Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Morning chums!

I have always been a misanthropist, I pretty much hate everything and everyone. I saw a video on youtube yesterday in which an American comic basically outlined the fact that if a woman recycles to her optimum her entire life, never takes a flight and doesnt own a car, if she has a single child, her carbon footprint will rocket by 20 times her number!

And this made me think, how come we still have child benefit? Even to the point that we are encouraging scummers to have 8 kids, safe in the knowledge they will all be fed and clothed by the state regardless of their situation?!

I mean, we keep going on and on and on and on and on about this crap, oh yeah, make sure you turn the water off when you brush your teeth, make sure you take the bus... why not STOP BREEDING LIKE RATS?

I am 31 and I have no kids, I intend to have none. The ape like desire to breed to "carry on the line" is not in me, I wont care what my kids do when im fething dead, so I dont want any kids cutting into my drinking time while im alive, seems a no brainer to me. The government rewards you with not having to pay any car tax if you buy a low emisson car, but they wont reward me for not knocking aload of bratty kids out?! Whats that all about?! I could drive a humvee 100 miles a day, landfill everything I eat, and set fire to my mattress and buy a new one every week (I dont like germs) and STILL produce ten times less carbon than some slutty woman who drives a prius and wears a tye dye skirt but knocks out three kids. So where is my reward?! As far as I can tell its Matty thats paying for everyones kids turkey twizzlers.

So, this seems obvious then, if the number one problem in the world is that there are too many people living in it, why do all Western nations not sign up for Mattys three step plan. Im posting it here because while I am of course half joking and I am posting this tirade in good humour, I kinda think it would actually work, so I want you guys to critique it!


1. Child support payments at 100% for first kid, 50% for second, 0 for any more.

2. Lower income tax brackets for people over the age of 25 with no children (say 10% less?)

3. Force single mothers with more than 2 children to liquidize the other ones and turn them into fertilizer for crops.

Ok maybe that last ones a tad harsh.... we can have a referendum on that one.

Good morning mattyrm.

With the exception of twins/triplets etc point 1 seems kind of reasonable.

point 2: you have a higher tax bracket because you don't have dependents, at least here in the US of A. No idea how it works in the UK.

point 3: well, isn't that what abortion is?

Society needs children to become the next generation of workers, who will support old mattyrm when he enters his second childhood.

The thing is, we're actually having less kids on average. I saw it on that program about the census last night. It was pretty good.

Interesting. Here in the states we grew by roughly 10% from 2000.

Yeah, our population is increasing pretty rapidly too - it's just that on average, families are smaller.

I think you've got the wrong end of the problem, mattyrm. It isn't taxpaying breeders (such as myself) that are the problem. It is the vast number of welfare programs available that make it profitable to be unemployed and have litters of children.

If you aren't too proud to be a burden to the state and raise children that are almost always going to become future burdens to the state, you too can be paid to stay in a home you pay 25 dollars a month for, eat food stamps and WIC supplies, watch soap operas and have sex all day to work on your next child rearing stipend/tax break.

Lifelong welfare, or really, any sort of long term welfare for working age adults, is counterproductive to personal responsibility and efficient government.

Somalia has zero public welfare of any kind at all and its government is the most efficient in the world.

It is also a miserable gak hole of a country which encourages personal responsibility to the extent that the only successful industry is piracy on the high seas.

Norway has immense public welfare of all types, ranging from extended paternity and materity leave to free education and state funded pensions.

Its government is one of the least efficient in the world

Despite that deficiency, Norway is also a wonderful country with very high indices of education, health, democracy, happiness, and sustains a number of high tech industries and is a world leader in shipping.

With these fact in mind, do you think you might change your idea about welfare being counterproductive?

but they wont reward me for not knocking aload of bratty kids out

wish i had a driving licence to run you over...this would stop poluting the ether with such crappy thoughts...

when you grow a bit older than your current puberty behavior you will be the burden as you leave nothing but waste and misery behind...

Let's simplify the matter and have a tax break for anyone who willingly gets a "government-endorsed vasectomy." It reminds me of my most recent ex who used to complain that the insurance company wouldn't pay for birth control, yet would pay for having a kid.

Vasectomies can be reversed.

They must come off!

I take back what I said. Let's tax women for being able to have kids. It's the only fair solution.

Viktor von Domm wrote:

but they wont reward me for not knocking aload of bratty kids out

wish i had a driving licence to run you over...this would stop poluting the ether with such crappy thoughts...

when you grow a bit older than your current puberty behavior you will be the burden as you leave nothing but waste and misery behind...

Matty is was past puberty

I'm not sure if that is a good or bad thing.

Luco wrote:Interesting. Here in the states we grew by roughly 10% from 2000.

Birth rates are down around the globe. Which means the young to old ratio will be aweful in no time.

But if we encourage people not to have kids, how will we sustain the amount of fodder we have available for tomorrows wars? My god man, do you REALIZE what you're proposing?

