Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Bill McBlueState

(8,216 posts)
198. In the US we have a $1000 per child tax credit
Mon May 7, 2012, 09:16 AM
May 2012

In China there is apparently a tax penalty after the first child.

If you think people are having too many children, it seems like it would be simple and unintrusive just to change the tax-credit-vs-number-of children curve.

Maybe $1000 for the first and second, $500 for the third, $0 for the fourth, etc. Whatever. The point is that, in keeping with our 100-year tradition of social engineering through the tax code, there are plenty of tweaks one could enact without being super-authoritarian.

Forcing people to do the right thing is not the right thing to do. baldguy May 2012 #1
Forcing Children to be born into deplorable conditions is not the right thing to do FreakinDJ May 2012 #4
where do you see this "6,7, 10 children" being born with no means? CreekDog May 2012 #119
Either you are living an extremely sheltered life or ..... FreakinDJ May 2012 #144
I'm asking you to say where you see it --I didn't post it in AN OP CreekDog May 2012 #150
Do you think that people should be required to vaccinate their children JDPriestly May 2012 #8
Do we levy fines against & imprison those who don't? baldguy May 2012 #21
Don't imprison them but certainly fine them. GoneOffShore May 2012 #136
What about taxes? Isn't that forcing people to do the "right thing" and help the country? nt ZombieHorde May 2012 #140
I read somewhere that a wealthy Chinese family had several children. China supposedly southernyankeebelle May 2012 #2
As I said I don't agree with the implementation of the policy FreakinDJ May 2012 #5
I don't think anyone has a right to tell people how many children they should have. I only southernyankeebelle May 2012 #7
I don't think anyone has the RIGHT to have children just so they can Starve to Death FreakinDJ May 2012 #11
Good for you southernyankeebelle May 2012 #90
Just my mother wished to remain in her home FreakinDJ May 2012 #97
Your right. But a one child solution isn't it. People should have if they want at least 4 children southernyankeebelle May 2012 #99
Math lesson: if everyone has 4 kids - bhikkhu May 2012 #120
Simple for me. I have what I could afford. I don't think people should have 10 kids. But southernyankeebelle May 2012 #143
Listen to God some time - he is telling you act responsibly FreakinDJ May 2012 #145
Who are you to judge? I only have one child. That was all I ever wanted. If god didn't southernyankeebelle May 2012 #149
Sad thing when people believe sex is only for procreation FreakinDJ May 2012 #157
I have to say am different for sure. I never had sex before marriage and I married at 29. southernyankeebelle May 2012 #158
I don't know why "Lust" became so distorted FreakinDJ May 2012 #163
I never said lust. I think when your married you should have sex as often as you want. southernyankeebelle May 2012 #166
You sound so ... so ... normal FreakinDJ May 2012 #174
Saint Reagan ruined this country. I totally agree with everything you said. What bothers southernyankeebelle May 2012 #177
Your arguments are right in line with anti-choice rhetoric. Way to go! Zalatix May 2012 #171
I don't either. But its an authoritian government. Left Coast2020 May 2012 #194
The reason why I recommended this OP JonLP24 May 2012 #216
Well I can't disagree with you. But you can't legislate some things in life. southernyankeebelle May 2012 #217
I'll flame. It'll burn hot so stand back: cali May 2012 #3
I'll stand right here and warm my hands varelse May 2012 #65
both parents go on record... happerbolic May 2012 #79
Absolutely not! varelse May 2012 #98
Oh fuk that. Way cheaper to just be a dictatorship and elehhhhna May 2012 #141
100% Free will is a novel idea... happerbolic May 2012 #153
Octomom and the Duggars Ichingcarpenter May 2012 #6
"People with no means to support them". Nye Bevan May 2012 #9
Not the parents. The planet. NYC_SKP May 2012 #16
And if they refuse? hack89 May 2012 #181
there's a big difference between "NO means to support" and people who can but aren't rich MH1 May 2012 #38
Providing freedom, education and healthcare to woman .... etherealtruth May 2012 #10
7 billion people on the planet. randome May 2012 #12
