With Limited World Resources, Now is the Time to Limit Population Growth
The planet is at a breaking point, us humans have been raping the planet for all its worth for decades now and mother earth is doing all she can to continue to provide for us. We’ve been abusing and polluting her for some time, pushing the limits everywhere we can. This includes industrialization, clear cutting rain forests for meat production to auto emitting toxic gases. But we’ve also been populating the planet like never before.
The 20th Century saw the biggest increase in world population, going from 1.6 billion people to over 6 billion in the course of one hundred years. It was our industrialization of farming techniques and improved medicines that has contributed to this increase in population. But are we, collectively as a planet, better off with all these increased mouths to feed? By the middle of this century the world is expected to have 9 billion inhabitants.
Earlier today, in my Environmental Planning course, I suggested we limit the number of future users in addition to looking at methods of conservation. The topic doesn’t really matter — could be energy we consume, water we drink, shelter for us to sleep in — can we handle this many more people in the world?
Frankly, I don’t think so. We are already fighting over resources now so I can only imagine in a few decades with another couple of billion people around fighting over the same amount of water, food and a place to sleep. Add in cars and other luxuries we’ve grown to think of as minimal necessities in the U.S. and it will get really ugly.
The solution? In class I jokingly asked if we can neuter people? Trust me, I’m not advocating castration — just wondering aloud about how we as a global society addresses the issue of world population. Personally, I’m gay so I know that I am not out there adding to the world’s population.
So how can we control the world’s population without invading bedrooms to check to see whom is sleeping with whom? In the U.S., one way to address the population increase is to phase out the tax deduction for kids. What kind of tax policy rewards people for having children? It is not rocket science to bring a child into the world and certainly not deduction worthy. I think we need to tax people that procreate or at least reward those of us that don’t. Too radical? Well, probably so. But what are the alternatives?
Technological advancements got us to where we are now — 6 billion strong. Increasing technology to be able to feed 9 billion, if possible, will only encourage the world to continue increase in population. Sadly I think it will take some radical shift in the world to alter this course.
This, I believe, is coming in some combination of peak oil, limited fresh water supplies and the big daddy of them all — global climate change. I believe the drought in the Southeast U.S. is part of the bigger shift in the world climate. What will happen to the 5 million in the Atlanta region that are running out of fresh water in the next few months? I say anybody from Georgia that moves into the City of St. Louis should get our best-tasting water free for a year. That should be our new marketing slogan — “St. Louis — We Have Water.” Well, assuming the global climate and states upriver don’t limit the amount of water flowing down the Mississippi River.
The big thing will be the rise in sea level to the point where literally hundreds of millions of people are flooded. Not to be overly grim here, but I see millions not surviving. I’m sure some geeks are watching the melting of the ice caps and we’ll know in advance if one is about to drop off into the ocean but how quickly can you evacuate hundreds of millions of people from coastlines all over the world? It is not going to be pretty but I do think it will be a necessity to rebalance the planet.  It will take such a catastrophe to get the world to see we cannot continue down this same path.
Finally, a full sentence from you I agree with (sorta): “It will take such a catastrophe to get the world to see we cannot continue down this same path.” Yes, it will take a catastrophe but I don’t think that it will be individuals or societies that will change in the long run — it’s impossible to limit individuals fundamental right to pro-creation. Individuals (gay and straight) want children and it’s unlikely we’ll figure out a way to inhibit those desires.
What makes me agree with your statement is that we’re going to have a great population die-off — ie, mother nature (the world) is going to impose the solution on us. Perhaps she already is.
The anti global population increase campaign can easily get mistakened with I don’t want my property taxes to pay for the education of someone else’s kids being that’s what we see at the local level. Are Americans having too many kids? I don’t think people have kids for the tax deduction but if we were on a spending based tax structure not earnings that wouldn’t exist any way. Historically the solution with overpopulation have been these things called wars. They’ve been going on for a while now. My thoughts, people should take what they want in life and pay for it. When you have people having children who can’t provide for them is a tough situation. I don’t think neutering people is necessary but neutering government spending on social/welfare items may get the desired result. That’s an ugly picture but so is over-population induced war. Is this post a pro-abortion stance in disguise? If rising ocean levels elimanate a lot of land mass blogging about the problem will be irrelevant. For Atlanta people running out of water… move (north StL has space) or don’t water your lawn, drain your pool, and get ready to pay extra for an important comidity and hold your breath for rain and no one lights a match.
Steve
That is easily one of the least educated posts you have ever put on this blog. Please do some reading into the causes of high or low birth rates. Raising taxes will actually make the problem worse.
