Taxation without insemination

Here's another article, courtesy of the current Newsweek, on how having fewer children or none at all is becoming a global trend, moving out of the wealthy and cosmopolitan urban centers and into more "traditional societies."

Though birthrates are actually just falling closer to the levels they were at before the 1950s, some, as usual, foresee impending crisis.

But whether they're just procrastinators running down their biological clocks or they're making conscious choices to remain unencumbered, the childless and child-free are beginning to change the world in ways that look pretty good to me: making it so property values drop when families with kids move into the neighborhood, sustaining vacation resorts that advertise the fact that they don't allow children–could the notion of "no children" areas in restaurants really be more than a personal pipe dream?

But of course, our dashing and virile leaders simply can't let us get away with such shenanigans for long:

At the same time, around the world it's mostly men who are at the head of a growing backlash against the childless. Politicians and religious leaders warn darkly of an "epidemic" of childlessness that saps the moral fiber of nations; they blame the child-free for impending population decline, the collapse of pension systems and even the rise in immigration. In Japan, commentators have identified the "parasite single" who lives off society instead of doing his duty to start a family.

Yes, single people are parasites–who work and pay property taxes to pay for schooling and health-care for other peoples' kids and retirements, just like everyone else in the society. How is a single person any more of a leech than anyone else, much less a family of four or six? At least in this country, you often need kids to qualify for government health care and food assistance.

And if you think the world is in a sorry state of perpetual conflict now, just imagine if societies derived their collective moralities from their children (though, arguably, on the diplomatic front many of them already do). And we're demonstrably not thinking too seriously about the futures of the children we've got here now in crafting our contemporary decisions on everything from energy to economics.

Still, the solution to all that ails the world must be plopping out more progeny. Germany, which apparently still hasn't learned that trying to control individual reproduction through government policy is perhaps not the greatest idea, is one of several nations pondering stricter economic sanctions against people with no children, in the form of either income tax increases or pension decreases, in hopes of raising national birth rates to improve the greater good:

These moves resonate favorably with voters and the media. Since a large majority of people in all countries still do have children, critics say such measures in effect serve as middle-class tax breaks in the guise of social policy.

Yeah, great idea–"Oh, man, my 'Selfish Spinster Denying her Nation the Service of her UterUS' tax bill is really high this year–hey, you, endurably attractive member of the opposite sex with functional reproductive anatomy! Impregnate me!"

Still, a tax for not having children (I can just see it coming here in the form of a sales tax on birth control–that takes care of pesky infertility write-offs) would probably be far, far cheaper than having to raise a kid. And, you know, far less likely to drive an unwilling parent to violent psychotic breakage.

Though the article goes on to debunk the notion that childlessness is the primary culprit behind low birthrates (it's actually the growing number of vile, vile families like my own that only have one child: "'It's the minimal family that lets you off the hook from parents and social expectations, but exacts the least burden on your lifestyle,' sociologist Hakim says."), practical relevance is rarely a reliable predictor of policy actions, so for the Republican-controlled legislative moment I'm just thankful enough people in this freakishly fertile country are still reproducing like bunnies to keep us in the black on the spawn tally.

Maybe we need to turn our meddling legislative pens toward another dastardly anti-child force overrunning the world's developed societies: Pets.

I just saw a story on "Nightline" about how people's refusals to leave their furriest family members behind can arguably thwart evacuation efforts during disasters like Hurricane Katrina, costing human lives. Japan's drop in birthrate has also been accompanied by an "unprecedented surge in pet ownership:"

Capitalizing on the growing status of these baby-substitutes among young Japanese, Honda is now designing cars that replace child seats with dog crates, and has even created a glove compartment with place for a Pekingese.

Perhaps concerned nations should start levying pet taxes–you know, because that will surely get the child-free to change their minds and scale back their oh-so-decadent lifestyles, for the common welfare.

Though I still fail to see what's so great about large families, anyway. In the post-Sept. 11 world, which I'm sure we'll be hearing about until our ears bleed for the next few weeks, they're sometimes just a liability that will get you stranded abroad as "stateless persons" if their members ever get involved in terrorism.

What's so terrible about finding fulfillment in other, less volatile areas of life and contributing something to your culture instead of just to your household? Obviously the market supports it.

And "Pekingese in the Glovebox" would make an awesome band name or book title.