Give incentives such as tax cuts to people with no children

This is not something I've put any thought into, but having just watched a video on global warming, I reckon everything we do will be fruitless with global populations rising.

So why not incentivise people to just not have kids. People benefit already from marriage, so why not something that would actually help the world.

jonon9

Grant Stevens

Deleted User wrote: »

So why not incentivise people to just not have kids. People benefit already from marriage, so why not something that would actually help the world.

Believe it or not, the result of a reduction in child birth rates will have dire consequences on the population in decades to come (Mother Earth may be happier though ) Apart from the obvious, one area I feel people are overlooking when it comes to deciding not to have children is how they'll feel when they're older. I am certain this will be a source of great sadness for couples/ individuals further down the line. A real sadness unlike your typical millennial depression. I think this will be a massive issue for a lot of people in years to come. Having said that, I think two children is enough, sufficiently replacing both you & your partner. This is a sustainable approach too but that's a conversation for another thread...
As for taxing children out of existence, Governments would literally be shooting themselves in the foot. They rely on future generations to line their coffers. This is the big problem we 're seeing in Europe at the moment. The birth rate is declining but our current financial model demands continuous expansion and infinite growth (in a world of finite resources mind!). This is why those who sport the notion that the recent wave of immigrants from third world countries may be part of a replacement program for Europeans who aren't reproducing may be on to something... 

There's a few points there, take some time...

theteal

Ha ha, it’s all about money, OP. Fcuk the planet

suicide_circus

we need the next generation to pay our pensions and change our adult nappies.

the real answer is to stop increasing life expectancy but that's a much more difficult conversation to have.

Cabaal

suicide_circus wrote: »

we need the next generation to pay our pensions and change our adult nappies.

the real answer is to stop increasing life expectancy but that's a much more difficult conversation to have.

Allowing those who are terminally ill to end it on their terms if they so wishes would be a start, i know I'd rather end it on my terms if I was terminally ill

Simon's Choice comes to mind https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b070jm26

Graces7

OP have a look at the current situation in China after the "one child "policy,, and the "dying rooms"

Uhm... giving tax cuts to the people who are in least need of them? Yes, that will end well.

Graces7

Cabaal wrote: »

Allowing those who are terminally ill to end it on their terms if they so wishes would be a start, i know I'd rather end it on my terms if I was terminally ill

Simon's Choice comes to mind https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b070jm26

went sideways in Holland.

suicide_circus

I have to laugh at those who promote a Paleo diet.

How about doing the planet a favour and promote a paleo life expectancy?

Cabaal

suicide_circus wrote: »

I have to laugh at those who promote a Paleo diet.

How about doing the planet a favour and promote a paleo life expectancy?

You don't have to go back that far to see avg short life spans.

Avg life spans really onlt started to increase from 1800's
For example a Swedish baby born in 1800 had a life expectancy of just 32 years. We know this because Sweden was one of the first countries to keep extensive records of births and deaths and, by 1800, had a reliable national system that allowed this morbid statistic to be calculated.

listermint

The western world has a massive crisis with birth rates .


The op's premise is actually poorly researched bunkum

TheValeyard

It's Asia that needs more contraception

Pkiernan

Cabaal wrote: »

You don't have to go back that far to see avg short life spans.

Avg life spans really onlt started to increase from 1800's
For example a Swedish baby born in 1800 had a life expectancy of just 32 years. We know this because Sweden was one of the first countries to keep extensive records of births and deaths and, by 1800, had a reliable national system that allowed this morbid statistic to be calculated.

Evil Swedish bastards!

gctest50

Grant Stevens wrote: »

...... 

There's a few points there, take some time...

Nope, cos this cr@p :

Grant Stevens wrote: »

Having said that, I think two children is enough, sufficiently replacing both you & your partner.

......

If everyone has two, the population will decline

suicide_circus

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

It's Asia that needs more contraception

Ah yea can't be sayin dat. sure the west is the source of all the world's problems.

Grant Stevens

gctest50 wrote: »

Grant Stevens wrote: »

...... 

There's a few points there, take some time...

Nope, cos this cr@p :

Grant Stevens wrote: »

Having said that, I think two children is enough, sufficiently replacing both you & your partner.  

......

If everyone has two, the population will decline

Wrong. The population will maintain.

queueeye

Grant Stevens wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

So why not incentivise people to just not have kids. People benefit already from marriage, so why not something that would actually help the world.

Believe it or not, the result of a reduction in child birth rates will have dire consequences on the population in decades to come (Mother Earth may be happier though ) Apart from the obvious, one area I feel people are overlooking when it comes to deciding not to have children is how they'll feel when they're older. I am certain this will be a source of great sadness for couples/ individuals further down the line. A real sadness unlike your typical millennial depression. I think this will be a massive issue for a lot of people in years to come. Having said that, I think two children is enough, sufficiently replacing both you & your partner. This is a sustainable approach too but that's a conversation for another thread...
As for taxing children out of existence, Governments would literally be shooting themselves in the foot. They rely on future generations to line their coffers. This is the big problem we 're seeing in Europe at the moment. The birth rate is declining but our current financial model demands continuous expansion and infinite growth (in a world of finite resources mind!). This is why those who sport the notion that the recent wave of immigrants from third world countries may be part of a replacement program for Europeans who aren't reproducing may be on to something... 

