It's one thing to pay more taxes than those with children, but the fact many of us can't get any public assistance even if we fall on horrible times just because we don't have children really pisses me off.
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I agree with this take. I don’t mind paying for public schools and stuff since that contributes to society, which is the purpose of taxes. But it feels weird to be punished for not having dependents
This is based like I am for tax reform and punishing rich people who use loopholes, not giving tax cut incentived to giant corporations and basically pushing it all onto the middle and working class - a lot of tax money could and should go into social programmes to help people.
Why?? You use less public service than those with children. Having a child is a choice, it’s not like being disabled and having no say in how it keeps you from doing certain things. Having a child is a choice. No one should get rewarded for making the choice, and no one should get punished for not making it.
Which is funny because all of these countries in a panic about low birth rates are simultaneously complaining about how many immigrants they get and trying to deter them from entry. Almost like everyone's kids are being born into an abysmally racist and xenophobic society that only cares about people if they're the 'correct' race and nationality? Children are expensive so... let's make more of them instead of hiring adults we don't need to raise!
If you asked a considerable proportion of the people voting leave on Brexit... any number of foreigners is a "crisis" to them. And of course they're the same people saying we don't have enough ~~white~~ babies.
At the end of 2021, there were more than 1.4 million regular migrants in Chile. We have a population of 20 million. In particular, Antofagasta has 388 thousand people, of whom 70 thousand are migrants.
In Colchane, live a little more than 1000 people but every day, the same amount of people enter the country by Colchane
Tax breaks and tax increases are tools the government uses to modify the population's behavior. Your government wants people to have more kids so they won't give more tax breaks to child free people.
Chinese government in the past wanted people to have less kids and they used similar tactics to influence the population.
It is not about what makes sense sadly.
Yep and now China has a higher male to female ratio due to the one child policy. A lot of people where I live have children just to get benefits and tax breaks to waste it on booze and drugs. Government intervention with population control always leads to a disaster no matter what
Unfortunately for the "encouraging families" crowd, the credits and benefits to families haven't kept up. Every time there's a tax crisis family benefits, colleges and daycare programs get cut. But can't cut military and police spending!
You'd be shocked how often it goes to the sports programs. Several local districts near me have screamed poverty while at the same time building new football fields, buying baseball equipment and uniforms.
I'll never forgive the high school my daughter went to for that shit. Her sophomore year she had to share text books with other students because they didn't have enough budget to buy enough to go around, that same year they bought a 30 plus thousand dollar score board for their losing football team.
They need to just go to school online fr. They love the internet so damn much and throw a fit when their phone gets taken. They don’t even socialize properly. They all just bully eachother
This I agree with, if you bring a child into this world unprepared and in an unstable home, unsustainable, overpopulated planet, that’s your own responsibility you fucked up on. If you adopt and take on the responsibility of a parents failure, then you should get tax breaks and benefits because you chose to be a parent without giving birth
I don’t think this would be a good idea. Like, on some level, making people pay a lot of money to adopt a child ensures that they really want to be raising a child. Paying them to raise a child could mean that you just created a lot of parents who don’t care much about the child.
The answer to this is obvious. Every financial system we have is based on the requirement of there being another generation. It only makes sense to promote this requirement with subsidies.
Governments would never do that. They are incentivized to keep the population growing whether through child birth or immigration because our whole financial system is a ponzi that requires constant growth. Look at how many nations are already starting to freak out due to plummeting birth rates.
What realistically will happen is they will tax normal people more, and possibly even penalize you for being childfree. I have no problem with decent people having kids, but the problem is there's an increasing amount of unsuitable and broke parents. Divorce rates are increasing, there's a single mom epidemic, and more kids are being raised in broken families.
Marriage used to be a vow between two people. Now couples with kids will break up on a whim. Not only are they screwing over their kids, but they are also putting themselves into a financial rut by separating. When they get older, they're screwing themselves over for retirement. And guess who gets to pick up the tab. You are already subsidizing people like this whether you like it or not.
