Should people be forced to have kids?

[Jebslund]

I’d rather be poor and stable then middle class and in debt

A lot of US citizens considered middle class are actually pretty close to poverty, because the "trickling down" effect praised by president Ronald Reagan proved to be more of a trickling up effect. Oops.

You say that like that wasn't the intended effect.

[Katganistan]

Yes, force people to procreate, especially if they are gay.

What?

NO!

Danes and others have low fertility it seems, these days.

So open the doors for immigration.

There must be millions of Africans and others who would love to consume butter cookies and hams.

I don’t think you understand what’s happening in Europe after taking in an already huge amount of African migrants... rape is sky rocketing, cites are looking like a post apocalyptic nightmare, no go zones have formed, crime is at a serious high, the eu is tearing itself apart over the issue and people are being attacked with ACID in the streets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden

You'll need to source that crap, and not generalize about all of Europe when quoting a section of a wiki on Sweden.

[Hurdergaryp]

A lot of US citizens considered middle class are actually pretty close to poverty, because the "trickling down" effect praised by president Ronald Reagan proved to be more of a trickling up effect. Oops.

You say that like that wasn't the intended effect.

That's sarcasm for you. That same Ronald Reagan also vigorously supported Afghan jihadists and valiant heroes of democracy and freedom such as Osama Bin Laden, therefore unintentionally paving the way for 9/11.

[Katganistan]

Sorry, most people prefer to have shelter, heat, water AND electricity all at the same time. While situations can come up unexpectedly that lead to this kind of robbing Peter to pay Paul, it's NOT optimal, and not what most people plan on or do.

So no, telling people to basically sink deeper into debt is a shitty argument. I pay my bills at the end of the month, thanks, I don't have student debt, thanks, I live within my means. That means if I can't afford steak, I eat chicken, and if I can't afford chicken, I eat ramen with an egg cracked in. I don't say, "WELL, CREDIT CARD BILL IS HUGE MIGHT AS WELL EAT LOBSTER AND FILET MIGNON TONIGHT."

And I wouldn't have ACS coming around to take the kids I can't afford to feed, shelter and clothe in a house lacking in utilities.

Your first mistake was having a credit card in the first place. No one should have one ever. People do not routinely possess them here. Now read what I said imagining I at no point assumed credit cards are a thing because that was how it was written.

Then your point is even more pathetic. Advocating living beyond your means and having no way to pay for it, advocating having children you can't afford to give the minimal basics of a stable life with the minimum requirement of proper food and shelter, having your children grow up hungry, cold, and in conditions child welfare would take them from you is not only irresponsible, it's crazy.

And yes, people should have credit cards, although I suspect you know that I was not accusing you of having one but merely making the point that people shouldn't be living beyond their means, and only latched onto that as a distraction from the point that your argument is asinine. They should pay them off at the end of the month so they don't ever accrue interest, but they should have them. Walking around with a large sum of cash to make a large purchase is asking for trouble.

[The New California Republic]

people should have credit cards, although I suspect you know that I was not accusing you of having one but merely making the point that people shouldn't be living beyond their means, and only latched onto that as a distraction from the point that your argument is asinine. They should pay them off at the end of the month so they don't ever accrue interest, but they should have them. Walking around with a large sum of cash to make a large purchase is asking for trouble.

I don't have a credit card, I have a debit card.

[Katganistan]

I am done with this thread, incidentally. I am not going to change your minds and obviously haven't been explaining myself clearly enough (even allowing for rhetorical flourishes people seem to imagine I am suggesting people live in houses that spend half the year without basic utilities which is really far from what I thought I wrote). You are, likewise, not going to change my mind.

There really is no other way to interpret, 'Have kids you can't afford to have since you already can't pay all your bills' (what an assumption) and 'you don't need to pay your bills, they'll just shut off the utilities till you pay them.' (Then of course you have a HUGE bill to pay them, because they don't shut utilities for missing one payment, AND a large penalty to get them turned back on.)

So no, we are reacting to what you wrote, and the reaction is that to end up in that situation through no fault of your own is sad, but to advocate setting out to do it because 'you can never pay them all anyway' is both fallacious and irresponsible.

It's proven that IQ tests reflect the biases of the writers of said tests, and do not take differences in culture into account. They also sometimes don't ask very good questions -- like the one which asked people to eliminate the one that did not belong: Dog, Horse, Chair, Chicken.

What do you think the correct answer was?

That is most definitely not proven. The only people who have an issue with IQ testing are left wing ideologues because the tests produce results that aren't ideologically pure or consistent with their presuppositions. And there you go dropping that "bias" word again. Sure is a favorite, huh?

