Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michael OL on May 19, 2012 at 11:40am

Sensational cases make for entertaining news stories (which sell advertising space!).  But their overall impact to population growth is minor.  Let's instead focus on the typical middle-class American couple.  If such a couple can be persuaded to have 2 kids instead of 3, or 1 kid instead of 2, and if that happens in 10s of millions of cases, then we have a genuine impact. 

The real problem is not with outlying cases with demonstrable abuse, but "regular folk" whose behavior, if changed ever so slightly, adds up to huge changes.

Permalink Reply by TNT666 on June 9, 2012 at 1:40pm

Absolutely, sensationalism doesn't help.

Permalink Reply by sk8eycat on June 9, 2012 at 6:53pm

I forgot to add something way back in this discussion...INCOME TAX DEDUCTIONS! 

If I were in charge of the IRS, I would limit the number of offspring a couple could claim as dependents to 2.  UNLESS ... any additional children are adopted.

And, this may sound silly, but I think a smaller "dependedent deduction" should be allowed for a pet or two. Every mental health study ever done on the subject has shown that having a dog or a cat, or a pair of either, or one of each improves human mental and physical health...which, logically, reduces medical expenses.  And if the pets are adopted from a shelter or a rescue organization, so much the better; it gives one the satisfaction of knowing you've saved a life. Or two.

But NOHHHHH....people-breeders can keep on squirting out babies, claiming them as dependents, and (if possible) collectiing welfare and Aid to Dependent Children checks, forever.  Or until they finally reach menopause.

Another silly thought: some cultures have a celebration when a girl has her first period.  Why not have a real whoop-de-doo when a woman reaches menopause?  Sort of an "I Survived!" kind of party.

I know I wanted to celebrate when that happy day finally arrived! (My mother was still bugging me about giving her some grandchildren, so I laughed in her face, and told her, "No way!")

Permalink Reply by TNT666 on June 9, 2012 at 7:08pm

There should be no "dependent deduction", no partner, no babies, no pets. People should be taught by parents/educators to make the decisions in life they can actually afford!

Permalink Reply by sk8eycat on June 10, 2012 at 2:08pm

Sometimes you don't have a choice.  When my parents died I was stuck with supporting my autistic/Asperger's sister till I finally got some help in getting her on SSI.  I still pay most of the household bills, but I'm retired and trying to make do on Social Security, so I no longer have to file income tax returns.

BUT my thought was/is that if there was a limit on the number of allowable dependents, some people would think twice about how many children they would have.

The biggest problem is that too many people don't think.  Period.

Permalink Reply by Steph S. on June 11, 2012 at 5:35pm

Yeah a limit on deductions instead of just saying none at all. I think that would be a fair compromise. Yes, people do need to think about the number of children they have.

Permalink Reply by TNT666 on June 11, 2012 at 7:44pm

SSI is not a breeding subsidy as far as I can tell...

I just don't see who society at large needs to subsidize breeding. Governments may subsidise things that are NEEDED and/or are in SHORT SUPPLY, but we certainly do not NEED more Homo sapiens on this planet. On top of that, if the present trend continues... half of all society will have some sort of mental disorder diagnosis within a couple of decades. Surely enough is enough?

It's not a matter of "a little breeding is better than a lot". We are at the point on earth where NO breeding, for a limited duration, would be needed. Subsidising breeding accomplishes the reverse.

Permalink Reply by sk8eycat on June 12, 2012 at 12:51am

Ummm...the reason why my 67-year-old sister is on SSI is that she was never capable of being employed; we had a hard enough time getting her through school.  (She's the only person I've ever heard of who couldn't handle kindergarten.) So she's never paid into Social Security.

She's NOT stupid, but she's never been able to get along with people...except her Watchtower-selling co-religionists, and she has had some dreadful temper tantrums with some of them in the past.  And she chose that cult, our parents certainly had nothing to do with it!

Permalink Reply by TNT666 on June 12, 2012 at 1:14am

Parents of course do not wilfully cause such diseases, but more and more we are discovering how 1) pre-natal behaviour, 2) environmental pollutants and 3) neo-natal quality of life determine the outcome of the rest of our life, no matter the effort we put in later as adults.

IMO, if our medical research focused on those factors, instead of pharmacological treatment once the problems are established, we'd be way ahead in improving quality of life for all people. But disease pays in profits, health does not pay profits, therefore the only way for the medical industry to do the valuable thing is to mandate it, because the profit incentive is absent.

Permalink Reply by Steph S. on June 11, 2012 at 5:33pm

Yes I agree. There should be a limit to child dependent deduction because some people decide to have more children so they can deduct them.

Permalink Reply by sk8eycat on June 12, 2012 at 12:57am

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page