2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I am childless for a variety of reasons but I usually tell people that instead of having children I got a graduate degree.  I've lived with the judgment of a society that believes that childlessness is abnormal and am grateful that you are hosting this discussion.  

I grew up when Zero Population Growth was a serious movement, but obviously that wasn't a lasting idea.  However, it left me cringing every time I see a family with 3, 4, 5 or more children.  Not having children is the best thing an individual can do have the smallest possible environmental footprint.  That's why I've developed a proposal for a change in our tax structure.  Currently, parents get a $1000 tax deduction for each child.  Acknowledging the need to maintain a viable workforce I would suggest that "replacement children", i.e. 1 child per adult, would be tax neutral.  A couple with 2 children would not pay extra for their kids.  Adults who produce more than their replacement child would be taxed $1000 per child.  Those of us without children would receive the tax deduction, perhaps $1000 per year.  Initially, it would increase our tax revenues until people stop having extra kids-this could pay for health care for all those kids.  Either way, I would no longer be subsidizing other people's over-reproduction.    

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context