1
$\begingroup$

My idea is about the right to give birth.

What if the right to give birth is given only people who pay tax in their country? I.e the more the tax you pay, more right you get raise your children.

After a generation passes, people who were not be able to pay taxes (the poor) would not be there. Earth will have only rich people, and Earth will become free of poverty.

$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ A little back round information about your world will help, when is it set, how is the no child policy implemented ? Is this a post-scarcity world where robots do most of the physical hard work ? Is there a minimum amount of income needed to pay tax ? If you are talking about current world, I think it would be hard to both implement, and work as we need cheap labour. Also larger younger population to support the increasingly older people. $\endgroup$ – Chinu Jul 28 '16 at 6:14
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ How are you defining 'poverty'? What we consider the poverty level in the US exceeds the average incomes of almost half the nations on Earth. If you 'got rid' of the poor in your society, those who took over the bottom spot would be the new 'poor'. Its a sliding, subjective scale if you don't provide a precise definition. $\endgroup$ – GrandmasterB Jul 28 '16 at 6:27
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ After a few years, society collapses in a huge uprising. Now everyone is worse off. $\endgroup$ – Chieron Jul 28 '16 at 7:21
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ If children are important for you and someone decides that you do not deserve them, rejecting the entire system as unjust and rebelling is a valid reaction. And the system is unjust - being poor is not a choice and becoming rich depends on factors beyond your control, too. The upper classes here try to rid themselves of the lower classes. Wealthy people will also behave like a proper aristocracy. $\endgroup$ – Chieron Jul 28 '16 at 7:41
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I would suggest to add you definition of poverty. Even if it's well known word in some parts of the world, but people in different parts of the world have different subjective perception of it. In some places it's having 1 car per family instead 2 cars per adult, in some cases have to eat 500kCal for today, or just something to eat maybe tomorrow, if today was not great day for food harvesting. So please, define Your perception of poverty. Also different kind of poverty have different solutions, and maybe it is important for answers to your question. $\endgroup$ – MolbOrg Jul 28 '16 at 10:38
31
$\begingroup$

No.

Let's make some assumptions to make this situation feasible and overcome some of the major difficulties:

  • The law can be enforced. Probably through some draconian means involving forced sterilization or infanticide.
  • The law is present in a closed system. For example, a country with no migration or by a world wide government.
  • Everyone accepts the law without rebellion. Mind control or overwhelming force perhaps.

The poor are not, as some media outlets would lead you to believe, all sat at home watching daytime TV. Most of them are working at least as hard as the rich but not earning enough to live on. The majority of those living in poverty are simply not being paid enough to buy the things that they and their families need. The reason we can buy manufactured goods for such low prices is because the labour used to produce them is so cheap.

When you go out and buy something, you are nearly always exploiting somebody by valuing their time less than your own. There are economies of scale at work, but in general those people producing an item are paid less than those consuming it.

By removing those who are currently in poverty you will inevitably increase the cost of living. Industry will still need labour so wages will need to increase. To maintain profits, the cost of goods will increase. In turn this will increase the cost for living, forcing more people into poverty.

Poverty isn't something that can be removed from society without also removing wealth. You can't simply remove poor people, as those at the bottom of the scale will become the new poor.

Poverty would more likely be solved through a redistribution of wealth. So you might be better off preventing the rich from breeding. There's less of them and they are arguably less important to our society. Extreme inheritance taxes would also reduce the value of accumulating wealth and perhaps encourage a sharing society. Of course, a solution such as this may be just as naive as sterilising poor people...

