no babies=additional tax | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
Now online (2)
recycle
Roger Wilco
...and 302 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2614154
Today 6
Topics 127544
  
 
Messageboard index
no babies=additional tax
 

offline tolstoyed from the ocean on 2005-03-09 10:34 [#01527038]
Points: 50073 Status: Moderator



a debate about this started couple of weeks ago
overhere..our populations keeps droping because apperantly
more and more people are deciding to not have kids, so now
some are suggesting that there should be a certain tax that
would compensate not having a baby. for instance for people
who wouldn't have a kid by the age of 25 (they set this to
be the limit because apperantly people start to think moer
rational after that age!?) they would pay a certain tax
every month..is this something normal in other countries?
and also, does someone have a spare baby to send me?


 

offline stilaktive from a place on 2005-03-09 10:35 [#01527039]
Points: 3162 Status: Lurker



im not haivng a baby till im 30. no logical reason


 

offline ecnadniarb on 2005-03-09 10:36 [#01527040]
Points: 24805 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



Fuck man we got too many babies over here...I'll send you
some.


 

offline r40f from qrters tea party on 2005-03-09 10:36 [#01527042]
Points: 14210 Status: Regular



no, that's an awful, awful idea. :P

what's wrong with the population dropping? everywhere else
it seems like the population is escalating exponentially?
can't china send over some kids?


 

offline pomme de terre from obscure body in the SK System on 2005-03-09 10:37 [#01527044]
Points: 11941 Status: Moderator | Show recordbag



I figured overpopluation problems were global.

Interesting that this is happening in your country. I wish
we had this problem..


 

offline Bob Mcbob on 2005-03-09 10:38 [#01527045]
Points: 9939 Status: Regular



what will the government do with all the babies once they
receive them?


 

offline DJ Xammax from not America on 2005-03-09 10:40 [#01527050]
Points: 11512 Status: Lurker | Followup to Bob Mcbob: #01527045



Make them into loafers.


 

offline tolstoyed from the ocean on 2005-03-09 10:41 [#01527053]
Points: 50073 Status: Moderator



well, i think they got a bit concerned now that our
population dropped under 2 million..who will provide for our
pensions and such? there were questions whether it would be
ok to adopt african or chinese children and they said yes,
as long as they would get an slovenian citizenship and be
raised as good slovenians :)


 

offline r40f from qrters tea party on 2005-03-09 10:46 [#01527066]
Points: 14210 Status: Regular



and they don't understand that forcing the people who can
least afford to raise children will create a terrible
environment for the, perhaps unwanted, children and lower
the quality of living for much of the population?


 

offline ecnadniarb on 2005-03-09 10:49 [#01527070]
Points: 24805 Status: Lurker | Followup to r40f: #01527066 | Show recordbag



And how exactly did you come to the conclusion it is the
poorest people who are deciding not to have children? Also
a tax would probably still work out cheaper than the costs
associated with raising a child.


 

offline tolstoyed from the ocean on 2005-03-09 10:50 [#01527075]
Points: 50073 Status: Moderator | Followup to r40f: #01527066



i don't think they understand anything..much better way
would be if the governament would offer support for people
who do have babies and then perhaps more people would decide
to have them..


 

offline tolstoyed from the ocean on 2005-03-09 10:52 [#01527079]
Points: 50073 Status: Moderator | Followup to ecnadniarb: #01527070



i don't think he meant strickly financially..most of them
can't afford a kid because of their careers..it's the same
thing though, an unvanted baby is bad in either way.


 

offline ecnadniarb on 2005-03-09 10:52 [#01527081]
Points: 24805 Status: Lurker | Followup to tolstoyed: #01527075 | Show recordbag



That probably costs money the government can't afford.


 

offline tolstoyed from the ocean on 2005-03-09 10:53 [#01527083]
Points: 50073 Status: Moderator | Followup to tolstoyed: #01527079



strictly*
jav


 

offline r40f from qrters tea party on 2005-03-09 10:54 [#01527085]
Points: 14210 Status: Regular | Followup to ecnadniarb: #01527070



i didn't imply that only poor people would not want the
children. i'm saying the wealthy are the ones who can
choose comfortably.

i guess that since we don't understand the finer workings of
the slovenian economic climate and we don't know how the
proposed tax will work, neither of us can correctly figure
out which will be cheaper - raising a child or paying the
tax.

either way, it's a disasterous social policy.


 

offline tolstoyed from the ocean on 2005-03-09 10:55 [#01527086]
Points: 50073 Status: Moderator | Followup to ecnadniarb: #01527081



well, but eventually they could gain from that, if that
would really work out and help the people to decide for
kids..i don't really know :)


 

offline r40f from qrters tea party on 2005-03-09 10:56 [#01527091]
Points: 14210 Status: Regular | Followup to tolstoyed: #01527075



i agree, but the obvious difference is between the
government spending money or the government making money.


