Should there be a baby tax?

[[_KaNdii_]]

Baby tax needed to save planet, claims expert
By Jen Kelly
December 10, 2007 01:00am
Article from: The Advertiser

A WEST Australian medical expert wants families to pay a $5000-plus "baby levy" at birth and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 a child.

Writing in today's Medical Journal of Australia, Associate Professor Barry Walters said every couple with more than two children should be taxed to pay for enough trees to offset the carbon emissions generated over each child's lifetime.

Professor Walters, clinical associate professor of obstetric medicine at the University of Western Australia and the King Edward Memorial Hospital in Perth, called for condoms and "greenhouse-friendly" services such as sterilisation procedures to earn carbon credits.

And he implied the Federal Government should ditch the $4133 baby bonus and consider population controls like those in China and India.

Professor Walters said the average annual carbon dioxide emission by an Australian individual was about 17 metric tons, including energy use.

"Every newborn baby in Australia represents a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions for an average of 80 years, not simply by breathing but by the profligate consumption of resources typical of our society," he wrote.

"Far from showering financial booty on new mothers and rewarding greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour, a 'baby levy' in the form of a carbon tax should apply, in line with the 'polluter pays' principle."

Australian Family Association spokeswoman Angela Conway said it was ridiculous to blame babies for global warming.

"I think self-important professors with silly ideas should have to pay carbon tax for all the hot air they create," she said. "There's masses of evidence to say that child-rich families have much lower resource consumption per head than other styles of households.

But the plan won praise from high-profile doctor Garry Egger. "One must wonder why population control is spoken of today only in whispers," he wrote in an MJA response article.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22896334-2,00.html


Thoughts??

[SetuT]

Oh great so would that mean only rich/ middle class people can have kids?

[piercehawkeye45]

Yeah, Setu hit it.

Taxing of having kids is a very bad idea. I do not support this but having to take a class before having a baby would make more sense. But that just brings up bigger issues.

[Bob]

One scientist view matters? There's a reason why peer-review mechanism is standard. You just want these media-preferred nuts being presented as the Messiah. The middle class view that the lower classes are being subsidized is so fucking played out.

Those with multiple child not only consume less, but also subsidize the efforts of those middle class or rich families. We see an even greater disparity, where suburbanites primarily benefit from economic ventures funded by urbanites. I am seeing primarily suburbanite cops, teachers, workers in higher-end sectors, in my coloured urban neighbourhood.

The reserves and urban centres where this "birth control" crap is being promoted is where economic exploitation is maximized. Shit our urban centres is full of pollution and yet I'm seeing outsiders hired. I can ignore my asthma et al, but I'd rather see my neighbour hamper my health than some suburbanite.

Note, I am not suggesting that we tax middle class and suburbanites. Actually I am, considering they use our public transportation, roads, services et al. However, I want to see quotas and progressive policies ensuring that our capital develops OUR fitness. That way, most could at least maintain healthy consumption levels.

[JC]

By this, or better logic there should be a carbon tax on anything that is not biodegradable, in addition to any product shipped from anywhere. So if you buy a bag of chips there should be a tax to the waste. If you buy mangoes from Guam and live in the US you should pay a tax for the fuel and carbon. Taxing families like this is stupid, people should be taxed on the individual products they use, this would promote smarter consumption. Also, why should someone pay an average, who is subsidizing now? I mean fuck, I could live in a shack in the woods with solar panels a garden and my own livestock. But I should pay the same tax as some fucktard with a Cadillac Escalade?

[Bob]

Well, yes, individual taxation on products. However, a more powerful measure would be redistributing capital. My point is that the idea of "baby tax" will re-appear again if we don't see equalization. I don't want to see sinister schemes being placed on the back burner, we urbanites need to act against the primarily parasitic class.

Those in the suburbs need to start paying taxes for using urban services. Note, the number who do are quite large, and hence they need to pay infrastructure development. In addition, those working in the urban centres should be secondary to those in the urban centres in job selection. By cutting off their preference in economic ventures, we'd see their disposable income fall. Those in urban centres need to see their consumption rise to a health level.

Fact is urban centres got consumption ceilings. The city is already congested, hence cars and all that fancy shit isn't even logical. Asthma and respiratory complication is rising. Nor do have the space available to mimic suburban consumption. If we attempted that, we'd bleeding far more than today. Folks are ignoring that disparity hits us so hard and hence these sinister proposals are just being introduced to maximize the negative pressure.

Now, what if inner-city folks leave to the suburbs to increase their consumption? Tax their asses. Those who earn big money in the inner-city (and move) must see significantly higher taxation applied on their assets in the urban centres. I want them to bleed, and that way the idea of suburban lifestyle is destroyed.

Let's be real here, it is suburban expansionism that is increasing carbon emission. We need to start viewing our environment as scarce and should oppose expansion. Those who want to live bigger must be punished. That is a real global warming policy. If not, fuck global warming, because folks in urban centres are going to eat too.