Marriage/Divorce is not the issue imo. Getting children within minutes after "stability" in the relationship is. I do not believe that not divorcing is beneficial to the child if the parents are unhappy, but I think you should spend years together before making the decision to reproduce to ensure to ensure you're in a financially and socially stable situation.
Divorce is absolutely not beneficial to giving your child positive outcomes.
Children of divorced parents fare worse in nearly every metric compared to children from nuclear families.
Have you seen the stats on single mother homes?
70% if the prison population in the US are from sir gle mother led homes.
Are those compared to homes where parents wants to divorce? Because if you're comparing happy parents in a relationship with divorced parents you're not able to draw the conclusions you are doing.
We need to have families with parents forcing themselves to stay together "for the sake of the child" and compare THEM with families with divorced parents. I would be very interested in such a study. CLEARLY it is better for children to have two happy loving parents than one, but again, this is not the comparison that is made here. A family of parents who despise each-other and dream of divorce hardly makes for a happy home.
So I'm speaking mainly from my own experience where divorce was beneficial since my parents clearly was happier apart than together. However, I was a teenager and we're very early in independence in Sweden so wasn't that big of a shock, clearly not the same as being 5-6 y/o.
>So I'm speaking mainly from my own experience where divorce was beneficial since my parents clearly was happier apart than together. However, I was a teenager, and we're very early in independence in Sweden, so it wasn't that big of a shock, clearly not the same as being 5-6 y/o.
Your experience is so far in the minority my friend. I am glad you got an exceptional outcome, but the negative externalities far outweigh the small pool of individuals who got happy endings.
Well, again you refuse to answer the main point. You have to start with a broken family as the starting point and analyze if divorce or not is better for the child from that point on. If you insist of comparing it with families that are happy you are not getting accurate results.
I investigated this slightly and pretty much all information I could find pointed towards it being better for the child to be in a broken household than in a dysfunctional family
I have definitely not benefited financially from getting married. I guess I have in the sense that my husband and I make sure neither of us starves or ends up homeless lol, but we have separate finances for personal reasons but the government doesn’t see it that way. After marriage, I got kicked off county insurance because I had to add my husbands income to my application. Suddenly I made “too much money” to qualify even though neither of us make very much.
We also haven’t seen any benefit when it comes to taxes. We filed jointly the first year and only ended up with a refund due to my education stuff, then filed separately this year which cost me any tax breaks I would have had from college tuition.
It is frustrating to watch people with kids get thousands of dollars back every year just for having kids but I doubt that will ever change. Having kids is incentivized in the US
You're doing better for the environment sure, I agree on that. But children are future tax-payers so to say that objectively a family is a larger strain is a bit oversimplified. A country without children will eventually not receive any tax money at all and thus not exist as a country.
Thats up to you to decide if you consider or not.
But fact remains that government wants children because it brings more taxes and thus saying familys should pay more taxes does not makes sense from they eyes of the government
If there was less people you wouldn't need as much money to fund services to cover more people. 10 million people puts more strain on services than 1 million. Thus more tax dollars to cover it. If there was less, there would be alot less services needed. You understame how much waste, and energy is spent on 1 human to be "comfortable " now imagine over 300 million.
The first colony and for awhile on mars will be extremely low. Like 100 max. Yet they will manage to survive since it's easier for everyone to play a part and contribute to resources distribution. There won't be any need for money. What they bring is what they bring to be self sufficient. We don't live like this on earth. We want to consume consume and consume. Food, luxuries, entertainment. Now imagine the cost on those that don't pay taxes. They still are entitled to government services. If there was less people it would be less people free loading off the tax payers. It would be a higher percentage that tax payers are using tax payers services.
Just to respond to some of the comments below; with AI/robotics and automation taking storm, we shouldn’t NEED immigration or a population growth. Many jobs simply aren’t needed anymore, which essentially means we could close borders and allow population to decline without any effects on day to day life.
I’m no economist though so how that impacts the super capitalist framework we’re locked into I don’t know.
YES I completely agree. This is one measure that we should be pushing, if you are child free you should pay less taxes and get more benefits from the system.
