For example, you couldn't have more than 2 kids if the combined household in come were $20,000...it's just a question....
2007-03-26 21:45:27 · 6 answers · asked by Chris 1 in Social Science ➔ Economics
sounds good and i have actually thought about that before but its flawed in a way. it would mean that the 2% of the world that controlled 95% of the wealth would just populate more and more and it would mean the end of a middle and poor class and very surely the end of american society.
2007-03-26 21:50:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
And become like China? I don't like the idea of the government telling people how big their family can be. And what are you going to do anyway if the income changes? Somebody might lose their job or get demoted. Also, who is going to watch over who has how many kids and how are they going to control the births? By forcing people to have an abortion or going for a surgery to make sure they can't have any more kids? Who is going to take care of the orphans that will be abandoned because they didn't fit into the parents' idea of a family and they didn't want to 'waste' their child quota on a less than perfect child?
No way, I would be against any such limit. It would only make things a lot worse.
2007-03-27 05:08:04 · answer #2 · answered by undir 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For the measures necessary to in force such a policy you can look the experience in China.
I assume you mean in the US, because 90% of the people in the world has a income less than that. In the US the birth rate of non immigrant population is below replacement level already and has been for a generation, which is why we are letting so many immigrants in the country. The effect of such a policy would probably reduce the birth rate even further. It would send a message to all young people, not just the poor, that having and raising children is not something the society values, but just another way of consuming.
2007-03-27 11:51:55 · answer #3 · answered by meg 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it would be a good Idea. We no longer need to have many children to insure our family names are carried on. Also, i think there will be less people on wel-fare and other government supported funding which means tax dollars will go to better causes.Maybe government funded medical programs(better than medicare that is) government funded dental, and government funded higher learning.
2007-03-27 04:55:23 · answer #4 · answered by lilly j 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
find the other way of increasing your income
2007-03-27 05:14:19 · answer #5 · answered by honey bear 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
China allready has that
2007-03-27 04:53:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