China tried this and ended up with a lot more 20-something males than females, and now they’re figuring out how to deal with the unintended consequences . . . as in how do you produce another generation?
.
The view that we’re doomed by growth has been a belief for many generations, yet we’ve figured out ways to compensate for this growth. Still, I agree that resources are limited and if we continue to grow by a third every 40 or 50 years, it’s gotta be unsustainable. While rational answers would be the best solution, I’m afraid nature will be the ultimate arbiter, and it gonna be pretty. But given my advancing age (54) and a lack of progeny, I’m guessing I’ll be outta here before the s*!t really hits the fan . . .
Where to start with all this Big L liberal gibberish. I have been listening to this sort of thing since the middle school religion classes. Its the Chicken Little watch out the sky is falling.
One. American’s are the most productive people on God’s green earth and do more increase human capital than any other race.
Two. Many developed nations are experiencing or projected to have negative population growth. Italy, Spain, Germany.
Three. Many what were considered 2nd and 3rd world nations are experiencing dramatic declines in population growth, ie Mexico.
Our environment today is better then its been in decades if not centuries. I never understand why the environmental movement doesn’t stop and take a bow and lighten up a little. The achievements in water and air quality since 1968 are huge. How did we get there while running millions or billions more cars, light bulbs, and trips to Walmart? With human capital, engineering, and technology.
China and India are in process of lifting 2 billion people out of subsistence farming and squalor. Sure they are breaking a few eggs but with time they too will realize the need for clean water and air. While they live in oceanside condo’s in Shanghai.
Africa is in process of throwing off the last vestiges of their Marxist economies and starting to show economic growth.
There was a famous conservative economist (whose name escapes me) who bet at the height of the 1970’s Carteresk inflation $10,000 to I think Paul Erlich, the henny penny of the day. The bet was that in 10 years time a basket of commodities including oil would be cheaper then when the bet was made. Nobody would take him up on. Remember when the price of oil crashed and copper was worthless.
I’d make the same bet today with any one on this board. Brazil just announced a hugh discovery off their coast. Our congress decries the price of oil and BIGOIL yet refuses to explore in our own country.
I could go on but it gets so old debunking these Calamity Jane’s. But in all honesty the worst part of such predictions is they betray an underlying negative outlook on life. That is just not American. Stop sniffing the Liberal glue Steve, you’re smarter then that.
Finally, for any one who has children, you finally figure out why your parents put up with, paid the tuition, wiped the fannies and noses, changed diapers at 2am, when they kiss you and fall asleep in your arms at night…………………..Priceless.
Finally finally, my kids are going to be funding your retirement under that pyramid scheme developed by that great shining light to the working class FDR. What a fraud.
In terms of the debate about overpopulation, the debate normally becomes “too much of you, not enough of me.” In other words, the debate normally devolves into a racist argument the there are too many darker skinned people reproducing while not enough lighter skinned people reproducing. Nature already is limiting population growth in certain aspects. Russia is expected to experience an unprecedented population decline in the next half century. On the other hand, China and India are expected to grow enormously in the next few decades. My conclusion is that as these fast growing parts of the world achieve wealth, their fertility will decline as has happened in western Europe and the USA.
It’s hilarious to say our environment is better now than centuries ago. Oil is finite, no matter how many temporary discoveries put off the inevitable crisis.
All of the negativity is a direct result of conservative policies over the past 8 years. The country is run as a socialism program for the wealthy, that is the real problem, not social security.
While population growth may not be sustainable. Mandating population limitations is undesirable as well as impossible. My general feeling is that if there is a more equitable distribution of resources, population levels will level off, as they have in many industrialized countries.
And meanwhile, the idiot pope is telling idiot catholics to keep making kids, because each one of them is a blessing from his imaginary sky friend. “What’s that? You already have 12 starving kids and live in a cardboard shack? Have some more! How will you feed them? Don’t worry, god will provide for you! But don’t forget to keep putting 10% of your income in the collection basket, because the pope needs a new gold crown! And, well, there are those legal settlements we have to pay too….”
Wow. Bravo sir! I have LONG been saying that this idiotic “baby deduction” needs to stop. In fact, I say you should pay MORE taxes if you have children. Children are a burden on society. They cost money to educate, medicate, transport, feed, everything. why should you get a free pass when you CHOOSE to bring a child into the world?
As for Southside Tim… How are the 1950’s? why don’t you join us here in the 21st century?
“One. American’s are the most productive people on God’s green earth and do more increase human capital than any other race.” are you KIDDING me? I almost laughed out loud. And when did “American” become a race?
