Tax-free state payment of $15k/£10k to get sterilized

Suppose a new social policy was introuced tomorrow. Anyone under the age of thirty five who was childless could accept a five figure sum from the government to be made sterile. Absolutely no government or private policies would be dependent on taking the money (e.g. one could not be considered capable of “work” because one could be sterilized for cash).

I think this would be an excellent idea. Honest, decent tax payers who want to remain child less through choice would receive a small refund on what they pay towards schooling and other services towards kids. But that’s a small bonus of the scheme - what this is really aimed at is the nuisance dregs of society who have ten terribly brought up kids (who of the eight that survive until adulthood go on to each have ten more and so on). If the scheme sounds appealing to someone, then they are probably not the kind of person who we want to be having kids.

It’s just an idea I had while watching “The Estate” on Iplayer where many of these kinds of families are showcased. They are a tiny number but it would be crazy to deny they exist.

Or is this too social-darwiny? Or are there other practical objections? Would it even work?

(Edit: It’s also based on a scheme I saw for crack addicts that they have in America, although that is funded by a charity and pays considerably less.)

Can’t I just sell a kidney or something?

(Seriously. We’d likely allow that before this. I hope.)

I think your idea is totalitarian, morally heinous and fails to make any real change to the circumstances in which poverty proliferates. It’s profoundly anti-human, and reinforces the lack of enterprise and serious investment in changing the circumstances of people living in these conditions.

Education, employment prospects and social cohesion help move people out of poverty. Changes to family size result naturally. Family planning provision should enable people to make their own choices. It should not be used as a stick to beat poor people with.

I agree.

I’ll jump in to argue. I don’t want kids and am broke as a joke, so I’d still be all over that shit. It’s a voluntary sign-up program, right? I’d think that negates some of the “totalitarian” objections.

But you know what? I ***AM *"the kind of person who we want to be having kids," as a matter of fact. I’m well-educated, aware of what are and aren’t realistic expectations to make of small children, in a stable job and a loving relationship, and all that jazz. Shit, I’d be a GREAT mom. I just … don’t want to. So I object to the comment I quoted there.

** What’s this “we” bullshit, anyway? Who’s we?

People without kids still benefit from programs that educate other peoples kids, since chances are your doctor, IT guy and the person that designed your car went through public education. So I don’t think much of the “fairness” argument.

I don’t really get your other argument. Most of the people I’ve seen with really large families are religious folks. I don’t think much of religion, but I certainly wouldn’t call such people the “dregs of society”.

If it is the “dregs” you are concerned with eliminating, then why not put that money into education. There is a correlation between higher education and lower birth rates.

So a vasectomy I take it? I’m gay, happily partnered and we don’t want kids anyway. Sign us both up. That money would help pay down the mortgage. (That would convert to nearly 50 grand for the two of us, nice deal!)

When kids get older they pay taxes. You could make a case that someone who chooses not to have kids should pay more in taxes because they received a benefit that they are not going to pass on.

Hell, I paid to be sterilized!

your tought is stupid unless your country have no debt since mostly all coutry have debt there is no reason to pay for a human not making infant . the debt of our society is the legacy of our children we gave them benefit that we enjoy today but they have to pay a part of the debt in the future. if you leave no future you shall be tax for not beign part of who will pay the debt not beign credited

sitchensis is right i replied without looking at is post , if you enjoy what is offered to you by debt you should be tax more since you wont leave children to pay for it , debt do not live and die like human.

I’d give it 5 years, tops, before there was a class action lawsuit made up of furious “victims” who want either their fertility back, or cash compensation for their fertility being permanently gone.

“But they freely agreed to be sterilized and there was no coercion!” you say? This is America, darlin’ - nobody is responsible for their own actions anymore, it’s always somebody else’s fault.

Then again we already get fewer tax break than couples with children (which is basically the same as paying higher taxes), have more disposible income to pump into the economy, and somebody get’s our assests if we die (that somebody being the state if we’re completely heirless). It all evens out in the end.

Who would perform the sterilizations? Childless people (especially women) under age 35 can’t just walk into a doctor’s office and spread their legs; a lot of doctors will refuse to sterilize such people now, let alone when they come in only wanting to do it for the money.

Judging from history quite a few of them wouldn’t be responsible; they’ll have been lied or pressured into it. Governments have a history of going way overboard with anything smacking of eugenics; that’s much of the reason the practice earned such a bad reputation (the other reason being the Nazis, of course). Whatever neat, apparently ethical plan someone comes up with it’s pretty much guaranteed it’ll be immediately warped into an instrument of bigotry and class war.

I get snipped for 15k.
I get unsnipped for under 2k.

Repeat

That doesn’t always work. And it would probably be the basis of one of the previously mentioned lawsuits when someone is told that it always works in order to con them into submitting.

How about just better access to birth control and education?

This is an excellent practical objection. So good, in fact, that I have to accept ever introducing this scheme in the real world would be a bad idea.

But let’s pretend we could trust governments for the rest of this thread…

The type of people this policy is aimed at just won’t take the opportunities.