Kerry's tax cuts are for a small percentage

Post by Jim.
Kerry stated several times that he will give tax cuts, credits to those
with children (about 1/4 - 1/3 of the households) and tax credits to
those with children in college - (less than 1/4 of the households).
who's going to pay for that - THE REST OF US NO MATTER WHAT YOU EARN.

That's not what he said. If you don't qualify for his cuts, your taxes will
remain as is unless you make over $200K. He's just trying to make it easier
for families to get buy and put their kids through school.

Donna
My opinions might have changed, but not the fact that I am right.

shawn

2004-10-09 19:52:57 UTC

Post by JLplsSS

That is what he is has been saying, but I have trouble believing it. I
think with all that he wants to do he will have to increase taxes on
the rest of the middle class.

Jim.

2004-10-10 01:44:02 UTC

Post by JLplsSS
That's not what he said. If you don't qualify for his cuts, your taxes will
remain as is unless you make over $200K. He's just trying to make it easier
for families to get buy and put their kids through school.

He did not say that. he specifically has been saying he'll cut taxes for
those with children and college expenses. My argument is I will be
paying more even if my taxes don;t increase than i would if I CHOSE TO
SEND A KID TO COLLEGE OR HAVE A KID.

That is a tax increase and Kerry is going to stick it to the average
person.

James Squire

2004-10-10 02:02:47 UTC

He did not say that. he specifically has been saying he'll cut taxes for
those with children and college expenses. My argument is I will be
paying more even if my taxes don;t increase than i would if I CHOSE TO
SEND A KID TO COLLEGE OR HAVE A KID.
That is a tax increase and Kerry is going to stick it to the average
person.

I see. A tax cut for someone else is a tax increase for you? Is that
what you are saying?

--
Jim Squire Support the IDF Refusers!
St, Louis, MO http://www.seruv.org.il/defaulteng.asp
Member of The Crossings Community - http://www.crossings.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There's always hope. At least that's what I tell myself when I awaken
in the middle of the night and the only sound I can hear is the beating
of my own desperate heart."
-- G'Sten (to G'Kar), "The Long, Twilight Struggle"

Jonathan

2004-10-10 03:26:11 UTC

Post by JLplsSS

Why?

Is having children (or multiple children) something to be encouraged in some
way?

If you think raising a family is expensive, don't have kids... If you make
the decision to have children, then pay for them yourself... Why should I be
held financially responsible for your reckless breeding habits?

But, that would require responsibility, and the US is completely
anti-responsibility.

Jonathan

Jerri

2004-10-10 12:15:46 UTC

the US is completely anti-responsibility.

Like other civilized nations, the US believes children must be nurtured,
regardless of the worth or character of the parents. I don't think that is
at all anti-responsibility. Anti-responsibility is a person or group of
people who can see children unfed and un-cared for and turn their backs.
Jerri [don't even like kids, but realizes there are responsibilities to them
that cannot be denied, regardless]

Jim.

2004-10-10 13:39:01 UTC

the US is completely anti-responsibility.

Yes, children should be nurtured and society has a responsibility to all
of it's members. when the tax and financial burden however becomes so
unbalanced in favor of those who made a choice to have kids it is simply
wrong.

Colege is not a requirement nor a right, why should anyone receive tas
credits for choosing to go? Get some jobs, choose a school you can
afford and don't expect me to pay for it.

Grade school and high school - in my area (and State to some degree)
there are grade school and high school teachers earning just under 100k
year (85k, plus various ways to get bumped up) for 185 days of work a
year, even if you are a crappy teacher who can't get fired because of
tenure. I don't care who you are - when it is tax payer supported you
are a public servant and should expect to earn less than those paying
your salary.

I have no problem paying school taxes for a good basic education - why
should I pay for a kid to have swim classes in one of the 3 pools at the
school? (My district has 1 HS, I middle school and 5 grade schools) Why
should i pay for baseball, lacrosse, football, track - all of which take
place on any of the 20 sports fields the school tax payers are paying
for? why should I underwrite marching band and all the other extra
choices the students have. IT'S CALLED HAVE THE PARENTS SIGN THEIR KID
UP FOR LITTLE LEAGUE, LITTLE LOOP FOOTBALL AND PRIVATE SWIN LESSONS.
None of these have anything to do with the edcuation I am expected to
provide.

I'll happily pay for the basics taught by quality teachers - but to give
parents additional tax credits for choosing to have a kid and i am
paying for their damn baseball lessons in addition to science is simply
wrong.