Finally - some one who gets it FreakinDJ May 2012 #15
Frankly, their post was very much the opposite of yours. noamnety May 2012 #22
+1 etherealtruth May 2012 #24
see post No. 14 FreakinDJ May 2012 #28
I don't think that really refutes the assertion etherealtruth May 2012 #87
You've made quite a lot of assumptions on my behalf FreakinDJ May 2012 #25
Are you suggesting a policy with no means of enforcement? noamnety May 2012 #36
You are the only one distinguishing between "White and Nonwhite" FreakinDJ May 2012 #39
I'm just the only one stating the obvious: noamnety May 2012 #45
It doesn't have to be about 'poor versus rich'. randome May 2012 #49
I completely agree with that. noamnety May 2012 #56
I made no such reference FreakinDJ May 2012 #52
Who do you think is to blame more? noamnety May 2012 #58
Mr Ignorance FreakinDJ May 2012 #64
Is there a concern that we will run out of "entertainment" due to overpopulation? n/t hughee99 May 2012 #27
No, I meant our entertainment demands. randome May 2012 #116
You are using logic. Stop that! No one here wants logic. They just want to complain!! n-t Logical May 2012 #29
People will die regardless. How do you implement such a policy cali May 2012 #31
Maybe it depends on how it's framed. randome May 2012 #42
Do you support forcing women to only have one child...to enforce your will on their bodies? n/t cynatnite May 2012 #44
Not everything involving women has to do with taking away their rights. randome May 2012 #47
I think there would have to be a global consensus... cynatnite May 2012 #51
I don't see how you can force women not to have kids without taking away their rights 4th law of robotics May 2012 #127
We have all sorts of limits on freedom now, of course. randome May 2012 #130
Access to BC, education, and a retirement system seem to do it 4th law of robotics May 2012 #131
If you don't take away their rights, then your population control plan is dead on arrival. Zalatix May 2012 #169
I wish I could rec your response. And hope you and the OP will consider elaborating on it in the coalition_unwilling May 2012 #67
We could treat people like stray cats 4th law of robotics May 2012 #126
Give more reproductive control to women, and also parents in general, Quantess May 2012 #13
Agree. The idea that popping new people out in this world is some God-given right is fucked up. NYC_SKP May 2012 #14
DU has certainly changed! BlancheSplanchnik May 2012 #80
145 replies so far telling me to Shut the Fuck Up about the obvious FreakinDJ May 2012 #146
like teabaggers.....same kind of willful misinterpretation BlancheSplanchnik May 2012 #156
Because any effective implementation of such a policy has no place in a free society? hack89 May 2012 #183
Actually, having children *is* a right CreekDog May 2012 #203
So you admit it's a Ponzi Scheme? NYC_SKP May 2012 #205
who are you talking to? CreekDog May 2012 #206
"...children that you are suggesting not exist will be paying for (social security)..." NYC_SKP May 2012 #207
You called Social Security a Ponzi scheme? CreekDog May 2012 #208
No, you did. (nt) NYC_SKP May 2012 #210
But YOU called Medicare a ponzi scheme CreekDog May 2012 #211
I accept your apology. NYC_SKP May 2012 #212
Social Security has disability CreekDog May 2012 #213
by the way, if someone becomes disabled, did they fully fund their SS and Medicare? CreekDog May 2012 #209
Socially and ecologically responsible, but not economically responsible. DCKit May 2012 #17
Why is it economically responsible? Because we insist people retire at a young age? MH1 May 2012 #41
I don't see how you would enforce it quinnox May 2012 #18
Trade and economic treaties are made all the time without a world government. randome May 2012 #26
No flame here. I agree with you 100 percent. Glorfindel May 2012 #19
American Representative to the UN Calls for Worldwide Depopulation Ichingcarpenter May 2012 #20
this is a tough one for me fascisthunter May 2012 #23
I'm with you, my friend. LAGC May 2012 #78
There is a way Marrah_G May 2012 #178
If you could separate the policy from it's implementation, it still involves more than live births HereSince1628 May 2012 #30
The Governement has no business telling people what they should do with their bodies, hughee99 May 2012 #32
Why focus just on the birth rate? frazzled May 2012 #33