There's a few points there, take some time...

All I’m taking from that is that governments can’t literally shoot themselves in the foot.


Literally!

Grant Stevens

queueeye wrote: »

Grant Stevens wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

So why not incentivise people to just not have kids. People benefit already from marriage, so why not something that would actually help the world.

Believe it or not, the result of a reduction in child birth rates will have dire consequences on the population in decades to come (Mother Earth may be happier though ) Apart from the obvious, one area I feel people are overlooking when it comes to deciding not to have children is how they'll feel when they're older. I am certain this will be a source of great sadness for couples/ individuals further down the line. A real sadness unlike your typical millennial depression. I think this will be a massive issue for a lot of people in years to come. Having said that, I think two children is enough, sufficiently replacing both you & your partner. This is a sustainable approach too but that's a conversation for another thread...
As for taxing children out of existence, Governments would literally be shooting themselves in the foot. They rely on future generations to line their coffers. This is the big problem we 're seeing in Europe at the moment. The birth rate is declining but our current financial model demands continuous expansion and infinite growth (in a world of finite resources mind!). This is why those who sport the notion that the recent wave of immigrants from third world countries may be part of a replacement program for Europeans who aren't reproducing may be on to something... 

There's a few points there, take some time...

All I’m taking from that is that governments can’t literally shoot themselves in the foot.


Literally!

You're up early. Go back to bed.

wexie

Grant Stevens wrote: »

Wrong. The population will maintain.

Wrong, it will decrease. There are always people that can't have children or die before they have any. In order to compensate for that those that do have kids need to have more than 2. Current replacement rate is something like 2.3

Grant Stevens

wexie wrote: »

Grant Stevens wrote: »

Wrong. The population will maintain.

Wrong, it will decrease. There are always people that can't have children or  die before they have any. In order to compensate for that those that do have kids need to have more than 2. Current replacement rate is something like 2.3

2 is better than none, as the OP suggests.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

The western world has a massive crisis with birth rates .


The op's premise is actually poorly researched bunkum

It's not poorly researched... I literally said I put no thought into it, so I didn't even get to the research part.

mickoneill31

While I think the original premise is daft how about reducing children's allowance per kid after 3 or 4 kids. If you have that many you should be able to afford them rather than relying on the state.

wexie

Grant Stevens wrote: »

2 is better than none, as the OP suggests.

That is very true, like he said though he didn't give it a lot of thought.

Someone mentioned earlier that the it would be better to look at the other end of the lifespan which would be a much more useful solution.

listermint

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

It's Asia that needs more contraception

Actually it's not. They have a crisis.


Do people even bother reading anymore.


Jaypers .... Shakes head.

wexie

Graces7 wrote: »

went sideways in Holland.

yeah people in holland are bumping off pensioners left right and center. Last time I was in Amsterdam the canals were so full of corpses we couldn't use the paddle boats


:rolleyes:

wexie

listermint wrote: »

Actually it's not. They have a crisis.


Do people even bother reading anymore.


Jaypers .... Shakes head.

apparently expectations are China is going to introduce new policies to encourage people to have more children

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-45124502

TheValeyard

listermint wrote: »

Actually it's not. They have a crisis.


Do people even bother reading anymore.


Jaypers .... Shakes head.

We all need more contraception. Can never have enough contraception

Malayalam

As mentioned, previous examples of incentivised population control - such as China's one child policy - have had unintended consequences. Largely (not entirely, sometimes its female infanticide) because so many female foetuses have been aborted over the past 20 to 30 years, at present China and India have 70 million more men than women. That's a lot of missing women. (There is a notable irony inherent in the female rights issue of abortion having resulted in sex selective abortions contributing to disturbing the demographics so radically). That's a lot of men who will never have sex unless with the bride they kidnap from a neighbouring country or a sex doll. Ahhh, humans.

rtron

China have done it right with a one child policy to help keep the population down.Ireland do not need a tax incentive to have less kids as everything else is taxed heavily so that it's not economical to have a large family.

Also did you know, over 50% of single parent families do not work, so it would be too late for them to get the tax incentive even if they started working.

But at least if we keep taking in refugees we'll keep the population up.
I wonder how many non working one parent families we will have in 10 years time?

Wanderer78

Maybe if we consumed less, we might just save our planet, I do realise this is a mad idea but shur....