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ good answer, and sorry could not resist to make bigger emphasis on that denying part. Probably period after it also would be good. (if my edit will be accepted) $\endgroup$ – MolbOrg Jul 28 '16 at 10:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ People like Peter Theil, Steve Jobs or Elon Musk can hardly be considered "less important; indeed the reason they are amazingly wealthy is because they are amazingly creative and produced goods and services which people want, things that never existed before. $\endgroup$ – Thucydides Jul 28 '16 at 10:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Thucydides I would totally agree with you. Elon Musk appears to be not really interested in money other than as a means to fund his technological endeavours. His behaviour is not indicative of someone who wants to accumulate wealth. However there are many more rich people who are not benefiting society as a whole and accumulate wealth simply to be wealthy. $\endgroup$ – dunc123 Jul 28 '16 at 10:39
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Thucydides yes, this part of answer is provocative, but if treated as sarcasm - it's excellent. All peoples are important, any of us. Even those which names should not be pronounced in public places. And by understanding that, and getting knowledge about that - this way will we go forward. We have to learn how to form better connections between peoples. $\endgroup$ – MolbOrg Jul 28 '16 at 10:52
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ The same could be said of the people who create designer drugs -- "because they are amazingly creative and produced goods and services which people want, things that never existed before." I heard the claim that six people have more wealth than the poorest 3.5 billion people. If you confiscated their wealth, redistributed it to the poorest 3.5 billion you could double their wealth. That would put a dent in poverty. The six could be put on a stipend of one million dollars per annum. Enough to start new wealth making enterprises if they wanted. $\endgroup$ – a4android Jul 28 '16 at 12:19
7
$\begingroup$

No it won't.

Poverty isn't a biological phenomenon. Poverty isn't determined genetically, you can't get rid of it through eugenics.

Being a complex concept in economics, poverty can not be eliminated just by adding more taxes. Quite the opposite, "birth tax" can actually be the cause of a family becoming poor, it they spent their last money on it.

There are causes for poverty that work in context of one single generation. No matter if my parents weren't poor, I still can become poor in certain circumstances.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
7
$\begingroup$

Inequality is a requirement for human economic interaction

In hard science, inequality drives action. Heat flows from hot to cold, electric potential flows from high potential to low potential. Exothermic chemical reactions occur, add heat energy to nearby particles, and provide the free energy for other reactions to occur, etc. If everything was always at the same temperature, there could be no chemical reactions (exothermic or endothermic) because the result of said reaction would be a difference in temperature. If everything was at the same electric potential, there would be no electricity. Sounds like a crappy universe...

Apply this analogy to human economic interactions. If you make something that other people want, you create DEMAND (not just supply!). The desire to get that you don't have is what drives people to produce something of value in return. Demand is the currency that drives further 'reactions' just as thermal energy in particles is the currency required to drive chemical reactions.

Lets say I'm a cave man and I made something--a pointy rock for pounding these nuts that I gathered. Now you want one. If enough people want one, that is, if there is enough demand for my pointy rocks, then I can compel them to give me something in return. They will either have to find something that I value to give me (food, sex, employment in my entourage) or they will just have to go on being poorer in pointy rocks than me. If I hadn't invented any pointy rocks, then they wouldn't be finding something to trade for one. My pointy rock is driving economic interaction, and creating wealth. Where before none of us had anything of economic value, now some of us have pointy rocks.

But don't take the analogy too far. While there is a limit to the thermal energy in the universe and by taking thermal energy from one place you remove it from another, economic value has no conservation law. You can simply create economic value by making something new and generating new demand.

Income inequality is as necessary to economic interaction as potential is to electrical interactions and heat energy is to chemical interactions. Without income inequality, economic progress would grind to a halt. You do NOT want to eliminate inequality from your future Utopia, or it will be a stagnant hell-hole.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm not entirely sure if there is no conservation law on economic value. Isn't time the raw material in an economy? Ultimately an economy is based on the labour available to generate economic activity. $\endgroup$ – dunc123 Jul 28 '16 at 14:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The amount of value generated by labor is referred to in economics as productivity. Productivity for people in modern first world nations is orders of magnitude higher than it was for the peasants who erected the first cities back in Sumer. As long as productivity can go up, then labor is not a constraint on the generation of wealth. $\endgroup$ – kingledion Jul 28 '16 at 14:20
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Modern society is able to produce more units of output given the same input of labour. However, that leads to a reduction in the value of the output, does it not? I do not have to work orders of magnitude less than a peasant in Sumer to be able to feed my family. Is wealth not simply a IOU for people's time? Ultimately any transaction is trading your time for someone else's. $\endgroup$ – dunc123 Jul 28 '16 at 14:35
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Your last sentence is true. Your second sentance is not. The Sumerian farmer worked all year to produce barely enough food than could feed his family. In the US, 1.4% of the population is employed in agriculture, and the US is the leader food exporter. Lets assume that each American farmer now feeds 100 other people. The food it takes to feed me costs that farmer 1/100th of his time. So yes, it now takes 2 orders of magnitude less work to feed me than it did in Sumer. And the farmer who used to trade his meagre crop for little, now can trade it for the goods provided by 100 other people. $\endgroup$ – kingledion Jul 28 '16 at 15:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I agree with your logic but I have this niggling feeling there is something untoward somewhere. I'll leave it for another day rather than continue to discuss this in the comments :) $\endgroup$ – dunc123 Jul 28 '16 at 16:07
3
$\begingroup$

Depends on what you mean by "poor" especially "to poor to pay taxes." In the US, a family of four has to be making over 50,000 per year before they start pulling their own weight. The tax burden follows Praeto's rule, 20% of the population pays 80% of the taxes. If not being a tax burden is your definition of poor, then even in developed countries, half or more of the population is "poor."

Prior to the Corporate/Industrial age. The agricultural poor paid the majority of the taxes while the nobility paid nothing. France had a little to-due about the imbalance circ 1782.

The tax burden didn't fall off the poor until corporations really got going generating more wealth than agriculture and in a more concentrated and seizable area that a butch subsistence farmer scattered all over the country. (Famously, the Dutch East India Company was created when the government of Holland forced many small companies into one in order to protect the states tax revenues that paid for their war of independence.)

The poor in the 3rd world are much different than the poor in the developed world. The 3rd world has corrupt legal systems, no protection for private property, and therefore few corporations which apart from being revenue sources are also necessary for the building and running of modern technological assets. As a result, the poor are one way or another a major source of tax revenue and their labor desperately needed in a virtually pre-industrial economy.

Subsistence farms absolutely require the physical labor of children to by. Price fixing for the urban poor, keeps rural farmers poor which in turn means they must rely on their own children for labor, hence higher population growth than necessary.

Therefore, unless you have a first world economy, the state will need a lot of poor people for its own survival.

In the developed world, we don't don't have people who are materially poor. The average poor person in the U.S. today, has a material standard of living equivalent to that of a middle-class person 50 years ago and the material conditions continue to improve. The millions who flock to the US every year to work hard and off the books just to be poor is good evidence of this.

"Poverty" in the developed world is viewed both historically and compared to the 3rd world, much more like calling the least wealthy guy at the country club "poor". We're the first civilization in history to have obesity be a health issue for the poor, because food is so cheap and labor so light.

Jesus said, "The poor you will always have with you," and he was right because it’s a condition relative to condition of others in society. The goal post are constantly moving. No matter how much better off those who have the least in a society may become in absolute terms, as long as everyone else's lives are also improving at the same time, somebody is still relatively poor to someone else.

The real sting of poverty in the developed world is not material want, but the pain caused by the perception of the poor that they are off low social status. Human's evolved with virtually no material safety and our brains tell us that high status and dominance will make us happy. Even if you did manage to somehow humanely decrease the percentage of people to unproductive to pay taxes. Those who now found themselves at the bottom, no matter how materially comfortable, would now feel "poor" and the cycle would start all over again.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your answer reflects a fundamental misunderstanding about taxation. Everybody pays lots of taxes, just not income taxes. When you drive a car, you fuel it with gasoline that is taxed at the pump. When you own a home, you pay property taxes. When you rent a home, you pay the landlord's property taxes. When you buy things, you pay sales tax, and the property taxes of the vendor or vendor's landlord, and the payroll taxes of the employees whose incomes are dependent on your commerce. Everybody contributes to taxes, whether we like it or not. $\endgroup$ – rm -rf slash Jul 29 '16 at 17:19

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.