people always have the tendency to regard government pollcies as either gentle or tough. however, there is always exception. take the taxes on birth for instance. it is really an incredible combination of both.

　　somebody argues that the taxes on birth proclaim to the public what the government wants. that's true. but will the public take birth control without hesitation just because the government wants it? besides, we can't always count on taxes to reverse people's behavior. the doubled taxes on wine and cigarettes over the past years don't discourage the consumption of them at all, not to mention other luxuries. to a certain degree,drinking and smoking have become more attractive to people as a symbol of financial abilities. how can we expect things to work out better if we simply apply the similar kinds of taxes on birth?with the taxes 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 taxes. 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 taxes policy.

　　besides, once a child is born, he should be guaranteed the very best his parents could offer. in poor families, wouldn't the children, who are taxed be regarded as burdens by other family members because they've imposed more economic pressures on their families? the tax 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 doesn't have much influence at all.

　　the taxes on birth policy is, after all, gentle to the rich and tough to the poor, especially to the taxed children in poor families. thus, it is not worth so much recommendation.