Do you support giving money or bonds to women (or married couples) who don't have kids?

[ecstatic]

Perhaps beginning at age 25, women or married couples could receive $2,500 for every five year period in which they did not produce a child (they would still be eligible to receive the funds if they chose to adopt).

Such a program could potentially reduce overpopulation in communities and schools, and it might even encourage adoption.

I don't think single men should be eligible for the bond since they cannot give birth, and allowing them to take part in the program could result in inappropriate pressure placed on pregnant women.

[MNDemNY]

1. I say let's give them $300,000 each month. WTF

[Katherine Brengle]

2. Um, no.

I also don't particularly favor doing so for people who DO have children (although I haven't read enough about it to make a final decision yet).

[BuelahWitch]

3. They should make it retroactive too

For those of us who haven't had kids, but are a little past childbearing age...:hi:

[terisan]

4. I support bond given to newly born, not parents----parents shouldn't be able to touch the money.

[Katherine Brengle]

7. That's my thought --

I mean, I know if the government had given us thousands of dollars when our daughter was born, we would have used it to pay bills and buy diapers.

I don't think most kids would see a penny of that money over the long term if it was just given to the family no strings attached.

[BuelahWitch]

5. The rethugs will never go for this

They want all those poor people so they can keep wages down and have somebody to clean the toilets...

[undeterred]

6. I would also like a tax deduction and a bond for my dog.

[Katherine Brengle]

8. Sigh. Do we have to have the

"my pet is the same as your child" debate again...

[undeterred]

9. Is this a serious thread?

I would not have posted that if I thought it was serious.

[ecstatic]

10. Yes it is serious. Childless adult women are often forgotten

And it's discriminatory, IMO. What can we do to make the playing field more equal?

[Fearless]

15. And god said unto thee... 'Let all have special interest groups and thusly none will matter.'

[undeterred]

19. Yes, I know, I am one.

And I can tell you all about being discriminated against for being single and female and 50.

[terisan]

22. The childless adults will have gotton the $5000 at birth--just like every other person.nt

[undeterred]

24. In this fantasy world.

[TheFarseer]

30. childless adult women have a huge advantage

over single moms. How can you say otherwise? Of course single people in general are screwed by the tax code, but I'd rather the government keep their money and I don't have to buy thousands of dollars of crap for a baby not to mention daycare.

[Selatius]

11. How about we simply remove the tax credit for having children?

If the goal is to encourage slower population growth, remove the credit.

[Fearless]

13. For married parents, I would agree.

Or are we going to fall into the Thuglican pitfall?

[ecstatic]

18. That's fine, but I think the childless should be specially rewarded

for saving the government millions, if not billions annually.

[Selatius]

23. I generally think removing the credit is sufficient as it is.

Whenever a population becomes urbanized in the same way Americans and Europeans have, populations plateau and eventually start dropping off. The only reason the US population continues to grow at the current rate is largely due to immigration. Whether that immigration is legal or of the illegal variety is really up to law enforcement and immigration to sort out.

[terisan]

27. They should be fined for not producing fighters, scholars, scientists, payers into social sec

and there should be an additional fine for having a less-stressed life.

[Fearless]

12. Waste of money.

Such an action, if successful, would create an age gap such that we haven't seen since AIDS ravaged sub-Sarahan Africa. It will lead to instability just as it is in Africa now and for decades in the future. Secondly, only those who are poor will likely take this. Therefore, the richer, who reproduce at a sub-repleneshment rate anyways (below 2.0 children per couple) will have a greater impact on the population and depopulation will occur on a level higher than Japan is currently acheiving (somewhere between 1.4-1.7 per couple). This would be disasterous to the economy because the national budget will not reflect a decrease, either taxes will have to be raised or services will have to be stripped. Of course, taxes should be higher as it is, but that's neither here nor there. Money will be saved on quantative sercies (schooling), but qualitative services that are not dependant on population but outside sources (roads- based on weather wear, Social Security- based on population BALANCE) will suffer all the more as the money begins to dry up. Likewise, quantative jobs will be in trouble as well. The armed services (vital when used for defensive purposes) will suffer. As will the agricultural industry which depends on cheap labor when a lack of labor causes pay to rise, causing prices to go up. The desired impact of depopulation would then fail, roads would go unpaved and Social Security would fail, wages will rise, yes, but prices will to, etc.

[Rosemary2205]

14. Overpopulation in the US???

Since when?

[wtmusic]

16. Why not pay women to have abortions?

Single women could earn a decent living that way.

[wtmusic]

17. Great. Breed social responsbility out of the human genome.

There's some forward thinking, there. :eyes:

[ret5hd]

37. ahhh, a good eugenecist, i see.

[Skidmore]

20. Lord, I detest this type of thread.

I just don't get people who would ask for reproductive choice and not have childbearing be part of that choice. Above and beyond that point, is the implicit notion that somehow children are an obnoxious blight. Don't have kids. I'm sick of all the whining about the imposition of children on our society. Well, folks, reproduction is how the human species perpetuates itself. We were all children once. Children will continue to be born unless we all have a collective pact for suicide. Then again we might have achieved that simply by making certain neocons stay in power. If they blow up the world this becomes a nonissue.

[noamnety]

26. I hate it, too.

How about I pay pregnant women $2500 to get abortions ... but I think it's unethical for MEN to be able to pressure women into getting abortions. (That should me MY job.)

Half of all pregnancies are unintended. Instead of bribing economically disadvantaged people to reproduce less, how about ensuring that all women have access (physically and financially) to all birth control options, to include abortions?

This thread reminds me of the economic draft used to fill the military ranks. Dangle money in front of someone who is desperate, and of course you can manipulate them to do your bidding. We do the same with dumping - find a poor desperate community, pay them next to nothing, and they'll give you the rights to put your toxic sludge in their neighborhood. And we call that choice.

[Marrah_G]

21. No one is gaining financially by having kids

Tax deductions and credits don't come anywhere close to what it costs to raise a child. Some people have a very convoluted idea that people are getting wealthy off having kids.

[Bitwit1234]

25. Can you start another controversy about Hillary

If YOUR candidate and we know who it is, suggested this I bet you would be all for it.

[focusfan]

28. I support putting all females on birth control,and not the kind they can forget to take

I would like for people not to be able have children untill they can prove they are mentally and financialy able to raise a child.In this country it is harder to buy insurance than have a baby.

[terisan]

32. Mandatory castration or bc for men would achieve abt. the same result. Sperm distrib is the problem

We do not have a population problem, we have a sperm distribution control problem.

[focusfan]

34. I would use BC for men if it were available

[terisan]

35. Good for you. I'd like to see more research for male bc. I know people who have had to reverse

vasectomies when their life plans changed.

[Breeze54]

29. The only thing I agree with in your post/poll is

your sig line pic! :P

[LWolf]

31. I'd rather turn the tax credits upside down.

Instead of handing out cash, every person that has no children, single or married, gets a big deduction. People with one child get a smaller deduction. People with 2 children get no deduction. People with more than 2 children get an extra tax, per head, for every child over 2.

Call it a carbon tax/deduction.

[BlooInBloo]

33. Is this a joke?

[PDenton]

36. In the US?

In the US, we would have declining populations if not for illegal immigration. Much better to just stop illegal immigration than paying people not to have kids.

Overseas, most of the population growth, in fact almost all, is in the developing world where there is no money to go around for social programs.