PDA

View Full Version : Tax babies 'to save planet'


KILLER_CLOWN
12-10-2007, 04:49 PM
December 10, 2007 04:52pm
Article from: AAPFont size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
COUPLES who have more than two children should be charged a lifelong tax to offset their extra offspring's carbon dioxide emissions, a medical expert says.

The report in an Australian medical journal called for parents to be charged $5000 a head for every child after their second, and an annual tax of up to $800.

And couples who were sterilised would be eligible for carbon credits under the controversial proposal.

Perth specialist Professor Barry Walters was heavily critical of the $4000 baby bonus, saying that paying new parents extra for every baby fuelled more children, more emissions and "greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour".

Instead, it should be replaced with a "baby levy" in the form of a carbon tax in line with the "polluter pays" principle, he wrote in the latest Medical Journal of Australia.

"Every family choosing to have more than a defined number of children should be charged a carbon tax that would fund the planting of enough trees to offset the carbon cost generated by a new human being," said Prof Walters, an obstetrician at King Edward Memorial Hospital.

Sustainable Population Australia suggested a maximum of two, he said.

By the same reasoning, contraceptives like diaphragms and condoms, as well as sterilisation procedures, should attract carbon credits, the specialist said.

"As doctors, I believe we need to think this way," he wrote in a letter to the journal.

"As Australians I believe we need to be less arrogant.

"As citizens of the world, I believe we deserve no more population concessions than those in India or China."

Garry Eggers, director of the NSW Centre for Health Promotion and Research, agreed with the call, saying former treasurer Peter Costello's request for three children per family - "one for mum, one for dad and one for the country" - was too single-minded.

"Population remains crucial to all environmental considerations," wrote Professor Eggers, a leading advocate of the personal carbon trading debate.

"The debate (around population control) needs to be reopened as part of a second ecological revolution."

Family groups rejected the calls, saying larger families used less energy than smaller ones and should not be penalised.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22899785-2,00.html


ok planeteers were going door to door to save the planet...how many children do you have breathing out dangerous Carbon Dioxide?

BIG_DADDY
12-10-2007, 04:50 PM
This is just stupid considering.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-10-2007, 04:55 PM
This is just stupid considering.

Aha are you hiding an extra baby somewhere in your house? Do you realise how badly your killing mother earth? Let us go ask the inventor of the internet, the man that so badly needs something to save.....ALGORe

BIG_DADDY
12-10-2007, 05:02 PM
Aha are you hiding an extra baby somewhere in your house? Do you realise how badly your killing mother earth? Let us go ask the inventor of the internet, the man that so badly needs something to save.....ALGORe

LOL, no. Most of the people I see with a bunch of kids do it so they can steal more of our tax dollars. Stop providing incentives to have kids in the first place would be a nice start.

Iowanian
12-10-2007, 05:06 PM
I have a better idea.....the United States stops funding feeding of famine crisis, civil waring nations and stops sending medicines for curable diseases to those nations who can't pay.

Population problem solved....huge surplus of tax money to fix American problems.


Seems a little radical....

If you can afford to feed your own children, have as many as you want.

Mr. Laz
12-10-2007, 05:08 PM
hell ya .... tax the hell out of those baby making fuggers.

dumbass catholics will go bankrupt right and left ROFL


let's do the math


10+ kids per family at 50k base cost with yearly of 8k per year.

tax until kids are 18


about 200,000+ per baby factory :hmmm:


go man go ........

Iowanian
12-10-2007, 05:10 PM
I'd prefer a "stupid Tax".

Laz, and alot of the rest of the population will probably require 2nd jobs to pay their hefty portion.

Mr. Laz
12-10-2007, 05:13 PM
I'd prefer a "stupid Tax".

Laz, and alot of the rest of the population will probably require 2nd jobs to pay their hefty portion.
ROFL

KILLER_CLOWN
12-10-2007, 05:14 PM
Just the fact that it is disguised as a "Carbon" tax or simply a "breathing" tax is unreal. I could see the commercials of the future..

Bill "I got a great deal on air today, LIFE SUPPORT Inc. is offering 5 days worth for only $49.95"

Jim "Wow do they have anymore? best deal i have seen is 10 day bulk packs of $109.99 from those other guys, i'm heading down to life support right now! thanks BILL!"

Cochise
12-10-2007, 05:23 PM
I'm confused. Should people with a lot of kids be taxed because of their extra carbon footprint or should people with no kids be taxed for not having any kids to grow up and pay taxes?

Bob Dole
12-10-2007, 05:28 PM
I'm confused. Should people with a lot of kids be taxed because of their extra carbon footprint or should people with no kids be taxed for not having any kids to grow up and pay taxes?

Bob Dole damned well better be getting a rebate for not adding to the global crisis.

Iowanian
12-10-2007, 07:25 PM
I think a "pet tax" should be implemented. All of those useless lapdogs and house cats, flatulating their greenhouse gases and exhailing the air they've wasted.

Hunters should earn carbon credits for every animal we kill.