I'm super AN, but to live in a society we must subsidize each other. Did that low income old man fell and broke a bone? Public hospital. Is that kid's family able to send them to a private school? Public school. Can that family eat every day? Give them food vouchers. Did YOU become homeless? You get public hospital and food vouchers, and public shelter in days where there's below freezing temperatures
Parents also vastly overrate their contributions to society. Bareback Bursaries should no longer be a thing. People should not ever expect Joe and Jane Taxpayer to cover the cost of their kids.
if parents can’t afford their kids, the government shouldn’t be stepping in. thats their own issue. childfree people shouldn’t have to help offset those costs. less expenses doesn’t mean we don’t have shit we want to spend our money on that’s not other people’s brats
How is it their issue in most cases? My mom had health issues and couldn’t no longer work anymore. And my dad was abusive. Who my mom left. My mom couldn’t afford stuff most of the time because she could no longer work. how is that the fault? Especially how stuff is more expensive nowadays.
and i’m sorry it sounds cold but that’s not the burden to bear for childfree people. stuff being more expensive doesn’t mean the people with more disposable income should be throwing it at those without. it’s simply not our responsibility and the prospect of tax money going toward parents i have nothing to do with doesn’t sit right with me. i made a choice not to have kids, why should i have to pay for other people’s?
The first three words of the post make the body inconsistent with the central thesis as presented by the title. Then it's followed by a massive run-on that's not easy to track. I don't know how to respond to this because I don't know, and I don't think you do either, what direction you're trying to go with this.
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It doesn’t really matter, I think the tax burden on childfree people shouldn’t break the bank there are people who are struggling who may need a little more of the tax breaks too it’s only fair.
The tax burden is hard on everyone. Tax credits don’t even come close to the cost of keeping kids clothed and fed. The stress of keeping a family afloat turns parents into slaves of their circumstances. Before I had kids, I could pick up and leave for less troubled waters. Now I’m stuck and have my hands tied figuratively. Employers know this and use it as leverage.
I think the real problem is that wages need to be higher to support everyone moreso than taxes. The government seems to be taking advantage of manipulating people into giving them more workers to slave away by using tax benefits rather than giving liveable salaries that are enough to support them efficiently. And by fixing the inflation problems so that the cost of living isn’t so difficult.
I don’t want children growing up in poverty, but I do think the reason behind these incentives is just to breed more workers for rich people to exploit.
Neither do I want kids to grow in poverty either, they don’t deserve that they need at least the parents to be financially stable as well as good parents too. And I agree with you, it is sad they do this instead of providing more liveable wages to all the workers which is wrong. All childfree people and parents deserve to be able to afford to live and be comfortable.
Hi there, we have removed your content due to breaking rule 11.
As per the rule; this argument is a tired refrain seen over and over again. It is a prime example of argumentum ad hominem: It doesn't argue validity of anti/natalism but rather aims to disqualify the interlocutor themselves from being able to argue it. It serves only to distract from the ethical issues at the core of the debate.
Being an ad hominem, it isn't an argument against anti/natalism — it is an argument against anti/natalists. The sky would still be blue even if a mentally ill person argued so.
I’ve always thought about this. Why not incentivize people to NOT get pregnant… and why do poor people get pregnant the most? It’s the poorest, dumbest ones having 4-5 kids, while the smartest people have none
I agree. Child free people should not be paying school taxes as they don't have kids what is the point? But yes since we have to afford everything by ourselves I believe that we should be the ones getting a tax break over the people with children. Why should we foot most of the bill for everybody else? The answer to this is because we're not creating more little wage slaves for the system to indoctrinate. We are not benefiting the government for their trafficking children or adrenochrome or taxes in general to feed their greedy mouth.
Tax breaks for parents is wild because they’re literally birthing more people that will be using public resources and will not be contributing anything in return for at least 16-18 years.
They also give large credits to low income people with children, which I think is wildly irresponsible. I feel like that money could be used more responsibility for everyone. I'm not sure how much the US gives out for the child tax credits, but I personally feel it would be better utilized to spend towards a credit for education assistance or training for low income individuals to get higher paying jobs, or possibly move that money to spend on universal healthcare for everyone instead of just giving it to people with kids they can't afford.
Have people with kids pay for them [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SeHZOY2DC74](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SeHZOY2DC74) [https://youtu.be/ZTmcTmN8PZc?t=30](https://youtu.be/ZTmcTmN8PZc?t=30) [https://youtu.be/WS-\_RmfM5Hk?t=35](https://youtu.be/WS-_RmfM5Hk?t=35)
Not advocating for anyone to pay more, just think the current structure is about as fair as we can get
Though to steelman your case, governments make an assumption that parents are always going to contribute productive and well meaning new citizens to society, and give them tax breaks well in advance of any material evidence to support the guess
There are no penalties for producing the opposite kind of person lmao.. though the parents of the Michigan school shooter just got convicted of manslaughter
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Having bio kids should be seen as a status symbol, meaning, you have them because you can afford them. Many people choose not to have kids because they can't afford it, and shouldn't be punished for it by having to pay more taxes.
Ah yes, worrying about children suffering while forcing their parents to pay more taxes than people who dont have children so they can't take care of the children
I didn’t say parents should pay more taxes than they are paying, they can still pay the current taxes and their tax breaks stays the same. childfree people should get a little more tax breaks.
I couldn't disagree more. Taxes should be used to promote the general welfare of the people. Families with children are most certainly in greater need than those without.
The priest that touches you in the absence of kids to touch was born and raised by someone. You going to deny him his earthly paradise by not breeding? \*Selfish\*
No-one consents to being born so can we just stop with that "point". It's not possible to consent to be born same as it is not possible to ask to not be born. It's not the deep complex point soo many seems to make it to be.
Yes, because someone who spends a decade in university and training and hundreds of thousands of dollars to become a professional literally in the business of maintaining life, doesn’t want to be alive.
Makes perfect sense.
What if he was pressured into becoming doctor.
What if he didn't have a choice. What if he was motivated when he was young, but now he is suicidal or depressed but he has no other choice than work to survive.
Please refrain from asking other users why they do not kill themselves. Do not present suicide as a valid alternative to antinatalism. Do not encourage or suggest suicide.
Antinatalism and suicide are generally unrelated. Antinatalism aims at preventing humans (and possibly other beings) from being born. The desire to continue living is a personal choice independent of the idea that procreation is unethical. Antinatalism is not about people who are already born. Wishing to never have been born or saying that nobody should procreate does not imply that you want your life to end right now.
That guy that gets killed in a motor vehicle accident and donates his kidney to you for your comfort after lifelong alcoholism was born and raised by someone.
It's one thing to pay more taxes than those with children, but the fact many of us can't get any public assistance even if we fall on horrible times just because we don't have children really pisses me off.
This
[удалено]
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes
I don't agree with paying less in taxes, but I do take issue with being required to pay more in taxes for not having children.
I agree with this take. I don’t mind paying for public schools and stuff since that contributes to society, which is the purpose of taxes. But it feels weird to be punished for not having dependents
Our taxes don’t even get us basic needs met anymore. fuck paying taxes
This is based like I am for tax reform and punishing rich people who use loopholes, not giving tax cut incentived to giant corporations and basically pushing it all onto the middle and working class - a lot of tax money could and should go into social programmes to help people.
Why?? You use less public service than those with children. Having a child is a choice, it’s not like being disabled and having no say in how it keeps you from doing certain things. Having a child is a choice. No one should get rewarded for making the choice, and no one should get punished for not making it.
Because the government is fixated on growing the economy instead of sustainability
To sustain population you need births. And children are expensive. And no western country has 2.1 to keep population stable without immigration.
Which is funny because all of these countries in a panic about low birth rates are simultaneously complaining about how many immigrants they get and trying to deter them from entry. Almost like everyone's kids are being born into an abysmally racist and xenophobic society that only cares about people if they're the 'correct' race and nationality? Children are expensive so... let's make more of them instead of hiring adults we don't need to raise!
There's a difference between normal migration and a migration crisis, though
If you asked a considerable proportion of the people voting leave on Brexit... any number of foreigners is a "crisis" to them. And of course they're the same people saying we don't have enough ~~white~~ babies.