So is your spouting off unsupported nonsense and distracting from the fact your statements are no more than effluvium by screeching 'left wing idealogue' and 'your use of bias means you're biased'!

Come on. Support your argument with facts. I dare you.

https://www.medicaldaily.com/iq-test-ac ... put-297244

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/scienc ... gence.html

https://www.webmd.com/brain/news/201212 ... lligence#1

http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligent.aspx

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/04/ ... ly-measure

So, whatcha got, other than opinions?

As someone with an IQ of 140, yes, the tests most certainly did show several biases of the writers. Several of the questions where you put the pictures in order of sequence were geared toward a more "traditional" mindset, and a goodly portion of the test was math, a fair bit of which wasn't taught at the level of school I was in when I was last tested, though a Japanese student, for example, would have been taught such. In fact, even the American schools I've been to at the same level had wildly different educational standards. I went to three or four different middle schools, and each one was at a completely different level in nearly every subject. A few of the logic questions, as well, relied on being from a Midwestern American culture.

Then again, most tests display some writer bias in one way or another. The way a writer thinks makes it into said writer's writing, after all.

None of that sounds like bias.

Then your understanding of what the word actually means is wanting.

[Katganistan]

people should have credit cards, although I suspect you know that I was not accusing you of having one but merely making the point that people shouldn't be living beyond their means, and only latched onto that as a distraction from the point that your argument is asinine. They should pay them off at the end of the month so they don't ever accrue interest, but they should have them. Walking around with a large sum of cash to make a large purchase is asking for trouble.

I don't have a credit card, I have a debit card.

I have both. Still not the point: one should NOT live beyond their means with the attitude, "I'll incur even more expenses because I can't manage the ones I have already." Bringing kids you know you won't be able to raise properly into that equation is neglectful at minimum.

[Datlofff]

I’d rather be poor and stable then middle class and in debt

A lot of US citizens considered middle class are actually pretty close to poverty, because the "trickling down" effect praised by president Ronald Reagan proved to be more of a trickling up effect. Oops.

There is no such thing as trickle down economics. Its a fucking straw man set up by conservative opponents that don't understand what supply side economics actually is.

[Katganistan]

Instead of using a ponzi scheme to care for the elderly forever, why not transition to have everyone pay a percentage of their income in taxes to pay for their retirement?

We do that here.

It's called Social Security. You pay part of every check to the government so that they give you what amounts to a very modest pension in old age.

The PROBLEM is that the government did stupid shit like using social security monies to support people who NEVER PAID INTO IT, and robbed the fund for other things, and now they can't even give back what people paid into it.

Then they steal the pensions people have actually paid into in their government jobs as well, and blame people for not investing. You know, in the banks that gave out subprime mortgages to people they knew would default, then the government bailed out the banks.

Then they blame the people for not planning well enough for their retirement when they money THEY ACTUALLY PAID INTO THE SYSTEM was given away.

But no. People (who were required to pay into the system and promised a small stipend in their golden years to help them stay afloat) are blamed for being fucked up the ass by the greed of politicians.

I've paid into social security since I was 16, and the likelihood is I won't see any of it.

[Datlofff]

Instead of using a ponzi scheme to care for the elderly forever, why not transition to have everyone pay a percentage of their income in taxes to pay for their retirement?

We do that here.

It's called Social Security. You pay part of every check to the government so that they give you what amounts to a very modest pension in old age.

The PROBLEM is that the government did stupid shit like using social security monies to support people who NEVER PAID INTO IT, and robbed the fund for other things, and now they can't even give back what people paid into it.

Then they steal the pensions people have actually paid into in their government jobs as well, and blame people for not investing. You know, in the banks that gave out subprime mortgages to people they knew would default, then the government bailed out the banks.

Then they blame the people for not planning well enough for their retirement when they money THEY ACTUALLY PAID INTO THE SYSTEM was given away.

But no. People (who were required to pay into the system and promised a small stipend in their golden years to help them stay afloat) are blamed for being fucked up the ass by the greed of politicians.

I've paid into social security since I was 16, and the likelihood is I won't see any of it.

Thats why you invest in your 401k, stocks, bonds, and precious metals. Doesnt change the fact that politicians fucked social security though.

[Major-Tom]

I’d rather be poor and stable then middle class and in debt

A lot of US citizens considered middle class are actually pretty close to poverty, because the "trickling down" effect praised by president Ronald Reagan proved to be more of a trickling up effect. Oops.

But, but, it'll trickle down eventually! The Fraser Institute told me so!

