/R9K/ - Robot - 9000

In one of his vids Cockshott proposed a tax on childless males because they don't contribute to the reproduction of the labor power of society. There is much wrong with this proposition.

First is an economic argument - the obvious preferred solution should be the corresponding increase in productivity to outset the declining population, and not more surplus extraction out of the subset of the population to stimulate higher birth rates.

Second is a moral argument stemming out of the concept of "justice" - people should not be punished for what they have no control over. To hold that men control the means of reproduction and can voluntary decide when to have kids and when not to is to be ignorant of the evidence to the contrary.
Cockshott brings an example of the Soviet Union right after WW2 when the similar policy was implemented. But he fails to understand the specific conditions at the time - a massive disbalance of the male and female populations and a large number of single mothers. To implement the same policy in the conditions of gender balance is unjustifiable - you don't tax paralyzed cripples for not contributing to the reproduction of labor either, do you? Well, some men are the same even if they can walk.
So if you're still gonna tackle the problem of a declining population with more taxes, then the tax should be levied on the general population as do all other taxes that go to the societal needs, or even a higher income section of the population according to the principle of progressive taxation.