Unfair advantages to parents

SLUSK

Parents have a very easy ride in this society. Their kids get free education and they get money just for having kids. I myself will never get married or have children so why should I have to subsidize people having children?

I can't afford a Ferrari but I don't ask for subsidies so I can buy one. Why should people who can't afford to be parents have their expenses subsidized?

oppenheimer1

Because those children will pay for your pension and the other services you'll use when you are no longer contributing.

ei.sdraob

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Because those children will pay for your pension and the other services you'll use when you are no longer contributing.

will they?
* how many of those children would choose to work instead of going on dole
* how many will be able to find good jobs (considering our uncompetitiveness will drive job creation away)
* how many will emigrate


the whole we need children as an insurance policy line of thinking is somewhat perverse and a rather big pyramid scheme, what happened to working hard and saving up for retirement

gandalf

ei.sdraob wrote: »

will they?
* how many of those children would choose to work instead of going on dole
* how many will be able to find good jobs (considering our uncompetitiveness will drive job creation away)
* how many will emigrate


the whole we need children as an insurance policy line of thinking is somewhat perverse and a rather big pyramid scheme, what happened to working hard and saving up for retirement

Well to keep the systems of civilisation running you need tax take and you need new tax payers to ensure funds are there to run those systems when you have become a coffin dodger.

You are right it is a pyramid scheme of a kind. And you are already paying for childrens education from your tax monies. Consider it an investment so when you are retired and not paying the same level of taxes you are now these children will be paying for you. Isn't that wonderful.

Algernon

Because they maintain population levels. If everyone took your attitude, what would happen? Thankfully the majority of us follow our genetic urges.

oppenheimer1

ei.sdraob wrote: »

will they?
* how many of those children would choose to work instead of going on dole
* how many will be able to find good jobs (considering our uncompetitiveness will drive job creation away)
* how many will emigrate


the whole we need children as an insurance policy line of thinking is somewhat perverse and a rather big pyramid scheme, what happened to working hard and saving up for retirement

Are you seriously suggesting society could function without children? A luxury rather than a necessity?

Does it matter if some children go on the dole? Most won't as is the case at the moment.

Young people bring with them a new way of thinking and doing things. Our children and childrens children will be employed in ways we can never imagine.

In short children are fundamental to the success of of a society, but they are an expensive undertaking. It is only right parents get help from the state in their upbringing, in order to help the youth reach their full potential. Despite how much income a single individual may give to the state over their lifetime, a couple that produces a functioning family will have given more back. Always.

dvpower

SLUSK wrote: »

Parents have a very easy ride in this society. Their kids get free education and they get money just for having kids. I myself will never get married or have children so why should I have to subsidize people having children?

Eh. Children are people too, not the property of their parents.
You too got a free education I presume? You aren't subsidising anything; its just the way society works - you get your education free upfront and when you are working, you pay for it in taxes.

djsomers

Algernon wrote: »

Thankfully the majority of us follow our genetic urges.:)

What do you mean by this?

ei.sdraob

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting society could function without children? A luxury rather than a necessity?

i dont see point of encouraging more that 2-3 children (i.e. above replacement rate) per family

if a family wants to have more than 2 children, then fine their choice, but why should society pay for the child #3, #4 and so on (and this help increases with more kids)

dvpower

ei.sdraob wrote: »

* how many of those children would choose to work instead of going on dole

a lot less if we didn't provide free universal education.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

* how many will be able to find good jobs (considering our uncompetitiveness will drive job creation away)

a lot less if we didn't provide free universal education.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

* how many will emigrate

a lot more if we didn't provide free universal education.

trapsagenius

PLEASE tell me this thread is a piss take.

Algernon

djsomers wrote: »

What do you mean by this?

To reproduce. It is a fairly important trait of a self-replicating carbon blob. Try a few biology books, for more information. All the info you require can be found within them.

ei.sdraob

Algernon wrote: »

Because they maintain population levels. If everyone took your attitude, what would happen? Thankfully the majority of us follow our genetic urges.

you only need to 2 children per family to maintain population level

btw i think the OP is a bit extreme in his post.

but there is a valid question in this thread: why encourage population growth above replacement level of 2 children?

Algernon wrote: »

To reproduce. It is a fairly important trait of a self-replicating carbon blob. Try a few biology books, for more information. All the info you require can be found within them.

put a few carbon blobs (bacteria) in a petri dish and provide some sugar (food), watch what happens after some time once all food is gone

replace the carbon blobs with humans, petri dish with planet earth and sugar with resources and you understand why encouraging rampant population growth is not a good idea in long term

Algernon

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you only need to 2 children per family to maintain population level

i think the OP is a bit extreme in his thread

but theres a valid question: why encourage population growth above replacement level of 2 children

No, you are wrong.