And finally, you all have homework – read “The Baby Boon”, and rent “Idiocracy” (so dumb, it’s brilliant, especially after seeing some of the news reports since it came out).
People generally throw the “you just need to have a better outlook” argument at people trying to bring up valid points, but now these arguments seem to not be sticking. A lot of people have been wrong about the future of the planet before, and they have been debunked for good reason, but the problems facing the planet today are different. We don’t have some lone crack pot saying the world is going to end, we have just about the entirety of the scientific community saying that something needs to be done to address the global issues of global warming, habitat destruction, resource depletion, extinction of species, pollution that is more dangerous to us than anything previous generations had (I just saw on the news that hunters are finding does with antlers…the result of pollution far more pervasive and long lasting than air pollution?). The difference today as compared to the past is that we have the technology to really study what is going on in the world. We have the internet that connects researchers all over the world, allowing them to contribute data to the ever growing models of our planet, and we have the processing power to interpret the data correctly. So when scientists come out and say they see problems I tend to listen to them instead of the lone crack pots that are telling us that everything is OK.
It is very short sighted to point out environmental successes in the developed nations while ignoring the absolute environmental meltdown that is going on in many developing nations due to the excesses of the developed world, plus the environmental threats haven’t ended in the developed world, they have just changed. So to declare that the environmental movement should just take a bow is showing a lack of understanding in the problems that we face…maybe even shows a lack of interest in trying to understand. It is good to be skeptical of what you hear, but not to the point of being blinded by it…or blinded by what you want to hear instead. I have found that many people don’t listen to the arguments being made by the scientific community because they simply don’t want to hear what they are saying; they want things to always stay as they have been promised they would stay. Many people don’t listen because they don’t even want to try to understand. I am not an expert in environmental science (and that is an understatement), but I am interested in finding out what is going on and have read enough to at least understand the arguments that scientist are making. I am not perfect in my reaction to their warnings, but I am trying to change my actions as much as I can. People just need to have a willingness to learn and a willingness to change (and realize that things aren’t always going to stay the same).
One great website devoted to studying climate change is: http://www.realclimate.org/ Check it out when you have some free time.
“Children are a burden on society” — I’ll remember that in the future when my kid is paying taxes to provide your social security and Medicare.
kids don’t pay taxes dude. working ADULTS do. and until they become a working ADULT, they are indeed a burden.
Children are our future, not burdens on society. This entry brings up a number of topics that are distinct and should be treated accordingly. The tax code is loaded with conflicting rules and 1000s of pages have been written explaining such…so much so that the code has expanded geometriaclly.
Our environment has improved in some ways due to regulations and citizens’ concerns. But overall, we, especially Americans, are wasteful, overly dependent on pollution causing autos, and have governmental laws and policies which exacerbate these lazy solutions.
Population growth will create many unforseen problems, many of which will be caused because our country has adopted tax policies to fund crop growing to feed cars, not people.
At least wait until you have kids before you declare them a burden. First, the tax deduction is $3400 or less if your income is very high. In a 25% bracket, that amounts to an $850 savings in income tax, and a net loss on each kid of several thousand dollars a year, and that’s before college or private grade school/high school. Although, you might also get the child tax credit of up to $1,000 per kid, so you only lose a couple thousand dollars.
In the US, birthrates have slowed, especially for the middle and upper middle class. If you look at the change in population for the US, the most significant increases are for older people. If you want to reduce population growth in the US, you need to work at reducing birthrates for low income people, which of course always becomes a hot button race issue. Or you could start euthanizing old people, that’s a successful campaign platform.
Steve, are you becoming a xenophobe? Time to secure the borders!
If it weren’t for immigrants, hardly any of our larger cities, especially New York City would have seen any growth and possible loss of population……..but I degress and now back to the topic at hand………
steve, i disagree with you about 95% of the time but i think you are right on with this one….we need to take a hard look at over population and tax breaks for having children never made sense to me
This may be simplistic. But, I think the population growth and taxes should be looked at from the opposite perspective.
I also don’t mean to sound discriminatory, but…
Rather than reduce the tax deductions for children, why not reduce or cut the tax money that is used to support the children of mothers who refuse to work, yet continue having children. It is known that the more the children one has, the more government checks will come in.
And the sad thing is that a LOT of mothers are getting checks and other government support for children that they have no clue where they are.
The welfare system was put into place during the depression to help people get back on their feet when the economy was out of their control. These people wanted to work, but no jobs were available.