Malayalam

Anyway with at least a 60% drop in male sperm count in the last 40 years the population thing is under control. Be grand :rolleyes:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/sperm-count-west-men-health-drop-60-per-cent-years-modern-life-a7859491.html

P_1

Grant Stevens wrote: »

Believe it or not, the result of a reduction in child birth rates will have dire consequences on the population in decades to come (Mother Earth may be happier though ) Apart from the obvious, one area I feel people are overlooking when it comes to deciding not to have children is how they'll feel when they're older. I am certain this will be a source of great sadness for couples/ individuals further down the line. A real sadness unlike your typical millennial depression. I think this will be a massive issue for a lot of people in years to come. Having said that, I think two children is enough, sufficiently replacing both you & your partner. This is a sustainable approach too but that's a conversation for another thread...
As for taxing children out of existence, Governments would literally be shooting themselves in the foot. They rely on future generations to line their coffers. This is the big problem we 're seeing in Europe at the moment. The birth rate is declining but our current financial model demands continuous expansion and infinite growth (in a world of finite resources mind!). This is why those who sport the notion that the recent wave of immigrants from third world countries may be part of a replacement program for Europeans who aren't reproducing may be on to something... 

There's a few points there, take some time...

I'll leave your casual dismissal of depression aside for now but would that not indicate that the neo liberal system is failing us yet again?

wexie

rtron wrote: »

China have done it right with a one child policy to help keep the population down

They got it so right that the one child policy was replaced years ago with a 2 child policy and they are now expected to announce a 3 child policy.....

rtron

wexie wrote: »

They got it so right that the one child policy was replaced years ago with a 2 child policy and they are now expected to announce a 3 child policy.....

Definitely prooves the system works. I must check what unemployment levels are like out there.

Wanderer78

rtron wrote:

Definitely prooves the system works. I must check what unemployment levels are like out there.

We may need to define 'works', as I suspect china has some serious environmental issues, and employment levels wouldn't exactly show how good or bad those issues are

Wibbs

Cabaal wrote: »

You don't have to go back that far to see avg short life spans.

Avg life spans really onlt started to increase from 1800's
For example a Swedish baby born in 1800 had a life expectancy of just 32 years. We know this because Sweden was one of the first countries to keep extensive records of births and deaths and, by 1800, had a reliable national system that allowed this morbid statistic to be calculated.

People weren't popping their clogs en masse at 32, or anything like it. The pertinent bit is a baby born in 1800. Child mortality was scarily high until the modern age(even increased with industrialisation and the mass move to cities). Fewer children made it to adulthood. However if they made it to adulthood making it to 60 or 70 wasn't unusual and among the better off 80 wasn't too unusual either. People's expectation was the old biblical three score and ten years.

In the last hundred years child mortality has been steadily dropping in the west and in the last fifty has fallen off a cliff. The vast majority now make it to adulthood. And those that do benefit from medical advances that add on average another ten years at the end of their lives. We now have an expectation of hitting four score years.

paw patrol

Grant Stevens wrote: »

Wrong. The population will maintain.

actually no...cos some people die in childhood before sexual maturity and also some people will die before having one or two kids.

Also - the gays......


so no.. it needs to be 2.3 kids

grindle

wexie wrote: »

Last time I was in Amsterdam the canals were so full of corpses we couldn't use the paddle boats

Makes it feel like you're riding the rapids, I'm a big fan of Amsterdam's corpse canals. Red Bull should have a race there.

Atoms for Peace

If I had been born a generation back it would have been expected that I would have had a family and a house by now.
But today it seems to be the norm to be single and still living at home or house sharing and in rather transient employment, not exactly conducive to starting a family.

If anything the government should be encouraging the opposite as it seems those dependent on welfare are out breeding the tax paying classes.

wexie

grindle wrote: »

Makes it feel like you're riding the rapids, I'm a big fan of Amsterdam's corpse canals. Red Bull should have a race there.

Co-sponsored by Pfizer (or whoever makes tetanus shots)

Username here

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This is not something I've put any thought into,

No sh1t, Sherlock. There's no way we'd have realised that had you not 'fessed up.

Username here

Username here wrote: »

No sh1t, Sherlock. There's no way we'd have realised that had you not 'fessed up.

Did I offend you or something? How about not be a total arse. This is After Hours, not a lecture hall.

Username here

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This is After Hours, not a lecture hall.

Exactly. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Jimmy.

We need to import them if needed to fill the new ghettos.

The Rape of Lucretia

suicide_circus wrote: »

we need the next generation to pay our pensions

Grant Stevens wrote: »

As for taxing children out of existence, Governments would literally be shooting themselves in the foot. They rely on future generations to line their coffers.

Not really. We can save for our pensions. The current system of state sourced payments for PRSI and public servants being always a generation down the line can be changed. Many countries have already.

Anyone truly caring about the environment would not have children.

wakka12

listermint wrote: »

The western world has a massive crisis with birth rates .


The op's premise is actually poorly researched bunkum

Westerners use far more resources than other groups so the lower the birth rate here the better, environmentally wise that is. Of course there will be big social repercussions from such low birth rates that will lead to decreased quality of life for europeans so for that reason it might not be a good idea to further encourage lower birth rates here