Grindylow

Parents need extra money to fund for their children, obviously. You need money to fund yourself, that's all, you don't see parents going out buying Ferrari's from their child benefit. Seriously if it's that much of an issue with you, go have a child- problem solved.

ei.sdraob

Algernon wrote: »

No, you are wrong.

very informative post :rolleyes:

how so? please elaborate as to why population growth above replacement level is "good" TM and why it should be encouraged

dvpower

ei.sdraob wrote: »

but there is a valid question in this thread: why encourage population growth above replacement level of 2 children?

We are currently at 1.85, so we better get to it.

ei.sdraob

dvpower wrote: »

We are currently at 1.85, so we better get to it.

thats fair enough imho (once again i dont agree with OPs extreme stance but neither do i agree going wild on the other end and encouraging unsustainable population growth)

will the subsidies stop once we get to 2.01?

Algernon

ei.sdraob wrote: »

very informative post :rolleyes:

how so? please elaborate as to why population growth above replacement level is "good" TM and why it should be encouraged

Each couple having two children does not maintain levels, over the generations. The answer why is obvious.

I never once stated anything about encouraging growth above replacement. Maybe you are referring to someone else...

dvpower

ei.sdraob wrote: »

will the subsidies stop once we get to 2.01?

I guess if we ever got to a point where our growth levels were unsustainable, the government would have the option of cutting child benefit rates to act as a disincentive.

I don't see the free education system as a subsidy. Every tax paying adult was once a child, and every child (who grew up in Ireland) benefited from a free education.

Scofflaw

ei.sdraob wrote: »

thats fair enough imho (once again i dont agree with OPs extreme stance but neither do i agree going wild on the other end and encouraging unsustainable population growth)

will the subsidies stop once we get to 2.01?

I appreciate that you meant replacement rate, and to save on the quibbling, I'll just state that because of various factors - infertility, people choosing never to marry/have kids, infant mortality etc - the replacement rate is actually somewhat above 2 (ranging from 2.1 in developed countries to more than 3 in developing ones).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater

I would tend towards SLUSKs side of things but in fairness he doesn't have the best way of expressing himself!


I don't believe (in principal) in social welfare for having children. I think having a child should be solely the responsibility of those involved. The main reason I came around to this view was the way I saw child social welfare influencing decision making.

I think that there are a group of people out there who have children but who wouldn't have had them if there didn't exist all the associated benefits. I know its a nasty thought, but I'm being honest. If the tipping point in someones decision to have a child is that they will get "free money" from the state then I would have my doubts about their suitability as parents.

Social welfare eases the decision making process. Splitting up from your parter isn't that bad because of the lone parent allowance. It provides incentives for what I would deem irresponsible parenting decisions.


I say all this, by the way, as someone who would be disappointed if he didn't have children in the future.

SLUSK

I don't like this type of society where everyone has their hands inside each others pockets trying to get everything they can steal. This theft is legalized through the process of voting where parents can vote to take money from non-paretns via various benefits.

Algernon

SLUSK wrote: »

I don't like this type of society where everyone has their hands inside each others pockets trying to get everything they can steal. This theft is legalized through the process of voting where parents can vote to take money from non-paretns via various benefits.

Ok, you are therefore against all forms of taxation and capital redistribution? I mean, simply taxing a person is the state "putting their hands in someone else's pockets", so you are now arguing for a zero-government state? A volunteer government, with volunteer state services? Or are you saying everything should be privatised like some ultra-Friedman society?

Do tell.

*grabs chair*

SLUSK

Algernon wrote: »

Ok, you are therefore against all forms of taxation and capital redistribution? I mean, simply taxing a person is the state "putting their hands in someone else's pockets", so you are now arguing for a zero-government state? A volunteer government, with volunteer state services? Or are you saying everything should be privatised like some ultra-Friedman society?

Do tell.

*grabs chair*

Free state project...

Algernon

This?

Joey the lips

Put simply our constitution is designed to support the family.

Algernon

From the website above:

The Free State Project is an agreement among 20,000 pro-liberty activists to move to New Hampshire, where they will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property. The success of the Project would likely entail reductions in taxation and regulation, reforms at all levels of government, to expand individual rights and free markets, and a restoration of constitutional federalism, demonstrating the benefits of liberty to the rest of the nation and the world.

and yet...