Today we have too many people who don’t want to work and the welfare system has “enabled” multiple generations of people to not work. It’s easier (and many times more lucrative) to not work and get government support.
Quickly on the immigrant issue. I whole heartedly agree that immigrants do stabilize and re-build cities. This can be seen cycle after cycle in American history. What the problem is are the illegal immigrants who slip under the radar scope…as well as the legal immigrants who are sending millions and millions of dollars out of our American economy. I understand trying to help ones family, but it has become the accepted practice.
This practice of immigrants ending American dollars out of the US is not different than a developer coming into a neighborhood and sucking out the money from developments…then leaving and letting those who remain have to deal with the issues and challenges.
And America maybe not be a “race”, but we do have an American Culture that dates back to the 1700’s.
“Stop sniffing the Liberal glue Steve, you’re smarter then that.”
so quick to draw lines mr tim!
everyone has some valid points-
-The fact that people have been making the same claims since you where in middle school, and nothing has changes means nothing Tim. We need to think larger than 20-30 year increments. A ten year shift in the price of commodity means nothing (do you do any investing?), the price of oil in 10 years probably will be cheaper! But I’ll take that bet on a LONGER time line- any takers? I bet not.
-Environmentalists do tend to make it doom and gloom- it’s propaganda- you have to get people concerned about their well being IMMEDIATELY for them to do anything. And even then people aren’t changing. Given that, the things Environmentalists are pushing for are good, and I’ll take their annoying doom and gloom as the product is benefiting us all!
-Despite environmental problems we do have, we are taking better care of the environment better than we ever have since the dawn of the industrial age!
It’s hard to deny that-
-Population growth has been exponential, despite decreases in some countrys- despite our ability to handle the increase, if we do continue at this rate, it could cause issues in the next 1000 years. It’s hard to deny that.
-Calling a child a burden is literal at best- they are what they are and such burdens are necessary for SOMEONE, or else there would be NO ONE!
Someone made this a cultural/racial issue and I think they missed the board on that.
This is about not rewarding people for having kids (in the opposite vein that Russia will being rewarding people who do). Why should you get taxed less b/c you have a kid? Others are certainly taxed more as DINKS (Double Income No Kids). I don’t think the tax benefit is that great to a normal taxpaying parent, as the money they spend on the kid will far outweigh their small deduction.
I might be more worried about those in the poverty level who may receive extra money from the gov’t for each kid they have- that is the wrong message from the government. Though these people are hardly environmental criminals!
-Yea, social security sucks…a pyramid scheme…I don’t think that’s the right term- but it definitely depends on the greater contribution of following generations. the intention of SS is nice, but do we really want it? Is/was there really an issue with people not having a place to save and grow money? No. SS was a product of the time period, SS as a new program would never pass today. Now how would we end it?
Health care- now that’s not on every corner like your local Ed Jones guy!
So, about that bet….
“And meanwhile, the idiot pope is telling idiot catholics to keep making kids, because each one of them is a blessing from his imaginary sky friend. ‘What’s that? You already have 12 starving kids and live in a cardboard shack? Have some more! How will you feed them? Don’t worry, god will provide for you! But don’t forget to keep putting 10% of your income in the collection basket, because the pope needs a new gold crown! And, well, there are those legal settlements we have to pay too….’ ”
.
reginald! we finally share an opinion! 🙂
“kids don’t pay taxes dude. working ADULTS do.” — that’s right stl_stadtroller. And, in the future, when my kid is working and paying taxes and you are old and not working and receiving social security and Medicare, you will be the “burden” and will be happy that people are having children. That’s why society doesn’t think of either children or the elderly as burdens.
Jesus Christ, I can think of a lot of taxes and or tax credits that are irrelevant, and the child deduction is not one of them. After thinking about this post for a while, I fail to see how eliminating this specific deduction will persuade people to stop having kids at all. I can’t imagine anyone actually having kids and thinking about that huge credit they get once a year as the incentive. We have bigger issues concerning the population increase and this isn’t one of them.
On the flip side, since this is a St. Louis blog……..if and when the population does increase by the numbers predicted and if St. Louis can’t capitalize on that and greatly increase its population by making people want to live here, then we have real problems.
As long as people want to bring up religion, say mentioning the pope, I fail to see how he should take the most criticism. I guess being pro-life is worse than advocating suicide bombing market places for people doing really evil things like shopping for grocerries. I’d suggest we hope for a lot of christians in next several decades. When you get into double digits kids, that is pretty irresponsible though. For catholics being “idiots”… I’m assuming you don’t go to St. John’s, St. Mary’s, or St. Louis U’s medical facilities? God forbid you let those idiots save your life.
