i assent!I don't think people should consciously try to stop having kids. I just think it is immoral to pressure women and couples to have kids to fix economic/cultural/societal concerns.
i assent!I don't think people should consciously try to stop having kids. I just think it is immoral to pressure women and couples to have kids to fix economic/cultural/societal concerns.
Just name more kids Abraham and Sarah and maybe people will have more children after 65.As long as you are a Canadian citizen, regardless of whether or not you were born here or contributed
in any way to the "wealth" of our country, everyone over the age of 65 gets old age security payments
also (OAS). Of course, most people over the age of sixty five are not having children .![]()
In India, Ramjit Raghav (at age 96 years), with his wife Shakuntala Devi (age 52), becameJust name more kids Abraham and Sarah and maybe people will have more children after 65.
Are you telling all here that people who pay SS tax exempted from their paychecks are not receiving, come their retirement, from the very monies paid in by all people employed.To understand why you need to understand what direct and indirect taxes are and how they are collected legally.
I'm not saying you aren't entitled to it. I'm saying there is no fund paying out pensions. It is funded by current workers.
Good on him. If I'm still breathing at 96 I'll count that quite the accomplishment.In India, Ramjit Raghav (at age 96 years), with his wife Shakuntala Devi (age 52), became
the modern world's oldest father at age 94 when his first child was born in 2010. He broke
his own record in 2012 when at the age of 96 he had another son. According to wiki .![]()
I apologize. I didn't realize you were in Spain. In the US, money collected for Social Security was never put into private accounts for individuals. Legally it couldn't be done because of American tax law so the money just went into the general fund.Are you telling all here that people who pay SS tax exempted from their paychecks are not receiving, come their retirement, from the very monies paid in by all people employed.
Tax is tax. All taxes are from the pockets of the citizens. The set up in my time was like a bank account earning interes. My pesion has been paid for by ME, nto by people currently working. iI always paid income tax, and every time I made any purchases there was state tax either hidden in the price or outright
Perhaps the mov ers and the shakers should take my contributions for themselves and leave me to starve. Where is your head. Have you no compassion for others?
I am not sure what you mean by this .- The right seems to be more worried about the "great replacement";
I am not sure what you mean by this .. Do you mean something like how Islam is widely considered
the fastest growing religion in Europe due primarily to immigration and above average birth rates?
It's not about race, and definitely not about "white people". Although it is a concern among ethnonationalists- it is not exclusive to them.This is common term used by certain conservative newscasters in the US. I think it is more racial, a fear that the white population/white way of life is being replaced.
It's not about race, and definitely not about "white people". Although it is a concern among ethnonationalists- it is not exclusive to them.
"Replacement migration" is a real thing, and the left tries to downplay it and make you out to be a racist if you don't support it and go along with it- just like they do with the rest of their filthy schemes- because the policies benefit them.
But when governments do it they are BETRAYING their whole domestic population- it doesn't matter what color you are, they're stabbing you in the back.
I think they might, but not because they are racist. They aren't racist, in that they will exploit anyone of any race or demographic. But there is a reason they push "diversity, diversity, diversity" to the point that they will try to insert diversity regardless of what the actual consequences are. They think by forcing it that people will automatically change, and that's about as stupid as "corrective rape".I don't think they are intentionally trying to change demographics,
I have thought about this, about why different groups see it as a problem, and whether I should consider it a problem.It seems nowadays there is more concern about declining populations and low birth rates, particularly in the more developed countries.
It seems different groups have different worries:
- The left is more worried about funding Social Security and other programs (presumably because there will be less tax revenue);
- The right seems to be more worried about the "great replacement";
- Both sides (as well as other countries such as China) seem to worry about impact on economic growth down the road and loss of national power.
Are these worries warranted? Does it really matter from a Christian perspective if birth rates are low? The population decline is not really a result of "population control" per se which I believe is not Biblical. For example, in the U.S. and in most countries we do not have maximum child limits.
I dunno... That average standard of living seems to include a LOT more than it did back when I was a child. Lots of things we consider necessities weren't even common back then.In the USA a two income household is a necessity to have an average standard of living. It's been a system created that way by NEGLIGENCE of our politicians pandering and lining their own pockets. (It's complicated and somewhat convoluted) Both sides of the aisle are guilty...
You might want to learn how to distinguish between a person’s own thoughts and a person’s summation of the thoughts of others. It’s clear to me that Gideon is sharing the latter.When I read this
(Quotation from Gideon)
I think it is sad that Christians have drunk the Kool Aid, such wrong thinking from a biblical perspective.
You might want to learn how to distinguish between a person’s own thoughts and a person’s summation of the thoughts of others. It’s clear to me that Gideon is sharing the latter.
I dunno... That average standard of living seems to include a LOT more than it did back when I was a child. Lots of things we consider necessities weren't even common back then.
If a family today has what my family had back then, it would be much more easily sustainable. But they would be considered so deprived that child welfare services might come and take the kids away.
Don't even get me started on what was considered an average standard of living back when my dad was a kid. We would faint at the mere thought of living like that.
I dunno... That average standard of living seems to include a LOT more than it did back when I was a child. Lots of things we consider necessities weren't even common back then.
Or as I heard it, we lived in a brown paper bag at the bottom of the ocean andDrank from an open creek did he? Garden hoses were usually an improvement in water drinking. The only phone was down the street? Shared a bedroom with parents or siblings? A bicycle was a luxury item otherwise he walked everywhere in town unaccompanied by an adult. He fished and hunted without direct supervision?
Wow....I'm so jealous....you had a bag!Or as I heard it, we lived in a brown paper bag at the bottom of the ocean and
had to walk twenty miles to school uphill each way in six feet of snow..![]()