On a more topical note, I think the phrase I've seen a lot here is "incentivizing people to have kids?" But I'm in agreement with the people here who have noted that tax credits and small little handouts for single couples don't do shit when people in say, The US, are so buried in debt that kids are just financially unfeasible. It's quite unfortunate, but the best incentive for people to have kids would be to reform our economic system so that those considered "middle class millennials" aren't focused on working two jobs to make rent, and instead have the financial safety to consider having kids (which is ultimately beneficial for the economy).

[Katganistan]

It's proven that IQ tests reflect the biases of the writers of said tests, and do not take differences in culture into account. They also sometimes don't ask very good questions -- like the one which asked people to eliminate the one that did not belong: Dog, Horse, Chair, Chicken.

What do you think the correct answer was?

Chicken.

Aha.

The test writer assumed people would eliminate chair, because it was an object and not an animal.

But some people, as you do, chose chicken because they correctly sorted it a "not having four legs".

This is what I mean by bias. Either answer was logically correct; but people who eliminated the chicken on the basis of it not having four legs were deemed to be wrong because of the writer's failure to even consider the ambiguity of the question.

The writer was blind to their creating a question that was open-ended and not possessing a definitive answer.

[Katganistan]

It's proven that IQ tests reflect the biases of the writers of said tests, and do not take differences in culture into account. They also sometimes don't ask very good questions -- like the one which asked people to eliminate the one that did not belong: Dog, Horse, Chair, Chicken.

What do you think the correct answer was?

Chicken, it only has 2 legs instead of 4.

I rest my case.

The 'correct' answer on the test was chair, because the others are animals.

[Woodsota]

Just cut support for old age. There's going to be enough people to take care of them physically, in that we'll have enough doctors and whatever, just not financially. So just cut all financial aid - allow people above like 40 to stay on the system - and then future generations can fend for themselves. Makes sense to me. It'll hurt in the short term but the current system isn't sustainable.

[Katganistan]

And provide a big boost to the funeral industry.

You had a perfect setup for a Soylent Green - style scenario and you mess it up by mentioning the funeral industry.

I have A Modest Proposal for you....

[Katganistan]

The poor know it's too late to avoid poverty; they've nothing to lose by having kids. They probably shouldn't be having kids, but we can't stop them, except maybe by lowering the threshold for taking kids away, which would put more kids in foster care.

The solution to this in my view, is to have the state forcibly sterilize such people.

If their name is flagged as being the father or mother of 2 or more children and they're poor enough to have child support issues, it'd be within the best interests of the state to go beyond simply taking those children away (if the parents are financially incapable). The state in this instance, has to ensure that they won't have more children and cost the state more money as a result. The best means would be to "cut off" a person's ability to have more children if they've violated only having their "fair share" of children allotted.

The state should determine how high or low the acceptable limit is. An overpopulated country like China could have a 1 child policy ideally. An aging country like Japan can set the limit much higher such as 4+ children. There should be a racial component to it however, that is crucial. You don't want a bunch of Black people having more kids in a majority White nation or vice versa in a majority Black nation.

The national ethnic majority must stay in the majority. To do otherwise, is to allow the state to lose its national heritage and genetic bedrock.

Yes, well, fortunately we don't live in your police state.

By the way, I need a kidney. You have two. Government? It's not fair mine have failed and they have two. Forcibly confiscate a kidney for me, will you?

[Katganistan]

The solution to this in my view, is to have the state forcibly sterilize such people.

If their name is flagged as being the father or mother of 2 or more children and they're poor enough to have child support issues, it'd be within the best interests of the state to go beyond simply taking those children away (if the parents are financially incapable). The state in this instance, has to ensure that they won't have more children and cost the state more money as a result. The best means would be to "cut off" a person's ability to have more children if they've violated only having their "fair share" of children allotted.

The state should determine how high or low the acceptable limit is. An overpopulated country like China could have a 1 child policy ideally. An aging country like Japan can set the limit much higher such as 4+ children. There should be a racial component to it however, that is crucial. You don't want a bunch of Black people having more kids in a majority White nation or vice versa in a majority Black nation.

The national ethnic majority must stay in the majority. To do otherwise, is to allow the state to lose its national heritage and genetic bedrock.

So that's where we're at now. Forcibly sterilizing people. Applying social darwinism in the most concrete way possible. Supporting families with lots of children ? Helping the poor ? Having better healthcare ? AHAHAHAHAH no let's sterilize people instead.
Even if this was sensible it would never, ever be democratically adopted in any country with something resembling democracy.

By the way, China is currently trying to get out of the one child policy because it's seriously screwing up their demographic balance and sex-ratio.

Too many boys, not enough girls.

[Katganistan]

How aren't children a burden? You have to devote lots of time and money to them.

Doesn't mean they're a burden.

