• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Tax on Children to Fight AGW?

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That's what's been proposed. You can't make this stuff up. Taxing children, criminalizing dissent . . . Don't these guys realize who will be the villains when the movie is made?

Alarmism
Climate Philosopher Demands a Tax on Children

Guest essay by Eric Worrall h/t JoNova, Marc Morano – Climate philosopher Travis Rieder has been touring the country, trying to persuade university students not to have kids – and promoting ideas for restricting childbirth, including tax penalties against people who decide to have a child. Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of…

Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change?
Standing before several dozen students in a college classroom, Travis Rieder tries to convince them not to have children. Or at least not too many.
He’s at James Madison University in southwest Virginia to talk about a “small-family ethic” — to question the assumptions of a society that sees having children as good, throws parties for expecting parents, and in which parents then pressure their kids to “give them grandchildren.”
Why question such assumptions? The prospect of climate catastrophe.

Rieder and his Georgetown collaborators have a proposal, and the first thing they stress is that it’s not like China’s abusive one-child policy. It aims to persuade people to choose fewer children with a strategy that boils down to carrots for the poor, sticks for the rich.
Ethically, Rieder says poor nations get some slack because they’re still developing, and because their per capita emissions are a sliver of the developed world’s. Plus, it just doesn’t look good for rich, Western nations to tell people in poor ones not to have kids. He suggests things like paying poor women to refill their birth control and — something that’s had proven success — widespread media campaigns.
In the 1970s and ’80s, a wave of educational soap operas in Latin America, Asia and Africa wove family planning into their plot lines. Some countries did this when they faced economic crisis. The shows are credited with actually changing people’s opinions about family size.
For the sticks part of the plan, Rieder proposes that richer nations do away with tax breaks for having children and actually penalize new parents. He says the penalty should be progressive, based on income, and could increase with each additional child.
Think of it like a carbon tax, on kids. He knows that sounds crazy.
 
the 'villains' will be the evil 'right wingers' that warned us about making government too powerful. the 'director' of that movie will be government.
 
[h=2]We should protect our kids from climate change by not having them[/h]
[h=3]National Public Radio (USA): ‘Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change?’[/h]h/t to Climate Depot
Daily Caller Andrew Follett reports on a set of stories about population control “for the climate”:
‘We should protect our kids from climate change by not having them’ says Travis Rieder of NPR.
I reckon it seems fairer to have the kids first, then ask them.
Humans have put out 50% of all our emissions of CO2 since 1988, so everyone under 30 may have wished they hadn’t been born during the Anthropocene apocalypse. (All those hot summers, those boring lectures at school). Lets do that survey. How many 28 year olds think their parents made the wrong call in 1987?
Raising offspring is hard work. “Saving the world” might just be the excuse you’re looking for if you are not inclined to do nappies.
NPR Travis Rieder, a philosopher at Johns Hopkins University, told NPR. “The situation is bleak, it’s just dark … Population engineering, maybe it’s an extreme move. But it gives us a chance.”
Rieder said America produces a lot of carbon dioxide (CO2) per person, and the world’s poorest nations will be most affected by global warming. He suggests rich nations should stop having children to remedy this. Reducing the current birth rate to 0.5 kids per woman could be the “thing that saves us,” he said.
I can see his point. Having less babies might cool the world. There are no babies in Antarctica, and there’s no warming there either.
How many non-babies does it take to stop a flood in Bangladesh? Perhaps the IPCC has an App for that.
The Sierra Club thinks the government should issue licenses for parents:
Keep reading →
 
I oppose Pigouvian taxes on a GOOD day; THIS is just dystopian totalitarian nonsense.
 
The Sierra Club thinks the government should issue licenses for parents:
With or without Climate change, that is a good idea.

Regardless, the Governments of the world will eventually have to control their populations.
The sooner we start the better.
 
With or without Climate change, that is a good idea.

Regardless, the Governments of the world will eventually have to control their populations.
The sooner we start the better.

