Originally Posted by Redundant
When there are less children there will be less money due to lower workforce. Poor families rely on increased workforce to support themselves. You can't reduce a country's workforce and expect it to become richer magically.
As for my analogy: When you have fewer cars you will have less money from taxes to improve streets. ;o
Overpopulation may be a problem but simply reducing it does not cure anything. It's a rather simplistic attempt at solving a complex problem.
Your taxes go to whatever the gov' wants regardless as to whether you have a car ;o
If you reduce the income by X and reduce expenses by >X then you will have a gross profit, so yes it will increase prosperity.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by Arglax
Besides, how do you know that the same people would still have as many children if they had contraconception?
Yet another reason why sterilisation just fails to make a good enough argument...
Now doing recoloring for people not in the clan as-well, PM for more info!
PROUD OWNER OF THORN'S GOOD ENOUGH WRITER AWARD!
PROUD OWNER OF THORN'S GOOD ENOUGH WRITER AWARD!
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Your taxes go to whatever the gov' wants regardless as to whether you have a car ;o
If you reduce the income by X and reduce expenses by >X then you will have a gross profit, so yes it will increase prosperity.
Dunno about your country, but in mine car taxes go specifically to infrastructure.
As I said before, unless you prove to me that fewer people mean more prosperity I will regard your reasoning as stupid and oversimplification of a very complex matter that will not actually solve anything in real life.
I suspect you have no such proof, which is why you keep on attacking my analogy rather than attempting to further your stance.
weak
How are you?
