World population collapse?

[Caesar517]

And if we tax married couples at lower rates, that would encourage marriage and the raising of children–which is a good thing for society.

Money should not be a major factor in someone’s decision to spend the rest of their life with someone else, or to take on the honorable burden of raising children.

Marriage is only good for our society when both people have seriously considered all aspects of that commitment and fully understand what they are doing. At that stage, a small tax benefit is not a major factor in their decision anyway.

Marriages in which people do not seriously consider what they are undertaking, or get married for the wrong reasons are bad for society because they can undermine the sanctity and permanence of marriage.

 

[joeybaggz]

And if the West has any (name removed by moderator)ut, that seems to be exactly what is being done. Encourage others to depopulate as well!

Europe is reproducing at below replacement rate. Their economies can only be sustained through immigration–and the immigrants are mostly of non-Western cultures.

We can encourage other cultures to follow the European example. That way lies the depopulation of the entire world–presuming other civilizations are foolish enough to go along with it.

And if they are, well, all it takes is one generation of non-reproduction to wipe us out.

And in a related story, China has announced that it is reconsidering it’s one child per family policy. Interesting don’t you think. Why try to take over the world militarily, when you can just out breed it.
Film at eleven…

 

[goofyjim]

But of course, since there is a tax exemption for dependents, single people are in effect helping to pay for other peoples’ children.

And that’s OK with me, because those children–the more the better–will pay the social security benefits of all of us–married or never married or childless–when they go to work. But the exemption needs to be bigger, since it’s merely a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of raising them.

And if we tax married couples at lower rates, that would encourage marriage and the raising of children–which is a good thing for society.

I have no problem with exemptions for dependents. But whatever amount that is has to equal the exemption for the individual. And above that there should be no lower rates for married couples. The government should not be in the job of manipulating the population in either direction down or up. The economic decisions of childbearing and whether to get married and have them must be left to the individula and not influenced by any government.

 

[JimG]

Money should not be a major factor in someone’s decision to spend the rest of their life with someone else, or to take on the honorable burden of raising children.

Marriage is only good for our society when both people have seriously considered all aspects of that commitment and fully understand what they are doing. At that stage, a small tax benefit is not a major factor in their decision anyway.

Marriages in which people do not seriously consider what they are undertaking, or get married for the wrong reasons are bad for society because they can undermine the sanctity and permanence of marriage.

While I certainly agree that marriage must be taken seriously by both parties, I don’t expect that anyone would marry for the exemptions alone.

In my parents day, when they were raising five children back in the 1940’s and 50’s, I don’t think they much considered the tax benefits. Yet marriage was treated more favorably by the tax code at the time, and most marriages seemed to more exemplify sanctity and permanence than they do today. There was not much divorce at all, partly because there was no no-fault divorce ever.

 

[JimG]

I have no problem with exemptions for dependents. But whatever amount that is has to equal the exemption for the individual. And above that there should be no lower rates for married couples. The government should not be in the job of manipulating the population in either direction down or up. The economic decisions of childbearing and whether to get married and have them must be left to the individula and not influenced by any government.

The tax code has been used for a long time by the government to ‘manipulate’ the population.

Charitable contributions are deductible–because government wants to encourage charitable giving.

Mortgage interest is deductible–because govt wants to encourage homeownership. Renters get less favorable treatment.

The government has a legitimate interest in encouraging real marriage and the raising of the next generation of taxpayers.

 

[goofyjim]

The tax code has been used for a long time by the government to ‘manipulate’ the population.

Charitable contributions are deductible–because government wants to encourage charitable giving.

Mortgage interest is deductible–because govt wants to encourage homeownership. Renters get less favorable treatment.

The government has a legitimate interest in encouraging real marriage and the raising of the next generation of taxpayers.

Not at the cost of boosting the rate the single individual pays to cover it. He should be entitled to equitable donations to charity. If he donates the same amount as a married couple he gets the same deduction. If he makes enough and buys a home equal in pirce na dmortgage he should also get the same mortgage deduction as the married couple. The only thing he could never get is the dependents exemption. But this in no way means he is paying for the married couple to have children. They are getting the necessary means to keep what they earned to feed their children. All exemptions for individuals should be equal and after all deductions and credits are exhausted, income should be taxed at the same rate. If the single individual is taxed at a higher rate then he is being called upon to subsidize someoneelse’s family. It is that I disagree with just like many don’t want to keep handing out welfare to let poor families keep having children.

 

[Nepenthe]

Fear not for the short term so much. If anything homosapiens sapiens is showing signs of genetic radiation (ie taking over and filling spaces, possibly some completely new ones).

The really neat part is that we can be aware of it and min/max potential here at will (or at least, at a monetary price).

Things do get strange and scary, but chin up all…our potential is already evident, so keep on chuggin’ and she’ll be right.

Yeah, I’m a wild eyed optimistic non-theist, or possibly an extra-weird liberal Quaker if that makes it sound nicer, but we can, and hopefully will withstand the obvious upcoming fossil-fuel problems, and romp right along!

 

[peregrinus_WA]

I agree that “social norms” and government policy are not the same thing.

However, “social policy” (the term I used) is an aspect of government policy.

In this case “Social Policy” = “Social Manipulation” = “Social Corruption”

 

[Matt_Collins]

Well unfortunately there are many of us who are choosing not to get married therefore not having children. What do you suggest? Forcing us into it? Taxing me extra as a single person to pay for another couple to deliberately have more children? I wouldn’t accept either proposition.

Goofyjim, where did I suggest anything like what you’re suggesting I suggested?

BTW, it is married couples who are treated unfairly by the U.S. tax code, not singles.

 

[1ke]

And I never agreed that was correct.