I'm going to guess you haven't looked at birth rates all over the world recently. I'm also going to guess that you're not aware of countries in certain parts of the world actually wanting their population to have more children.
 
I'm going to guess you haven't looked at birth rates all over the world recently. I'm also going to guess that you're not aware of countries in certain parts of the world actually wanting their population to have more children.
iLOL
Please provide said birth rates and then show they are even relevant to what I said.
Also provide proof of these supposed "parts of the world" wanting more population growth and how that refutes what I said.
 
In nature, population growth commonly exhibits one of two patterns. A cyclical population such as a predator-prey model involves an interaction between two species. When prey are abundant, predators thrive and the number of prey is reduced, but when prey are scarce there is negative predator growth. Another common model is exponential growth, such as in insect populations, where the number of organisms increases more quickly. Some of these organisms reach peak population when the environment reaches carrying capacity, and the resources become too scarce, just like any other population of plants or animals. Other times, the population experiences a catastrophic die off, such as forest fires or cicadas.

Intentionally limiting the number of children is unnatural, but it might not be such a bad idea. Since humans have no natural predators, we are our own worst enemy. We created a situation in which we have the potential for unsustainable growth.

This article reminded me of an ongoing suit in which a group of young men and women are suing the state for inaction on climate change.
 
In some developing country especially the one who has big population this policy may works well. Tax based on income but still everyone deserves kid,so the first kid should be free. Dont let this world, climate issues or whatever things eliminate our humanity.
 
In some developing country especially the one who has big population this policy may works well. Tax based on income but still everyone deserves kid,so the first kid should be free. Dont let this world, climate issues or whatever things eliminate our humanity.

By "the first kid should be free," do you mean that the next kids should pay for themselves, or should parents pay, or should subsequent children pay off the birth loan of previous non-firsts?
 
That's what's been proposed. You can't make this stuff up. Taxing children, criminalizing dissent . . . Don't these guys realize who will be the villains when the movie is made?

Alarmism
Climate Philosopher Demands a Tax on Children

Guest essay by Eric Worrall h/t JoNova, Marc Morano – Climate philosopher Travis Rieder has been touring the country, trying to persuade university students not to have kids – and promoting ideas for restricting childbirth, including tax penalties against people who decide to have a child. Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of…

Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change?
Standing before several dozen students in a college classroom, Travis Rieder tries to convince them not to have children. Or at least not too many.
He’s at James Madison University in southwest Virginia to talk about a “small-family ethic” — to question the assumptions of a society that sees having children as good, throws parties for expecting parents, and in which parents then pressure their kids to “give them grandchildren.”
Why question such assumptions? The prospect of climate catastrophe.

Rieder and his Georgetown collaborators have a proposal, and the first thing they stress is that it’s not like China’s abusive one-child policy. It aims to persuade people to choose fewer children with a strategy that boils down to carrots for the poor, sticks for the rich.
Ethically, Rieder says poor nations get some slack because they’re still developing, and because their per capita emissions are a sliver of the developed world’s. Plus, it just doesn’t look good for rich, Western nations to tell people in poor ones not to have kids. He suggests things like paying poor women to refill their birth control and — something that’s had proven success — widespread media campaigns.
In the 1970s and ’80s, a wave of educational soap operas in Latin America, Asia and Africa wove family planning into their plot lines. Some countries did this when they faced economic crisis. The shows are credited with actually changing people’s opinions about family size.
For the sticks part of the plan, Rieder proposes that richer nations do away with tax breaks for having children and actually penalize new parents. He says the penalty should be progressive, based on income, and could increase with each additional child.
Think of it like a carbon tax, on kids. He knows that sounds crazy.

Just stop giving tax breaks for each child. People shouldn't procreate if they cant afford them.
 
Just stop giving tax breaks for each child. People shouldn't procreate if they cant afford them.

