I have a lot of ideas that would be
considered by most to fall into the category of “thinking out of
the box”. This is one of them. While its implementation would be
difficult to say the least, I believe in the premise if not the plan, and hope it
provides something to ponder for those with open minds.
When I was in college, and coming into
my own as a deep thinking adult, I devised a concise synopsis of my
views of one of the most important issues facing mankind. Here is my
quotable statement:
“The number one root cause of all of
the major problems in the world today is global human overpopulation”
-Brett Cherrington circa 1978.
While I have written of the problem of
overpopulation before and will again, this time I am putting out an
idea that I came up with years ago that may be something that it is
time to promote. With the “fiscal cliff” (no sidebars on that
name) looming, and the parties posturing in predictable ways, taxes
are a big issue. While there are many specifics to consider, I am
here focusing on taxes as a method of incentivising personal decision
making. In particular, regarding overpopulation, the tax incentives
for procreation. The current tax incentive is actualized by the
child
tax credit. Let me state; it is a self-evident truth that we
need children and families. The size of those families, however,
needs to be limited. It is unacceptable to tell anyone that they may
not have offspring. It is much more acceptable to consider the
limitations of our planet, the enormity of the human population, the
certainty that it will become more enormous, and our need to limit
that increase as much as possible.
My idea is one that deals with this in
a way that provides pro-family incentives for small families. This
proposal would be address several factors in the debates on family
planning, taxes, and entitlements.
So, here it is:
Replace the Child Tax Credit with a
Child Tax Adjustment.
My idea for a Child Tax Adjustment
(CTA) would double the current Child Tax Credit (CTC) for the first
child. Very pro-family, this would help young families by providing
additional resources for them to spend on bringing up their child.
The CTA for the second child would be zero, with no additional tax
adjustment. The family is now in a position exactly where they would
have been under the CTC (2 children and CTCx2). This is pro-family
too, but provides no change in incentivization from our current
system. The CTA for the third child would be a tax equal to the
CTC[at this point (CTCx2)-CTC=CTC so this third child decreases the
tax adjustment from CTCx3 under the current system to CTCx1 under my
proposal]. The CTA for the fourth child would be a tax double the
CTC [(CTCx2)-(CTCx2)=0 providing no tax benefits or penalties for
this family's procreation choices], the fifth triple the CTC
[(CTCx2)-(CTCx3)=(-1CTC) providing a procreational disincentive, and
so on with increaseing disincentives for each additional child. This
is a disincentive to excess procreation. It in no way prohibits this
additional procreation, but does provide an incentive to limit family
size, and in the collective, limit population growth.
I am aware that there are plenty of
circumstances that would need to be addressed. Here is a sampling:
- Grandfathering (statutory continued acceptance of) of all children born prior to/within a year of adoption (of the law). There is no intention to penalize people for decisions made prior to this tax provision.
- Multiple births would be exempt and count as a single birth. For those conceived with medical reproductive enhancement, perhaps a compromise figure would be appropriate to mitigate any attempt to use medical technology to outflank this loophole.
- Availability of contraceptives would need to be essentially universal. Just as abortion needs to be available because mistakes and accidents do happen, to penalize the poor who may not have a realistic availability of contraceptives would be unacceptable.
- Safety nets for the poor would need to provide for the children while maintaining the disincentive against continued procreation aimed at the parents.
- Some provision for penalizing the wealthy for excessive procreation must be included to prevent a situation where the wealthy can have large families just because they can afford it. Their offspring would likely be greater consumers of our earth's resources, and inequities must be avoided where possible.
- There are religious ramifications of this idea that many will find objectionable.
I am sure there are many more issues
that could be brought into the discussion, but I hope I have provided
some food for thought. The impracticality of ideas such as these may
seem to condemn them to the dust bin of crazy ideas, but as our
planet strains under the load of our human population, and our
economy strains under the load of providing services to that
population, these ideas may seem less extreme.
One of the benefits of my idea that may
be easily overlooked is the financial boost that a couple (or even a
single parent, though that is another topic and in this case perhaps
a disincentive to planned single parenthood could or should be
considered) would receive on the birth of their first child. This
boost could improve the early childhood health and education of our
children, and help young families handle the new financial burden
that having a child bestows upon them.
We as humans many times ignore the
tough issues until they become critical. The issue of climate change
is a prime example of that tendency. The problem of global human
overpopulation is huge and growing larger. All arguments that it is
a problem under control or that deride the seriousness of the
situation or that beg for more children for purposes of workforce
enhancement, or for providing a demographic bailout for an indebted
society, must be exposed as the irrelevant, weak, and
counterproductive arguments that they are. We must address
overpopulation. After all....
“The number one root cause of all of
the major problems in the world today is global human
overpopulation”.