Well, of course it’s wrong.

I was merely pointing out that this already occurs and there hasn’t been enough outcry against the coersive population policies, so don’t be surprised when draconian measures show up on **your **doorstep.

 

[1ke]

And in a related story, China has announced that it is reconsidering it’s one child per family policy. Interesting don’t you think. Why try to take over the world militarily, when you can just out breed it.
Film at eleven…

No, it’s not “reconsidering” it’s one child policy.

It is allowing those persons who lost their only child in the earthquake to apply to have another-- or to make their “illegal” child “legal” if they are the only survivor. Honestly, what China does to its own people is sickening.

 

[goofyjim]

Goofyjim, where did I suggest anything like what you’re suggesting I suggested?

BTW, it is married couples who are treated unfairly by the U.S. tax code, not singles.

How so? Under the tax code they can take extra deductions and credtis for children that single people will usually never have. Beyond that paying the same percent tax as singles on their income is not treating unfairly.

 

[Exalt]

I, for one, encourage a throttling back on our total population. I think it’s pretty silly to suggest that birth control will lead to extinction.

From an ethical standpoint, this world just can’t sustain 6 billion people living as the wealthiest nations do. Personally, I’m not okay with that inequality. Hopefully a combination of new technologies (to encourage a higher level of living with less of an impact on resources) and lower population will make equal opportunity a serious possibility.

 

[JimG]

From an ethical standpoint, this world just can’t sustain 6 billion people living as the wealthiest nations do.

I’m not entirely convinced. Consider that the places with the highest standards of living are often the places with highest population densities: NYC, Tokyo, Hong Kong, and other large cities. Not only that, it’s where people want to live. Nobody wants to move out to Sharon Springs, Kansas; they’d rather keep on going to Denver.

 

[sidonius]

And I never agreed that was correct. But to turn around and do the opposite, yes, is wrong. Let individuals decide either way. The government does not belong in the bedroom. It should not be enacting policy in either direction-to force anyone not to have children or to force them to have children. You can hold a gun to my head and shoot me for all I care. I ain’t getting married and I ain’t paying just for someone else to hav extra children beyond what our tax code already allows for dependents.

I agree. Individuals are deciding not to commit to marriage and not to reproduce. The focus of men and women in the West, by and large, is material and not spiritual. And this is another way of saying that people in the West, by and large, have lost hope. Changes in public policy to encourage reproduction may work on the margins but not at the center. The collapse in human reproduction since the 1960s was not mandated by government or by social policy. It resulted from choices made by individuals based on their view of reality. The only way that an increase in human reproduction will come about is if individuals adopt a view of reality that places God at the center.

 

[peregrinus_WA]

Just ordered the book Population Control: Real Costs, Illusory Benefits by Steven Mosher. I heard him on EWTN Radio today. The book is hard to order. Both Amazon and B&N did not have the book. I had to go to Borders to order it.

 

[Calliso]

I agree. Individuals are deciding not to commit to marriage and not to reproduce. The focus of men and women in the West, by and large, is material and not spiritual. And this is another way of saying that people in the West, by and large, have lost hope. Changes in public policy to encourage reproduction may work on the margins but not at the center. The collapse in human reproduction since the 1960s was not mandated by government or by social policy. It resulted from choices made by individuals based on their view of reality. The only way that an increase in human reproduction will come about is if individuals adopt a view of reality that places God at the center.

Well I agree we are very material in the west. But I am not sure how we have lost hope? What do you mean by that? Also I am not convinced either that becoming more God centered will equal more babies either. I know for a fact that I need to focus more on God myself. But even if I did my view on having kids would likely never change. I suppose it might for a few people…but not really convinced that would make a difference. Course I really donlt see a population decrease crisis anyway lol!

 

[Calliso]

I, for one, encourage a throttling back on our total population. I think it’s pretty silly to suggest that birth control will lead to extinction.

From an ethical standpoint, this world just can’t sustain 6 billion people living as the wealthiest nations do. Personally, I’m not okay with that inequality. Hopefully a combination of new technologies (to encourage a higher level of living with less of an impact on resources) and lower population will make equal opportunity a serious possibility.

Aye we need to even things up,but can;t without devasting effects to the planet and it;s resources at this time and our technology* Also lowering population will also help stretch out nonrenewable resources longer and give more time to find long long term solutions. And yeah I agree that people using birth control isn;t going to lead to the extinction of the human race. I would even go on to say we donlt even have to worry about becoming endangered. Human beings in large numbers are here to stay I think.

 

[goofyjim]

I agree. Individuals are deciding not to commit to marriage and not to reproduce. The focus of men and women in the West, by and large, is material and not spiritual. And this is another way of saying that people in the West, by and large, have lost hope. Changes in public policy to encourage reproduction may work on the margins but not at the center. The collapse in human reproduction since the 1960s was not mandated by government or by social policy. It resulted from choices made by individuals based on their view of reality. The only way that an increase in human reproduction will come about is if individuals adopt a view of reality that places God at the center.

Now we’re making the judgement that those who choose not to get married and reproduce have lost hope and don’t have God at the center. I am one that does have God at the center of my life. I have just deliberately chosen never to get married.

 

[goofyjim]

Well I agree we are very material in the west. But I am not sure how we have lost hope? What do you mean by that? Also I am not convinced either that becoming more God centered will equal more babies either. I know for a fact that I need to focus more on God myself. But even if I did my view on having kids would likely never change. I suppose it might for a few people…but not really convinced that would make a difference. Course I really donlt see a population decrease crisis anyway lol!

Exactly what I have been saying. I don’t see a crisis in either direction-over or under population. I simply believe it is not the government’s duty to manipulate things in either direction but let free markets determine each individuals actions.