[extropy-chat] [SALT] The DEpopulation Problem, this Friday (for forwarding)
megaquark at hotmail.com
Thu Aug 12 22:51:51 UTC 2004
Don;t forget that self-employed people are able to employ their children at
any age that t hey are reasonable able to do the work. They do not fall
under wage/hour regulations either. Having many children when you are
self-employed can greatly increase productivity while keeping costs down. In
this case, having many children becomes a huge benefit! :-)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lee" <brian_a_lee at hotmail.com>
To: <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [extropy-chat] [SALT] The DEpopulation Problem,this Friday
> >From: Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
> >To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> >Subject: Re: Re: [extropy-chat] [SALT] The DEpopulation Problem,this
> >(for forwarding)
> >Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
> >--- Brian Lee <brian_a_lee at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > In the US, the tax burden decreases with each additional child. So
> > > theoretically, the higher the local tax burden, the greater the tax
> > > incentive would be to have children (as the deductions would be more
> > > valuable).
> >The problem with this logic is that income does not increase with each
> >additional child, so for a given income, there is a maximum tolerable
> >number of children. The more income that gets taken in taxes, the fewer
> >this number is. If a four child family with zero taxes gets a tax
> >increase to 25% of income, that family can afford three children. At
> >50% they could afford two, and one at 75% tax burden.
> >Furthermore, it can also be said that the tax burden DOESN'T decrease
> >proportionately to the incremental cost of raising each child. If the
> >per child deduction does not meet or exceed the per child rearing cost,
> >there is an increasing tax burden per child.
> I was trying to point out that if a child allows for a set deduction (lets
> say $3000) then the value of that deduction increases with the increasing
> tax burden. Under a 25% marginal rate it's $750 but under a 40% rate it's
> worth $1200. Of course the family would also be paying more in taxes, but
> the value of each child would increase, so you get to a certain tax
> percentage where the value of the deduction is greater than the cost of
> child and your kids become, effectively, free under a more oppressive tax
> burden where they would cost more under a low tax burden.
> >Finally, the per child tax deduction only applies to income taxes.
> >Child related consumption causes sales tax payments, and each child's
> >bedroom in a home increases property tax payments. My theory deals with
> >the whole tax burden, not just income taxes.
> I'm also referring to property taxes. My point about the marginal cost of
> each child includes property. For example. If you live in a 1 bedroom apt
> and have a child, you'll want more space. So you get a 3 bedroom house or
> bedroom apt or whatever. This increases property tax and forces new
> expenses. If you have a 2nd or 3rd child, this does not require more space
> (just get some bunk beds) so no additional property taxes.
> I think it boils down to certain "fixed" child rearing costs such as:
> health insurance
> public education
> that don't vary linearly with the number of children (you end up with
> where 1-3 it is fixed, then 4-6 or whatever)
> and then "variable" costs (as kids increase and age, these costs go up)
> and finally mixed (can be shared amond kids)
> So you do end up with additional sales tax for food, clothing, but for the
> big ticket items like houses and cars you don't really have an incremental
> cost between 1 and 3 kids (maybe even 4-5 if you start squeezing them in).
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
More information about the extropy-chat