The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

There Should be a Birth Tax

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
TigerThePredator has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/18/2018 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 448 times Debate No: 114060
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)



I think there should be a birth tax (i.e. it costs money to give birth to a child). This way, overpopulation and global warming/climate change can be combated. Also, there will be less crime, and black people will be discouraged from having kids, considering how poor they often are. Furthermore, a couple will generally not have more than 2 kids due to the implementation of the birth tax.

I propose a birth tax of $50,000 USD, or the equivalent in other currencies, for each child. Twins will incur a birth tax of $100,000. Triplets will incur a birth tax of $150,000, and so forth.

You have 3 rounds, and a maximum of 3 days and 3000 characters for each round.


Hey this is the first debate that I"ve ever done in my life, so I apologize in advance if I suck at this haha.

First of all, you mentioned how overpopulation "can be combated" without explaining why overpopulation needs to be combated. Your argument appears to be relying upon Thomas Malthus's idea, which is that as population rapidly increases, the food and resources that are required to support that population will not be able to increase as rapidly as the population, leaving many people unable to obtain those resources and to die. I am going to assume that when you state that overpopulation is bad, that you are using Thomas Malthus's idea.

The Malthusian trap is a common myth amongst people, and this excessively negative myth has been debunked many times. A rapid rise in population growth does not necessarily correlate to a large amount of the population not being able to receive the resources it requires. In fact, quite the opposite has happened. What neo-Malthusians do not realize is because there is a greater population, there is an increase in technological power, which increases the production of resources. Food production is a great example of this. As the population has rapidly risen, more agricultural technologies have been implemented in order to increase the quantity and quality of the crops that were grown, allowing more and more people to be fed. The idea that an increase in population growth will inevitably lead to the destruction of humans is absurd, is not supported by facts, and should not influence our economic policies.

My next point is the fact that the American economy will be severely damaged if population growth lowers (I'm assuming that we are talking about America). One huge reason that this will happen is because over time we will have fewer people that are able to work in our economy, meaning that we will have fewer workers within our economy. Our dependency ratio will also rapidly increase over time, and since there will be more older individuals who are not working and who are living off of welfare, the younger generation will be required to pay much higher for those older individuals, which could also cause strains to health care and retirement systems. An example of a country with a low crude birth rate is Japan. Japan's birth rate is around 1.4 babies per woman. As a result, Japan has fewer and fewer workers every single year, which has lead to some economic problems in Japan. The American birth rate is 1.84 babies per woman, so the birth rate is already below replacement level. We should continue to implement pronatalist policies so that we can make our economy better.

You also mentioned how "black people will be discouraged from having kids, considering how poor they often are." I fail to see why it is a bad thing for Black individuals to be having children. Could you please expand on this point?

There's a lot more that I would like to talk about, but I don't have enough characters left to talk about it :(
Debate Round No. 1


Black people should not have children because of the following reasons:

Black people are nothing but a bad influence on the world.

Here are the facts about black people that we must seriously consider:

1 in every 3 black men will end up in prison.

Many black families on being headed by single mothers making barely more than minimum wage. Those families often have kids and youngsters who get in trouble with the law.

Many violence in public schools, especially in downtown and big metropolises, are inflicted by black students.

Furthermore, there have been many incidents where white people were attacked, targeted, and assaulted by black people.

If we completely segregate neighborhoods and cities into black people and non-black people, it is downright racist and cruel towards black people. The only way to prevent black violence from occurring, or at least to minimize it as much as we can, is to have and enforce a strict limit of one black/African family per neighborhood.

Please think carefully about it: once there is already one black family in every neighborhood, what can we do with the remaining black families? We cannot put them in ghettos, because that would be very racist and reverting back to the 1950s and 1960s. Nor can we kill them because that is simply immoral. (I mean, isn't that what Hitler would do?) Instead, the best solution is to throw them in prison, and then let them out of prison once there is a neighborhood with no black family living in it.

Furthermore, if we put black families to prison, we will put them under control. (I think we must segregate prisons by race too.) No offense and not at all being racist, their dark skin absorbs too much sunlight, reducing the total amount of sunlight white people can harvest. And beyond that, throwing them in prison is a solution to overpopulation, because the world will be less crowded. You see what I am saying here?