“American’s are the most productive people on God’s green earth and do more increase human capital than any other race.”
We do a lot to increase human capital? Then why is education in Missouri so poor? Why do we have an urban underclass absent of any opportunity of upward mobility? It is because we are busy issuing TIF’s for Walgreen’s instead of investing in our human capital.
“Rather than reduce the tax deductions for children, why not reduce or cut the tax money that is used to support the children of mothers who refuse to work, yet continue having children.”
What government program provides an incentive for the unemployment and procreation? TANF requires work. Perhaps you should turn off Fox News an read more about welfare.
The idea that we’re ‘pushing the limits’ of human population on earth is ludicrous.
For example:
US Census Bureau Puts the World Pop at about 6602224175. Every single man, woman, and child on earth could live in an area the size of Texas (261,797 sq. mi.) and our population density would be about 22,218 / sq. mi., or less than half of the population density of Manhattan (66,940/sq. mi.), where people seem to be living quite comfortably.
We have barely scratched the surface of what the planet has to offer in terms of arable land (and more important, efficient use of it) and resources (sans maybe oil), the key is that we’re doing a lousy job of using it, and that needs to change before any silly ideas of directly controlling the population. As incentives toward desalinization and higher crop yields (as examples) rise (in the form of rising prices most likely), those necessities will become better and more available; it’s only a matter of time and good governance.
As people’s educations and incomes rise (which is a policy end anyway), the amount of children they have reliably drops. UN Studies suggest that Global population will probably level off at between 10-12 Billion, although predicting that far in the future is admittedly subject to huge margins of error.
As for rising sea levels, while global warming is a serious threat, it’s not like we’re talking about tidal waves here. Satellite imagery suggests sea levels are rising at 3.1 ± 0.7 mm yr (vertically). Even at 1000 times that level it would just be a matter of gradual relocation over decades, not ‘evacuation’ of hundreds of millions.
I’m all for smart incentives to modify behavior, but you’re succumbing to a major case of doom and gloom misinformation. (All my numbers are from either US Census, UN, or Wiki)
‘M’ brought up a great point! On this blog we all agree that we would like to see an increase in the St. Louis population! While all of us on this site agree on some things and disagree on others, I sincerely hope we can keep things civil. PLEASE no more calling people idiots because of their religion or overall political party affiliation. Let’s think about what this issue means to St. Louis and the region in general.
Population increase is directly related to war (see post-World War II baby boom) – I guess because people like to screw after coming home from war. These increases cause an exponential increase in population through the generations that follow. It’s simple: stop the wars –> slow down the screwing –> decrease the birth rate. Of course, the flip side is that the casualties of war tend to decrease a population, but not exponentially.
It is wrong to assume that because one has heard anecdotal evidence of poor women abusing the welfare system in some get rich sceme that it is happening in significant cases. The fact is that most women on AFDC are caucasian and only are receiving benefits for a short amount of time. Liberal President, Bill Clinton, ended the federal entitlement to welfare assistance in 1996. Just an aside to the person who complained about all those rich welfare moms working the system.
Steve, I’m too busy chasing my 3 kids to respond in greater depth, but this could be one of your blog entries that will come back to haunt you if you ever run for alderman again. I laugh with the DINKs complain about their tax woes because they have no child deduction. I pay $2000 per month on day care and school tuition. The DINKS blow the same money on televisions, fancy cars, travel and ugly houses. I would argue DINKs and the like are greater environmental liabilities.
Chris,
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Plato
I fail to see why we want to encourage immigration to St Louis, presumably from lessor development nations so they can become Americans using infinitely more of our limited resources!
Modern immigration is a lot different then the huddled masses of old. The modern legal immigrant quickly learns the ropes of our welfare system and then proceeds to bring the parents over who tap the beloved social safety net a little more.
The illegal presently constitutes about 25% of the much bandied about 45 million without health insurance.
If social security doesn’t fit the definition for of a pyramid scheme what does? If FDR tried to sell it today he would be indicted by the SEC for selling fraudulent securities.
Best regards from 1950!
Hey good news everybody. I just got by 2007 Geo W calendar. October has a great picture of VP Chaney.
strike that , 2008.
The St. Louis region being a low-growth region, while more progressive-thinking regions are generally where people are moving, I’d counter that growth is good. With growth comes greater call to action, an influx of new ideas, and more quickly visible results.
In a low-growth place like St. Louis, it’s just talk, because without growth, there is no urgency. And it’s always the same talk, because it’s always the same folks talking in a visibly unchanged setting.
