The main penalty for violating the one child policy was a fine calculated as a multiple of the parent's annual income (usually, enforcement varied from province to province and over the policies lifetime), so it was effectively a conception tax. It caused a lot of problems, but it's hard to argue that the one child policy didn't reduce China's population, or at the very least its population growth.
Mmm, this ain't the one, comrade. A tax paid for conception would only turn procreation to a privilege denied to the poor. Population reduction is not a good path forward, for obvious reasons.
Right, and which babies are going to have a larger carbon footprint? The ones with parents who can pay the tax or the ones with parents who cannot?
Western countries destroying the earth's ability to sustain life is a product of the western consumer economy. There's a reason that shifting the blame to individuals having kids is so popular with libs
depends how you mean. A child is pretty cheap to conceive compared to the money needed to adopt, but will cost about as much over time. Plus american birthing costs are absurdly high.
Isn't it more expensive to adopt?
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
:this:
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
It kind of did though.
The main penalty for violating the one child policy was a fine calculated as a multiple of the parent's annual income (usually, enforcement varied from province to province and over the policies lifetime), so it was effectively a conception tax. It caused a lot of problems, but it's hard to argue that the one child policy didn't reduce China's population, or at the very least its population growth.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
The Soviet Union largely did away with individual taxes.
:visible-disgust:
Can you explain why you would want to reduce the population?
Removed by mod
Mmm, this ain't the one, comrade. A tax paid for conception would only turn procreation to a privilege denied to the poor. Population reduction is not a good path forward, for obvious reasons.
Make everyone earning less than six figures exempt. An ever-expanding population means doom for the planet.
In 1965 a United Nations report predicted that the world's population would rise to 5.7 billion by 1995. It did.
Means testing? In my hexbear?
:PIGPOOPBALLS:
How bout we just don't do ecofascism.
Right, and which babies are going to have a larger carbon footprint? The ones with parents who can pay the tax or the ones with parents who cannot?
Western countries destroying the earth's ability to sustain life is a product of the western consumer economy. There's a reason that shifting the blame to individuals having kids is so popular with libs
deleted by creator
depends how you mean. A child is pretty cheap to conceive compared to the money needed to adopt, but will cost about as much over time. Plus american birthing costs are absurdly high.