Monday, December 10, 2007
Baby tax?
OK. This is from Focus on the Family Action. It's just a brief, but it speaks volumes about the difference in values between the secular left and the religious right. (Duh.)
Of course, I do not think that a tax on babies, as outlined below, is as horrendous as I'm sure my righty friends would think.
Here's the short news item:
An Australian obstetrician wants families to pay a $5,000 levy on the birth of a baby and up to $800 annually to offset the child’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Associate Professor Barry Walters wrote in the Medical Journal of Australia that every couple with more than two children should be taxed to pay for enough trees to offset the carbon emissions generated over a child’s lifetime. He said that use of contraceptives and sterilization procedures could help earn “carbon credits” to offset the baby taxes.
"Children are a blessing, not a threat to the environment,” said Carrie Gordon Earll, senior director of issue analysis for Focus on the Family Action. “Ironically, this idea flies in the face of European countries that are offering incentives for couples to have children to counter a dropping replacement birth rate. For example, couples in one Russian city were encouraged earlier this year to procreate with incentives such as televisions and refrigerators for those who give birth nine months later. Now that's a life- and planet-affirming plan."
OK.
"Children are a blessing."
Absolutely.
"This idea (for a tax on babies) flies in the face of European countries that are offering incentives for couples to have children ... "
My question: Do people who work for FOTF Action read history and current events?
European countries *are* in fact dying faster than they are procreating. The world population does, however, continue to increase.
Could it be that both issues are bigger than the nose in front of the American face? I mean, it's bigger than us.
I'm just sayin'.
--ER
Of course, I do not think that a tax on babies, as outlined below, is as horrendous as I'm sure my righty friends would think.
Here's the short news item:
An Australian obstetrician wants families to pay a $5,000 levy on the birth of a baby and up to $800 annually to offset the child’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Associate Professor Barry Walters wrote in the Medical Journal of Australia that every couple with more than two children should be taxed to pay for enough trees to offset the carbon emissions generated over a child’s lifetime. He said that use of contraceptives and sterilization procedures could help earn “carbon credits” to offset the baby taxes.
"Children are a blessing, not a threat to the environment,” said Carrie Gordon Earll, senior director of issue analysis for Focus on the Family Action. “Ironically, this idea flies in the face of European countries that are offering incentives for couples to have children to counter a dropping replacement birth rate. For example, couples in one Russian city were encouraged earlier this year to procreate with incentives such as televisions and refrigerators for those who give birth nine months later. Now that's a life- and planet-affirming plan."
OK.
"Children are a blessing."
Absolutely.
"This idea (for a tax on babies) flies in the face of European countries that are offering incentives for couples to have children ... "
My question: Do people who work for FOTF Action read history and current events?
European countries *are* in fact dying faster than they are procreating. The world population does, however, continue to increase.
Could it be that both issues are bigger than the nose in front of the American face? I mean, it's bigger than us.
I'm just sayin'.
--ER
Comments:
<< Home
Yes, children are a blessing.
What I like is that the proposal is from Australia, and the example of depopulation through negative reproduction rates is from Europe - I guess the writer doesn't quite get that they're on opposite sides of the planet.
This may or may not be a good idea, I don't really know. I am just amused by the audacity of this piece (as well as its geographic ignorance) - if the Australian government chooses to do this as an environmental measure, who are we in the United States to say "Boo" about it?
Seeing as how FotF doesn't like sex, I wonder how they think all these babies are going to come about. . .
Post a Comment
What I like is that the proposal is from Australia, and the example of depopulation through negative reproduction rates is from Europe - I guess the writer doesn't quite get that they're on opposite sides of the planet.
This may or may not be a good idea, I don't really know. I am just amused by the audacity of this piece (as well as its geographic ignorance) - if the Australian government chooses to do this as an environmental measure, who are we in the United States to say "Boo" about it?
Seeing as how FotF doesn't like sex, I wonder how they think all these babies are going to come about. . .
<< Home