Now you might be thinking that it's racist and cruel, but it's not. Just read on

The Malthusian theory is not a lie. Human population increases exponentially, while food production only increases arithmetically. Thus, a birth tax will weed out blacks and poor people. Black people eat more food because they are black, and poor people eat more food because they are poor.


Your argument is so ridiculous that there's no way that you're not trolling. Literally nothing you are saying makes sense, and your argument is so bad that I showed this to my friends and they started laughing. Even if you are just a troll, I have quite a few things to say because I don't want to lose this debate.

"The Malthusian theory is not a lie. Human population increases exponentially, while food production only increases arithmetically."
So far, all the evidence that experts have found show that our food production has been able to match our population increase. Even if the Malthusian trap was true, there still isn't enough evidence of it to justify taxing families such a ridiculously high amount of money (possibly more than their yearly salary) for creating babies (which, as I stated in my last argument, will cause economic problems because we won't have enough workers). In fact, Ester Boserup argues that population growth creates technological innovations, which then, in return, create more food.

"Black people are nothing but a bad influence on the world."
Just because there are some bad black people in the world does not mean that every single one of them is going to end up in prison. Also, despite what you say, this is very clearly a racist statement because it generalizes a whole group of people for something only a few of them do.

"If we completely segregate neighborhoods and cities into black people and non-black people, it is downright racist and cruel towards black people."
I find it quite ironic that you are speaking against segregation, yet you don't want black people to have children.

"Furthermore, there have been many incidents where white people were attacked, targeted, and assaulted by black people."
There have been many incidents where black people attack black people, where white people attack black people, and where white people attack white people. Crime is crime regardless of what race you are. Why is it that you only care about crimes where blacks attack whites?

"the best solution is to throw them in prison"
This is such a horrible statement to make. The fourth amendment states that we must have probable cause before we punish someone, and if we punish people before they are even born, then that's horrible and is downright fascism.

"throwing them in prison is a solution to overpopulation, because the world will be less crowded"
You still have yet to explain why a rising population is necessarily bad. I would argue that having a rising population is better for the country because it adds more workers and more skills to the economy. While a birth tax may make the world become less crowded, by the time that it becomes crowded enough that it causes major problems, Elon Musk would have figured out how to get humans to Mars anyways and we would start a new civilization in Mars, so who cares? Nothing you say justifies your argument.
Debate Round No. 2


The reason why I say the birth tax will have less crime is that if a baby is born depending on there state of character,and parents. These factors contribute to the child committing crime. Over 72% of black kids are raised in a single parent household. Now how is this information relevant? The reason why is that more kids commit crime living in a single mother with no father than a kid living with two married parents. A 1987 survey on youths in custody shows that 70% did not grew up in a two parent household. Another survey in 1994 on Wisconsin Juvenile found that 89% of kids ages 4 to 16 have engaged in rape, lust, or drinking (in case you are wondering, I have never done any of those 3)

No people living in poor households have the basic necessities of life. 99% of those households have refrigerators,television,stove or a oven. 91% has a Microwave. 85% have air conditioning. 77% have a second T.V. 74% have a clothes washer. And 68% have multiple video game systems. The average household has 6 TV's and 4 video game systems. Now if there living in poverty why would they commit crime if they have basic necessities? I believe they are morally inferior. IAnd I must ask my opponent would you? Any person of any income level who robs,rapes,and murders are morally inferior.

This tax will reduce the crime and morally strengthen these kids to not do crime. I must say water is limited. So I must say how is more humans gonna help us save water and reduce carbon emission? I explained that the average human needs 720 liters of water. Now if we had less of a human population we will have more resources available to us and we use less resources. With less resources we have more time to generate ideas than we do with more humans using more energy to make resources that will cause carbon emission and thus increasing global warming. With more humans going to jail and more useful morally superior humans to make ideas we can help reduce or stop global warming.

Furthermore, with less people on the earth, we will reduce a chance of another Hitler terrorizing the earth.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
a birth tax or $50,000 for non-blacks, and a birth tax of $55,000 for blacks
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.