Overpopulation: Stop all Government Support For Larger Families. For Or Against?

Question

If a new Government Policy to prevent Overpopulation in your Country was to stop all Government support for families with more than two children would you be for or against this?

This would mean, no additional housing support, withdrawal of benefits, family allowances, tax incentives/allowances. This would mean more child poverty. This would mean that if you had a larger family than two children, YOU, not the taxpayer would be paying for that choice.

Would you be For or Against? WHY?

Answer 1

For, exponential growth rates in global population.

Money will have little effect, neither the state nor the church has been able to curtail the natural drive to reproduce indiscriminately. There are two problems: 1. lack of sexual responsibility (where is the fun in that), and 2. We live too long.

Money won't change irresponsible actions, but a drastic reduction in the quantity of potable water will likely take care of number 2. When the death rate due to dysentery tops the birth rate the problem takes care of itself.

Answer 2

This all depends on many circumstances in each case.
For a general opinion, I am for help to any single mother that is in need, as anyone, race not involved, can and do make mistakes, even in this world of available birth control methods.
Now, if this same female decides to have a second or third child without being married, knowing full well of the consequences of this act, and ignoring the available choices of birth control, then not only should she not get any more assistance, but the present help should be stopped. Why should we taxpayer' be subject to support children we have no control over.
This may seem cruel to the children, but again, we did not cause this problem.
Government statistics already proved that kids brought into this world under these circumstances, usually tend to expect the govenment to continue to support them and their fathering illigitimate kids. It has to stop somewhere, and it's already out of control.
I think in Cleveland the figures are somewhere around %70 of children are born out of wedlock. Shamefull !

Answer 3

Well, I believe that it isn't wrong to have more than two children. My family has three, but both my parents work and can support our family (we also can go to a private school).
As for the families not getting help from the government, I don't think this is a bad idea. Sometimes people just don't see that the life they have chosen isn't all that great. One of the main reasons that anyone would get money from the government is so they can pay for childrens expenses.
Here is a simple question:
Doesn't anyone relize that is you have a job and live within your means, that you can have a lot better life than relying on the government for every single need?

Answer 4

For, but not if it means withdrawing the benefits people get for a rationally sized family.

Give tax cuts to those who have kids, but only up to two. After the tax cuts remain the same, they don't disappear. That way it doesn't overly penalize those who have, say, three kids. At the same time it removes the incentive for having 10 kids. At the same time, the money saved should be re-invested into sexual health education programs, and some sort of program to make contraceptives and birth control medication more accessible.

I also think stores should sell contraceptives in a vending machine. More people (esp young people) would use protection if you didn't have to go through the "embarrassment" of purchasing them from a little old lady at a grocery checkout counter. :)

Answer 5

Personally I think we should have universal health care here in the US, no matter how large the family is. Second, I am not in favor of allowing the government to insert itself into our private business, especially concerning reproductive issues. However, there will come a time soon enough when we will all have to deal with this question. If not, we will quickly reach the "carrying capacity" of our planet, which means the only way to resolve the problem will be to expand to other places in the galaxy, control our population levels ourselves, have wars or plagues killing people or some other terrible solutions.
Furthermore, welfare is not the answer, as it robs people of their independence and competence. Probably increasing Welfare should be restricted after two children, or rise very little. Tax deductions should be allowed.

Answer 6

I'm against government support for large families, but believe in tax breaks for those with large families. The problem is those with an IQ of over 125 are only 1/5 as likely to produce children as those with an IQ below 90. Therefore we are undergoing a natural selection for lower intelligence.
People that plan for the future of their offspring produce far fewer children than those that live off the taxes of those trying to educate the children they produce. Therefore those employed & working to support their children are handicapped by having to support the children of those living off their tax dollars.

Answer 7

The population is not a problem, it is the management or should I say mismanagement of the earth's ability to produce effectively.

Mankind is ruining the earth. So instead of facing that fact, they want to say there are too many people on the earth. Hogwash!

As the population stands now, there is more than enough room on earth to have over an acre for each and every person alive.

Answer 8

I would be for this....but not because of 'over-population' just because people need to learn to not be so stupid!!!!!

I think if a 24 year old has 5 kids and is single living in the projects off of welfare, then there is a problem, and someone needs to learn to buy rubbers!!! People take advantage of the 'system' and get lazy. I work hard for my money, and then people who don't know how to close their legs make me have to throw a chunk of change to them.

It's ridiculous.

Answer 9

I would not object to eliminating the income tax deduction for children, but it is really no a big deal. The deduction is pretty small. The cost of raising children is far higher than the tax deduction. And if you are poor, you aren't paying much income tax anyway, so a deduction is worthless.

Answer 10

I would be for the effort to hold back our population. Just look at Africa, there are millions of children there, starving to death.