 

offline tolstoyed from the ocean on 2005-03-09 10:58 [#01527097]
Points: 50073 Status: Moderator | Followup to r40f: #01527085



nobody understands our economic climate, not even the ones
who are supposed to..


 

offline adam from londonidium (United Kingdom) on 2005-03-09 10:58 [#01527099]
Points: 209 Status: Lurker



Most Western populations are in decline, but taxing those
that don't breed is ridicluous. Just let some immigrants in.
That's what we did in the UK, through out history infact,
whenever there was a shortage of folk to do the dirty work.
If we hadn't we'd have been fucked. Easy solution.


 

offline tolstoyed from the ocean on 2005-03-09 11:02 [#01527109]
Points: 50073 Status: Moderator | Followup to adam: #01527099



yes, that would seem like an easy solution, but since
there's only 2 million of us left (and even out of those
there's plenty of people who are not originally slovenian)
they're affraid the nation could extinct soon..i think.


 

offline adam from londonidium (United Kingdom) on 2005-03-09 11:22 [#01527161]
Points: 209 Status: Lurker



I see your point, but i think it depends how you define a
nation, The land will still be there and unless something
happens the state of Slovakia will still define the
borders.. It also depends what you mean by originally
Slovenian. I don't know the specifics of Slovakia well
enough, but hat sounds ominously nationalistic to me, like
'originally English'. No one is 'originally English.
Migration and the subsequent mixing of cultures is contantly
happening, always has, i think that makes the concept of
being English, Slovakian or anything else redundant other
than where you were born.. or maybe just what culture(s) you
feel you belong to..

I guess that last example is maybe what they think wil die
out, the Slovakian culture. But if people live there and the
culture is good, it will survive. If not, then it will die
out.


 

offline pOgO from behind your belly button fluff on 2005-03-09 11:22 [#01527164]
Points: 12687 Status: Lurker



I don't ever want kids


 

offline r40f from qrters tea party on 2005-03-09 11:23 [#01527167]
Points: 14210 Status: Regular | Followup to adam: #01527161



here, have an "en".


 

offline tolstoyed from the ocean on 2005-03-09 11:29 [#01527178]
Points: 50073 Status: Moderator | Followup to adam: #01527161



you see, people already dont know us..slovenia and slovakia
are two different countries :)

i think their biggest concern is the cultural one, yes..we
have quite big cultural inheritance and even the language
could extinct and i think that's what worries us the most..i
don't have a problem with any other nations, but to stay
without an identity sounds real scary even to me..


 

offline adam from londonidium (United Kingdom) on 2005-03-09 12:05 [#01527231]
Points: 209 Status: Lurker



Sorry, my slackness, I meant to refer to Slovenia
throughout, I'm aware of the difference..

What scares you about it? I understand the commonly held
wisdom is that a commonly held culture is neccessary to
sustain a society, that's true i think, but i also think
that how much people need to have in common to coexist is
often greatly exaggerated.. I suppose it depends who you
think would replace the dwindelling Slovenians, what values
they would hold, and how that would change things..


 

offline iskeptici from United States on 2005-03-09 13:02 [#01527293]
Points: 6 Status: Lurker



Having babies puts an additional burden on the
infrastructure of the society through use of govt. services
and resources. if anything you should pay less taxes for not
having kids! It sounds like the worry here is based on an
outdated measure of culture that is determined by race...
certainly race has influenced culture as a result of shared
genetic inheritance, but in reality it survives through
tradition and not through genetic "purity" (which to me
sounds like shades of the old Aryan race argument...)


 

offline weatheredstoner from same shit babes. (United States) on 2005-03-09 13:28 [#01527321]
Points: 12585 Status: Lurker



taxing for no babies is the most ass-backwards thing I've
heard of in a long time.


 

offline xf from Australia on 2005-03-09 13:56 [#01527346]
Points: 2952 Status: Lurker



one second they're freaking out about overpopulation
problems, the next they're saying we're not reproducing
enough. make up your mind.

jesus christ like people not having as many kids as they
were is a big problem.


 

offline tolstoyed from the ocean on 2005-03-09 16:21 [#01527492]
Points: 50073 Status: Moderator | Followup to adam: #01527231



well, we have quite a specific problem with this i think,
mainly because we're a very small nation..slovenian language
is quite difficult for foreigners for some reason and i
suppose it would become endangered sooner or later..what
will we have without variety/diversity? why do we try so
hard to keep endangered plants and animals from extinction?
pretty much same thing imo.

"but i also think that how much people need to have in
common to coexist is often greatly exaggerated"

could you exaplain this a bit further please? can't quite
gather what you mean from this..


 


Messageboard index