid in cash to 2 children. No further cuts/benefits for any additional child.

Agreed

- For any first world country: Promote and incentivize less consumerism and more sustainability. While I don't think there is a moral obligations or even right to impose the living standards of Somalia everywhere in order to enable the planet to carry the maximum number of humans (I admit freely that I have zero interest leading such a live and will not do so in order to preserve resources) there is clearly much room for improvement in the sustainability department.

Especially in the U.S.!

If we all lived like we were Somalis, probably we could continue growing world population to the 10 or 11 billion people they're predicting by the end of this century with few problems to speak of. If everyone on the planet lived like typical suburban Americans, our planet could maybe support 1 billion people, max.

It seems like there has to be some middle ground between Somalia and the U.S., though, a way of treading lightly on the planet we all live on while at the same time having what most of us would consider a fairly high standard of living. If we can find that middle ground, where we can be comfortable but not gluttonous pigs, then we should be able to gradually reduce world population to a level that will be sustainable.

I don't think coersion is the only way, hence my suggestions. But for some regions it might be the only thing that could work fast enough to avoid desaster. Look at the data for Yemen. Population, women's rights, water supply, desertification. And then tell me how a little nudge here and there is going to avoid disaster.

Still, "just" the things I've enumerated would mean a change of paradigms. One I don't see happening any time soon. Almost no politician and no NGO dares to even name "overpopulation" as a problem and "reducing birth rates" as a goal. Denial all over the place.

[Shane]

I think the use of incentivizing is ridiculous in this case.  The costs of having a child so wildly outweigh the benefit of any tax breaks received, that there is no incentive whatsoever.

You could say the same thing about the mortgage interest tax deduction. The costs of having a mortgage so wildly outweigh the benefit of any tax breaks received, that they provide no incentive whatsoever. I don't think it would be true, though. The mortgage interest tax deduction makes homes marginally less expensive, thus incentivizing the purchase and financing of bigger, more costly homes than if the tax deduction did not exist.

Your example of tax on beer is a good one.  Adding an extra 4 cents to cost of a can of beer has a similar behavioral effect to refunding a couple hundred dollars to people who have children.  None.  If you could afford the beer before the 4 cent tax, you can afford it afterwards.  Just as if you couldn't afford the kids before getting a pittance of a tax break, you couldn't afford them afterwards.

I agree with you that the tax on one beer doesn't act as a disincentive for most people to consume that beer, but in the aggregate, taxes on goods tend to have the effect of causing people to consume less of them. Conversely, tax deductions usually have the effect of causing people to consume more or engage more in a certain behavior.

Here's a quote from an article on The Effects of Price on Alcohol Consumption and Alcohol-Related Problems:

The most fundamental law of economics links the price of a product to the demand for that product. Accordingly, increases in the monetary price of alcohol (i.e., through tax increases) would be expected to lower alcohol consumption and its adverse consequences. Studies investigating such a relationship found that alcohol prices were one factor influencing alcohol consumption among youth and young adults. Other studies determined that increases in the total price of alcohol can reduce drinking and driving and its consequences among all age groups; lower the frequency of diseases, injuries, and deaths related to alcohol use and abuse; and reduce alcohol-related violence and other crime.

[Shane]

Shane, I also feel like we've covered this in the other thread. You are suggesting micro-solutions here in North America to a problem that doesn't exist here, namely overpopulation. Now if we were talking about globally, this would be a more compelling discussion. But you are so focused on U.S. tax deductions here and in the other thread with SNAP and low income housing that it makes me think that your real problem isn't with overpopulation but really with entitlements. This is just my sense, based on the thrust of most of your arguments and preoccupations in this thread and the other thread you started about charity.

Mostly, I enjoy talking about ideas. Sometimes at the beginning of a discussion I think one way about a subject, and by the end of the discussion, after listening to what other people have to say, I change my mind. Sometimes I argue against things that I more or less agree with, just to play devil's advocate and think through the arguments for and against something.

As far as I know, I'm not against entitlements. I'm in favor of SS, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, and even TANF and SNAP benefits. In the other thread, the argument I made was that people who receive TANF, SNAP and maybe free food from a food bank, should also receive counseling to try to help them to raise themselves up, so that, eventually, they wouldn't need to live off of Welfare. When I suggested that, several other members got all enraged, "What? Ask people who want free food to jump through hoops? OMG! NO! We have to just give them whatever they ask for and don't ask any questions." I kinda disagree with that type of entitlement.