Republican proposes paying poor women to have their tubes tied and paying rich women to have more kids

[akdiver 3]

Getting sterilized is a voluntary action. You can choose to do it if you want to.

Having children is also a voluntary action. You can choose to do it if you want to.

If the government provides tax incentives to have children - a voluntary activity.

Why shouldn't it provide incentives NOT to have children - another voluntary activity?

Whether or not the incentive should be provided is a reasonable thing to debate - but it doesn't have anything to do with morals.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

Sociology is really just a branch of psychology that uses observation of societal trends (being in society, anyone can observe these things) and yes, indeed, statistics. My first day of Sociology class entailed the reasons why women lost their virginity (well, there were reasons guys did too, it just wasn't very interesting as we all had one answer). In the end, we just learned that Sociology is really more of a common sense study.

Maybe Sociology isn't quite the right field of study, but if the author, Steven Levitt, is concerned about human behavior, why not look at the numerous, in depth studies on parent/child relationships? It seems a bit presumptuous to say all along, everyone else had it wrong and me, an economist, is finally going to shed light on this issue. He may invoke some interesting thoughts, but again, I'm going to give far more credence to the experts in the fields of study (Behaviorial Psychology, etc), than an economist turned author when it comes to human behavior. And to be fair to all economists, I would consult them over psychologists when it comes to economic issues.

For economic issues I'd just trust everything against what corporations collectively suggest is good. Forget the sociologist and economist.

Seriously though, regarding the tubes tied issue we only need one ounce of morality and two ounces of Constitutional law studies. If conservatives believe in stare decisis, this wouldn't be allowed. If they have the morals they say they do, this wouldn't be allowed.

As we both know Republicans are as good at being moralists as teens are keeping their pants on via abstinence, or pastors keeping their hands out of teens pants.

or gay prostitutes.

Daniel

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Getting sterilized is a voluntary action. You can choose to do it if you want to.

Having children is also a voluntary action. You can choose to do it if you want to.

If the government provides tax incentives to have children - a voluntary activity.

Why shouldn't it provide incentives NOT to have children - another voluntary activity?

Whether or not the incentive should be provided is a reasonable thing to debate - but it doesn't have anything to do with morals.

The tax deductions for dependents wasn't designed and isn't intended to encourage people to have children, while the proposal of paying women to voluntarily have themselves sterilized is intended to discourage having children. That's the difference. Secondly, I don't think most reasonably minded couples choose to have children for monetary reasons.

Edited September 26, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

Getting sterilized is a voluntary action. You can choose to do it if you want to.

Having children is also a voluntary action. You can choose to do it if you want to.

If the government provides tax incentives to have children - a voluntary activity.

Why shouldn't it provide incentives NOT to have children - another voluntary activity?

Whether or not the incentive should be provided is a reasonable thing to debate - but it doesn't have anything to do with morals.

The tax deductions for dependents wasn't designed and isn't intended to encourage people to have children, while the proposal of paying women to voluntarily have themselves sterilized is intended to discourage having children. That's the difference. Secondly, I don't think most reasonably minded couples choose to have children for monetary reasons.

No? I think it is designed for that. The gov realizes that more folks, more workerd for the economy = more taxes. Thus they would encourage it. Think of it as a positive internal migration plan.

Daniel

[akdiver 3]

The tax deductions for dependents wasn't designed and isn't intended to encourage people to have children

Maybe not - but nevertheless - it is a definite benefit for doing so.

while the proposal of paying women to voluntarily have themselves sterilized is intended to discourage having children.

Also providing a definite benefit for doing so.

In both cases, you are providing a benefit for a voluntary decision concerning whether or not to have a child, whether you want to call it an incentive, reward, or anything else.

So then the issue then becomes, why is it reasonable to provide a benefit if you choose to have a child, but no benefit if you choose NOT to have a child, esp. one that you do not feel financially, emotionally, or "maturally" capable of? The only real answer is, "because society has decided that having children is beneficial." It's a social engineering answer. Likewise, "because society has decided that not having children if you don't feel it is right for you is beneficial" is also a social engineering answer. Why is it reasonable to socially engineer one outcome over another? Esp. when you consider the negative effect on the environment caused by human breeding. If anything, the benefit for NOT having children should be a LOT more than the benefit for having children.

