Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
13
... LastLast
  1. #41
    Brewmaster Foxhoundn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    1,376
    I think there should be a cap of 2 in certain countries / entities. I would not mind it at all, and believe that most of the people wouldnt.
    And YES for no flying club!

  2. #42
    Dreadlord Brettshock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    The Cloud District
    Posts
    983
    Quote Originally Posted by Purlina View Post
    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)
    Well, wouldn't that completely go against your idea that people without children are bad for our country, seeing as the government would be encouraging you to not have children just as much as having that set amount?

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Collegeguy View Post
    Oddly enough, its already that way... at least is some countries that is. You get lower taxes for claiming children as dependents.
    That's only because it is assumed you support them financially, so they also assume you have less money to spend since you spend more of it.

    At the end of the day it really does not make much sense because more kids = use more government resources. So really they should pay more in taxes.
    Last edited by Purlina; 2011-12-06 at 04:32 PM.

  4. #44
    IF there was an overpopulation issue, I would be down for 3 max. If not, I really wouldn't want to see it done, because it just be over turned in less then a few generations after a war.
    "If you want to control people, if you want to feed them a pack of lies and dominate them, keep them ignorant. For me, literacy means freedom." - LaVar Burton.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Brettshock View Post
    Well, wouldn't that completely go against your idea that people without children are bad for our country, seeing as the government would be encouraging you to not have children just as much as having that set amount?
    It wasn't my idea that people without children are bad for the country, that was someone else.

    I was referring to the idea of how we could impose a limit on the number of children. (Instead of forcing abortions and hard limits we could use a system of monetary rewards / punishments.)

    Less children = reward
    Meet the limit = nothing
    More children = punishment

    It would make sense because having more children means your family uses more of the Government's recourses.
    Last edited by Purlina; 2011-12-06 at 04:35 PM.

  6. #46
    I'd rebel, plain and simple. The government has no business infringing upon one of the most basic human rights. I would bring it down. And the whole "overpopulation" thing? Bullshit.

    Now, if the government decided that people with more than 2 or 3 kids didn't deserve financial assistance, however... that I would totally agree with.

  7. #47
    Dreadlord Brettshock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    The Cloud District
    Posts
    983
    Quote Originally Posted by Purlina View Post
    It wasn't my idea that people without children are bad for the country, that was someone else.

    I was referring to the idea of how we could impose a limit on the number of children. (Instead of forcing abortions and hard limits we put a system of monetary rewards / punishments.)
    oh sorry, I have the bad habit of going off of avatars for people, and you both don't have one, so I got mixed up :<

  8. #48
    High Overlord Rufcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    182
    I would vote yes for a limit on the number of children a couple can have. I even think 2 children is more than enough to pass ones genes along to the next generation. The world's population is already 7 billion people and is projected to reach 9 billion by 2050.

    On another note, I also think that in order to have said children, the parents should take an IQ test and anyone that scores below 90 (average) shouldn't be allowed to procreate.

  9. #49
    The Lightbringer Collegeguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    3,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Purlina View Post
    That's only because it is assumed you support them financially, so they also assume you have less money to spend since you spend more of it.

    At the end of the day it really does not make much sense because more kids = use more government resources. So really they should pay more in taxes.
    I agree that it doesn't make much sense. Then again, its arguable whether it is actually lower taxes because the child/or adult has to agree to be claimed as a dependent.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Collegeguy View Post
    Oddly enough, it's already that way... at least in some countries that is. You get lower taxes for claiming children as dependents.
    Yes, they get a benefit. In the US it's in the form of a tax deduction and thus they usually pay less taxes because it makes their overall liability less, but at least I'm not being directly penalized for not having children. I.E. if I want to pay less taxes there are tons of things I can do to lower my tax liability. People with kids just happen to get a very easily identifiable deduction.

    Though, I seriously doubt that most people choose to have children because they get a deduction. I'm sure some scumbag somewhere does, but you get the idea.

  11. #51
    I am Murloc! Scummer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    England
    Posts
    5,168
    If it means the ones I do have can live a better life then sure.
    As depressing as it sounds, we are losing land to build upon and the little that is left usually are the last specks of natural wildlife. We only have a finite amount of resources and land to use and yet our population is ever increasing. Something extreme will have to be done eventually or else it will cause a global crisis.

  12. #52
    The Patient Nivius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    204
    the world have grown in population ALLOT last years, for the world to have food for everyone (when we reach 80 billion its bad... really bad) i recommend ppl getting 1, max 2 childs.

    getting 1, will in the long run lower the population, but getting 2 will hold it steady. getting 3 or more will just increase it. im actually not getting more then 2.