Jonathan

2004-10-12 04:19:29 UTC

the US is completely anti-responsibility.

Like other civilized nations, the US believes children must be nurtured,

I agree that the US believes this.

I personally think children are a bad thing generally.

Post by Jerri
regardless of the worth or character of the parents. I don't think that is
at all anti-responsibility. Anti-responsibility is a person or group of
people who can see children unfed and un-cared for and turn their backs.

While I may not turn my back, that should be a decision I should make for
myself.

Post by Jerri
Jerri [don't even like kids,

Actually I can't stand the little buggers.

Post by Jerri
but realizes there are responsibilities to them
that cannot be denied, regardless]

My wife and I made a conscious decision not to have kids, because we find
them yucky.

Yet, I have to pay for everyone else's kids. Why?

Jonathan

Peachy Ashie Passion

2004-10-12 04:28:33 UTC

the US is completely anti-responsibility.

Like other civilized nations, the US believes children must be nurtured,

I agree that the US believes this.
I personally think children are a bad thing generally.

While I may not turn my back, that should be a decision I should make for
myself.

Post by Jerri
Jerri [don't even like kids,

Actually I can't stand the little buggers.

Post by Jerri
but realizes there are responsibilities to them
that cannot be denied, regardless]

My wife and I made a conscious decision not to have kids, because we find
them yucky.
Yet, I have to pay for everyone else's kids. Why?
Jonathan

Every time you say this, I wonder two things.

1.) if you went to school yourself, you and you wife.
2.) if you really want to live in a country where the little buggers
are running loose in the streets committing creative vandalism
instead of being confined in schools.

--
Having a great deal of time on their hands, and being a relatively
closed society, all vampires were natural gossips. ~ Slayer, Karen
Koehler

Jonathan

2004-10-12 04:41:10 UTC

the US is completely anti-responsibility.

Like other civilized nations, the US believes children must be nurtured,

I agree that the US believes this.
I personally think children are a bad thing generally.

While I may not turn my back, that should be a decision I should make for
myself.

Post by Jerri
Jerri [don't even like kids,

Actually I can't stand the little buggers.

Post by Jerri
but realizes there are responsibilities to them
that cannot be denied, regardless]

My wife and I made a conscious decision not to have kids, because we find
them yucky.
Yet, I have to pay for everyone else's kids. Why?
Jonathan

Every time you say this, I wonder two things.
1.) if you went to school yourself, you and you wife.

Yes we did.

I went to public school in the City of New York. My wife went to private
schools in Connecticut.

Post by Peachy Ashie Passion
2.) if you really want to live in a country where the little buggers are
running loose in the streets committing creative vandalism instead of
being confined in schools.

No, I want their parents to take responsibility for squeezing them out.

I think property taxes should be based on how many kids you have.

I think if you have no kids you should get a tax rebate.

I think we should consider limiting the number of children.

I think birth control should be automatic before you are able to support
those kids.

Anti-libertarian? You betcha.

Your freedom's stop at my wallet.

Jonathan

Brett A. Pasternack

2004-10-12 08:26:21 UTC

Post by Jonathan
I think we should consider limiting the number of children.
I think birth control should be automatic before you are able to support
those kids.
Anti-libertarian? You betcha.

I think this is another case where you're later going to triumphantly
accuse someone of failing to understand your position, and then explain
that all of this was just to provoke a reaction.

Jonathan

2004-10-12 15:01:49 UTC

Post by Jonathan
I think we should consider limiting the number of children.
I think birth control should be automatic before you are able to support
those kids.
Anti-libertarian? You betcha.

I think this is another case where you're later going to triumphantly
accuse someone of failing to understand your position, and then explain
that all of this was just to provoke a reaction.

Not really.

Why should I be penalized (have to pay higher taxes) for NOT having kids?

Why should someone be rewarded for having an excess number of children?

Answer these, and I will back off.

Jonathan

Jerri

2004-10-12 15:13:43 UTC

Post by Jonathan
Why should I be penalized (have to pay higher taxes)
for NOT having kids? Why should someone be
rewarded for having an excess number of children?
Answer these, and I will back off.

I've never had to pay higher taxes because I didn't have kids. As far as I
know, no one in my excessively large family has ever been rewarded for
having an excess number of children. They got the regular deduction for kids
[shrug]. Personally, I think everyone in the United States of America should
have a whole bunch of children so we Boomers will have someone to change our
Depends in 20 yars. If things stay the way they are, we'll have to depend on
the children of illegal aliens to do all the work.
Jerri

Brett A. Pasternack

2004-10-13 06:49:58 UTC

Post by Jonathan
I think we should consider limiting the number of children.
I think birth control should be automatic before you are able to support
those kids.
Anti-libertarian? You betcha.

