Deep thought
Poor people need to be taxed into having less kids. They are a drain on our public school system and this will keep them from gaming the system.
Poor people need to be taxed into having less kids. They are a drain on our public school system and this will keep them from gaming the system.
That mean us not-so-poor people ought to be paid to have more kids? ๐
Oh, wait, the not-poor people in Delaware all send their kids to private schools!
Waddayathink–sterilization with the receipt of your first welfare check?
Is this a vision for your desired society?
A new tax on low-income parents won’t have an impact–low-income parents have sufficiently low income that there is very rarely a tax due (or a filing requirement). Further, kids cost the low-income family a sufficiently high proportion of their low income to provide as much economic incentive to have fewer kids as is practical–much higher than the economic cost (proportionately) for a higher-income family.
Let’s work on family planning, comprehensive sex education, parent support education, job training, affordable daycare, etc.
A new tax designed to actually impact low-income families would most likely produce more homeless people and parent-less/abandoned children.
Considering the depth of most gene pools, mandatory sterilization isn’t a bad idea. It doesn’t have to be a soicioeconomic bias. Afterall, there are huge numbers of republicans we could start with and they are generally NOT POOR!
Hef–that was so thirty years ago–get w/ it–it’s the in-vitro, multiple birth, upper/ middle class, that are crowding us now!!!!!
“…itโs the in-vitro, multiple birth, upper/ middle class, that are crowding us now!!!!!”
I assume you’re joking.
Nope…check any elementary school. Multiples are in multiples for any given grade, w/ how mainstream and successful fertility treatments have been.