World peace through mass infant murder?

Soladrin wrote:World peace through mass infant murder?

Definition of 'win-win situation', right there

How about instead of paying people who have kids, we just make it a tax deduction instead.

Encourage people who make money and pay taxes to have kids.

People who don't make money can deal with it.

I'm currently doing a research paper on global overpopulation. I see what you're saying.... An incentive not to have kids would really slow things down... In addition to other factors, like STDs...

I'm like 90% convinced that AIDS was invented by the US government to slow down and eventually halt human growth. Then, when 40% of the world is infected/dead, we reveal the cure that we've had all along. It destroys all of africa without harming the land we want, it erases the weakest members of the human race, and prevents promiscuity. WIN!

Leave wellfare the way it is, but make it so you have to collect the check in person. Allow people who aren't on and have never accepted wellfare to form a gauntlet of sorts with approved bludgeoning instruments; profit.

I just think the U.S. Government should stop giving Tax Breaks to Families with kids. I can't even count how many people have gotten more money back from Taxes, than they paid in because of that. It doesn't make sense to me.

Sasori wrote:I just think the U.S. Government should stop giving Tax Breaks to Families with kids. I can't even count how many people have gotten more money back from Taxes, than they paid in because of that. It doesn't make sense to me.

The child tax credit is at most $1000 per child.

The problem is the EITC, which gives people who don't pay taxes a 'tax return.'

Ok ill keep this brief cos in on my phone in the pub.

First of all, half of you are flat out wrong, the global population is not going down.

I don't need to check Google, I was at the aquarium of the pacific in longbeach a month back and the figures were right there. The developed world is stabilizing, but the undeveloped nations are sky rocketing. 9 billion humans by 2050 and 80% of them in the poor counties, make no mistake, we are heading for a world of gak.

As for you wanting to run me down Fritz, I was clearly taking the piss, sure I think we need to act regarding the population explosion, but the thread was clearly intended humorously, hence the liquidiztion thing... but I digress, its just a crack, so take your fake outrage elsewhere.

Unless you really are serious, at which point PM me and ill give you my address. When you get your licence come try an run me over. See how you get on.

mattyrm wrote:Ok ill keep this brief cos in on my phone in the pub.

First of all, half of you are flat out wrong, the global population is not going down.

I don't need to check Google, I was at the aquarium of the pacific in longbeach a month back and the figures were right there. The developed world is stabilizing, but the undeveloped nations are sky rocketing. 9 billion humans by 2050 and 80% of them in the poor counties, make no mistake, we are heading for a world of gak.

As for you wanting to run me down Fritz, I was clearly taking the piss, sure I think we need to act regarding the population explosion, but the thread was clearly intended humorously, hence the liquidiztion thing... but I digress, its just a crack, so take your fake outrage elsewhere.

Unless you really are serious, at which point PM me and ill give you my address. When you get your licence come try an run me over. See how you get on.

whats with everyone today,its gotta be the moon or something as tempers are flaring over the silliest of things.i get that part of mattyrms post was intended humorously.so does "fritz"probably he just don't like the humour.
as for pm me and ill give you my address come on matt mate don't blow up.get a few more beers down you lad.

I'm on it mate, good pep talk!

no probs sink a couple for me mate.

3. Force single mothers with more than 2 children to liquidize the other ones and turn them into fertilizer for crops.

I'll go grab the blender, we're going fertilizer foraging.

Kilkrazy wrote:Society needs children to become the next generation of workers, who will support old mattyrm when he enters his second childhood.

Isn't that where immigration comes into play? I know in Canada were having smaller families so to keep our population stable we get immigrants from countries with higher birth-rates.

mattyrm wrote:I don't need to check Google, I was at the aquarium of the pacific in longbeach a month back and the figures were right there. The developed world is stabilizing, but the undeveloped nations are sky rocketing. 9 billion humans by 2050 and 80% of them in the poor counties, make no mistake, we are heading for a world of gak.

Wait, so since the population in the developed world is stabilizing (or decreasing), we should end tax breaks (which theoretically encourage more births in the developed world) so...what? The developed world stops having kids altogether?

I'm pretty sure they don't have tax credits for kids in places where the population is booming, such as India and China.

Wait, so since the population in the developed world is stabilizing (or decreasing), we should end tax breaks (which theoretically encourage more births in the developed world) so...what? The developed world stops having kids altogether?

The developed world will not stop having kids, children are key to our races survival. The problem is that currently the birth:death ratio is unbalanced, with births out weighing deaths substantially and tax breaks would only continue this trend; the stabilizing of the developed world is fine as long as the number of births = the number of deaths or the No. of births is higher than No. of deaths by a reasonable amount.

If by saying the DW is stabilizing we actually meant it was decreasing, this would imply that No. of Births is falling in number and will continue to fall up until it = No. of Deaths and beyond, stabilizing is different in that it means the two ratios are levelling out, with neither falling too far behind the other.