I think this is another case where you're later going to triumphantly
accuse someone of failing to understand your position, and then explain
that all of this was just to provoke a reaction.

Not really.

Well, then, that's a good reason to stop playing those games. I'm sure
there are already people who have given up on your posts because of
them.

Post by Jonathan
Why should I be penalized (have to pay higher taxes) for NOT having kids?
Why should someone be rewarded for having an excess number of children?
Answer these, and I will back off.

Because whether the parents did something wrong or not in having more
kids, the *kids* certainly didn't do anything wrong, and giving the
families tax advantages increases the chances that they'll have access
to the things they need (food, clothing, shelter, books, whatever).

Jonathan

2004-10-14 05:20:44 UTC

Post by Jonathan
I think we should consider limiting the number of children.
I think birth control should be automatic before you are able to support
those kids.
Anti-libertarian? You betcha.

I think this is another case where you're later going to triumphantly
accuse someone of failing to understand your position, and then explain
that all of this was just to provoke a reaction.

Not really.

Well, then, that's a good reason to stop playing those games. I'm sure
there are already people who have given up on your posts because of
them.

Post by Jonathan
Why should I be penalized (have to pay higher taxes) for NOT having kids?
Why should someone be rewarded for having an excess number of children?
Answer these, and I will back off.

So, you are arguing that having kids is something that should be
incentivized.

So, explain again why my taxes should be higher for not having kids again?

Jonathan

Brett A. Pasternack

2004-10-14 07:34:14 UTC

Post by Jonathan
I think we should consider limiting the number of children.
I think birth control should be automatic before you are able to support
those kids.
Anti-libertarian? You betcha.

I think this is another case where you're later going to triumphantly
accuse someone of failing to understand your position, and then explain
that all of this was just to provoke a reaction.

Not really.

Well, then, that's a good reason to stop playing those games. I'm sure
there are already people who have given up on your posts because of
them.

Post by Jonathan
Why should I be penalized (have to pay higher taxes) for NOT having kids?
Why should someone be rewarded for having an excess number of children?
Answer these, and I will back off.

So, you are arguing that having kids is something that should be
incentivized.

No, I'm not. Read it again. You can argue that incentivizing kids is a
side effect of my position--although to do so, you'd have to embrace the
absurd proposition that the tax credits exceed the total cost of having
a child--but it certainly isn't my argument.

Post by Jonathan
So, explain again why my taxes should be higher for not having kids again?

Because kids deserve a break, having had no control over the
circumstances of their birth.

Jonathan

2004-10-15 06:39:28 UTC

Post by Jonathan
I think we should consider limiting the number of children.
I think birth control should be automatic before you are able to support
those kids.
Anti-libertarian? You betcha.

I think this is another case where you're later going to
triumphantly
accuse someone of failing to understand your position, and then explain
that all of this was just to provoke a reaction.

Not really.

Well, then, that's a good reason to stop playing those games. I'm sure
there are already people who have given up on your posts because of
them.

Post by Jonathan
Why should I be penalized (have to pay higher taxes) for NOT having kids?
Why should someone be rewarded for having an excess number of children?
Answer these, and I will back off.

So, you are arguing that having kids is something that should be
incentivized.

Any method used to lower the cost of something incentivizes that thing.

My mortgage interest tax deduction does not come close to paying my
mortgage, yet it was the key factor in deciding to buy a house.

Post by Jonathan
So, explain again why my taxes should be higher for not having kids again?

Because kids deserve a break, having had no control over the
circumstances of their birth.

The break is given to the parents though.

Look, my objection is paying more taxes for using less resources... I am
less of a burden on society than others are, and I am taxed at a higher
rate.

Do you see where this line of reasoning is coming from?

Jonathan

No Spam

2004-10-15 16:26:08 UTC

Post by Jonathan
Look, my objection is paying more taxes for using less resources... I am
less of a burden on society than others are, and I am taxed at a higher
rate.
Do you see where this line of reasoning is coming from?

Sure, although I think you are on stronger ground questioning the
government incentive to have more children. Lots of taxes have a
mismatch between those paying and those receiving the benefits.

