Over population - should births be taxed?

[SteveT]

As this little island is so heavily populated, would it be a good idea to tax future incomers from all sources?

[expat]

No. And there are European countries denser populated than the UK.

[DJKillaQueen]

Expat is right. Also most of the UK population are centred in six or so main cites. There is oodles of countryside and privately owned sprawling land that is barely populated at all.

[Jeremy]

I really don't think the UK is over-populated. There are 50 other counties - small/large, rich/ poor which are much more densely populated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density

Density of population is not an issue, as long as we have the housing and infrastructure to support it.

But what do you mean by "from all sources"?

[pk]

SteveT Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As this little island is so heavily populated,

> would it be a good idea to tax future incomers

> from all sources?

No

Those born get to pay taxes later when they grow up and go to work

[Loz]

People complain of climate change and how we must mend our ways, but as soon as you point out the elephant in the room - that population increase is the main cause of the ever-increasing human footprint on this planet - then there are howls of anguish on how everyone must retain their right to have children.

I'd like to see an analysis of the carbon footprint of taking a child from 0 to 18 and have that incorporated into any future carbon based government policy. I mean, what is the point of me installing low-energy light bulbs, turning the washing machine from 40 to 30 degrees, etc, etc, if everyone else is happily breeding their own private carbon-footprint makers? If that's the deal, then sod you - I'm turning the heating back up come winter.

[mockney piers]

Developed economies tend toward population stasis or decrease. Yet we have an economic system in place that keeps much of the world poor and whapping out the little ones. Just a little food for thought.

Actually if we use the Russian model of a depressed economy and endemic alcoholism and population decrease is quite easy to achieve, perhaps we could start a political party with this as our goals.

'gulags and moonshine no shit bulbs and good times'

[DJKillaQueen]

Where women are educated the birth rate drops. It's no coincidence that the highest birth rates are in countries where formal education for women is lacking or non existent.

[expat]

>I'd like to see an analysis of the carbon footprint of taking a child from 0 to 18

That is virually impossible as it would in part depend on how often and to where the parent fly with the kids, nannies etc.

[Loz]

expat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>> I'd like to see an analysis of the carbon

>> footprint of taking a child from 0 to 18

> That is virually impossible as it would in part

> depend on how often and to where the parent fly

> with the kids, nannies etc.

I disagree. If we can work out average household spending, UK population, etc, working out an average carbon footprint should not be beyond the abilities of statisticians. The government then brings in a personal carbon trading scheme which would tackle the rest. You get to bring up a child, I get to fly on holiday.

[Jeremy]

Loz, I get your point about the envronmental impact of an increasing population. But what measures can you put in place, and how can you enforce them?

[expat]

well the average Carbon Footprint in the UK is apparently 10 Tonnes

http://www.climatechangewales.org.uk/public/?id=112

That is an average though. Carbon Trading does not really address the problem it just moves it around. Perhaps a big tax on flying say 100% and an extra tax on airline fuel would help.

[Loz]

Depends, Jeremy.

On a UK level, all child tax breaks/benefits on one child only. Increase child care tax credits for one child, remove them for subsequent children. If people really want a second child, then fine, but they shouldn't be subsidised to have them. And, should we ever bring in a personal carbon trading scheme (not that I can see that any time soon), ensure it takes children into account.

On a world basis? Like most things: damn near impossible.

[Loz]

expat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Carbon Trading does not

> really address the problem it just moves it

> around. Perhaps a big tax on flying say 100% and

> an extra tax on airline fuel would help.

I disagree. If you are given nine tonnes of carbon as an allocation, if you need extra then you have to buy any more from the market - and that assumes you can find someone to sell it to you.

> Perhaps a big tax on flying say 100% and

> an extra tax on airline fuel would help.

Why should flying (a very small part of total carbon footprint) be taxed more and having children be subsidised?

[expat]

I think it is a myth that flying is so cheap in CO2 - a return trip to spain for a single person is over 20% of the yearly allowance.

http://www.carbonneutralcalculator.com/flightcalculator.aspx

Kids will grow up and pay tax which will pay for NHS etc. perhaps we should severely tax people with grandchildren and/or of pensionable age. :)

[Loz]

expat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Kids will grow up and pay tax which will pay for

> NHS etc.