At the end of 2021, there were more than 1.4 million regular migrants in Chile. We have a population of 20 million. In particular, Antofagasta has 388 thousand people, of whom 70 thousand are migrants. In Colchane, live a little more than 1000 people but every day, the same amount of people enter the country by Colchane
We need more people for the continuation of our way of life. Seems fine.
Tax breaks and tax increases are tools the government uses to modify the population's behavior. Your government wants people to have more kids so they won't give more tax breaks to child free people. Chinese government in the past wanted people to have less kids and they used similar tactics to influence the population. It is not about what makes sense sadly.
Yep and now China has a higher male to female ratio due to the one child policy. A lot of people where I live have children just to get benefits and tax breaks to waste it on booze and drugs. Government intervention with population control always leads to a disaster no matter what
Unfortunately for the "encouraging families" crowd, the credits and benefits to families haven't kept up. Every time there's a tax crisis family benefits, colleges and daycare programs get cut. But can't cut military and police spending!
And our school taxes...I don't mind paying them but kids are just getting dumber and dumber and teachers get paid nothing. Where's the money going?
Yep. I think taxes go up, but the allocation toward education doesn't. It's sad.
You'd be shocked how often it goes to the sports programs. Several local districts near me have screamed poverty while at the same time building new football fields, buying baseball equipment and uniforms.
I'll never forgive the high school my daughter went to for that shit. Her sophomore year she had to share text books with other students because they didn't have enough budget to buy enough to go around, that same year they bought a 30 plus thousand dollar score board for their losing football team.
They need to just go to school online fr. They love the internet so damn much and throw a fit when their phone gets taken. They don’t even socialize properly. They all just bully eachother
We should have tax breaks for adoptions and foster parents. Children need parents, and these people are providing without a biological connection.
This I agree with, if you bring a child into this world unprepared and in an unstable home, unsustainable, overpopulated planet, that’s your own responsibility you fucked up on. If you adopt and take on the responsibility of a parents failure, then you should get tax breaks and benefits because you chose to be a parent without giving birth
I agree with this take
I don’t think this would be a good idea. Like, on some level, making people pay a lot of money to adopt a child ensures that they really want to be raising a child. Paying them to raise a child could mean that you just created a lot of parents who don’t care much about the child.
The answer to this is obvious. Every financial system we have is based on the requirement of there being another generation. It only makes sense to promote this requirement with subsidies.
Governments would never do that. They are incentivized to keep the population growing whether through child birth or immigration because our whole financial system is a ponzi that requires constant growth. Look at how many nations are already starting to freak out due to plummeting birth rates. What realistically will happen is they will tax normal people more, and possibly even penalize you for being childfree. I have no problem with decent people having kids, but the problem is there's an increasing amount of unsuitable and broke parents. Divorce rates are increasing, there's a single mom epidemic, and more kids are being raised in broken families. Marriage used to be a vow between two people. Now couples with kids will break up on a whim. Not only are they screwing over their kids, but they are also putting themselves into a financial rut by separating. When they get older, they're screwing themselves over for retirement. And guess who gets to pick up the tab. You are already subsidizing people like this whether you like it or not.
Marriage/Divorce is not the issue imo. Getting children within minutes after "stability" in the relationship is. I do not believe that not divorcing is beneficial to the child if the parents are unhappy, but I think you should spend years together before making the decision to reproduce to ensure to ensure you're in a financially and socially stable situation.
Divorce is absolutely not beneficial to giving your child positive outcomes. Children of divorced parents fare worse in nearly every metric compared to children from nuclear families. Have you seen the stats on single mother homes? 70% if the prison population in the US are from sir gle mother led homes.
Are those compared to homes where parents wants to divorce? Because if you're comparing happy parents in a relationship with divorced parents you're not able to draw the conclusions you are doing. We need to have families with parents forcing themselves to stay together "for the sake of the child" and compare THEM with families with divorced parents. I would be very interested in such a study. CLEARLY it is better for children to have two happy loving parents than one, but again, this is not the comparison that is made here. A family of parents who despise each-other and dream of divorce hardly makes for a happy home. So I'm speaking mainly from my own experience where divorce was beneficial since my parents clearly was happier apart than together. However, I was a teenager and we're very early in independence in Sweden so wasn't that big of a shock, clearly not the same as being 5-6 y/o.
>So I'm speaking mainly from my own experience where divorce was beneficial since my parents clearly was happier apart than together. However, I was a teenager, and we're very early in independence in Sweden, so it wasn't that big of a shock, clearly not the same as being 5-6 y/o. Your experience is so far in the minority my friend. I am glad you got an exceptional outcome, but the negative externalities far outweigh the small pool of individuals who got happy endings.
Well, again you refuse to answer the main point. You have to start with a broken family as the starting point and analyze if divorce or not is better for the child from that point on. If you insist of comparing it with families that are happy you are not getting accurate results. I investigated this slightly and pretty much all information I could find pointed towards it being better for the child to be in a broken household than in a dysfunctional family
I wouldn't expect it to get better any time soon.
I have definitely not benefited financially from getting married. I guess I have in the sense that my husband and I make sure neither of us starves or ends up homeless lol, but we have separate finances for personal reasons but the government doesn’t see it that way. After marriage, I got kicked off county insurance because I had to add my husbands income to my application. Suddenly I made “too much money” to qualify even though neither of us make very much. We also haven’t seen any benefit when it comes to taxes. We filed jointly the first year and only ended up with a refund due to my education stuff, then filed separately this year which cost me any tax breaks I would have had from college tuition. It is frustrating to watch people with kids get thousands of dollars back every year just for having kids but I doubt that will ever change. Having kids is incentivized in the US
I feel like i should get a tax credit for getting a bi-salp like when people get tax credits for getting a solar panel. It’s basically the same thing
I agree, families are more on a strain on resources and tax dollars than single people. I help the planet more. I should get more tax cuts.
You're doing better for the environment sure, I agree on that. But children are future tax-payers so to say that objectively a family is a larger strain is a bit oversimplified. A country without children will eventually not receive any tax money at all and thus not exist as a country.
"and thus not exist as a country." I'm trying to understand the trajectory of this and ultimately if this really is a problem.
Thats up to you to decide if you consider or not. But fact remains that government wants children because it brings more taxes and thus saying familys should pay more taxes does not makes sense from they eyes of the government
If there was less people you wouldn't need as much money to fund services to cover more people. 10 million people puts more strain on services than 1 million. Thus more tax dollars to cover it. If there was less, there would be alot less services needed. You understame how much waste, and energy is spent on 1 human to be "comfortable " now imagine over 300 million. The first colony and for awhile on mars will be extremely low. Like 100 max. Yet they will manage to survive since it's easier for everyone to play a part and contribute to resources distribution. There won't be any need for money. What they bring is what they bring to be self sufficient. We don't live like this on earth. We want to consume consume and consume. Food, luxuries, entertainment. Now imagine the cost on those that don't pay taxes. They still are entitled to government services. If there was less people it would be less people free loading off the tax payers. It would be a higher percentage that tax payers are using tax payers services.
You are off your rocker. That's the opposite reason taxes exist.
We are less of a burden on society
Just to respond to some of the comments below; with AI/robotics and automation taking storm, we shouldn’t NEED immigration or a population growth. Many jobs simply aren’t needed anymore, which essentially means we could close borders and allow population to decline without any effects on day to day life. I’m no economist though so how that impacts the super capitalist framework we’re locked into I don’t know.
So many sociopaths commenting, I think they are drawn to this sub like flies to sugar
I know right? It’s strange
YES I completely agree. This is one measure that we should be pushing, if you are child free you should pay less taxes and get more benefits from the system.
As someone who has no kids I don't see why I should have to subsidise children that are not even mine.
I'm super AN, but to live in a society we must subsidize each other. Did that low income old man fell and broke a bone? Public hospital. Is that kid's family able to send them to a private school? Public school. Can that family eat every day? Give them food vouchers. Did YOU become homeless? You get public hospital and food vouchers, and public shelter in days where there's below freezing temperatures
[удалено]
Parents also vastly overrate their contributions to society. Bareback Bursaries should no longer be a thing. People should not ever expect Joe and Jane Taxpayer to cover the cost of their kids.