[SetuT]

The way the West has tried to deal with environmental issues so far seems like a drug addict in denial. The West is now like a heroin user trying to kick the habit by using more heroin ....


... anthropologists have described the Western capitalism's growth obsession as a maladaptation, an irrational facet of the culture that is inherently unsustainable and if not remedied will eventually lead to the demise of Western civilization .... bring it on I say!

[Bob]

Hey, economic exploitation of urban sprawls has really stressed infrastructure, especially sanitation. It is recipes like that which introduce virulent pathogens. I can picture a super virus wiping us out, but unlike, burbanites, we're always interacting with pathogenic vectors and should be able to resist much better.
 
Note, unlike aboriginal reserves, urban centres being hit hard will destroy burbs. We form the centre of our nation's economic output. In fact, the deregulated sectors of Capitalism tend to be urban-centric. It is the predominantly urban subsidized aerospace, military, and heavy manufacturing production that is suburban. I'd take the Capitalistic variant vs. useless militaristic one.
 
But yo, Capitalist expansionism is going to take us to hell!

[SetuT]

Yes, ...... but who'd have thought hell would be so boring?

[Wintersun]

A baby tax seems wrong.   However, I think you should be required to prove that you can financially support a(nother) child.   That way the child doesn't suffer in poverty and you don't rely on others to support your decisions.

[Bob]

Wintersun, that's easier said than done. It's not like we could control child birth in a democratic setup, nor is that even required. Instead we need institutions that cater the unprivileged low-income families. That's the real issue vs. the need to implement autocratic policies.

[Wintersun]

That came out the wrong way, I don't actually expect that system to be implemented I just think it would be ideal (if it could be but into practice without compromising necessary freedoms).   I also agree that underprivileged families should be helped.   I don't think that help should be in the form of welfare though.   It is just as wrong in a free country to force others to pay for the less fortunate as it is to not allow the less fortunate have children.   It should be optional.

[Bob]

It is just as wrong in a free country to force others to pay for the less fortunate as it is to not allow the less fortunate have children.   It should be optional.

I don't know what "free" country you're talking about, but as IT said, the lower class build the West. The majority of middle-class folks today ancestors belonged to the lower class, but unlike the ones left were supported by institutions.

This doesn't mean I suggest higher taxes, instead social institutions like education, health, social assistance, etc needs to represent the target population. By that I mean, low-income people should be forming their own policy, because right now it's clear that neutral policy does not work.

[Wintersun]

Canada? America? The UK?  They are all free.   It may be slipping away but it' still there.   If we weren't free we wouldn't be posting on this board right now it would be shut down.   I didn't think you meant higher taxes but I beleive that in general welfare is bullshit.

I agree with you 100% about different incomes having a separate policy.   I'd never thought of that before.

[Bob]

Canada? America? The UK?  They are all free.

Political freedom of course, but economic freedom? There are people in Canada, US, even Australia who live in conditions far worse than the more autocratic third world nations. I mean, there are reserves in North America where standards of living rival Haiti. There are ghettos in the US were life expectancy is far lower than the national average, and HIV rates rival African nations thanks to segregated socio-economic reality.

It may be slipping away but it' still there.   If we weren't free we wouldn't be posting on this board right now it would be shut down.

No. I am not suggesting that we're in a police state. That's unnecessary. However do understand that people have been detained for voicing their opinions. This is very common in the inner-city (amongst those of colour) and natives in reserves. It is not uncommon in Australia, Canada and Europe either.

I didn't think you meant higher taxes but I beleive that in general welfare is bullshit.

Why? You do know that white cops and teachers from the burbs, who are hired in primarily colour neighbourhoods is form of subsidy. That is our taxes going to foreign folks. The same goes for our tax money subsidizing aerospace and military firms that are primarily manufactured in no-name economically unsustainable suburbs.

I want to our budget being used to elevate the standard of living of those within the "free" world you are a part of. It certainly isn't the case in my end. Yes, my situation is certainly different, but I am more of an exception than a norm. If we saw our budget used to fund education, health care, law enforcement, etc, and all these institutions were represented by the target population (vs. wealthy suburban white men), we'd see a more promising welfare state.

Note, this computer, to the internet, and most of our technology innovation is the result of the welfare state. In other words, the dynamic state sector is public from the infrastructure, to researchers or professionals (who're primarily publically-funded), and to research funding where its virtually wholly-public in the basic levels. Don't hate on socialist economics when it should be virulent Capitalist that you ought to be hating a lot more.

I agree with you 100% about different incomes having a separate policy.   I'd never thought of that before.

It's not just incomes. I am talking about socio-economics divided by ethno-racial lines. We need to institutions that serve Aboriginals, Blacks, Browns, etc being represented by one's own vs. rich whites who are totally disconnected. In our cities and reserves, the faces are mainly colour and yet we got a foreign man dictating our policy. That's why welfare appears useless.