During a conversation about climate change an interesting, if rather controversial, idea was floated regarding the tax systm which actually makes a lot of sense.
The cause of climate change is not fossil fuels, it is the overuse of fossil fuels, deforestation, etcetera, caused by overpopulation. In 1850 the population of the UK was 27 million, by the end of WW2 it was just over 40 million , and it is now set to reach 70 million in the next few years. Quite obviously this cannot continue, and equally obviously extra food production, the covering of countryside with houses and roads, and the extra energy usage is a majour contibutory factor to our rising polution.
Governments use taxation to try to affect behaviour, such as tobacco & petrol duty, alcohol taxes, congestion charges etc, yet, they continue to encourage overpopulation by rewarding people for breeding. Those who choose not to add to the propblem by not having children are actually punished by being taxed to subsidise those who do breed by paying for child benefits, education, and so on.
The radical, but perfectly sensible suggestion was that all child benefits should be scrapped, and, that whilst the basic rate of tax should remain at 20% every person who has a child should be taxed at an extra 5% for each child (% for one child 30% for two children etc) to pay for the education, medical care, and other costs to the state of their children.
A sort of "privatisation" of breeding.
A concept which, financially, makes a good deal of sense even if it would never actually be accepted, not least because nopoliticianwould be brave enough to even consider it. If the State can use tax to control what we smoke, drink, drive, eat (proposed sugar tax), etc, why shouldn't it also use tax to control overpopulation.
Replies (63)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Fertility rate is less than 2 children per woman in Europe at the moment so native population is already falling. Which is why we import young people from overseas to care for and pay pensions of the oldies...
my first question to all climate change activists is - What caused the ice to melt last time? the forces of nature are likely to always win but i do agree that mitigation is necessary
The answer is to look at the rate of change rather than the fact the change occurs at all. The world's climate is always changing and varying and following certain long term trends, but the current rate is unprecedented.
Unsurprisingly, climate science is aware that the world's temperature has historically changed and natural variation is taken into account.
I’m sure that the Archbishop of Westminster would have something to say about his flock being disproportionately taxed.
Frankly, I could care less about what someone whose ultimate boss is a mythological being thinks.
thats a little unfair ;-) i remember from 'The Young Pope'
the question is not does god exist? just prove to me that he doesnt
this is the conundrum for all religion
(PS i believe in a higher power , sort of!)
A more efficient proposal could be to eliminate all those who have stopped creating wealth for our great state with an upper age limit at say age 70 when they are "removed", even if still working, as obviously by that time their efficiency will be reducing-this would kill two birds with one stone, so to speak, covering both population growth and the financial burden on the state re welfare and health provision.
If you have a bit of spare time (dangerous thing to have in such a "Brave New World") might I suggest a read of Swift's "Modest Proposal", it is brief and covers a similar sort of discussion as it also concerns babies.
(Who needs STEM subjects and relevant degrees when one could have wasted a few years at university on literature, history and similar)
Love it when drivel is preceded with the word “obviously”. Well if you are going to listen to all that ridiculous clap trap about so called “climate change” then no wonder you come up with hare brained nanny state tax agendas. Back in your box Comrade.
Really wish you had put me right on the climate change bit before I wasted all that money on my daughter getting her MA in Sustainable Development from St Andrews.
Still , it probably was not a total waste of time as whilst you are obviously not taken in most of the world is paying some attention, so plenty of job opportunities for her over the next forty years.
https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/subjects/sustainable-development/sustainabl...
Did your daughter do the research herself and make her own conclusion or did she just learn what was already out there and write a paper on it?
She did some primary research in her undergraduate dissertation, I believe she will need to do similar with her Masters one this summer (She would possibly be so doing this weekend if she had not swanned off to London for the weekend)
Having said that current dissertation will not be on SD as such but on some aspect/aspects of Urban Planning though it may incorporate aspects of sustainability- whilst the subject area has been selected the precise question still needs to be fully formed.
Out of all gases in the atmosphere co2 amounts to 0.2%. From that 0.2% 80% of it is naturally caused. The remaining 20% is man made.