That's a big assumption. 10% of the taxpayers of the UK pay 55% of income tax revenues. 50% of taxpayers contribute just 11% to the income tax pot. Non-taxpaying adults contribute zilch. So there is probably a greater chance that any given child will be a net drain on the country's finances. (Source)

> I think it is a myth that flying is so cheap in CO2 - a return trip to spain for a single person is over

> 20% of the yearly allowance.

That is correct, but I was thinking more in terms of total CO2 output - flying is a small part of the total annual CO2 output (though per person shifted it is quite high). It's become a bit of a way to redirect attention from other issues. "We should reduce carbon output from X" - "Oooh no, a higher tax on flying is what is needed", when actually, both probably need doing.

[katie1997]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> expat Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Carbon Trading does not

> > really address the problem it just moves it

> > around. Perhaps a big tax on flying say 100%

> and

> > an extra tax on airline fuel would help.

>

> I disagree. If you are given nine tonnes of

> carbon as an allocation, if you need extra then

> you have to buy any more from the market - and

> that assumes you can find someone to sell it to

> you.

expat does make a point though. If a company has been given an allocation of carbon and they then have to buy more from the (rapidly-growing) market, that does not actually mean that they are reducing greenhouse gases.

Carbon trading allocates money to industries and there is a lot of short-term profit to be made from the market. Targets cannot be set too highly either or the carbon price would soar. This in turn can seriously affect investment decisions by companies eg. investing in new technologies. Edited to add: so carbon trading does not necessarily provide the solution.

> > Perhaps a big tax on flying say 100% and

> > an extra tax on airline fuel would help.

What if the airline was using biofuels? ;)

> Why should flying (a very small part of total

> carbon footprint) be taxed more and having

> children be subsidised?

Fair point but children do pay taxes when they grow up and sometimes they have new ideas which help us to progress.

[pk]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> expat Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Why should flying (a very small part of total

> carbon footprint) be taxed more and having

> children be subsidised?

you don't think that going on holiday (or wherever) should maybe be treated differently to creating human life?

or they both things that only rich people should be able to do? (although i suppose that rich children are more likey to go abroad on holiday so may be they in particular should be discouraged, from a carbon point of view?)

[PeckhamRose]

So if the educated are not having kids, and all the uneducated are breeding more kids likely to be just as uneducated, what are we gunna do? Tax fat according to BMI? According to low IQ? Or just tax the wealthy who are too stupid not to get the hell out of this overtaxing country? Or what?

[Loz]

you don't think that going on holiday (or wherever) should maybe be treated differently to creating human life?

If said 'creation of human life' starts to have more of a negative impact than a positive one on an overcrowded planet, then it is definitely a question worth posing.

or they both things that only rich people should be able to do? (although i suppose that rich children are more likey to go abroad on holiday so may be they in particular should be discouraged, from a carbon point of view?)

This is the crux of the problem. Being a liberal, I'm not in favour of laws that say "you may have one child only". I would rather encourage people not to have more than one child. Whilst I understand that doing it via tax/benefits does mean that the rich would be relatively unaffected by this law, I'd counter that the higher income earners tend to have less children anyway. And I can't think of a better solution.

But, always open to new ideas, how would you dissuade people from having more than one child, pk?

[SteveT]

Free condoms?

[PeckhamRose]

Condoms are already free at the doctors. You don't even need an appointment!

[pk]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> how would you dissuade people from having more than one child,

> pk?

in the uk at the present time, i wouldn't

[Loz]

pk Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > how would you dissuade people from having more

> than one child,

> > pk?

>

> in the uk at the present time, i wouldn't

Why?

What is so necessary at the present time to keep birth rates up when it is easily argued that the opposite is true?

[pk]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

>

> What is so necessary at the present time to keep

> birth rates up when it is easily argued that the

> opposite is true?

it not 'so necessary to keep up birth rates' so i wouldn't specifically encourage people to have more children either (or give them tax incentives for doing so)