[snapplebobapple]

sigh Very much true and very much not whataboutism because it is valid to compare taxation regimes. If you like progressive taxation then the onus is on you to justify your claims that applying the exact same regime to another characteristic (doing your job at keeping the birthrate above replacement) Is totalitarian while applying it based on income is not (you've failed to do this btw because you can't because they are either both totalitarian or both not because they are the exact same premise).

Also, you fail to appreciate what tax penalties look like. This will incent the rich to have more kids because a 10 % penalty when you are making a million dollars a year is 100k but it's a rounding error if you are in poverty because the first almost 32k of household income is tax free if you joint file. It was said partially in jest, but it is actually a good policy if you can price it low enough that it doesn't cause migration but high enough that it does cause more kids.

[M95D]

I'm going to split your arguments into parts, because they don't make much sense clumped together. I have a hard time understanding it.

> not whataboutism because it is valid to compare taxation regimes.

But this isn't a taxation regime. It's a penalty for choosing a way of life. It's as if the non-parent is responsible for the far future income of the state, especially in a state (USA) with no state-provided pensions; a state that doen't contribute anything back to the future non-parent compared to a future parent.

> the onus is on you to justify your claims

I already demonstrated that the only states that implemented it were totalitarian states. Are you in disagreement with this? Proportional taxation (fixed % of income) and even progressive taxation (higher % of income for higher income) is used everywhere, totalitarian state or otherwise. I'm not going to argue why that type of taxation is a good thing. Ask a LLM.

> (doing your job at keeping the birthrate above replacement)

Not my job. Not _a_ job. Not unless you consider that women should stay at home, cook and take care of children. BTW, do you?

> applying the exact same regime to another characteristic [...] Is totalitarian while applying it based on income is not

Sorry? Should that be the other way around to be comparable? More children, more tax? The state spends money on children, even in USA.

> This will incent the rich to have more kids because a 10 % penalty when you are making a million dollars a year is 100k but it's a rounding error if you are in poverty because the first almost 32k of household income is tax free if you joint file.

The rich have more disposable income. They won't feel 10%. A poor person is already at their limit. 10% will break them, so they'll have more kids and they'll be poor too. They will not contribute to future taxes. "useless turds" as you said - be careful what you wish for.

> the first almost 32k of household income is tax free

Oh, so they're exempt from childless tax too? That's moving goalposts.

[snapplebobapple]

What is and isn't a taxation regime isn't up to you, it depends on whether your tax rate is modulated by some choice, which is clearly the case here. Lets flip to the counter example. I can just as easily say "Choosing not be a useless turd and therefore paying more taxes per dollar earned is not a taxation regime, it's a penalty for choosing a way of life." It's literally the exact same statement swapped for what is being taxed and it is just as untrue as your statement.

>I already demonstrated...

Saying totalitarian states are the only people to have tried this is actual what aboutism.There's no valid reason to expect outcomes to be the same when all the other parts of society and economy are so radically different. This is not justification of anything.

>Not my job. Incorrect. Having a birth rate at or above replacement is one of the foundational requirements of having a society. If you are in the society it is definitely your responsibility, it has just never been an issue before because we previously did not have birth control or many women out of the home. No, I don't think that. If I thought that, I wouldn't need a taxation regime to get this outcome, I could just stop educating women and keep them in the home, it would be far simpler and far worse than taxing people who don't do their job and maintain the future society.

>Sorry? Should that be the other way around to be comparable?...

Yes maybe, if we ever get back to the situation where the average women is having 5+ kids. That's not the situation we are in and even if we get there it will take along time to be an actual problem, so there's not really a point in fleshing that out at all.

>The rich have more disposable income. They won't feel 10%...

Yes they will because it's a much larger amount of money and rich people tend to be pretty rational. There is also a complex basket of goals and desires going into the children choice so you don't need to force the entire decision, just tip the balance towards popping out that extra kid or two. If everyone below rich person isn't contributing enough to pay for the government/services that's a bigger discussion than this that requires different policies and likely massive cuts in spending unless the rich guys footing the bill are actually happy with what the money is being spent on.

>Oh, so they're exempt from childless tax too? That's moving goalposts. No,that's presenting an idea on hacker news instead of through a research paper. I didn't rigorously lay out the argument over 30 pages with 100 citations and I'm not going to.

[M95D]

> What is and isn't a taxation regime isn't up to you, it depends on whether your tax rate is modulated by some choice

What are you saying? If the tax is fixed for everyone independent of any choince they make, then it's not a tax? Explain that again.

> Choosing not be a useless turd

Except, for most people (possibly all people), that's not a choice they made. Somebody else made the choice for them. Lack of good parents and good education, role models, or maybe bad genes or birth hipoxia, etc. makes them who they are. No child will spontaneusly want to read boring history, rote learn multiplication tables when there's a calculator in the drawer, or write useless essays about something they're not interested in - in order to not be a useless turd. Someone else makes useful adults out of children that are universally born as useless turds.

> Saying totalitarian states are the only people to have tried this is actual what aboutism.

Or maybe it's because democratic states would never consider it??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

> Having a birth rate at or above replacement is one of the foundational requirements of having a society.

No, you can have a society exclusively maintained by immigration from other societies. Might be a bad society, but still a society.

> If you are in the society it is definitely your responsibility,

Unfortunately, a person alive today has little choice in the matter. We're not allowed to not be part of a society (aka. "must pay taxes to at least one government"). And this is one more reason to not contribute to the society one hates being part of (or enslaved by, depending on view).

[snapplebobapple]

I'm saying by the very definition of taxation regime they are both taxation regimes. You choose a variable and you vary the tax rate along the possible values for the variable. I'm also saying, yes, obviously it's a penalty for choosing a way of life, that's what all taxation regimes are that aren't a flat tax or a use tax. Choosing to work hard and succeed so you have higher income and pay a higher tax rate is also a life choice. It's not a worthy argument for or against anything.

>Except, for most people (possibly all people), that's not a choice they made.

Yes, since you are clearly pretty left wing you would believe that, despite it being so simple as to be untrue. The complex version is there is friction in moving between success levels that modulates the outcome of your personal choices. It's a separate issue to what we are talking about here that I am amenable to addressing (Go look at my previous posts, I'm a huge fan of actually using antitrust law again and breaking up most of the fortune 500 and many private companies). Your personal choices still move you into higher tax brackets, The friction is not so bad that your personal choices don't affect what tax bracket you are in each year and, even if it was, it's a separate problem to be addressed, not an argument that is valid here.

>Or maybe it's because democratic states would never consider it?? That is one unsupported hypothesis about what is going on. I can make those too: Or maybe democratic states held onto more religion longer, and had a better economic starting point in freer markets so they are running into this below replacement birthrate fiasco later on?

>No, you can have a society exclusively maintained by immigration from other societies. Might be a bad society, but still a society.

That is historically untrue, at least on civilization timescales. it can works for decades, not permanently. That ends in weakness and losing the country to invasion or takeover from within because the people that immigrated didn't assimilate and instead grew to be a big enough population that they took over from within. It's not a situation you want to end up in.

> this is one more reason to not contribute to the society one hates being part of And that's another reason to implement the tax regime I suggested. Do your job or pay someone else to do your job. Either way, the job needs to be done.