That equates to 0.04%.
And you want to tax every child tor simply breathing? Come on. Be considerate to the planet by all means, but when people start pointing fingers to blame, thats when I get angry.
Just take a step back and actually analyse the effect we really have on the planet, then consider it this was all done as a stealth tax.
Carbon footprint trading is the biggest scam going.
Be careful SXGuy. You'll frighten the climate change activists with all those facts. Please stick to the script with all the unsubstantiated rhetoric from these nutters.
Increment not absolute.
Does water boil at 98% (well yes if you vary pressure but otherwise no). The 2 degrees further added changes it from one state, liquid, to another state, gas from this one can deduce that in certain cases small increments over border thresholds can have very significant effects on characteristics and behaviour.
But it is all really just a big conspiracy with so much of the world involved, is that the best argument, really.
Out of all gases in the atmosphere co2 amounts to 0.2%.
It's about 400 ppm - or 0.04% actually. Though there are other greenhouse gases, such as water vapour, in the atmosphere.
Oxygen - just over 20% or more than 500 times the CO2 content.
It's amazing how far a little can go. That tiny proportion of CO2 is enough to sustain huge forests.
Cut down the forests, pump up the CO2 and you change the balance. DJKL is right. It's about balance.
And the OP is right in identifying the causes.
I suspect re that you are correct- the only question is predicting when; next week, next century, next millennium. I would be really surprised if you are not correct, in fact the only thing that might prevent it is if we say destroy most of the world's population by some other method before we get there.
Ive just finished watching Chernobyl we nearly did it then, brilliant TV Russians didn't like it blame the Yanks and are making their truthful version. It's sad move on
People are being kept alive beyond their natural lifespan partly through excessive use of antibiotics which increase the quantity of life but not the quality, this is the challenge of life itself, maybe we all become resistant to them....
Shame nobody came up with this idea 50-odd years ago. How different things might have been.
There is a need to look forward, as well as back.
There's not much (other than the speed it happens) to distinguish humankind's population movement from that of lemmings. We're supposed to be self-aware. Yet we bury our heads in the sand and burrow on.
Nick's "it's sad move on" comment in the context of >3bn human deaths was a particular low in this thread. Tim's "claptrap" comment was typically ignorant.
Why does partial knowledge of tax law and accountancy rules seem to make people so arrogant?
I was saying that the Russians cannot accept the story as told in Chernobyl was correct, they have to twist the story to fit in with their propaganda. They should leave their revisionism and move on. It was not a comment on anything else.
Then I owe you an apology. The offence was just in my head (in my reading of what you said, not what you said itself). Thank you for clarifying.
I similarly cannot see where I have thrown any insults. Unlike some others in this thread... IIRC someone called climate change deniers "nutters". That's harsh, and probably insulting. The link I provided yesterday gives a deeper insight into their thinking.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/indepth/flat-earthers-and-the-rise-of-sci...
America. Aweb. All over.
It's a good question: what would change our minds?
I don't want to alarm you, but there are also a couple of mad kuntz out there with big red buttons, that could annihilate us all, who are the most imminent threat to humanity. Fuch "science"!
Tres droll but I don't believe you.
"I'm andy.partridge I'm the real andy.partridge"
"I'm Spartacus" "No I'm Spartacus"
Or, for Python fans...
"I'm Brian and so's my wife!"
"Senses working overtime
Trying to tell the difference 'tween the goods and grime
Turds and treasure and there's one, two, three, four, five"
And I thought I had multiple personalities... YOU'RE ALL ANDY BLOODY PARTRIDGE!!
Only took me 7 years (time apportioning in years) to work it out!
No, it is far worse than that, all posts on Accounting Web are actually your own, Accounting Web is a manifestation of your own making,mere figment of your imagination and the various posters purporting to post are each distinct, yet identical, segments of your own consciousness.
On the minus side you are therefore obviously insane, on the positive side all the brilliant posts on tax, all being made by you, demonstrate your all encompassing command of all matters taxation and accounting.
Of course this latter point does strongly suggest that as no human individual could possibly have that scale of knowledge you are evidently an AI presence.