If the federal government were to offer a $5000/year incentive for women not to have kids, you would see a lot less birthing going on. Suppose this kicked in at age 15, and is held in trust by the government and payable upon the birth of your first child, or at age 30 - whichever occurs first. You would definitely see more personal responsibility happening AND provide a means for the poor to escape being poor. A poor woman who avoids giving birth from age 15 to age 30 would collect $75,000 at age 30. A tidy sum, allowing her to engage in all kids of economically useful and parenting activities.

Edited September 26, 2008 by akdiver

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The tax deductions for dependents wasn't designed and isn't intended to encourage people to have children

Maybe not - but nevertheless - it is a definite benefit for doing so.

I don't think benefit is an accurate term because it implies that having a child is a financial benefit. While it may reduce your taxable income, it doesn't mean an overall financial benefit. The tax deduction is a compensation. I'll try to look up what I can find as far as what was the reasoning behind our current tax code. While I understand that taxes have been used to encourage or discourage one behavior over another, if we really want to do a straight comparison, the tax code would then be modified to give tax deductions to poorer families for not having more children vs. paying them to be sterilized. That to me is draconian.

[akdiver 3]

I don't think benefit is an accurate term

If you don't think that paying less taxes is a benefit, then I dunno what to say. Vote for the democrats I guess.

FWIW, the plan I outlined doesn't even encourage people not to have kids. It encourages people not to have kids until they are older. If that is somehow wrong or immoral - then guilty as charged.

Edited September 26, 2008 by akdiver

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't think benefit is an accurate term

If you don't think that paying less taxes is a benefit, then I dunno what to say. Vote for the democrats I guess.

FWIW, the plan I outlined doesn't even encourage people not to have kids. It encourages people not to have kids until they are older. If that is somehow wrong or immoral - then guilty as charged.

Well, on a side note - people aren't simply motivated by money. If that were the case, people would all be driving Yugo's instead of humongous, 40g, SUV's that chug gas likes it going out of style. People place value on things that don't always translate into dollars and cents. Given that, I don't think that most reasonably minded couples will decide to have or not have children based on financial incentives, positive or negative.

[akdiver 3]

Well, on a side note - people aren't simply motivated by money.

Certainly true. Nevertheless, it's a powerful motivator.

People place value on things that don't always translate into dollars and cents.

Also true.

Given that, I don't think that most reasonably minded couples will decide to have or not have children based on financial incentives, positive or negative.

Not based SOLELY on financial incentives, no. But you're kidding yourself if you think that "reasonably minded couples" don't consider finances with respect to whether or when to have a child. In fact, the most reasonable couples are going to do exactly that - even if they do not consider themselves to be doing so, in a direct fashion.

• First, let's finish school
• First, I want to make some progress in my career
• First, let's pay off our student loans
• First, let's save up enough to move to a better neighborhood
• First, let's buy a house
• First, let's whatever....

All financial, whether or not people think of it that way.

Also - just because an incentive doesn't catch ALL people, doesn't mean it's a poor, inappropriate or ineffective incentive. Hell, if the government could ever get people to do half of what it wanted them to do, it would be a huge success.

Edited September 27, 2008 by akdiver

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well, on a side note - people aren't simply motivated by money.

Certainly true. Nevertheless, it's a powerful motivator.

People place value on things that don't always translate into dollars and cents.

Also true.

Given that, I don't think that most reasonably minded couples will decide to have or not have children based on financial incentives, positive or negative.

Not based SOLELY on financial incentives, no. But you're kidding yourself if you think that "reasonably minded couples" don't consider finances with respect to whether or when to have a child. In fact, the most reasonable couples are going to do exactly that - even if they do not consider themselves to be doing so, in a direct fashion.

• First, let's finish school
• First, I want to make some progress in my career
• First, let's pay off our student loans
• First, let's save up enough to move to a better neighborhood
• First, let's buy a house
• First, let's whatever....

All financial, whether or not people think of it that way.

Also - just because an incentive doesn't catch ALL people, doesn't mean it's a poor, inappropriate or ineffective incentive. Hell, if the government could ever get people to do half of what it wanted them to do, it would be a huge success.

Fair enough, however, if you wanted to come up with a tax code that is comparable to our current deduction for dependents, then you'd have to give a tax credit or deduction to lower income families who don't have more children, rather than paying women to be sterilized.

[akdiver 3]

Fair enough, however, if you wanted to come up with a tax code that is comparable to our current deduction for dependents, then you'd have to give a tax credit or deduction to lower income families who don't have more children, rather than paying women to be sterilized.