Yes, it EXACTLY means they are a burden. A joyful burden, but a burden nonetheless.
Some people enjoy and want to shoulder that burden. More power to them.
Others don't. More power to them as well.

And although I am not in any way a millennial (too old), fuck the attitude that millennials owe shit to anyone above and beyond what everyone owes society.

They don't have to justify their existence by buying shitty products because they are shamed in newspapers by the conglomerates that see them not wasting money on non-essentials like fabric softener.

They don't have to justify their choices in jobs because the newspapers think that they should just do what they're told and be loyal to companies that will lay them off in a heartbeat to make more money by squeezing more hours at less pay out of whomever didn't get cut from the workforce.

Fuck all the 'millennials killed $industry' whining. They do not owe businesses one thin dime that they don't choose to spend.

[Katganistan]

A lot of US citizens considered middle class are actually pretty close to poverty, because the "trickling down" effect praised by president Ronald Reagan proved to be more of a trickling up effect. Oops.

You say that like that wasn't the intended effect.

It was. And the same folks demographic that fell for it then....

[Katganistan]

We do that here.

It's called Social Security. You pay part of every check to the government so that they give you what amounts to a very modest pension in old age.

The PROBLEM is that the government did stupid shit like using social security monies to support people who NEVER PAID INTO IT, and robbed the fund for other things, and now they can't even give back what people paid into it.

Then they steal the pensions people have actually paid into in their government jobs as well, and blame people for not investing. You know, in the banks that gave out subprime mortgages to people they knew would default, then the government bailed out the banks.

Then they blame the people for not planning well enough for their retirement when they money THEY ACTUALLY PAID INTO THE SYSTEM was given away.

But no. People (who were required to pay into the system and promised a small stipend in their golden years to help them stay afloat) are blamed for being fucked up the ass by the greed of politicians.

I've paid into social security since I was 16, and the likelihood is I won't see any of it.

Thats why you invest in your 401k, stocks, bonds, and precious metals. Doesnt change the fact that politicians fucked social security though.

I do, but the point is they stole social security by using it on things it was never intended for, and then blame the most vulnerable people in society (the elderly) for not planning.

The point of the system was exactly to support seniors, and that they shouldn't have to worry about feeding themselves if they had no family to fall back on.

Instead, the thieves who took it blame people for not planning, when they were promised a return on their installments. They won't even get their capital back.

[Hurdergaryp]

Doesn't mean they're a burden.

Yes, it EXACTLY means they are a burden. A joyful burden, but a burden nonetheless.
Some people enjoy and want to shoulder that burden. More power to them.
Others don't. More power to them as well.

And although I am not in any way a millennial (too old), fuck the attitude that millennials owe shit to anyone above and beyond what every owes society.

They don't have to justify their existence by buying shitty products because they are shamed in newspapers by the conglomerates that see them not wasting money on non-essentials like fabric softener.

They don't have to justify their choices in jobs because the newspapers think that they should just do what they're told and be loyal to companies that will lay them off in a heartbeat to make more money by squeezing more hours at less pay out of whomever didn't get cut from the workforce.

Fuck all the 'millennials killed $industry' whining. They do not owe businesses one thin dime that they don't choose to spend.

Let it be known that I approve of this message.

[Katganistan]

And although I am not in any way a millennial (too old), fuck the attitude that millennials owe shit to anyone above and beyond what every owes society.

They don't have to justify their existence by buying shitty products because they are shamed in newspapers by the conglomerates that see them not wasting money on non-essentials like fabric softener.

They don't have to justify their choices in jobs because the newspapers think that they should just do what they're told and be loyal to companies that will lay them off in a heartbeat to make more money by squeezing more hours at less pay out of whomever didn't get cut from the workforce.

Fuck all the 'millennials killed $industry' whining. They do not owe businesses one thin dime that they don't choose to spend.

Let it be known that I approve of this message.

This GenXer is tired of seeing millenniels blamed for everything.

[Australian rePublic]

Won't make a difference when all jobs are replaced by robots

[Trumptonium1]

My answer to this question is no, however I simultaneously believe there should be a childlessness tax (income tax bracket surcharge for people without children) so as to incentivise having children, so in a way the answer is yes. The welfare system doesn't work in incentivising children, so it's off to the tax system to give it a shot.

[Genivaria]

My answer to this question is no, however I simultaneously believe there should be a childlessness tax (income tax bracket surcharge for people without children) so as to incentivise having children, so in a way the answer is yes. The welfare system doesn't work in incentivising children, so it's off to the tax system to give it a shot.

People are already incentived to have children, they WANT children, they just can't fucking afford them.
Your suggestion would just hurt poor people even more.