Yikes. I meant that last sentence with a bit of tongue-in-cheek. I certainly don't mean it's a _bad_ thing for parents to pay to raise their children. But surely you would prefer to be born owing some extra taxes, rather than never be born at all because your parents couldn't afford it? Preferring existence to non-existence seems like a pretty mild form of selfishness to me.

I find it very interesting that this proposal seems more objectionable than the version where the childbearing subsidy is paid out of general taxes. Is it really more moral and less selfish to force _everyone else in the country_ to pay the cost of raising you than to force you to pay for it yourself?

I was kind of half-trolling, but thank you for asking the serious questions.

I think it is part of the natural order of things for humans to work and provide for their kin. This certainly include teenagers and senior citizens in good health. The recipients should be first and most obviously children, but also include the elderly and the disabled. Of course if the family is prosperous enough that only a subset of "working age" members can support it, there is no inherent obligation (or prohibition) for all who can work to do so.

Also, there is the social custom that if you are prosperous enough, you should extend the same provisions to non-kin. The is a wide degree of variation between being merely a cheap neighbor and being an abhorrent misanthrope, so you have lots of options regarding on how generous you can afford to be (or not to be).

Enter the government here. The secular liberal worldview that most people around here would identify with says that you pay taxes in return of the services that you receive from the government (other cultures or life situations dictate that it is your divine duty, or that they kill you if you don't, but let's not talk about that here).

So, the question is... what is the meaning for a government to extract a fee for a person to have the right to be born and raised? Does it mean the government can dictate who has the right to exist? And, by extension, not have such right?

Of course, in practice, the government can charge you money for whatever reason they can come up with (my personal favorite is in 19th century Mexico, where they charged on the number of windows your house had... and the people began simply to wall off their windows). It also can expend the money however they see fit. In the particular case of the US, they already give money to people with children, they give food stamps, they give free public education... and all of that money comes from taxes... they just don't charge you for "the right to have been born and raised".

Besides, people who object to taxes at least have the freedom to turn into a life style that do not require such payments (even if the personal cost is too high). By example, you are free to not hold a job if you object to income tax. What are you going to do to those that do not pay for having been born? Kill them? Turn them into slaves?

I have already mentioned the "natural order" of human existence. And I am aware that not everyone believes there's such thing, but still. I think the natural order of Nations is to preserve their people and their culture. And you can only do that by raising newer generations. There are many people in every country that need assistance, and we can debate on the worthiness or unworthiness of each claim... but to deny the claim of the children is exactly the same as eating the seeds for next year sowing. It is the telltale sign of a corrupt society.