  13. #53
    I have one child and we're happy with her being an only child so it really wouldn't affect me, but no I dont think it's the government's place to restrict the amount of children you have. However, IF you are receiving welfare/foodstamps and you decide to get pregnant while receiving this money I think your welfare payments should be stopped. The problem isn't people having children, it's people who can't afford to take care of themselves having children for taxpayers to take care of. That is the reason why you see so many people with multiple kids mooching off the system, they get MORE money for each kid they have so they keep having them. If people in middle to upper class families have six kids, it benefits society. If the poor family on welfare has two kids, that's two more people mooching off the system and likely contributing nothing.

  14. #54
    How would it work, would the limit be per person, per couple, per household etc? I have 4 children in my house hold, the eldest is mine from a previous relationship, her sister who is not blood related to me or my current partner my partners daughter from a previous relationship and our daughter together. How would that work with a limit on children you can have?

  15. #55
    Reminds me of a topic the other day about kill 1, save 1000, or save 1 and 1000 die.

    Think about it, 95% (yes I made that up but you get the idea) are ugly/stupid/assholes that contribute nothing to the planet and quite frankly we could do without.

    I'm all for capping it at 2~3 kids per couple, but if people want more then the government should support them less.

  16. #56
    Elemental Lord Snowraven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    European Union
    Posts
    8,922
    Quote Originally Posted by tommypilgrim View Post
    I'd be fine capping at 3.
    Same here, anything more is too much, although I'd say rather then 3 in general you'd be limited at three births (since you never know if once you might get triplets) and the catch is that you can have only one birth with same person, two if you pass 15 years spent together. So overall the idea is like this:
    -couple for a short time - only 1 birth allowed
    -couple for more then 15 years - only 2 births allowed
    - split couple with 1 birth (counts for both partners), both persons refind a couple - they can have a second birth with their new partners
    - split with 1 birth, both people in a new couple for 15 years - 2 more births allowed (so 3 in total)
    - split twice, having two births, one had with each partner, they can have one more with third partner
    - split twice, having two births, one with each partner, in the new couple for more then 15 years - still one, since it's third birth.

    Exceptions:
    -children die at birth or in the first 15 years
    -children have big mutations that affect their lives
    In these cases the people get one more chance.

    You can't pay for more then three, the most you can do is, if together for 25 years, pay to get the third birth with same couple if still together(meaning that if you got together and made a child at 15... let's say, at 40 you'd get your last birth if in same couple).

    No other exceptions allowed.

  17. #57
    I think it's a tough thing to gauge. You can say cap it at 2, but to what extent? My dad had 2 kids with my mom, then they got divorced. Do their numbers get reset? He remarried and had 2 more kids with my stepmom. Is it fair if you cap it at 2 per person to tell my stepmom she cannot have any kids because my dad already did? I'd go with no.

    Is it 2 kids total, or just 2 non-adult kids? My sister and I are adults, so would my dad and stepmom be exempt and able to have kids when my sister and I were no longer minors/dependents (my half-brothers were born when I was 13 and 15). This seems to damned complicated to work.

    If you cap, is that just naturally-born kids? If you say 2 is the limit, what if a family adopts 2, then wants to have one of their own flesh and blood? Is that allowed?

    Probably the biggest question though is: HOW DO YOU ENFORCE THIS? Say we go back to my parents. They had myself and my older sister. If that cap is at 2, what happens if my mom got pregnant? Would they fine her (on TOP of the cost of raising a kid?!)? Would they force an abortion upon her? Woudl they require all parents with 2 kids to get fixed like dogs or cats?

    Honestly, child limits are a great way to slow population growth, but as is the case with pretty much anything like this, having the government mandate these things is a colossal disaster waiting to happen...over and over and over again.

  18. #58
    The Patient RageasaurusRex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Lake Havasu, AZ
    Posts
    254
    Impotent so I could care less.
    "Like the ancient tibetan philosophy states; dont start none, wont be none."
    Quote Originally Posted by pickley View Post
    Lord Monichromicorn?
    Where is my gooooooooooooold
    Quote Originally Posted by pickley
    Lord Monichromicorn

    Wheres my candy
    da best ^

  19. #59
    I think two is enough...

  20. #60
    Herald of the Titans Suikoden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    2,708
    Quote Originally Posted by orissa View Post
    AMG! Sarah Palin has an MMO-Champ account!

    http://wonkette.com/404207/sarah-pal...ot-a-continent
    At this point, I don't think Sarah Palin could do anything to fix her image...

Posting Permissions

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