people always have the tendency to regard government pollcies as either gentle or tough. however, there is always eception. take the taes on birth for instance. it is really an incredible combination of both.
somebody argues that the taes on birth proclaim to the public what the government wants. thats true. but will the public take birth control without hesitation just because the government wants it? besides, we cant always count on taes to reverse peoples behavior. the doubled taes on wine and cigarettes over the past years dont discourage the consumption of them at all, not to mention other luuries. to a certain degree,drinking and smoking have become more attractive to people as a symbol of financial abilities. how can we epect things to work out better if we simply apply the similar kinds of taes on birth?with the taes on birth policy, the government seems to suggest to people that it is acceptable to have more children, as long as their families can afford the taes. thus new challenges to social equality were posed. rich people can enjoy larger families while poor people are supposed to have fewer children. the rights of giving more births seemed to be entitled to wealthy people under the taes policy.
besides, once a child is born, he should be guaranteed the very best his parents could offer. in poor families, wouldnt the children, who are taed be regarded as burdens by other family members because theyve imposed more economic pressures on their families? the ta also directly deprives his or her rights to grow up in a better economic condition while such deprivation to a child in a wealthy family doesnt have much influence at all.
the taes on birth policy is, after all, gentle to the rich and tough to the poor, especially to the taed children in poor families. thus, it is not worth so much recommendation.