There's no better place for freedom-loving Americans than New Hampshire... In a vote that ended in September 2003, FSP participants chose New Hampshire because it has the lowest state and local tax burden in the continental U.S., the second-lowest level of dependence on federal spending in the U.S., a citizen legislature where state house representatives have not raised their $100 per year salary since 1889, the lowest crime levels in the U.S., a dynamic economy with plenty of jobs and investment, and a culture of individual responsibility indicated by, for example, an absence of seatbelt and helmet requirements for adults.

So the government's role in protecting life does not extend to passing laws that... protect life?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Joey the lips

Its a fact of society that the prefered model is the christmas tree. ie the top represents the elderly and the bottom the young. But most societies are becoming inverted.

If the truth is to be known(aside from general layabouts and wasters) those who have kids are the protectors of the future as its those kids who will actually pay your pension dividends as yours is already being spend careing for your parents.

Inother words if we all thought like the op... Guess what! we would not be here! Puffff!!!!

drive3331

Google data has a great link where you can compare fertility rates in other countries.

Fertility Rates

anymore

SLUSK wrote: »

Parents have a very easy ride in this society. Their kids get free education and they get money just for having kids. I myself will never get married or have children so why should I have to subsidize people having children?

I can't afford a Ferrari but I don't ask for subsidies so I can buy one. Why should people who can't afford to be parents have their expenses subsidized?

So why should we who have produced the future wealth earners and service providers be interested in your opinion on our kids ?

gandalf

Actually we should be taxing people who don't have children even more. I mean they are doing nothing to replenish the gene pool for future tax revenues. Selfish gits !!

SLUSK

I do not exist to serve my fellow man. I owe nothing to them.

gandalf

SLUSK wrote: »

I do not exist to serve my fellow man. I owe nothing to them.

Did you get educated in this state, do you use the roads, public transport and the miriade of other services the state provides. You already owe quite alot to the state and your tax payments only cover a portion of that. Providing the state with future tax payers allows you to balance your statements so to speak.

Joey the lips

SLUSK wrote: »

I do not exist to serve my fellow man. I owe nothing to them.

Feck off to an island in the pacific ocean then and see how long you last. We are all dependent on company and the shareing principle. Its the core reason counciling works. Its not a magic solution its a shareing of a problem.

anymore

SLUSK wrote: »

I do not exist to serve my fellow man. I owe nothing to them.

I agree, but it follows on as we are being so unemotional and detached in our arguements., that as soon as you retire, you are economically a burden to those of us who reproductively valuable. Why on earth should we support you ? You are in fact one of the least productive of human assets !

dan_d

SLUSK wrote: »

I do not exist to serve my fellow man. I owe nothing to them.

That right there is your problem. It's a fairly selfish attitude, to be honest. And if you've no children, then what's it to you what kind of benefits parents get?

Why would you waste time thinking about that kind of stuff anyway? Do you have a lot of free time on your hands? I'm not trying to be funny, but wouldn't you be better off going out and living life a bit than pondering the running of the state and the unfairness of all the things that you don't get and others do. I mean, our taxes pay pensions for old people, you don't get that either. And you mightn't be living here when it comes around to you being entitled to it. And medical bills for people who can't afford it - but if you've got health insurance and are rarely ill, you don't get that either. And if you don't drive, you don't get to use the roads that your taxes pay for. And if you didn't go to college, you don't get the free education that your taxes pay for......it's an endless and somewhat pointless argument. If you disagree with the running of the state, then fine, but why don't you go out and do something about it instead pontificating about it.

Algernon

dan_d wrote: »

That right there is your problem. It's a fairly selfish attitude, to be honest. And if you've no children, then what's it to you what kind of benefits parents get?

Why would you waste time thinking about that kind of stuff anyway? Do you have a lot of free time on your hands? I'm not trying to be funny, but wouldn't you be better off going out and living life a bit than pondering the running of the state and the unfairness of all the things that you don't get and others do. I mean, our taxes pay pensions for old people, you don't get that either. And you mightn't be living here when it comes around to you being entitled to it. And medical bills for people who can't afford it - but if you've got health insurance and are rarely ill, you don't get that either. And if you don't drive, you don't get to use the roads that your taxes pay for. And if you didn't go to college, you don't get the free education that your taxes pay for......it's an endless and somewhat pointless argument. If you disagree with the running of the state, then fine, but why don't you go out and do something about it instead pontificating about it.

