It has always been this way.

It really is that simple.

I'd want the money collected to be put directly into renewable research and/or generation. Not simply have it be plugged into the general budget, to be used for anything and everything.

A generous, rich income tax deduction for every childless citizen; a smaller deduction for citizens with only one biological child; no deduction, and no tax, for two biological children, and a carbon tax on every biological child after the 2nd, increasing dramatically with each child.

Add to that fair trade policies that are based on environmental (including carbon emission, which includes birthrate) and labor standards.

Bear in mind that current retirees' Social Security checks come from people who are paying Social Security taxes right now. A drastically falling birthrate would lead to economic disaster.

I want people to have fewer kids, I want the global population to decline, and I want the people having the little carbon emitters to pay the carbon bill.

If the birth-rate even dropped to 2 children per family, which would be population break-even, we'd be fucked. Population decline would be a global catastrophe.

Resources are limited; therefore you cannot have permanent population growth. An economy need not be 'fucked' by having a steady or decreasing population. You just have to organise distribution through things like taxes so that the retired still get a decent standard of living.

currently running the nation; that, too, needs to change. Real solutions involve complex, interconnected systems.

The SS has funds of over 2 trillion.

As for the birthrate, you think a carbon tax will keep couples from having sex and making babies?

The SS has funds of over 2 trillion????? Are you referring to the IOUs that are put in their place? I don't think we have this big money tree that you mentioned at all. If we had 2 trillion to "spare", it would have gone to the debt by now.

First, the people the trust fund is held by the federal government, so we'll need taxpayers to pay those bonds.

Second, the government pays out something like $800 billion dollars a year in SS benefits. If it had to pay for half of that from the trust fund, the trust fund would last only 5 years. The trust fund is there to smooth over generational bumps, but not to fund a long steady decline in the population of taxpayers.

All that isn't to say that lowering the birthrate wouldn't be a good idea. It just needs to be recognized that it would entail some painful adjustments.

We need stronger disincentives for reproduction, or we need a crash program to increase human living space in this part of the galaxy. There are too many people on this planet already, IMO. Overpopulation, and consequent resource demand, is the root of most environmental problems.

why not go to the root of the problem?

Just make the power to heat and cool their homes and refrigerate their food, and the fuel they need to get to work. more expensive than it already is. Place a stiff tax on power? That'll just drive them further into despair.

Rebate the tax on a per-adult basis. Then it will actually be a source of income for low carbon emitting people.

We need to reduce our carbon output and a carbon tax is a very economically efficient way to do that. It should be phased in over many years to give people a chance to adjust their behavior (the purpose of the tax) in anticipation of it. To reduce the burden of the tax on the poor, it should be rebated on a per-capita or per-adult basis and be revenue neutral.

We cannot hobble the people of the united states while allowing multinationals the right to pollute overseas and then bring their dirty goods into the united states with no penalties. You cannot have free trade without considering the role of pollution. Cheap labor is not the only reason american corporations build factories overseas, environmental regulations play a big part.