In recent weeks and months the topic of poor people in this country and what we should do about them has been very much in the public consciousness. Campbell Live's ongoing series of stories about poor children, many of whom appear to be inordinately hungry, has sparked fierce debate in the places where we debate fiercely, namely Facebook and talkback radio.

For those of you unfamiliar with either of these fora, let me assure you, the rhetoric is sharp, the logic unassailable, and the language eloquent. Daily, the finest minds of our nation debate the philosophical implications of Government policy with impassioned yet respectful argument. There is no room for pettiness, selfishness or ego in this debate, so important is the topic.

By golly, it makes me proud to be a Kiwi. I only wish Peter Jackson could somehow fashion a big-budget drama out of some of the pearls of wisdom that fall from the keyboard-tapping fingers of my fellow countrymen and women so that the world might know just how classy we are, but I expect he's probably still busy with Hobbits and Dwarves, more's the pity.

One of the very, very excellent points that several brilliant and fair-minded folk have made with regards to poverty and the role that government might play in alleviating such, is that poor people should simply refrain from having children. Resulting non-children would then not be hungry and would not have to have any meals subsidised by the Government or non-taxpaying religious charities that look an awful lot like multimillion-dollar businesses. Easy.

But how strong an argument is this really? In the interests of continued sensible and level-headed debate, let's look at the strengths of this proposal, of which there are many.

Shorter queues - We already have quite a few older folks within our population because of all the baby-making that happened in those glorious, prosperous postwar years. But we've slowed down a lot on making new New Zealanders. We're a bit top-heavy in this regard and will only become more so in the coming decades. If the only New Zealanders who continue to reproduce are the ones who can afford to do so without any financial support from the Government then we'll vastly cut the number of young Kiwis who need a bunch of stuff like education or health care. The savings for government spending are potentially huge. And then we can use the money we've saved for superannuation. Also, the Santa Parade and Christmas in the Park will be a lot less crowded. And malls won't be so hellishly awful during school holidays. We might eventually have shortages in a few other areas, like the labour market, but as we all know The Market always sorts itself out in the end so, no need to worry about that.

Hardly any poor people - Poor people are usually badly dressed and unpleasant to look at. If they stop having children, they'll stop producing more badly dressed, unappealing poor people. Most people are poor because they were born that way so if we want our society to be more prosperous the easiest way to go about this is to limit the ratio of impoverished individuals within the population. If poor people entirely stop making more poor people, within a generation everyone will be middle class or better. And that is going to look awesome on our OECD rankings. Not to mention that, generally speaking, everyone will be better dressed, farmers markets will be the new supermarkets and everyone will have a labradoodle. I personally can't wait.

Religion-schmeligion - Some religions compel people, regardless of the strength of their stock portfolio, to "go forth and multiply". Religious freedom is really a "nice to have" and we all know it. Faith and a commitment to religious dogma is, after all, a luxury item.

Missed opportunities - Think of all the people who might not have been born if a "no kids for povos" policy had been in place. Me, for instance. The prime minister. Most people born during The Depression (this might include your grandparents, and by extension, you, but don't take it personally - I'm not). League players. How much greater might our society have been without the impoverished dragging us down? Who knows, we might have won the Rugby World Cup many times over! Or invented Post-it notes. We'll never know now...

Minimised minorities - A lot of brown people in New Zealand are also poor people, so if we stop them from reproducing we'll probably find there's a flow-on effect in the racial makeup of the country that slants a bit toward the Pakeha side of things. And that's good, isn't it? Then we really can all be "one people". And it's all good news for the sunscreen industry too.

So, in conclusion, I can see no reason why we shouldn't, as a nation, go ahead and place a ban on poor folk indulging in their biological imperative. Seriously, there aren't any drawbacks that I can see. Naturally I'm keen to find out what your erudite, well-considered opinions on this topic might be.

» Follow me on Facebook and Twitter.