Exactly. Stop moaning and do something about it. At least that's what Slusky's heroes at the 'Free State Project' did.

dan_d

Can I add that the free state project seems to depend on people taking responsibility for themselves in their dealings with others. But if your attitude is that you owe nothing to anybody, then you are essentially going to act as you see fit and as suits you. Therefore, your dealings may be okay from your point of view, but as actions towards everyone else, be unfair and selfish. Therefore rendering the free state notion unworkable, without some sort of person to keep charge of what's going on. Which brings you back to where you started.

My understanding of it is very simplistic, but I think on paper the idea will work but not in real life. Humans do not operate in black and white, there are always shades of grey. Unfortunately this leads to an all or nothing system, where you have to have laws that create the black and white - you can't have some laws for some people, and others for other people. It's not always perfect, but it is as a result of human nature.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MarkR

SLUSK wrote: »

Parents have a very easy ride in this society. Their kids get free education and they get money just for having kids. I myself will never get married or have children so why should I have to subsidize people having children?

I can't afford a Ferrari but I don't ask for subsidies so I can buy one. Why should people who can't afford to be parents have their expenses subsidized?

Can we assume then that you worked your way through primary and secondary school?

anymore

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well even the most prudent of individuals would still require ' human assets' to provide the services that his/her investments would be purchasing !

Mind you, it must be said, messers Cowen, Ahern, Lenihan etc have ensured that even the most cautious of investors and indeed fund managers will now struggle to provide the funds for all the post retirement services we will require.

As I have nothing of further value to add to this thread ( and that is assuming I said anything of any value at all !), I will retire from the discussion.

deadtiger

deadtiger wrote: »

Did you get educated in this state, do you use the roads, public transport and the miriade of other services the state provides. You already owe quite alot to the state and your tax payments only cover a portion of that. Providing the state with future tax payers allows you to balance your statements so to speak.

Ahh, but the thing is that he could very well have a stable well paid (and well taxed) job for the rest of his natural working life. He will pay taxes on his wages, on just about any purchase, pay multiple taxes on the whatever number of cars he buys, tax on insurance, tax on mortgage(s), etc.

And thats without even mentioning if he gets married and has children. Over the course of his life he's almost definitely going to pay off anything he has received from education, infrastructure etc. In fact, its likely that if he has any kind of reasonable work, he will receive extremely few direct benefits from his taxes.. Most likely he will be on private health insurance, will pay into his own pension, will have his own house with mortgage paid off, etc.

And thats with a reasonable wage.. If he's unemployed then he goes from being a contributor to being a "burden" (no offense intended with the word, couldn't think of an alternative).

As a relatively constantly employed and taxed person in this country, he will more than likely pay back (and much more)... anything he has received. Of course this depends on circumstances, and income levels.

(I'm just thinking of how much I was taxed over a decade of working in this country between the salary of 32k & 42k, and adding 30-40 years to that. Thats quite a lot of money without even taking into account the taxes in other areas)

dsmythy

SLUSK wrote: »

I do not exist to serve my fellow man. I owe nothing to them.

Quit bleating on about things being "unfair" then. If we all shared the same thoughts then you are owed nothing either. Continue doing what DonegalFella is encouraging you to do and never mind things being "fair".

SLUSK

dsmythy wrote: »

Quit bleating on about things being "unfair" then. If we all shared the same thoughts then you are owed nothing either. Continue doing what DonegalFella is encouraging you to do and never mind things being "fair".

I am voluntarily unemployed, I receive no benefits. No dole.
At least I'm not paying taxes. I intend to live like this as long as I can afford it.

avalon68

SLUSK wrote: »

At least I'm not paying taxes. I intend to live like this as long as I can afford it.

What about VAT ? :rolleyes:

Celticfire

SLUSK wrote: »

I am voluntarily unemployed, I receive no benefits. No dole.
At least I'm not paying taxes. I intend to live like this as long as I can afford it.

You mean as long as you still live with your parents?

SLUSK

Celticfire wrote: »

You mean as long as you still live with your parents?

That is correct.

gent9662

SLUSK some single mothers do take the p1ss by having loads of kids so that they can sponge off the state. People that get married and have steady jobs, pay taxes and contribute to the state deserve to have kids in my view.

I have two kids and I do not like paying for some scanger who has had 5 kids and smoking crack, but that's society and it sucks.

I guess if you can't beat them join them.

Exile 1798

SLUSK wrote: »

I do not exist to serve my fellow man. I owe nothing to them.

Good for you, would you like some sort of medal?