Replies

I'm just saying that our government supports the non productive end of society with welfare benefits.

Um, that's what I said...that it's not a question of parents vs. non-parents....it's a question of subsidizing lack of productivity. Totally different issue.

Lowering tax rates for families, two and one parent, would be of great benefit to allow them to keep their money rather than welfare, and social programs abounding.

So you're more socialist in your leanings? Why not make it lower taxes for everyone who is productive, regardless of children or no children?

Why should the government be involved in deciding to pass out money to those who have more children? If a couple can't afford to have children, then they shouldn't have them. (I.e., Why should a childless couple who can't afford children be forced to subsidize those who have children they can't afford--like our current system operates?)

Which consumes more public services (which is what taxes are for...common defense, public works, civil defense supplies, etc.): two people, or two people plus a child? So why should the two people be forced to contribute more to the public trough than two people plus a child?!?

The Infertility/Responsibility Tax is just one example of the creeping socialism that Eisenhower warned about--now even self-identified "conservatives" don't bat an eye at getting bribed by others' money.

Of course, dealing with this problem fairly and appropriately would involve having to stop illegal immigration and playing games with Social Security/reitirement, etc. And again, few have stomach for that.

"So you're more socialist in your leanings? Why not make it lower taxes for everyone who is productive, regardless of children or no children?"

You're almost as bad as the MSM. You seem to not be aware of what's down the road in just a couple of decades in Europe, and much after that in the rest of the advanced countries of the world. To help get you up to speed, read this:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760

In that article, you'll see that unless drastic action is taken, Europe will essentially be Muslim-run, with an old and gray native population, in about 3 decades.

Your solution seems to say that bigger houses and bigger cars (i.e., more productivity) will compensate for the extinction of cultures. There is a lot more to this, and the stakes are much, much higher.

Again, there is no developed country in the world that has been able to even come close to maintaining its native population.

It is up to the developed societies to decide if they want to survive, and there are only 2 ways that I can see working (which is stick women back into the kitchen, or to make childrearing economically competitive). While your "fairness" concept may indeed appear just, it simply accelerates the end of our societies.

Either we step up to that, or there is no future, as Europe is showing the world, we can no longer have it both ways.