With respect to the relevance of your opinion on world population and aldermanic aspirations: the tone of your entry would makes me think you don’t deem children important. For instance, you used the phrases “not deduction worthy” and “doesn’t take rocket science.” Pretty offensive when I think of how hard I work to raise children that will be productive citizens of the city of St. Louis.
I think the 6th ward parents would question your commitment to the children in the ward. Obviously, you wouldn’t be able to add procreation tax onto water bills but you should be a little more cognizant of the fact this city needs as many kids and their families as it can get.
Not to “offend” people here but I thought there was something in the bible about going out to all parts of the world to multiply.
As the standard of living in a country rises….the birth rate falls. This has been seen time, and time, and time, and time, and time again throughout history. Japan, one of the world’s most fully developed nations, actually has a declining birth rate now.
Modern American families are having less children and waiting longer to have those that they do have.
A majority of the world’s population growth comes from poor, destitute, underdeveloped nations.
Worried about the world’s population? Don’t worry about our (best utilized by the poor and middle class) tax deductions, worry about how we can use trade and globalization to help the underdeveloped grow their standards of living. Watch birthrates fall once families don’t need to crank out kids as a way to up their wage-earning workforce.
Steve, you’ve certainly stimulated a lot of interesting dialogue, pretty much hitting all the truths and myths about population growth, it’s benefits, causes, effects and future. No room to address them all here, but I’ve been studying them for a few years for my documentary, Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity.
It’s true most nations experience a decline in rate of population growth as they develop, but the amount of decline varies widely. It’s also true that nations experiencing a population decline are now offering “baby bonuses” due to fear of declining GDP. Japan, Russia, Germany and I believe Korea are on this list. There are more, I have a hard time keeping my list current. We should be very worried about this.
And if we’re lucky enough to reverse this alarming trend toward govt.s encouraging higher fertility rates, we still have to deal with the HUGE impact of all these populations adopting modern, affluent lifestyles which have gigantic ecological footprints.
Our current model of growth-based prosperity has only been in operation for a tiny blip of man’s history. I would not recommend clinging to it just because it appears to be working so well in the short run. Especially in the face of current evidence – fisheries declining, global warming, deforestation, productive topsoil diminishing rapidly. I think the growth paradigm worked as long as human beings haden’t completely overrun the place. We exported our ecological footprint. Now there are enough of us that there is no longer an “away” to throw things. The pollution from Chinese factories producing products for us now blows into our airspace.
Thanks for the dialogue.
Dave Gardner
Producer/Director
Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity
http://www.growthbusters.com
Not surprisingly, this post took the three paths I expected, with those in opposition questioning both the inherent assumptions and the “need” to reduce or eliminate tax credits for producing offspring, as well as the assumption that the government needs to do something (or not). We likely won’t be able to prove that the earth is dying (or not) or is becoming unsustainably overpopulated (or not) in our lifetimes. Future generations’ 20/20 hindsight will have to serve, while we’ll only be able to document the subtle changes that are now occurring. The tax component just illustrates how everyone can justify why a tax (or credit) that benefits them directly is a good thing, even if it’s applied unfairly. The real question is how much we should rely on the government to “solve” the “problem” versus taking individual initiative.
.
I personally embraced ZPG in high school. I’m happily heterosexual, yet I have no kids (that I know of). It’s a personal choice. And while I believe that the world would be better off if we slowed our population growth, having the government set limits would be a terrible idea. Between not liking being told what to do “by the man” and his or her snooping into my life to make sure that I “comply”, you have a situtation that’s the antithesis of personal freedom. Taxes can be used to shape personal decisons, but they’re rarely all that effective. Higher taxes on gasoline and cigarettes have had some impact, yet consumption of both remain strong. I would support eliminating tax credits for kids if and only if it was done as part of a much larger effort to streamline our taxation system and to come closer to equity for all.
.
And to add a little fuel to the fire, can anyone explain why giving a tax credit for children is a good idea when you’re raising taxes partially to fund public schools? People without kids (and receiving no direct benefit) are expected to pay more than people with kids (who ARE receiving a direct benefit)?! As Mr. Spock (not Dr. Spock) might say, it’s illogical! At least with gas and cigarette taxes, the more you consume, the more you pay . . .
Unfair government-tax policies are not uncommon and, as you state, many of these policies are the “antithesis of personal freedom”. Government (federal, state, local) have found it convenient to divide and conquer using a growing array of intrusive policies and laws. The StL region is a perfect case study on how such policies impact communities’ abilities to build livable and prosperous environments while simultaneously allowing elected leaders to avoid accountablility.