I see what you're trying to say - but I wouldn't limit any such deduction based on income. I also don't really understand the big objection to creating incentives for people to voluntarily sterilize. Hell, if the government wanted to cut me a check of suitable size, I'd head to the clinic right now (:

[jundp 191]

His idea is nothing new. They bring back old memories. Sterilization of the poor and minority has been practiced in the US many times before. In the 1970's, several scandals broke because government doctors were sterilizing poor women and institutionalized women without their knowledge or consent. I was a human rights researcher and advocate for many years, starting in my teens, and the forced sterilization of Native American women was the very first issue I worked on fresh out of high school. I'll never forget the women I met during that era, and how many times we cried together about their profound loss.

Yes, I remember studying this in graduate school. What the Native Americans suffered in the 70s (and 80s to a degree) especially was pretty awful.

In English, it's good just like history majors. But, they don't have any technical skills besides correcting the dictionary.

Not quite, my friend. But I suppose someone not in the field would think so.

Excellent idea!! Why does he not think of having the poor men get a parallel procedure done as well?

That is one of his ideas, actually!

I just want reiterate that LaBruzzo is in the same district that David Duke was in.....and the same party....and that since Katrina ideas about race and poverty have worsened, not improved.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Fair enough, however, if you wanted to come up with a tax code that is comparable to our current deduction for dependents, then you'd have to give a tax credit or deduction to lower income families who don't have more children, rather than paying women to be sterilized.

I see what you're trying to say - but I wouldn't limit any such deduction based on income. I also don't really understand the big objection to creating incentives for people to voluntarily sterilize. Hell, if the government wanted to cut me a check of suitable size, I'd head to the clinic right now (:

Suppose a young couple in their early twenties have a couple of children very young. Neither of them went to college and are struggling, working menial jobs to make ends meet. Now there is a possibility of them both eventually getting college degrees and thereby creating economic mobility for their family. Lets say in a matter of 6 years, both graduate from college and their family income increase from $24g's to $80g's. They are no longer stuck in poverty. Perhaps at some point, they want to have another child. While sterilization sounds practical, for a couple like that, it wouldn't be a sound option. They are no longer considered low income.

I'd rather see incentives which help young families like that find economic mobility through job training and schooling. If the statistics are true that children from higher income earners are more likely to succeed in life, then why not offer ways to help families who really want to improve their economic situation which gives them the lifelong tools to do so rather than throwing them a carrot tied to something as drastic as permanent sterilization? Particularly when there are so many effective, long term methods of contraception available.

[akdiver 3]

Suppose a young couple in their early twenties have a couple of children very young. Neither of them went to college and are struggling, working menial jobs to make ends meet. Now there is a possibility of them both eventually getting college degrees and thereby creating economic mobility for their family. Lets say in a matter of 6 years, both graduate from college and their family income increase from $24g's to $80g's. They are no longer stuck in poverty. Perhaps at some point, they want to have another child. While sterilization sounds practical, for a couple like that, it wouldn't be a sound option. They are no longer considered low income.

OK - I'm with you here. I'd say that for the couple above, they shouldn't take the incentive. They should take advantage of the free and freely available abortions I advocated many posts back. I'll also counter with this scenario (which, unfortunately, happens all too often) - suppose you have a young crack addicted woman who, by age 23, has already given birth to 5 crack babies. In seems socially advantageous, for any number of reasons, to encourage her to stop having kids - period. Offering her an incentive to voluntarily sterilize seems reasonable to me.

I'd rather see incentives which help young families like that find economic mobility through job training and schooling.

Free public education through high school.... Pell grants for university..."earned income credit"....WIC...Headstart....it's not as if there are not plenty of these incentives already.

[Dr. Obvious 49]

Calling day care a child tax is like calling jail a stupidity tax.

Yes, but it is also ridiculous to say that having children is somehow economically beneficial to the parents at the cost of everyone else 100% of the time. It is just not true. I throw away about $6000 a year on child care alone. The most I get back from the government regardless is $2000. The math doesn't really work out in my favor to say that my kid is some kind of government cash cow. It certainly isn't. We haven't gotten into room, board, education, etc, even yet. I am not sure how any one comes out ahead financially having kids without selling them at birth, and even then, there is the cost of the pregnancy.

Don't completely misunderstand me. I do agree with you on some level, no one forces you to have kids. My husband had a vasectomy and we are so done. The German government gave us quite a decent amount of money for breeding, but it ultimately was nowhere close to what was necessary to make it a real incentive.