Strong social safety nets seem to be pretty strong contributors to reduced family size (which is why the developed world has low natural population growth and many of the places with the strongest safety nets have negative natural population growth) because people don't need children as a form of old-age insurance.

> Why the hell should I pay even more and subsidize those who have more than two kids?

A fixed basic income per adult is self-evidently not a subsidy for having more kids. In fact, compared to existing welfare policy (where the principal basis for cash benefits is number of dependent children), its a disincentive for that.

Hello there, person I'm very glad entered this conversation as you did.

You're talking about a great taboo. No one wants to admit that not every precious snowflake can do exactly what they want to be a shining star. Saying that we have too many precious snowflakes, or that we shortly will, is akin to saying that and it makes people nervous.

But there are a lot of us, aren't there?

And our population plan seems to be "Reproduce however you want until nature starts killing us off."

It could be that our coming jobs shortage is the result of too many people. Our geographic area is big enough that there will always be a certain number of jobs because of the different specialized tasks necessary in each locality.

But everyone wants a kid, and it seems the people who don't plan for those kids, whether rich or poor, have the most.

This worries me more than global warming, nuclear proliferation and synthetic marijuana (mostly jk) combined.

Social engineering like this is fraught with huge risks.

Your response is simplistic and doesn't even outline any of your concerns about what I've posted.