[johnisgood]

Yeah, somehow child labor = children are dying. It is ridiculous. Most of the time they are better off working, and not just to gain experience, but to bring money or food home and so on. Heck, when I was a kid, most kids I knew worked and was better off doing that. They were not dying, they are not dead. What gives then?

His link even mentions this:

> Contrary to popular belief, most child labourers are employed by their parents rather than in manufacturing or formal economy.

> Preventing children from participating in productive work would be more harmful to their welfare and that of their group in the long run

Child labor is not inherently wrong, and no one says the kids should have to work in harsh conditions just like the adults. Child labor != children dying.

It is not an answer to your question, he just has absolutely no clue what he is talking about. It is yet another instance of "think about the children" gone wrong. I mean, yeah dude, working at retail or assembling whatever is killing our children! Absurd.

Edit: I am against forced labor when it comes to both children AND adults.

[speedplane]

> Yeah, somehow child labor = children are dying. It is ridiculous.

I don't think that's the comparison. It's more child labor = forced labor. It's not centrally about preventing death, it's more about preventing slavery. Children are particularly vulnerable to coercion, and if children are working in a factory, it's likely that they are doing so against their will.

[johnisgood]

His child labor link was in response to "country who’s people are dying on the streets", but it of course failed to mention how lack of taxation is the cause.

In fact, the article says:

> Other schemes included 'earn-and-learn' programs where children would work and thereby learn. Britain for example passed a law, the so-called Masters and Servants Act of 1899, followed by Tax and Pass Law, to encourage child labour in colonies particularly in Africa. These laws offered the native people the legal ownership to some of the native land in exchange for making labour of wife and children available to colonial government's needs such as in farms and as picannins.

> Beyond laws, new taxes were imposed on colonies. One of these taxes was the Head Tax in the British and French colonial empires. The tax was imposed on everyone older than 8 years, in some colonies. To pay these taxes and cover living expenses, children in colonial households had to work.

Seems like it actually did the opposite of what he claimed?

[speedplane]

> These laws offered the native people the legal ownership to some of the native land in exchange for making labour of wife and children available to colonial government's needs ...

So one country conquered another, and said they can have land they already had back if agree to forced labor according "to colonial government's needs". Doesn't seem much different than enslaving a population directly.

[zeropnc]

I find it interesting that people who blindly support social economics almost always immediately revert to some moral argument. Good to know it only took 2 posts for you to revert to "oh the hugh manity, you obviously like dead children"

The original question was about a country where raising taxes would improve the situation. Name me a country that solved child labour and improved the economy by raising taxes?

If you could accomplish that point without comparing me and my family members to the Nazi party, extra points.

[johnisgood]

> Good to know it only took 2 posts for you to revert to "oh the hugh manity, you obviously like dead children"

That was not me. :P