However, I think there is something (unintentionally, I am sure) mean
in objecting to the Earned Income Tax Credit but not the dependent
deduction. That has the effect of targeting the working poor.

Brett A. Pasternack

2004-10-16 04:43:18 UTC

Post by Jonathan
So, you are arguing that having kids is something that should be
incentivized.

Any method used to lower the cost of something incentivizes that thing.

Perhaps. At any rate, the fact remains that this was not my argument.

Post by Jonathan
So, explain again why my taxes should be higher for not having kids again?

Because kids deserve a break, having had no control over the
circumstances of their birth.

The break is given to the parents though.

For the benefit of the children. Are you suggesting that it would be
preferable to just mail the cash to the kids?

Post by Jonathan
Look, my objection is paying more taxes for using less resources... I am
less of a burden on society than others are, and I am taxed at a higher
rate.

If you're going to start tallying up how much of a burden children are,
you'd better factor in all the benefits, too. If you do that, having
children isn't going to come across as a bad thing. And if the children
ARE a burden on society, then if we don't give them the tax credit we'll
end up paying the money in some other way, anyway, which gets back to
the crime argument that started this.

Dez Akin

2004-10-14 08:30:37 UTC

Post by Jonathan
Why should I be penalized (have to pay higher taxes) for NOT having kids?
Why should someone be rewarded for having an excess number of children?

From an ethical point of view or a pragmatic point of view?

Depending on which ethical school you belong to you can argue that you
have no obligation or full obligation to shoulder the 'misjudgements
of your fellow man' etcetera.

From a pragmatic point of view, you need someone to have children to
run society when your generation is too decrepit to do it for you, and
for there to be enough children to run more of the economy than mere
basic elder care.

From the national interest point of view, the US needs more children
to maintain economic, political and military advantage with the rising
power of China and eventually India.

Peachy Ashie Passion

2004-10-12 12:31:21 UTC

the US is completely anti-responsibility.

Like other civilized nations, the US believes children must be nurtured,

I agree that the US believes this.
I personally think children are a bad thing generally.

While I may not turn my back, that should be a decision I should make for
myself.

Post by Jerri
Jerri [don't even like kids,

Actually I can't stand the little buggers.

Post by Jerri
but realizes there are responsibilities to them
that cannot be denied, regardless]

My wife and I made a conscious decision not to have kids, because we find
them yucky.
Yet, I have to pay for everyone else's kids. Why?
Jonathan

Every time you say this, I wonder two things.
1.) if you went to school yourself, you and you wife.

Yes we did.
I went to public school in the City of New York. My wife went to private
schools in Connecticut.

That's enough right there.

You pay for others to go to school because society paid for you.
Period.

--
Having a great deal of time on their hands, and being a relatively
closed society, all vampires were natural gossips. ~ Slayer, Karen
Koehler

Jonathan

2004-10-12 15:03:01 UTC

the US is completely anti-responsibility.

Like other civilized nations, the US believes children must be nurtured,

I agree that the US believes this.
I personally think children are a bad thing generally.

While I may not turn my back, that should be a decision I should make
for myself.

Post by Jerri
Jerri [don't even like kids,

Actually I can't stand the little buggers.

Post by Jerri
but realizes there are responsibilities to them
that cannot be denied, regardless]

My wife and I made a conscious decision not to have kids, because we
find them yucky.
Yet, I have to pay for everyone else's kids. Why?
Jonathan

Every time you say this, I wonder two things.
1.) if you went to school yourself, you and you wife.

Yes we did.
I went to public school in the City of New York. My wife went to private
schools in Connecticut.

That's enough right there.
You pay for others to go to school because society paid for you. Period.

Actually, both of my parents were teachers in that school system.

But to be fair, my parents had ONE child.

I am not complaining about those who have one or two, I am complaining about
those with five or six or seven...

Jonathan

Jerri

2004-10-12 15:21:51 UTC

Post by Jonathan
Actually, both of my parents were teachers
in that school system.

Okey.

Post by Jonathan
But to be fair, my parents had ONE child.

Bully.

Post by Jonathan
I am not complaining about those who have
one or two, I am complaining about
those with five or six or seven...

My parents had 8 children. So? One sister has 6 kids [1 adopted], one
brother has 3 children, one brother has 4 children [all boys], one sister
has 3 children [1 adopted], one sister has 4 children [1 adopted], one
sister has 3 children [1 adopted], one brother has 3 children. I got zero
children. I don't think any of us has a right to moral superiority over any
others. The gov'mint has never supported any of them or their kids. And they
and their kids are all tax-paying citizens. Big Whoop. We never held it
against those poor, sad only children. Well, we kind of did. <G>
Jerri

Peachy Ashie Passion

2004-10-12 18:24:42 UTC

Post by Jonathan
Actually, both of my parents were teachers
in that school system.

