Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
12
... LastLast
  1. #21
    Scarab Lord Collegeguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    4,023
    I would be fine with a cap at 3. Matter of fact, I would love it. An average child bearing cap should be a necessity for every welfare nation.

  2. #22
    The Insane Catta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Århus
    Posts
    17,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Twoflower View Post
    1st world countries : no need for it. Our average is allready under 2 children per pair, which means that without immigration our population would decrease.

    developing countries, specialy india and africa : hell yes, please ! I am all for it ! The explosion in population leads to huge problems there.
    you do realize they have reasons to get that many kids right? First of all, high infant mortality, secondly they need them to take care of them when they are old, thirdly they need them to work for them and lastly atleast in India's case, children create connections to other families and thereby status and money

    ---------- Post added 2011-12-06 at 04:42 PM ----------

    besides, my country is bigger than the Netherlands and have a third of the population... dont care much...

  3. #23
    Stood in the Fire
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    386
    Forcing people to have kids who don't want kids is good... how? All I see in the future is increases in suicide rate, poverty, and child abuse/neglect. Not to mention the obvious increase in overpopulation, which would make all the topics brought up exponentially worse.
    Everyone pay 55% taxes. People with one kid pay 50%, people with 2 kids pay 43% people with 3 kids pay 35% people with 4 kids pay 47% people with 5 or more pay 55% too.

    You are not forcing anyone to do anything, however you support "proper" amount of births

  4. #24
    i think they should cap it at 0 for a while till the population gets somewhat under control (down to more like 1 billion on earth vs. 7 billion now) then allow 1 per couple.

  5. #25
    Scarab Lord Collegeguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    4,023
    Quote Originally Posted by Darsey View Post

    Edit: The model in china is horrible and will totally get back at them in about 20-30 years or even less. There is no way china gonna be the next superpower if they keep up with the one child model, it is a sure way to economical crash.
    They'll need immigration. Most likely from European and North American countries. Which is exactly what they need economically anyway to stay competitive in the 21st century.

  6. #26
    Seeing how almost no one I know in the US has 5 kids I would be fine...

  7. #27
    Scarab Lord shise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Spaniard in Copenhagen
    Posts
    4,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Darsey View Post
    Because people grow old, and need younger generation to support them the "right" number for that is 2.3 children per a couple. Its not only that you will have to work till the day you die if there are not enough young men and women, you will also pay much more for your health care because there will be less young people to sponser you, as old people "enjoy" the health care system much more then young people, and they all pay the same amount of money for it. Not to mention that you, and the young people will have to pay much more taxes because of that, reducing the consuming of goods and slowing the economy.

    The world's population is growing, however the western population is shrinking, and that is a bad thing. The limitation on birth should be in africa, in asia on ortodox jews, on arabs, and even on those for 2 children per couple, however the western population should actually increase its birth to 2-3 kids per couple, that is if it want any chance to survive.
    In Africa can't be a limit just because most of the kids came out of violations. However, it's true that we have to watch out for the overall age, or else we grow old, i agree there. But there is no way people who decide not to have kids would have to pay extra taxes as the person i quoted claimed. Many people who don't have children don't have them just becuase they can't.

    And there is also a lot of people who should NEVER have the RIGHT to have children. Because they are insane and simply can't look after another person. We actually have a lot of those on tv everyday.

    So it's a delicated thing.

  8. #28
    Dreadlord Brettshock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    The Cloud District
    Posts
    983
    Quote Originally Posted by shise View Post
    In Africa can't be a limit just because most of the kids came out of violations. However, it's true that we have to watch out for the overall age, or else we grow old, i agree there. But there is no way people who decide not to have kids would have to pay extra taxes as the person i quoted claimed. Many people who don't have children don't have them just becuase they can't.

    And there is also a lot of people who should NEVER have the RIGHT to have children. Because they are insane and simply can't look after another person. We actually have a lot of those on tv everyday.

    So it's a delicated thing.
    Agreed. There are many people who would abuse the system by having children, and raise them to be air breathers who wouldn't support the elderly, but actually harm them.

    There seems to be neither a right, nor a wrong.

  9. #29
    Field Marshal Dkitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    98
    I don't want to live in a country that calls itself free and then limits the amount of children any one person can have.. besides, how would they even enforce such a rule? Force women to get their tubes tied? Force men to get a vasectomy? Either way, in a place where the government is forcing people to be operated on without their consent is not a place where I want to live.

  10. #30
    I would be all for it, but sadly everything the government does is corrupted so after a while it wouldn't matter. Is it our right to have kids even if we refuse to raise them and they become a burden on society?
    Captain of the Rarity's Perfection Order Celestia will go down like the Tyrant she is. Vote Rarity for Princess

    Sig and avatar By Anakonda

  11. #31
    Dreadlord Brettshock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    The Cloud District
    Posts
    983
    Quote Originally Posted by Dkitty View Post
    I don't want to live in a country that calls itself free and then limits the amount of children any one person can have.. besides, how would they even enforce such a rule? Force women to get their tubes tied? Force men to get a vasectomy? Either way, in a place where the government is forcing people to be operated on without their consent is not a place where I want to live.
    I believe the idea put fourth is to encourage a certain amount, but not completely force it. Giving benefits to those who stay within the boundary, but as I said earlier, it would most likely be abused.

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Brettshock View Post
    I believe the idea put fourth is to encourage a certain amount, but not completely force it. Giving benefits to those who stay within the boundary, but as I said earlier, it would most likely be abused.
    The most logical method would be to create a system of monetary rewards / penalties based on the number of children you have.

    Perhaps tax incentives for have less kids? Or maybe just a fee when you go over the limit.

