Should we put a tax on having babies instead of giving a tax deduction because of its carbon footprint?

Question

The more people that we have, the more CO2 we will produce. Isn't the best way to reduce the carbon footprint of our nation, is to reduce the population?

Answer 1

no, infact for married cuples having a baby should be free unless there are complications. to put a tax on bringing life into the world would be like taxing god. the process of birth is not something humans made it shouldn't cost money

Answer 2

I agree with Curtis.  It is best to start with yourself.  I am sure that the human hating left would love nothing better.  Leftists always exempt themselves from their proposals just as they are always generous with other people's money.

Out of curiosity, I checked Tuba's post that suggested JS had a good response.  Typically, it was full of misinformation.  Ethanol is not a solution to peak oil.  Peak oil is something that has been predicted by the chicken littles of the world since the 1880s.  As a geologist, I get a little tired of what passes for science by some.

Answer 3

What ever happens here on earth , I see us ( humans) populating another planet ,and destroying that ..............so what the h**l.

Answer 4

No.  So you want to punish someone for having children?  That's essentially what you're saying.  If I want a family, I'm going have to pay a tax to fund some ineffective liberal project that only serves to create more government digging it's already greedy hands into my already thinning pockets?  Wow, brilliant.  I'll tell you what.  When you and the rest of the idiots on this global warming bandwagon actually figure out that CO2 isn't a pollutant and it's just something government is hopping onto only because they know they can tax you more, your eyes will be open.  You will no longer insist you have any right whatsoever to tell my I can have a family, or how big I can have it.  Communist China this is not my blind friend.

Answer 5

A tax on having babies would not work,how would you tax the couples on benefits who keep churning out kids?

Answer 6

If it's population control we're after, many of us would much rather opt for war.  The rest can simply choose to fight back or not.  Makes no difference to me.  I'll not pay a fertility tax, nor will I allow anyone to dictate my ability to procreate.

I am, however, all for picking up the tab for any and all 18-22 year olds willing to surgically render themselves permanently sterile.  If anyone feels this strongly about the world population, be my guest to send the bill my way....though I'm sure the conviction is directed at limiting others, not themselves.

Answer 7

JS gives an absolutely superb response to the population issue on this question.

Answer 8

Al Gore wants to reduce the population.  We could grow more plants they breathe C02.  We could all get rid of our cars, shut the factories down and let a few elite people like Al Gore run things and let him live in a mansion.

Answer 9

Sounds like a great idea.   I can't afford to have a kid of my own because I'm too busy paying other people to have them.   Then I have to pay for their health care and schooling all the way through college.   If they join the military I have to pay for their healthcare for the next 60 years after they get a leg removed by a roadside bomb.   The co2 thing doesn't even enter into my opinion.

Answer 10

yo

Answer 11

there certainly should not be a financial benefit except maybe for the first one per woman. i am paying for other people to have too many kids and i resent it.

Answer 12

Yeah, start with yourself, and you liberals complain about Bush violating your civil rights, and here you go trying to play god, and deciding who should live or not.

Answer 13

Socialists make me want to puke.

Answer 14

1st ya wanna smack a baby on it's butt thaen you want it to pay taxes? What planet are you from?

Answer 15

Yes, birth control is among the response options that come at the least global cost:

"Having a billion fewer people by 2050 to reduce carbon emissions would cost 1,000 times less than all the other options"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jh...

There are other highly positive benefits.  Consider China, until recently one of the poorest countries in the world, with the largest population, but for a few decades they went in the opposite direction and provided financial incentives for families to have only one child.  What happened?  Each generation has roughly twice the resources and twice the wealth.  Their economy is now growing at over 10% per year, and real estate in Beijing is comparable to the most expensive in the world.  Not bad considering that Beijing was dominated by those clunky black bicycles only 30 years ago (my other took a 3 week, 200 mile bicycle trip on one at that time).  Families are perfectly able to have two children, they simply ahve to pay for the privelege, and given the current economic boom, there's now a baby boom in China.

What if you and your spouse inherited the total combined assets of your 4 parents?  In one generation our net worth per person would roughly double, and our global warming impact would halve from 25% to 12% of world emissions.  In two generations net worth would roughly 4X, and our emissions would be down to 6% (of current levels, but world emissions are rising, so we'll be closer to 3-4% of actual emissions of the rest of the world were to continue to rise at curernt rates).  Sure, I simplify a bit in assuming that net worth is due to property, not income (Americans do currently spend 100% of their incomes), but you get the picture.