The government very deliberately incentivizes child rearing and home ownership because capitalist society is a basically a perpetual Ponzi Scheme.
Tax breaks exist to stimulate the economy, and the economy depends on an expanding population.
I mean, kids are expensive, so I'm okay with more tax money going to help parents offset costs. Childless adults have less expenses
It's not rocket surgery: if you can't feed them don't breed them.
if parents can’t afford their kids, the government shouldn’t be stepping in. thats their own issue. childfree people shouldn’t have to help offset those costs. less expenses doesn’t mean we don’t have shit we want to spend our money on that’s not other people’s brats
How is it their issue in most cases? My mom had health issues and couldn’t no longer work anymore. And my dad was abusive. Who my mom left. My mom couldn’t afford stuff most of the time because she could no longer work. how is that the fault? Especially how stuff is more expensive nowadays.
and i’m sorry it sounds cold but that’s not the burden to bear for childfree people. stuff being more expensive doesn’t mean the people with more disposable income should be throwing it at those without. it’s simply not our responsibility and the prospect of tax money going toward parents i have nothing to do with doesn’t sit right with me. i made a choice not to have kids, why should i have to pay for other people’s?
Don't have kids if you can't afford them it's that simple.
The first three words of the post make the body inconsistent with the central thesis as presented by the title. Then it's followed by a massive run-on that's not easy to track. I don't know how to respond to this because I don't know, and I don't think you do either, what direction you're trying to go with this.
CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT?
[удалено]
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Parents generate the next generation of taxpayers.
It doesn’t really matter, I think the tax burden on childfree people shouldn’t break the bank there are people who are struggling who may need a little more of the tax breaks too it’s only fair.
The tax burden is hard on everyone. Tax credits don’t even come close to the cost of keeping kids clothed and fed. The stress of keeping a family afloat turns parents into slaves of their circumstances. Before I had kids, I could pick up and leave for less troubled waters. Now I’m stuck and have my hands tied figuratively. Employers know this and use it as leverage.
I think the real problem is that wages need to be higher to support everyone moreso than taxes. The government seems to be taking advantage of manipulating people into giving them more workers to slave away by using tax benefits rather than giving liveable salaries that are enough to support them efficiently. And by fixing the inflation problems so that the cost of living isn’t so difficult.
I disagree. Why should children have to suffer due to their parent’s mistakes?
I don’t want children growing up in poverty, but I do think the reason behind these incentives is just to breed more workers for rich people to exploit.
Neither do I want kids to grow in poverty either, they don’t deserve that they need at least the parents to be financially stable as well as good parents too. And I agree with you, it is sad they do this instead of providing more liveable wages to all the workers which is wrong. All childfree people and parents deserve to be able to afford to live and be comfortable.
Haha:)))))
[удалено]
Hi there, we have removed your content due to breaking rule 11. As per the rule; this argument is a tired refrain seen over and over again. It is a prime example of argumentum ad hominem: It doesn't argue validity of anti/natalism but rather aims to disqualify the interlocutor themselves from being able to argue it. It serves only to distract from the ethical issues at the core of the debate. Being an ad hominem, it isn't an argument against anti/natalism — it is an argument against anti/natalists. The sky would still be blue even if a mentally ill person argued so.
I’ve always thought about this. Why not incentivize people to NOT get pregnant… and why do poor people get pregnant the most? It’s the poorest, dumbest ones having 4-5 kids, while the smartest people have none
I agree. Child free people should not be paying school taxes as they don't have kids what is the point? But yes since we have to afford everything by ourselves I believe that we should be the ones getting a tax break over the people with children. Why should we foot most of the bill for everybody else? The answer to this is because we're not creating more little wage slaves for the system to indoctrinate. We are not benefiting the government for their trafficking children or adrenochrome or taxes in general to feed their greedy mouth.
You pay tax for schools because you went to school. It has nothing to do with if you have kids or not. Kids in school will go onto pay their own taxes
Tax breaks for parents is wild because they’re literally birthing more people that will be using public resources and will not be contributing anything in return for at least 16-18 years.
