re: #109 pdc_lgf

Again, I’m only asking a question. Two families alike in every respect. Except one family has more children - hence more deductions. I don’t find that objectionable. I find it reasonable. But that wasn’t being discussed. What was being discussed is a relationship between kids and money - which was somehow a horrible thing to even contemplate.

My response to Satt was limited to just his comment.

But … to your other question:
Revkin’s thought, all by itself, to offer incentives for smaller families, is innocuous.

But what happens when that incentive process does not work to limit population growth sufficiently to meet whatever goal is in mind when the incentives are offered?

In the thread here the other day, we had somebody actually move from the idea of “incentives for smaller families” to the idea that governmental disincentives (penalties) for larger families could be a good thing.

littlegreenfootballs.com

If the conversation in a thread here at LGF can move away from Revkin’s idea so quickly, what is to keep governmental policy-makers from doing the same thing?

I think here, in this country, such a move is highly unlikely. But how unlikely is it in other countries, and is it a good thing for governments to penalize people for having families?