Hands off the tax revenue of unborn children.

abaxas

PasturesNew wrote: »

As there aren't enough jobs to go round, "who is going to do the work" is irrelevant. It's more "how hard do the few workers have to work to pay for those not working".

I would disagree with that (in part).

Plenty of jobs that exist under min wage, but you cant employ people at under min wage.

Also there is no point in working, when you get paid more to not!

DervProf

abaxas wrote: »

So if we dont breed, who is going to do the work? Who is going to pay for the old?

Do we really want to go back in time?

And if we do breed, who's going to pay for those we give birth to when they grow old ?

Unlike other species on this planet, we are able to work out many of the consequences of our actions. It doesn't take too much working out that 6,000,000,000 is a large drain on natural resources, and if we keep increasing the population at the rate we have been doing, something has to give. But as usual, it's "live for today" (see pre-credit crunch for a good example of this attitude).

hcb42

Who do you suggest we murder then, to reduce the population ?? a few Americans? Unemployed British? A few Indians?

The population thing is a badly formed argument and always has been...! It is our overconsumption that is the problem

johnny_storm

hcb42 wrote: »

Who do you suggest we murder then, to reduce the population ?? a few Americans? Unemployed British? A few Indians?

The population thing is a badly formed argument and always has been...! It is our overconsumption that is the problem

Why does anyone have to be murdered? Just introduce the same cap as china of one child per couple and it will sort itself out.

Accidents will happen, so make sure that any happy accident pregnancies cost the parents a lot in tax to pay for the extra burden on society they have hatched.

bengalknights

johnny_storm wrote: »

Why does anyone have to be murdered? Just introduce the same cap as china of one child per couple and it will sort itself out.

Accidents will happen, so make sure that any happy accident pregnancies cost the parents a lot in tax to pay for the extra burden on society they have hatched.

Would it not be much easier to just disable all child benefits and tax credits etc thats associated with not being single or having a family?.

DervProf

hcb42 wrote: »

Who do you suggest we murder then, to reduce the population ?? a few Americans? Unemployed British? A few Indians?

The population thing is a badly formed argument and always has been...! It is our overconsumption that is the problem

I didn't suggest murdering anyone.

The population thing is not a badly formed argument, it is a simple fact. The more people there are, the higher the overall consumption tends to be. Yes, it is a good idea to reduce consumption, but even the "greenest" person will consume more than they would if they hadn't been born.

And if you're worried about there not being enough humans to keep the species going, I suggest that 6 billion is probably enough to ensure a few more generations. I think that 9 billion might make life a lot more difficult for further generations.

johnny_storm

abaxas wrote: »

Do we really want to go back in time?

Id love to go back in time yes. I hate what our country has become.

sabretoothtigger

People are part of a nations wealth. If there is less people born, you get less workers and less taxable income to provide for retiring workers. China will see this in future and Japan is an example of it now despite being very wealthy in general it has a problem

abaxas

johnny_storm wrote: »

Id love to go back in time yes. I hate what our country has become.

Obviously you will opt out of the NHS, not use any motorways or any supermarket.

I thought not.