“I’d suggest we hope for a lot of christians in next several decades.”
.
or we could just hope for reasonable, compassionate people. no religion required.
.
“For catholics being “idiotsâ€â€¦ I’m assuming you don’t go to St. John’s, St. Mary’s, or St. Louis U’s medical facilities? God forbid you let those idiots save your life.”
.
um…there is no catholic requirement to work at any of those hospitals, and many of their employees are not catholic. by the way i do not agree that all catholics are idiots.
‘Not to “offend†people here but I thought there was something in the bible about going out to all parts of the world to multiply.’
.
it’s a good thing intelligent people don’t take the bible literally.
Wow, Steve, I thought you were smarter than the usual mean-spirited, solipsistic anti-kid whiners.
Every other government in the “First World” does more financially to help families raise kids than the U.S. does, particularly urbanist utopias like Sweden, the Netherlands and Canada. Doesn’t seem to hurt their societies too much. And you’re complaining about a few hundred bucks in taxes here and there – dollars that actually make a huge difference for poor and working-class people? And instead, you want to “reward those of us that don’t” have kids? Wow.
Oh, and you can bet that if you run for alderman, every voter in your ward will get a postcard or two with your comments in big bold letters: “SCREW THE CHILDREN AND THEIR PARENTS TOO, SAYS PATTERSON.”
ZPG is a sham solution to a non-existent problem. Development and prosperity are the only things that have ever lowered birth rates (the only things short of dictatorship, anyway).
However you feel about kids now, remember: you were a kid once yourself. If it weren’t for your breeder parents, I wouldn’t be commenting on this blog right now. Should they be punished for giving birth to you?
^Haven’t they been punished enough already? 🙂
I want to stand up for Steve here. First of all, he just posed this as a question. He is asking a legitimate question to stimulate dialogue about what prudent public policy might be. It could very well be that the deductions/tax credits/welfare connected to children are enough to influence family planning decisions of those near or below the poverty level. Sadly, over the long haul they probably don’t come out ahead financially on a decision that may indeed be made because of, or influenced by, these baby subsidies. How kind is it to entice them with a short-term bonus into something that may cost them more and they may not be that interested in doing (plenty of evidence that this occurs, though not always)? Something that probably ensures they will remain impoverished?
And would these so-called baby-defenders have us continue with the baby bonuses only to then one day have to institute mandatory limits on family size when it’s finally apparent even to greedy capitalists 😉 that our world is crumbling under the weight of too many people? Wouldn’t it be kinder, more fair, and more free, to just end the subsidies and begin to educate people about the impacts of continued population expansion?
Let me just ask the baby-bonus promoters this: Do you think you can graze an unlimited number of cattle on a 35-acre ranchette? What makes you think the Earth is any different?
Dave Gardner
Producer/Director/Writer
Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity
http://www.growthbusters.com
I know of very few people who “do the math” before they “make a baby”, especially what the long-term tax impacts may or may not be. Most parents have children simply because they want to, because it’s the accepted and expected thing to do, beacuse it’s encouraged by religion and/or parents and/or because it’s an intended or unintended consequence of a very pleasureable adult adventure (and for a minority, because birth control and/or abortion is not an option for personal or religious reasons). Sure, the tax breaks are benefits aimed at the majority of voters who are parents, grandparents or potential parents – politicians pander to those constituencies that will garner them the most votes. That doesn’t make them inherently “fair”, even though many arguments are made about the need to “support” families. There are many, many governmental policies that favor heterosexual families over singles and gays, everything from the provision of free public education to tax credits and deductions to legal benfits that are available only to heterosexual couples to funding for parks and recreational facilities used extensively or exclusively by children.
.
This is a clear-cut, albeit minor, case of tyrany by the majority. If it were the only area where our taxation systems are applied in an inequitable manner, I’d be much more motivated to try and change things. The reality is that each of us benefits from tax breaks and enhanced services that others don’t receive. You’re a developer? Get a TIF. Live in the city? Get your trash picked up for “free”. Drive a car? Get “free” streets and parking. Ride public transit? Have most of the cost of your trip subsidzed. Over 65? Grab your Social Security and Medicare. Live in Clayton or U. City? Get exclusive access to rec. centers partially funded by sales taxes paid by non-residents. The reality is simple – if it’s a government benefit you use, the tax is a “good” one, if not, it’s “questionable”. The other reality, as I alluded to at the start, is that messing with the tax system, while needed for many other reasons, will have no or very, very, very little impact on anyone’s or any couple’s decision to have a child, or not. It will be the escalating costs of providing for them on a daily basis (driven by increasing costs for production and distribution) combined with accelerating environmental collapse – famine and disaster has a brutal way of dealing with overpopulation and limited resources . . .
