If one receives a $7500 tax credit to buy a Tesla because the emissions are "lower" than ICE, why doesn't the gov't give a tax credit for not having kids, which is actually better from a carbon emission perspective?
0 kids = 0 carbon
1 Tesla = tons of carbon. actual produced vehicle through mfg, Caterpillar D10 dozers burning 800 gallons of diesel a day to mine cobalt, nickel and rare earths, ultimately to be recharged by coal powered plants
Am I saying quiet part out loud that no one wants to admit to?
There are definitely too many kids. However our capitalist system just wants more and more people with more and more demand.
Unfortunately it's not sustainable with inflation and limited resources.
In industrialized and even developing nations, the average couple has less than 2 kids. That means there aren't even enough kids to maintain current population levels. Ironically, it's the socialist system that will collapse when there aren't enough people to pay for your SS. Our only hope is the capitalist system will automate enough stuff that we can get by with fewer people.
There are definitely too many kids. However our capitalist system just wants more and more people with more and more demand.
Unfortunately it's not sustainable with inflation and limited resources.
In industrialized and even developing nations, the average couple has less than 2 kids. That means there aren't even enough kids to maintain current population levels. Ironically, it's the socialist system that will collapse when there aren't enough people to pay for your SS. Our only hope is the capitalist system will automate enough stuff that we can get by with fewer people.
"Pay for your SS"
Another gov't propagated social program that should'nt exist. I'd have opted out long ago if I had the decision.
Not how the math works. Imagine dropping 100 people off on a planet. 10 years from now they are paired up and have 2 children which makes 200 people on the planet. 20 years later thise 100 children mate and have children so there are now 300 people on the planet and none are elderly.
If one receives a $7500 tax credit to buy a Tesla because the emissions are "lower" than ICE, why doesn't the gov't give a tax credit for not having kids, which is actually better from a carbon emission perspective?
0 kids = 0 carbon
1 Tesla = tons of carbon. actual produced vehicle through mfg, Caterpillar D10 dozers burning 800 gallons of diesel a day to mine cobalt, nickel and rare earths, ultimately to be recharged by coal powered plants
Am I saying quiet part out loud that no one wants to admit to?
Or your carbon foot print might be higher because you travel more.
Agreed. They should give registered Democrats a tax break for not procreating. However, it should be dependent upon proof of having had either a vasectomy or tubal litigation.
Still have not heard one legit argument. If we're talking cut carbon emissions or its the end of the world, why isn't population control on the table?
You need more productive, working age people than older people to have a prosperous society given our economic / political structures. Not sure you can overcome that without mass automation and redistribution of resources.
Still have not heard one legit argument. If we're talking cut carbon emissions or its the end of the world, why isn't population control on the table?
I don't know what you count as a legitimate argument, but giving tax deductions for having dependents and also one for not having dependents is about as contradictory as can be. The deduction for dependents acknowledges that there's quite a cost involved in raising them meaning that your disposable income is reduced while you're doing it. It's the same as the deduction you get for charitable contributions. Not having children and/or not donating to charity doesn't reduce your disposable income so there's no deduction for such things..
Not how the math works. Imagine dropping 100 people off on a planet. 10 years from now they are paired up and have 2 children which makes 200 people on the planet. 20 years later thise 100 children mate and have children so there are now 300 people on the planet and none are elderly.
That's not the way it works either. You are assuming that all of those 100 people are of child-bearing years and are fertile and choose to have children. Now assume that those 100 people represent a typical age distribution in a country like Japan. Assuming that around 20% are in their child-bearing years, they will produce 40 children and some of the older people will die.
In 10 years there will still be around 100 people so that fertility rate is barely sustainable. But in a population that skews older people will die off faster the children are born. This is occurring in most developed countries today. In the US the fertility rate is 1.7 but it is lower in most developed countries. Japan is 1.3, Italy 1.2 and S Korea only 0.8.
A shrinking population means shrinking consumer markets, lower levels of investment, less innovation, higher health care costs for everyone as the population ages, etc.