discrimination of atheists

[kandrathe]

But just reproducing more is nothing more than a ponzi scheme.

I think you misunderstand... both what I was saying, and the nature of Ponzi schemes.

First, Ponzi; I tell you and 19 of your friends that if they invest $5000 in my entity (we'll call it Get Rich Quick Enterprises -- GRQE) that I can guarantee 20% ROI per year over five years. So, they you and your friends combined give me $100,000 of which I need to pay back to the investors $20,000 the first year leaving $80,000 for my extravagant lifestyle less operating costs which are mostly zero. Since I'm inventing the operating ledgers anyway, I might as well show that GRQE is growing exponentially, and pay the government taxes accordingly (unless I can find some tax credit loopholes -- wind energy for example). With my investor base, my cooked books, and whopping profits, I convince 100 new investors the next year, which yields $500,000 of which, I need to pay the original 20 another $20,000, and the new batch, $100,000 leaving $380,000 for my extravagant lifestyle. Rinse repeat the same process every year until the pool of suckers dries up, I get caught and sent to jail.

Our social security system IS a ponzi scheme in a way, since it relies on the current workers to pay for the benefits of the retired. This works until the pool of suckers workers shrinks where there are too few workers to pay for the extravagant comfortable lifestyles of the retired. While the number of workers is growing, the scheme works -- when the pool of workers shrinks -- the buden of the increasing outlays falls on a smaller and smaller number of workers to pay (or the government goes into higher and higher debt with no feasible way to pay back that debt). So, it is similar in that the government does not create any wealth, it only redistributes it, and 2nd it requires an every growing pool of investors to keep the pyramid scheme going. It all crashes once the population stops growing, the "rich" people are all poor or have left, and the workers pockets we've been taking from all this time are now empty or have gone. Then crafty people, like my own governor Dayton (of the Dayton's Department Store family fortune), hide their income in off shore investments -- while advocating massive tax hikes "on the wealthy". What they really mean is that they want to suck more money from the working classes by pitting the lower paid blue collar class, against the higher paid middle class white collar workers. (The basis of government support is not based on wealth, only on income tax on workers and sales taxes made by us all.) Mind you, this payment made to pensioners is not based on their wealth, assets, or other pensions. We treat every retiree the same, whether they have zero net worth, or billions. Granted, it's not the same amount I bring home while working, but it is more than half -- and my expenses would be vastly reduced.

If you disagree that it is a Ponzi scheme, consider if our Social Security system were an optional private enterprise that you could choose to "invest" in. You give me 15% of your gross pay (currently the government forces the employer to pay half), and once you've contributed for 10 or more years (40 quarters) you qualify for some payout based on the age you retire and the amount you contributed. If you retire at 62 you get 30% (of your average salary for the last 10 years you contributed). At 65, you get 45%. If you wait till 70, you can get 60%. Also, if at anytime you become disabled, and you've contributed for at least 10 years, then you can also claim the 30% rate. But, I didn't save the money, or invest it anywhere. I just spent it on other things. I've always just banked on the proposition that inflows would exceed outflows. How does the government do it? Well, they can go over to the US Treasury, and have them mint up a $1 Trillion dollar coin anytime they need it. They give that coin to the Federal Reserve Bank, and then borrow $1 Trillion dollars against that minted coin and it can't cause inflation since that coin is never circulated right? For added irony, I'd ensure the coin were minted with the image of Mr. Ponzi as heads.

2nd, then; Having more than 2 children is not a ponzi scheme. It is population. We must assume that each individual (mostly) pays their own way -- and also contributes (In the US, 20% federal, 3-10% State, 5-8% Local ) a portion of their effort to their governments. In places with no or low services, and no or low taxes, the people must rely on their circumstances to cover their life needs, including that time when they are too old to care for themselves. Now, you bring up mortality rates. The worst in the world is about 34 per 1000, including adults and old people. Even if youth and infant mortality accounted for 2/3rds of that death rate it wouldn't justify a large family (by large I mean > 4). Population and Poverty Nexus: Does Family Size Matter?

A society grows or shrinks based upon it's population. So, if the population of a town shrinks by half, there are fewer needs for services (police, fire, roads, schools, government, and infrastructures). The expenses need to shrink to be within the means of the people remaining to pay for them. This means that schools consolidate, and some close. Some roads may be abandoned, or reverted to unpaved if few people live there.

Or, you drive the taxes so high that only the working, semi-wealthy people can afford to live there, and not young people starting out, or pensioners. In my State, where we try to be pretty progressive, it is still property tax that determines where you can afford to live. Why do northerners move to southern States at retirement? It's not just the cold winters, its the level of property taxes on a fixed pension. Historically, the largest outflows are from New York, and California. The property taxes are such that you cannot live there on a fixed or unsubsidized income. If you are willing to live far away from cities, then the property taxes are low, but the isolation level is pretty high. Most pensioners aren't really thinking of homesteading in Alaska.