Weird post.
I don’t have a real desire for kids, but the post and this comment in the feedback are bizarre:
“Wow. Bravo sir! I have LONG been saying that this idiotic “baby deduction†needs to stop. In fact, I say you should pay MORE taxes if you have children. Children are a burden on society. They cost money to educate, medicate, transport, feed, everything. why should you get a free pass when you CHOOSE to bring a child into the world?”
In this scenario, considering the median income of America, what are you going to do with all the people that have kids and no longer get some tax relief to aid in their expenses? Would you prefer to have more people on welfare instead?
Jim, you probably DO know of very few people who have kids based on govt. giveaways associated with them. I doubt you run in those circles. But for people living on the edge, they may in fact do the math on those giveaways yet fail to do the math of the expense over the long haul. Plus, these are folks aren’t exactly planning on private school, piano lessons, Outward Bound and college for their kids. They probably feed each kid a $1.00 burrito from Taco Bell every night and they are living day to day. So excuse some of us if we don’t buy your supposition.
Plus, the results of baby bonuses in Germany and Russia tend to disprove your theory. People seem to be doing THAT math!
You are certainly right about all the various special interests who benefit from one giveaway or another. While some posters may just be griping about where their tax money goes, I’m thinking most of here are ruminating about what would be wise public policy. I wouldn’t rule out eliminating every fertility subsidy. Nothing against kids. I love them. I love mine, but I had the decency to stop at 2. I’d like everyone to at least understand the irresponsibility of having more than two children.
Bill, first of all, I’m afraid part of the welfare system is part of the problem (baby bonus). But I also submit that your concern is short-term thinking. We just might have to deal with some short-term problems in order to do the right thing over the long-haul. It may take a few years for the full impact of such policy changes to ripple through society.
Dave Gardner
Producer/Director
Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity
http://www.growthbusters.com
Wow, Steve. This is way off the deep end. I can’t even begin to support population controls. Others have already weighed in with good responses so I’ll defer to them since I’m knocked out with flu.
“…Nothing against kids. I love them. I love mine, but I had the decency to stop at 2. I’d like everyone to at least understand the irresponsibility of having more than two children.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t we need to average somewhat more than one child per person to simply maintain a stable population? Some children and young adults will pass away of various causes before having children themselves. Or are you suggesting that we should promote public policy to reduce the population?
“Bill, first of all, I’m afraid part of the welfare system is part of the problem (baby bonus). But I also submit that your concern is short-term thinking. We just might have to deal with some short-term problems in order to do the right thing over the long-haul. It may take a few years for the full impact of such policy changes to ripple through society.”
I get that you have adopted the term “baby bonus” as a quick and easy catchphrase, but this sort of soundbite politics is misleading and destructive in the same way that “death tax” is a dumbing-down of a very complex issue. Using the term “baby bonus” to discuss the welfare formula misrepresents and confuses an equally (if not more) complex situation.
Your diatribes against welfare “baby bonuses” neglect two important facets:
(1) A child born into a poor family is still a human being and still needs to have its needs met – it didn’t choose to be born into poverty.
(2) The decision to have a child (or keep a child when the pregnancy was unplanned) is not a solely economic decision. I submit that is rarely an economic decision.
We, as a society, have collectively determined that it isn’t all right for children in America to starve or freeze to death. Since a baby can’t feed, clothe, or house itself, we can’t provide direct assistance to the infant. The next best solution is to provide assistance to the primary caregiver.
Perhaps you have a more nuanced solution than eliminating children from the welfare formula. If you do, you would come of as less of a nutcase if you abandoned the “baby bonus” term and figured out a way to discuss the topic in an intelligent manner.
Your Ann Coulter rhetoric like “They probably feed each kid a $1.00 burrito from Taco Bell every night and they are living day to day” is quite unbecoming. I know plenty of middle class families whose kids subsist on a McDonald’s, ramen, and Coke diet. While we make a hearty attempt to feed our kids veggies and shredded wheat, they also eat more than their fair share of Kraft dinner. Your moral high ground isn’t as high as you think it is.
If the movie you are obviously promoting uses this type of logic, I’ll use the money I might have spent on tickets to eat at Taco Bell with my kids. One dollar burritos all around. Ole!
a similar perspective: http://www.frostywooldridge.com/overpop/overpop.html