China has deep cultural issues. randome May 2012 #35
I see no benefit in spiting out children so they can die in the streets FreakinDJ May 2012 #37
Oh my, you really are a dyed-in-the-wool eugenicist frazzled May 2012 #40
You certainly like to make assumptions on little or no fact FreakinDJ May 2012 #46
Now, now. randome May 2012 #53
Personally I believe "Unattended White Children" have just as many problems FreakinDJ May 2012 #55
Sure, but I don't think this needs to be framed in economic terms. randome May 2012 #63
Well, 4 out of 6 random DUers think it's a-ok to attack someone as being racist MH1 May 2012 #60
Content of my alert *** Jurors please note *** MH1 May 2012 #50
If they promote a policy noamnety May 2012 #59
How do you know which countries? Why not the U.S.? MH1 May 2012 #62
I think you're being disingenuous noamnety May 2012 #69
Really? Do you actually think that the US can independently sustain its population? MH1 May 2012 #73
I sure don't think that. noamnety May 2012 #82
In this case, I'll take a hidden post as a badge of honor frazzled May 2012 #61
The post you seem to be referring to, did not imply any racial component to me. MH1 May 2012 #66
The OP is a eugenicist AngryAmish May 2012 #200
I must disagree with that awful accusation you made here Zalatix May 2012 #185
One child for some, death panels for others Capt. Obvious May 2012 #48
Hey, population growth has many mothers. Igel May 2012 #70
Picture of the earth and the amount of water as spheres Ichingcarpenter May 2012 #34
Another view jberryhill May 2012 #111
I remember reading that to my daughters. randome May 2012 #115
Five Chinese Brothers jberryhill May 2012 #118
So we vomit? Ichingcarpenter May 2012 #121
It's from a children's book which has been popular for decades jberryhill May 2012 #123
Personally, I find China's policy of forced abortions and forced sterilizations horrific... cynatnite May 2012 #43
I suppose. sendero May 2012 #54
Ya - thanks Mom and Dad FreakinDJ May 2012 #57
There is a better way to achieve a very similar result nadinbrzezinski May 2012 #68
Hey you, common sense lady, scoot, get outta here! Zalatix May 2012 #104
Nothing shocks me anymore nadinbrzezinski May 2012 #107
This is the only thing that will ever work LadyHawkAZ May 2012 #114
yours is not a popular opinion, but I agree with it tnvoter May 2012 #71
Real world example of unintended results, is the 120male to 100 female ratio. CK_John May 2012 #72
The world is going to pay for over-population either way. nt MH1 May 2012 #75
An old wive's tale was that when many boys were born there was war coming. Mnemosyne May 2012 #162
Not just an old wives' tale, it's pretty much historical fact. Zalatix May 2012 #170
Thank you for that, Zalatix. I still have much to learn. I'm not an old wife, but Mnemosyne May 2012 #173
The way to do it is to increase the education, rights, and economic well-being of women worldwide, drm604 May 2012 #74
I agree with this whole heartedly. MH1 May 2012 #76
Agree that this is the answer. n/t kiranon May 2012 #92
Key: Socially responsible RobertEarl May 2012 #77
Yeah. China: Where "The War On Women" starts at conception. cherokeeprogressive May 2012 #81
Let's play Jeopardy! I'll take population dynamics for a thousand. Zalatix May 2012 #135
Here on the other hand is some Actually Educated Information on the subject FreakinDJ May 2012 #187
Youth Bulge is actually quite correct and proven. Zalatix May 2012 #188
Your assuming Gender Selection would be legal or condoned under such drastic measures FreakinDJ May 2012 #191
Even China cannot control gendercide against girls, what makes you think you can? Zalatix May 2012 #192
I agree on all points. magical thyme May 2012 #83
A socially responsible policy in this case Skelly May 2012 #84
And thank you. randome May 2012 #85
Thats is biased against men FreakinDJ May 2012 #96
No more bias Skelly May 2012 #103
A sterilization lottery? Nolimit May 2012 #106
Oh... Skelly May 2012 #109
Has anyone read the short story "The Lottery"? Quantess May 2012 #134
We're gonna need some more stones. randome May 2012 #137
YES. Because what's more liberal than involuntary sterilization? (nt) Nye Bevan May 2012 #108
Or accepting the anti-choice position for the sake of population control? Zalatix May 2012 #110