And people shouldn't grow old if they can't afford it? ;) Idealism rarely changes the course of nature, and letting children suffer for their sin of being born into a poor family hardly seems fair; nor prudent, given the strong correlation between poverty and crime. More to the point, the ageing populations and declining birth rates of developed countries means that enough younger blood - whether children or immigrants - is needed to support the health and welfare needs of the elderly into the future. Financial assistance with the aim that children grow up into healthy, productive economic units is a solid and necessary investment in the future.

Incremental reductions in assistance for any children beyond the second would probably be a good idea though.
 
Last edited:
By "the first kid should be free," do you mean that the next kids should pay for themselves, or should parents pay, or should subsequent children pay off the birth loan of previous non-firsts?
The first kid is free, the rest should have to pay and their parent the one who responsible "summoning them into this world" should pay the birth loan.Reason the second kid and so on have to pay its because sometimes things is out of our control and prediction, sometimes we may thought "come on lets have second kid and make him happy" but no, i saw many times people got bankrupcy then can't even cover their kids school fees and the most important thing is when you have many kids you must divide your affection to each of them equally or else the kids will become "trash" so this policy may can be the reminder for us to appreciate our kids if we see it in the humanity perspective although there is still money interference.
 
The first kid is free, the rest should have to pay and their parent the one who responsible "summoning them into this world" should pay the birth loan.Reason the second kid and so on have to pay its because sometimes things is out of our control and prediction, sometimes we may thought "come on lets have second kid and make him happy" but no, i saw many times people got bankrupcy then can't even cover their kids school fees and the most important thing is when you have many kids you must divide your affection to each of them equally or else the kids will become "trash" so this policy may can be the reminder for us to appreciate our kids if we see it in the humanity perspective although there is still money interference.

It's not likely that there's any way for this to be enforced. Just look at the controversy over families who emigrate to the US and have children here. Children are a resource, one way or another. If the government is in charge of fertility, they will likely see children as an investment and will do what they can to leverage their investment. I realize that this is the premise of a science fiction novel, Ender's Game, but population limits are real. Take for example, Family planning policy in China. I'm not as familiar with the situation in Peru, however the children born during the first National Population Policy are now in their 20's.
 
Last edited:
"Proposed" by one guy. Therefore, anyone who isn't a denier must feel this way.

It's literally what Jack thinks. Any random ass thing he can find is evidence of the big liberal conspiracy to destroy the world.
 
And people shouldn't grow old if they can't afford it? ;) Idealism rarely changes the course of nature, and letting children suffer for their sin of being born into a poor family hardly seems fair; nor prudent, given the strong correlation between poverty and crime. More to the point, the ageing populations and declining birth rates of developed countries means that enough younger blood - whether children or immigrants - is needed to support the health and welfare needs of the elderly into the future. Financial assistance with the aim that children grow up into healthy, productive economic units is a solid and necessary investment in the future.

Incremental reductions in assistance for any children beyond the second would probably be a good idea though.

Why have you been coming up with lame responses?

Growing old is not a choice. Procreation is a choice.
 
Why have you been coming up with lame responses?

Growing old is not a choice. Procreation is a choice.

Procreation is a far more fundamental aspect of human biology and human nature than living into your eighties. Unless they actively take steps to avoid it - abstinence, contraception, abortion in the case of accidents - people are more likely to have children than live into their eighties too. Conversely, by taking active steps to do so you could avoid growing old just as easily (and if legalised as a medical procedure, just as painlessly) as you could avoid procreating. It's hardly a lame comparison.

But you've completely missed the points that A) because developed countries have ageing populations, more younger folk - whether babies or immigrants - are necessary to support the health and care costs of people who grow old without being able to afford it and B) financial support for the inevitable first and/or second children of people who couldn't otherwise afford them makes it dramatically more likely that they'll grow up into productive economic units and help with such issues.
 
It's literally what Jack thinks. Any random ass thing he can find is evidence of the big liberal conspiracy to destroy the world.

Actually, I'm pretty liberal myself, and I don't believe in climate conspiracies on either side of the debate.
 
Back
Top Bottom