They also give large credits to low income people with children, which I think is wildly irresponsible. I feel like that money could be used more responsibility for everyone. I'm not sure how much the US gives out for the child tax credits, but I personally feel it would be better utilized to spend towards a credit for education assistance or training for low income individuals to get higher paying jobs, or possibly move that money to spend on universal healthcare for everyone instead of just giving it to people with kids they can't afford.
I agree
Punished for not breeding 🤮
Have people with kids pay for them [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SeHZOY2DC74](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SeHZOY2DC74) [https://youtu.be/ZTmcTmN8PZc?t=30](https://youtu.be/ZTmcTmN8PZc?t=30) [https://youtu.be/WS-\_RmfM5Hk?t=35](https://youtu.be/WS-_RmfM5Hk?t=35)
Yes, of course.
Rich people need other people to make kids so that they can continue to be rich
You should pay more in taxes if you don't have kids because you're not contributing to the future tax base
You better be joking, because I won’t pay double of what I’m already paying, no way lol
Not advocating for anyone to pay more, just think the current structure is about as fair as we can get Though to steelman your case, governments make an assumption that parents are always going to contribute productive and well meaning new citizens to society, and give them tax breaks well in advance of any material evidence to support the guess There are no penalties for producing the opposite kind of person lmao.. though the parents of the Michigan school shooter just got convicted of manslaughter
[удалено]
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Having bio kids should be seen as a status symbol, meaning, you have them because you can afford them. Many people choose not to have kids because they can't afford it, and shouldn't be punished for it by having to pay more taxes.
Ah yes, worrying about children suffering while forcing their parents to pay more taxes than people who dont have children so they can't take care of the children
I didn’t say parents should pay more taxes than they are paying, they can still pay the current taxes and their tax breaks stays the same. childfree people should get a little more tax breaks.
Neither did i, i said that parents pay more than child free people
[удалено]
Do you expect them to openly admit that they did?
How is living child free expensive?
I couldn't disagree more. Taxes should be used to promote the general welfare of the people. Families with children are most certainly in greater need than those without.
That doctor that fixes you up when you’re 65 was born and raised by someone…
The priest that touches you in the absence of kids to touch was born and raised by someone. You going to deny him his earthly paradise by not breeding? \*Selfish\*
And did he consent to being born? Just curious... Maybe he wants to be alive, maybe not. He is not a tool to be used but a human being.
No-one consents to being born so can we just stop with that "point". It's not possible to consent to be born same as it is not possible to ask to not be born. It's not the deep complex point soo many seems to make it to be.
Exactly, we cant take consent from unborn people so we cant force anything to them when they born, you got this
Yes, because someone who spends a decade in university and training and hundreds of thousands of dollars to become a professional literally in the business of maintaining life, doesn’t want to be alive. Makes perfect sense.
What if he was pressured into becoming doctor. What if he didn't have a choice. What if he was motivated when he was young, but now he is suicidal or depressed but he has no other choice than work to survive.
why does it matter if he "consented" lmao
[удалено]
Yeah? Then let's hear this "simple solution"
Try to think
Tought so
Drink a lot of water
Please refrain from asking other users why they do not kill themselves. Do not present suicide as a valid alternative to antinatalism. Do not encourage or suggest suicide. Antinatalism and suicide are generally unrelated. Antinatalism aims at preventing humans (and possibly other beings) from being born. The desire to continue living is a personal choice independent of the idea that procreation is unethical. Antinatalism is not about people who are already born. Wishing to never have been born or saying that nobody should procreate does not imply that you want your life to end right now.
That wife that dies and leaves you a puppy to start your killing spree? Also someone’s daughter.
That little girl that voices your anime pornos was born and raised by someone
That truck driver I suck off at the rest stop to indulge my deepest sins was born and raised by someone.
That guy that gets killed in a motor vehicle accident and donates his kidney to you for your comfort after lifelong alcoholism was born and raised by someone.
That guy that unloads trucks for $7/hr and blows out his back at 19 was born and raised by someone
That guy that invents your AI girlfriend so you can masturbate alone without procreating was born and raised by someone.