Sounds like a lot of rules, man. What're ya some kind of socialist?

lol

@zero_consequences the government side of it didn't need to be called or remain being called marriage.

Lmao, well that's if we want something the state does. And that is a big if.

But basically it's saying you can only get this tax break for 1 couple so long as they remain together, and you can only get it up to 3 times.

3 times per person.

I'm not religious but I know it creates a structure for life that progressivism lacks so I tend to side with conservatives on most issues like this, even though they believe in a man in the sky and that they'll live up in that sky with him.

Basically, the only important part of the idea of marriage is having two parents until you are at least in your late teens

Would marriage counseling be part of this process, and is it sponsored or funded by the gov? My folks tried that a lot and they had very little incentive to stay together other than us kids.

I don't care if you wanna believe in God. I myself do believe in a higher power. I just find it ridiculous that anyone thinks some guy 2000 years ago got it all right

@zero_consequences it's a tax break. It's basically a gift for staying together. Want to split up? Fine, you lose the break. Want to have a second kid with someone new while in that 18 contract? Fine, he doesn't get a tax break, and if you split from the other guy, neither do you.

positive reinforcement. You do what we need you to do, enjoy the gift. Dont want to? Fine. Be like every other average Joe.

Deserves scrutiny but I like it.

This could be extended to adoption and maybe even same sex couples

Tax breaks are always a better route than government programs anyway.

Less is more

It would be easiest to start with biological parents first

Adoption is pretty hard to do from what I hear so I doubt there'd be much manipulation there.

Same sex couples are still on the fence. I think not enough data.

Although I think it's less the sex and more the role that matters. There are single parents who turn out perfectly fine kids it's just very hard

The phrase "it takes a village to raise a child" came from somewhere

But the tax breaks have an added bonus of defunding the government ;)

yeah, until some politician decides that tax breaks for all wamen is a right, and they'll make the rich pay for it or something

So much of a right, that their patriarchal husbands must pay extra in taxes. There we go. Back to square one.

Lmao

So there was a limit on 3 per person, the idea being a 1/3rd growth rate max. This limit could be raised or lowered in theory to speed up or lower the cap. The idea being any chance applies to everything going forward. So if the limit was 3 but you have a 4 the kid still under 18 (or 15 may be better), and they raise the limit, you can apply to get a tax break for the remaining years, and it aims to encourage those who stopped at 3 or under to have another child or two.

Maybe allow people to offer up their limits to others. Since it's basically a per person limit, if people who don't have or want children want to basically transfer their limit to someone with a child already over the limit, they can. So a family with 3 kids has a 4th, and they can get two other people to sign off, basically saying "this child is being used in place of my own". Allows for more personal choice while trying to keep the birth limit sustainable.

Its doubtful this country will have resurgence in religion barring any rapture, so the large family size that went with it is likely only left to new immigrants. Having a cap would be good.

financial cap anyway, for those tax breaks. people can have as many kids as they want I don't care.. but hopefully this would also break some of the funding to welfare to single moms/married poverty.

Well in my experience, poor people, regardless of religion, have lots of kids.

The Bible belt isn't exactly rich, and inner city bitches aren't having 4 kids with 4 baby daddies because Jesus said so

We all fuck at the same rate (more or less), but if you have the responsibly to want to use contraception, you will probably not end up poor.

I think it's more about education than income.

Generally wealthier areas have a better educated population.

if you have large companys shrink you will have small bussinesses increase to meet the demand for labor. small businesses suffer most when large bussinesses monopolize on both the workforce and the consumer base. as the workforce shrinks, the company shrinks, it cant afford to reach as many consumers, consumers in areas that cant be reached rely on local small businesses. fluctuations within the market have a weaker effect on the economy when you have less monopoly, this creates a more stable local envirnment where people settle closer to where they are born, communitys grow stronger, this reinforces birthrates, this feeds back into the economy and you see a new boom as businesses try to meet the demands for work and production.

the monkey wrench in this process is outsourcing and foreign labor which is used to prevent this process because it means there is a period of depreciation for large bussinesses and they have the power to try and do anything possible to prevent perceived loses

this is compounded by the welfair state

when businesses are free to do whatever they want without limit they are free to choose who benefits from their system. if the population has a problem their natural instincts to help their fellow man will be overcome by a need for survival and its easy to justify the slow neglect of your native population for another by thinking your just treating all humans the same

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccenFp_3kq8

https://youtu.be/RhdEbOzcN1U