THW impose higher tax on married couples who choose not to have children.

Your position is very sensible but fails to take into account current tax breaks and tax credits for having children. Moreover, there is little correlation between the economy and lack of labor. Currently, one lagging feature in the economy stems from too many people not being able to find full time employment. First, let us look at how the government treats families under the current tax codes. There already exists a tax credit for couples or individuals that have children. According to the IRS, the Child Tax Credit "may be worst as much as $1,000 per qualifying child depending upon your income."[1]In addition, the Dependent Exemption gives a tax exemption "$3, 950 per person in 2014 to cover basic living expenses. Single people can take one exemption for themselves. Married couple can take two exemptions (one for each of them)." [2] Now let us tackle the idea our current labor shortage has adversely effected the economy. According to the Economic Policy Institute "from 1973 to 2011, worker productivity grew 80 percent," so productivity has risen rather than fallen, which would appear to negate one of the central arguments espoused by PRO. Around the world, the population is increasing, especially in places like China and India, which combined account for 40% of the world"s population. This growth is unstainable and in China, employers are able to establish work camps, meaning low wages and long hours, leading Human-Rights groups to raise concerns to put an end to the inhuman working conditions. [4] The current growth of world population is already a major problem. A national security study from 1974 put the problem in context: "Where population size is greater than available resources, or is expanding more rapidly than the available resources, there is a tendency toward internal disorders and violence and, sometimes, disruptive international policies or violence. The higher the rate of growth, the more salient a factor population increase appears to be." PRO argument perhaps appealing at first glance does not hold up on further inspection on the second or third time around. On an emotional level, do we really want children born out of an economic calculation? PRO seems to hint at the idea that if we tax couples at a certain level this will create an incentive to have children, not because of choice but due to government tax policy. Imagine someone asking new parents: are you going to have children? And the parents respond: "Well we didn"t want children but after a thorough cost-benefit analysis we decided that the taxes were just too onerous, we decided the it made economic sense." This is an exaggeration to some extent but follows the logic purposed by PRO. To sum the argument so far: (1) tax incentives already exist under the current tax system. (2) Workforce productivity has increased by 80% from 1973 to 2011. (3) The world population, topping over 7 billion, already presents sustainability issues already and it is unclear why we would want to exacerbate this problem. (4) Finally, from an emotional and basic human perspective, do we really can couples to have children based on a cost-benefit calculation? CON argues, no. VOTERS please consider the arguments made in the opening round. PRO, thank you for the debate. I look forward to your substantive objections in the next round. [1] http://www.irs.gov... [2] http://www.nolo.com... [3] http://www.nytimes.com... [4] http://online.wsj.com... [5] http://www.usnews.com...