financial incentives to address human overpopulation

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

michaels wrote: »

However I think we will all have to accept that with a constant or declining population the ratio of dependent to productive citizens will change for the worse. Looking in money terms 'I have provided for my retirement' misses the big picture. There will be fewer productive workers per dependent so those who are dependent will have to manage with less labour resource (be it carers, doctors, nurses, of golf course green keepers) and those who are working will be able to keep less of the fruits of their labour as it is 'shared' between all citizens. Pretending that this magic 'money' that you have saved will give you the amount of labour that you expect without a growing population to maintain the dependency ratio is just an illusion.

Absolutely correct.

Generali

ninky wrote: »

well it's being proved right in china where the single child policy is seeing increased prosperity and a stronger economic base.

No it isn't.

China's increased growth rate has come from freeing up markets, reversing Mao's policy of creating mass starvation via forced collectivization.

ess0two

ninky wrote: »

well i'm paying for mine. given the saving that is made by not having children you can easily invest that in retirement provision.

It works both ways,i'm saving for a pension plus i've got kids,it is possible,also the idea of growing old in chair with no family concerns me.

angrypirate

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Well done.

That's exactly the right answer.

Our economic competitiveness depends on maintaining the right balance of old to young. But there's nothing that says they have to be born here.

We can quite easily reduce our birthrate and make up the difference through immigration.

Which helps both the economy of the UK and the ecology of the planet.

We already have 3 million unemployed. Why do we need immigration to "make up the numbers"? The UK is already massively over populated. When labour were in power they regularly boasted about the number in employment increasing. Every single one of these jobs was taken by an immigrant. Why werent they taken by the unemployed? The benefits bill would have been lower, the UK population would have been lower, house prices would have been lower and the UK deficit would have probably been a surplus. Where is the looser in this other than the foreigners?

chewmylegoff

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Educated women with access to birth control tend to have smaller families and to have them when they can afford to. It's worth investing in schemes that give women more control over their lives.

In this country I would start by cutting child benefit after a certain number per person- 3 or maybe 2.

yes, but given that we cannot even find the money to educate our own population adequately, it seems unlikely that we have the resources to have a meaningful impact on the education level (and consequently the birthrate) of the 6 billion + people who live in the developing world. this doesn't make it a bad idea to invest in the schemes you refer to, but it is unlikely to actually have a material impact.

i agree that it would be logical to place pressure on the birthrate by limiting benefits - although i doubt many people have children to get child benefit. if you wanted to reduce the birthrate, and you think that people are being incentivised to have children by the benefits system then you would need to materially limit or remove all benefits which you thought had an effect.

the trouble with this approach is that it pushes children into poverty. whilst you can argue that the parents should not have had the child if they cannot afford it, you are essentially then punishing the child for the parent's decisions. this is an uneasy place to be in.

as for trying to incentivise not having children instead, that is a pretty tricky road to go down. if you're going to do it through the tax system, then only tax payers can benefit. if you cut someone's tax bill by 10%, as suggested in the article linked to in the OP, then the more their income is the more the incentive not to have children. thus would be incentivising the educated middle class not to have children but placing no incentive on the very low paid or unemployed not to (and presumably they would still receive benefits for doing so). this is perhaps the opposite of what would be sensible to encourage. any system which positively rewards no children is also open to manipulation (if a man doesn't admit to being the father then does he receive the tax breaks - are you going to make him do a DNA test to prove he is not the father), and hence discourages the marital unit (not that i care much about marriage, but a lot of people do).

all in all, curtailing benefits paid to people with children would appear to be the least bad option.

quantic

I prefer our current system which will soon mean you can only afford kids if you don't work

ninky_2

ess0two wrote: »

It works both ways,i'm saving for a pension plus i've got kids,it is possible,also the idea of growing old in chair with no family concerns me.

most of the lonely people in old people's homes / growing old in a chair have family. but that family are busy with their own lives. long gone are the days when the norm was to keep your old folk at home with you. i wouldn't want to inflict that responsibility on my kids anyway.

ess0two

ninky wrote: »

most of the lonely people in old people's homes / growing old in a chair have family. but that family are busy with their own lives. long gone are the days when the norm was to keep your old folk at home with you. i wouldn't want to inflict that responsibility on my kids anyway.

I dont want my old folks at home with me,but its nice dropping in on my mum with my kids twice a week.

Something i'd like my kids to do when i'm old.

ninky_2

michaels wrote: »

I think we will all have to accept that with a constant or declining population the ratio of dependent to productive citizens will change for the worse. .

why? children are dependent citizens. more dependent than the elderly since they have never earned. they also need maternity / health services / education / often social services.

dependent children take workers out of the workforce far more than dependent elderly. not only this but the benefits for those out of the workforce with children are far greater than those who stay at home to look after an elderly relative.

fewer children would lead to massive savings in education and healthcare not to mention smaller class sizes. this would more than make up the amount needed to pay for the elderly.

ninky_2

ess0two wrote: »

I dont want my old folks at home with me,but its nice dropping in on my mum with my kids twice a week.

Something i'd like my kids to do when i'm old.

what if they emigrate? quite hard to pop by if you live in australia. there's always skype i suppose. i don't think i'd want to make the occasional visit from kids the centre of my social life. i'd want friends and neighbours. but maybe if you've spent a large part of your life focussed on raising children your social circle is more limited?

and if i was dribbling and incontinent i'd be passed caring tbh. there's more to life than planning who will be there if you're left dribbling and !!!!ing in a chair for your final months.