It won't do much good globally however while people in developing countries averaging 7 babies apiece:

http://www.oilcrisis.com/laherrere/Evora...

And while the populations in those countries contribute a tremendous percentage to global warming through black soot pollution (on top of their high CO2 emission growth):

Black carbon pollution emerges as major player in global warming - PhysOrg

http://www.physorg.com/news125500721.htm...

"Black carbon, a form of particulate air pollution most often produced from biomass burning, cooking with solid fuels and diesel exhaust, has a warming effect in the atmosphere three to four times greater than prevailing estimates, according to scientists in an upcoming review article in the journal Nature Geoscience."

"Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego atmospheric scientist V. Ramanathan and University of Iowa chemical engineer Greg Carmichael, said that soot and other forms of black carbon could have as much as 60 percent of the current global warming effect of carbon dioxide, more than that of any greenhouse gas besides CO2."

Global climate change is truly a global issue, requiring a global solution (not the U.N.'s current finger-pointing and one-sided proposals).

The U.S. however doesn't have a birth rate issue, it is only adding population though immigration.  That flow fo 1 million per year upgrades people to a higher level fo global impact, and the rest of us will pay the full price to mitigate the impact of those low wage earners.  In other words, our immigration policy will wipe out our conservation efforts and cost us dearly financially.  

Here's in interesting demonstration illustrating the coming population impact of immigration on America:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuO...

Far more people, far more cars, far worse road congestion and worse commutes.  We'll need new roads, thousands of new schools, utilities (coal power plants), etc.  Who is going to pay for all that infrastructure?  Existing residents.  Prepare for additional taxes to fund it all.  It's an insane collection of projects to undertake in the current economy, with peak oil and global warming both poised to dramatically increase costs for even basics such as food.

So we'd be wise to sharply decrease immigration (stop giving U.S. jobs lost to cheaper workers on H1-B visas as well.  I lost my job to imported labor... a high paying white collar position in the high tech industry).  

Don't tax U.S. births, but don't reward them beyond the first 2 with tax breaks either (McCain wants to increase the tax exemption for each dependent child from $3,500 to $7,000... is he completely nuts?)  Stop funding the mass production of welfare babies.  

Then we should fund education and birth control in developing countries, and we can save the impact of the 80 million people added to the planet per year.  If we have trouble mitigating the impact of today's 6.5 billion, how will we stem the flow of CO2 and soot from (let alone feed) the 9.5 billion forecasted by 2050?  Clearly population control is critical.  We'll either plan for a sane approach, or resource conflict wars will do the job for us.  The Pentagon believes that Darfur is the shape of things to come.  It doesn't have to be that way if we get a clue.

Edit - Thanks Tuba!

evans_michael_ya -  

And wars are free, right?  At least less costly than a moderate restructuring of child subsidies perhaps?  Did you know that in the U.S. income tax did not exist until 1913?  Half of your income tax now goes to the Department of Defense.  How much does that cost you per year?  What has your massive annual investment done for your security (for example, given that Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda terrorist attacks are in direct response to Bush Sr.'s first Gulf War)?  

How has the Gulf War and its effect on the massive federal deficit affected exchange rates (and the cost of all goods)?  The dollar went from being worthe more than a Euro to being worth far less.  In asingle presidential administration!  How much of the increase in the price of oil is due to the decreased value of the dollar?  30%?  40%?  In rough terms, about a buck per gallon of the rise from $1.78/gal. when Bush took office.  So which should we rail against, a tiny reduction in birth subsidies, or the massive, life-changing effects of our massive investment in a global domination spree?  

We funded Saddam Hussein's coup to take power, look what that cost us.  We provided the ground to air missiles that the Taliban was shooting back at us in Afghanistan.  Are we simply incapable of learning lessons from the past?

Answer 16

Um, no!  This is the US not communist China.  I can't wait untill this global warming or climate change or whatever the tree-huggers are calling it these days, is finally found out to be the load of garbage that it is.  I give it 10 more years and we'll be talking about global cooling again, just like the 70's.