    (If you think about it, you do use more of the governments resources when you have more children)

  13. #33
    I'd say no on a hard limit reguardless of how high it is. Thats just not the governments place to dictate how we live our lives. On the other hand I'd support a limit on how many children you can have to qualify for government monetary help/support. Sometimes people hit rough patches and need help to get back on their feet. The amount of money the government offers increases based on number of kids. While 3-5 kids is somewhat reasonable when your talking about someone with 15+ kids your now talking about life choices that probably caused them to get into their difficulties and are endangering the kids as well. I'm not saying let the kids starve but geting into that situation shows the parents to be irresponsible and they should be expected to give at least some of them up for adoption to couples that could adequately care for them. Leting folks know they wont get any additional money past X number of kids would force them to either make better choices to begin with or to live withen their means instead of just puting more and more burden on society.

    Who is John Galt?

  14. #34
    Dreadlord Brettshock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    The Cloud District
    Posts
    983
    Quote Originally Posted by Purlina View Post
    The most logical method would be to create a system of monetary rewards / penalties based on the number of children you have.

    Perhaps tax incentives for have less kids? Or maybe just a fee when you go over the limit.

    (If you think about it, you do use more of the governments resources when you have more children)
    There's a nice picture I saw once of a gay couple who had a nice home and was rejected on an adoption request, while the other half of the picture is a destroyed house with a straight couple with two children running around, the father watching tv in his wife-beater and drinking his beer and the mother not paying any attention to the children, with a 'adoption approved' paper on the table.

    That's what I mean by abusing the system. Those who want children but can't, either by law or by some issue with their body can't benefit from the system, but the people who can have children but don't pay an ounce of attention to them can. Giving benefits to people like this just screams abuse.

    (I cannot for the love of me find that picture :<)

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by orissa View Post
    There's one family where I live that has 11 kids. The kids are misbehaved, arrogant, rude and the parents do little to control them. Frequently, the eldest children do more parenting (and not a very good job of it) than the parents.

    So I say yes, limit families to three.
    i can relate to this, though BOTH my dad's neighbors have 11 kids -.-

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Darsey View Post
    Everyone pay 55% taxes. People with one kid pay 50%, people with 2 kids pay 43% people with 3 kids pay 35% people with 4 kids pay 47% people with 5 or more pay 55% too.

    You are not forcing anyone to do anything, however you support "proper" amount of births
    This is a ridiculously stupid idea. You're penalizing people who prefer to have fewer kids. And thus you're basically asking those of us who choose not to have kids, to in semblance take care of those who do have more. I don't think there should be a limit on births, but there should definitely be some kind of oversight on how many you have after a certain amount. I.E. your financial wellbeing and other criteria for ability to take care of an additional child must be met. Though penalizing those who choose to have more children even though they don't meet this "criteria" is a fallacy in itself. Lose/Lose situation either way.

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Brettshock View Post
    There's a nice picture I saw once of a gay couple who had a nice home and was rejected on an adoption request, while the other half of the picture is a destroyed house with a straight couple with two children running around, the father watching tv in his wife-beater and drinking his beer and the mother not paying any attention to the children, with a 'adoption approved' paper on the table.

    That's what I mean by abusing the system. Those who want children but can't, either by law or by some issue with their body can't benefit from the system, but the people who can have children but don't pay an ounce of attention to them can. Giving benefits to people like this just screams abuse.

    (I cannot for the love of me find that picture :<)
    The system would benefit the people who do not have children (or who have fewer children), I am not sure how you could abuse that. (Referring to limiting the # of children)
    Last edited by Purlina; 2011-12-06 at 04:26 PM.

  18. #38
    Oddly enough I think i would have been fine with a 2 or 3 cap.. But saying that Im happy right now there was not. I have 4 kids, and planing on a another.
    Would hate to think i never got know my last child cause of a cap. Since he is such a joy.

    But i do understand the math, and can see the big picture in the long run. SO understand why one day if not yesterday they need to cap the number of new humans by some amount.

  19. #39
    Scarab Lord Collegeguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    4,023
    Quote Originally Posted by Chank View Post
    This is a ridiculously stupid idea. You're penalizing people who prefer to have fewer kids. And thus you're basically asking those of us who choose not to have kids, to in semblance take care of those who do have more. I don't think there should be a limit on births, but there should definitely be some kind of oversight on how many you have after a certain amount. I.E. your financial wellbeing and other criteria for ability to take care of an additional child must be met. Though penalizing those who choose to have more children even though they don't meet this "criteria" is a fallacy in itself. Lose/Lose situation either way.

    Oddly enough, it's already that way... at least in some countries that is. You get lower taxes for claiming children as dependents.

  20. #40
    The Lightbringer Calzaeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Kopervik, Norway
    Posts
    3,238
    Quote Originally Posted by orissa View Post
    There's one family where I live that has 11 kids. The kids are misbehaved, arrogant, rude and the parents do little to control them. Frequently, the eldest children do more parenting (and not a very good job of it) than the parents.

    So I say yes, limit families to three.
    Interestingly enough, four very good friends of mine have the same mother, and their other seven siblings are also upstanding and polite people. It all comes down to how the parenting is handled.

    And yes, all eleven kids were raised by the same mother. Eldest kids helped, but that is to be expeccted when you have a 26yo in the house and diapers need changing.

    EDIT:
    Personally, I find three to be the most ideal, but I've seen families with more pull it off. So I'd vote "no".

    And for the love of heeavens, population is NOT getting out of control. The distribution of resources, on the other hand, is.
    Last edited by Calzaeth; 2011-12-06 at 04:29 PM.
    If you add me on Steam, Skype or whatever program/client I share my info for, please write something to identify you in the "Dude/gal wants to join your club"-message. Just so I know that an actual human is on the other end :P

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •