Nate Duehr wrote:

> How about this thought-experiment?  Since parent's in the U.S.  
> currently get to claim dependents, giving them a cut off their bottom  
> line that saves them taxes -- instead set it up so they can check a  
> box on their tax form to elect NOT to get a dependent discount, and  
> the difference between what they would have paid and what they pay  
> after giving back the bottom line write-off, goes directly to their  
> local school.
> 
> I bet many would not do it.  

Possibly. But it's besides the point.

> But it's a simple question:  "Parents, do you want to pay your fair share
> and have higher taxes that match what the guy down the block with no
> kids pays, if it means more money directly to your kid's school?"

The point is what is the fair share. 

Out of order (but in this context better in order here) you said:

> My view is that stopping people from reproduction is virtually
> impossible, so society is not going to "disappear" overnight, as in your
> thought-experiment.

I agree. But the issue is not that. Taxes have two purposes in a capitalist
society: one is to finance the necessary public infrastructure, the other
is to provide for a compensation for externalities that are not included in
the current monetary structure. 

Having kids (whether desired or not) creates a number of externalities for
the ones who have them and for the ones who don't have them. The question
is how to compensate these externalities -- if you think the capitalist
system is worth anything. Just not compensating is not a good idea (in
general, of course -- I can understand why you feel that in this case it
would be :)

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist