http://childfreenews.blogspot.com/2008/02/for-dads-happiness-is-no-kids.html

Let them court the media – who only go after the soundbites anyway, before they’re off to feed at the next trough. And soon, even the lure of more subsidies won’t be enough to force people to breed more…some of us just don’t want to be hampered with kids. It’s not just the money Politicians really are stupid… yes, Lurker, the gas guzzling SUV’s are waiting to be taxed, the additional consumption of childed people because of their kids… but then they might hurt the fickle voters.

Feh – agree, but some never stop to do the math

If you dont have children, you consume less, and people already pay tax for services they never use. In democracy its how things work, but taxing someone for NOT having children, is crazy.

Unacceptable. As if Cf were secondary citizens. What about an environmental tax, for producing more consumers and pollution?

Here are some excertps from the blog “Childfree news”, taken from a Newsweek article two years ago:

“From Germany to Russia, there is increasing talk of sanctions against the childless. In Slovakia, a leading adviser on the government’s Strategic Council on Economic Development proposed in March to replace an unpopular payroll tax with a levy on all childless Slovaks between the ages of 25 and 50. In Russia, where the birthrate has dropped from 2.3 in the 1980s to 1.3 today, a powerful business lobby has called for an income-tax surcharge on childless couples. In Germany, economists and politicians have demanded that public pensions for the childless be slashed by up to 50 percent—never mind that such pensions were invented as an alternative to senior citizens’ having to depend on their offspring. These moves resonate favorably with voters and the media. Since a large majority of people in all countries still do have children, critics say such measures in effect serve as middle-class tax breaks in the guise of social policy.

In any case, there is no reason to believe that sanctions against the childless will do much to raise the birthrate. Germany, for instance, already spends more than any other country on family subsidies, and has the world’s second-highest taxes on childless singles (after Belgium). Yet that hasn’t done a thing to boost the birthrate.”

It’s already happening.

…Yes doesn`t it…

..*gives self a hard slap to face*, twice…with both hands…

Being home with children for a couple of years, want change the reality of parenting. But like every other political rubbish, someone are probably going to buy this too.

Willl there some day be a law, where you are directly being taxed for not having children? Sounds crazy, and hope development goes the other way. Maybe it will, because more and more people see they have a choice.

politicians are out for what they can get, blairs gone, but he is now earning MILLIONS a year, strangely with companies he passed legislation that helped them.

and Moo laws are an easy way into power.

All politicians want is to continue playing the game. They all know that they need to appeal to the largest voting base possible.

Unfortunately, there will always be these “family friendly” policies because of this.

UKShell, here in the States we have this “FMLA – Family Medical Leave Act” where we can take some time off of work for an immediate family need. This is mostly used and referred to when someone has a baby, but it can be taken if you need to care for a parent (but not an in law). In a nutshell, it’s up to 12 weeks and an employer does not need to offer it until the employee has been with the company for 12 months and it does not need to be paid time off either. Most women “save it” for the birth of a child, tho’. When it becomes unfair is if an employer offers to continue to pay salary for all or part of those 12 weeks for the birth of a child, but not for an employee taking time off and using their FMLA when they need to care for a spouse or a parent. FMLA can also be used for yourself when you have a medical certificate that says you need to take time off from work.

‘Family friendly’ working hours for *everyone*, regardless of why! Where ‘family’ can mean partner, parents, relatives, pets, hobbies…

Hey, maybe they should just call it ‘Life Friendly’ instead? Oh, in the ideal world… *crosses fingers*

Hang on.. isnt that the same as what happened in the victorian era and before. and didnt they complain that it was wrong that a woman was stuck at home. over 100 years later and its back to how it was.

2 even clinton/obama has done the same bribe to mothers in the american elections.

Why? well my thought is that men are tired of the inequalities so they dont vote, women who work dont have the time to vote or they love the idea of getting something for nothing, so that leaves them and single or sahm to be the voters. To win power they bribe the people that will get them in. in a popularity contest