There is always SOMEONE Skelly May 2012 #112
That's not a good solution 4th law of robotics May 2012 #128
Edit. Didn't see your post downthread. Union Scribe May 2012 #161
Of course our top military and government men would be automatically exempt from the policy slackmaster May 2012 #196
Mother Nature will take care of us if we won't police our own numbers. CrispyQ May 2012 #86
Yes, yes, yes -- But does every single wild species of animal have to die first? aint_no_life_nowhere May 2012 #89
'7 Billion Miracles is Enough!' randome May 2012 #91
That's another interesting math problem: bhikkhu May 2012 #122
57 billion people. Thanks for the link. randome May 2012 #124
As a concept, yes, but its the implementation that causes problems. prefunk May 2012 #88
China holds 1.3 billion people. Rex May 2012 #93
If you see the human race as a 'herd', that may be part of your dilemma. randome May 2012 #95
No, Rex correctly sees humans being TREATED as a herd Zalatix May 2012 #100
Thank you Rex May 2012 #132
I strongly support the concept. silverweb May 2012 #94
I'm pro-choice not anti-choice but to each his/her own cabot May 2012 #101
Education, opportunity and access to birth control for women are what brings down birth rates. Marrah_G May 2012 #102
Trust women with their own fertility! Quantess May 2012 #129
Really Old Codger May 2012 #105
OR... Skelly May 2012 #113
Personal policy- maybe loyalsister May 2012 #117
I think it's awful. A more acceptable policy would be . . . 4th law of robotics May 2012 #125
i dont. i am pro-choice arely staircase May 2012 #133
Eliminating all tax deductions for spawning would be a start. Egalitarian Thug May 2012 #138
I concur!!! nt and-justice-for-all May 2012 #155
You think forced abortion is "socially responsible policy"? former9thward May 2012 #139
I wouldn't worry about it too much. roamer65 May 2012 #142
Or the Biblical Prophecies FreakinDJ May 2012 #147
I can't believe I see support for such an Authoritarian, misogynistic policy like forced abortion chrisa May 2012 #148
I don't see a need for a policy, just distribute birth control and teach people how to use it Hippo_Tron May 2012 #151
And how are you different than the anti-choice crowd? Skidmore May 2012 #152
Yeah, I find 19 kids and counting to be irresponsible and-justice-for-all May 2012 #154
How about Skelly May 2012 #160
unregulated human population growth and-justice-for-all May 2012 #214
Perhaps not Skelly May 2012 #215
It's worth a real discussion. Skip Intro May 2012 #159
thanks FreakinDJ May 2012 #164
Good post aint_no_life_nowhere May 2012 #167
Places with famine and starvation rarely have education or opportunity for women Marrah_G May 2012 #195
You can't have a one child policy..... musical_soul May 2012 #165
This is offensive Fort Minor May 2012 #168
Welcome to DU! LAGC May 2012 #172
And your answer to all that is totalitarianism? Daniel537 May 2012 #175
Don't worry - Soon you won't have a choice FreakinDJ May 2012 #176
You are offering apologia for a horrible human rights abuse. Warren DeMontague May 2012 #179
Then you're not a Democrat Ter May 2012 #180
Between Global Warming and diminishing Oil Production FreakinDJ May 2012 #182
You are not a Democrat. Your views are anti-choice. Zalatix May 2012 #184
Don't worry - your children won't have a choice FreakinDJ May 2012 #186
Post removed Post removed May 2012 #189
Except for one slight problem -- there is no 1 child policy in China. Major Hogwash May 2012 #190
Have you read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn? Son of Gob May 2012 #193
Families deciding to limit themselves to 1-2 children would be socially responsible policy slackmaster May 2012 #197
In the US we have a $1000 per child tax credit Bill McBlueState May 2012 #198
Social responsibility? How about a country that has something like 5% of the world's population and raccoon May 2012 #199
The only problem China has with that MissHoneychurch May 2012 #201
Men who can afford to will import brides from other countries slackmaster May 2012 #202
Of course, actual achievement of your vision would ultimately require these enforcement mechanisms apocalypsehow May 2012 #204
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Personally I think China'...»Reply #198