Okey.

Post by Jonathan
But to be fair, my parents had ONE child.

Bully.

Post by Jonathan
I am not complaining about those who have
one or two, I am complaining about
those with five or six or seven...

Jerri, there is a tax deduction per child.
You do pay more money than parents with tax deductions, and people
with 5 kids pay less taxes than I do with my 2 tax deductions.

--
Having a great deal of time on their hands, and being a relatively
closed society, all vampires were natural gossips. ~ Slayer, Karen
Koehler

Jerri

2004-10-12 18:40:46 UTC

Post by Peachy Ashie Passion
Jerri, there is a tax deduction per child.
You do pay more money than parents
with tax deductions, and people with
5 kids pay less taxes than I do with
my 2 tax deductions.

Tax deductions are not a money-making venture, and everyone gets to decide
what deductions they want to go for over the course of a year. And there are
tax deductions and tax credits to go around ... rich folk get more than
other people and corporations get more than anyone else! Corporate welfare,
god love it. So the piddling amount granted for the care and nurture of
future tax-paying citizens is little enough. I say, pay these people to
raise the children who will grow up and take care of me when I'm old. I
don't mind paying more taxes for this purpose. It's going to be cold and
lonely in the nursing home when I push the button so someone will come and
change my Depends, and no one shows up.
Jerri [thinking of the future]

Jonathan

2004-10-13 05:37:50 UTC

Post by Jonathan
Actually, both of my parents were teachers
in that school system.

Okey.

Post by Jonathan
But to be fair, my parents had ONE child.

Bully.

Post by Jonathan
I am not complaining about those who have
one or two, I am complaining about
those with five or six or seven...

Jerri, there is a tax deduction per child.
You do pay more money than parents with tax deductions, and people with 5
kids pay less taxes than I do with my 2 tax deductions.

Why is that fair?

How about a flat 'kiddie-deduction' for one or ten kids...

Jonathan

Peachy Ashie Passion

2004-10-12 18:35:02 UTC

the US is completely anti-responsibility.

Like other civilized nations, the US believes children must be nurtured,

I agree that the US believes this.
I personally think children are a bad thing generally.

While I may not turn my back, that should be a decision I should make
for myself.

Post by Jerri
Jerri [don't even like kids,

Actually I can't stand the little buggers.

Post by Jerri
but realizes there are responsibilities to them
that cannot be denied, regardless]

My wife and I made a conscious decision not to have kids, because we
find them yucky.
Yet, I have to pay for everyone else's kids. Why?
Jonathan

Every time you say this, I wonder two things.
1.) if you went to school yourself, you and you wife.

Yes we did.
I went to public school in the City of New York. My wife went to private
schools in Connecticut.

That's enough right there.
You pay for others to go to school because society paid for you. Period.

Actually, both of my parents were teachers in that school system.
But to be fair, my parents had ONE child.
I am not complaining about those who have one or two, I am complaining about
those with five or six or seven...
Jonathan

How is your parent's employment relevant?

--
Having a great deal of time on their hands, and being a relatively
closed society, all vampires were natural gossips. ~ Slayer, Karen
Koehler

No Spam

2004-10-12 18:29:29 UTC

Post by Jonathan
I think property taxes should be based on how many kids you have.

1) Why? Even assuming one accepts your basic principle, why tie it to
the property tax instead of just having a kid tax?

2) I suspect they already are. Wouldn't it make sense that, all else
being equal, people with more children would have larger homes and
that larger homes would be more expensive?

Post by Jonathan
I think we should consider limiting the number of children.

Come on, where is your creativity? How did you miss the obvious link
to your gun rights views? :)

Jonathan

2004-10-13 05:35:22 UTC

Post by Jonathan
I think property taxes should be based on how many kids you have.

1) Why? Even assuming one accepts your basic principle, why tie it to
the property tax instead of just having a kid tax?

Because property taxes pay for schools.

If you have more kids, and pay the same property tax as me, then you are
getting more services for less fees paid.

How is that fair?

I think those who don't have kids (or send their kids to private schools, or
home school) should get a rebate on their property taxes.

Post by No Spam
2) I suspect they already are. Wouldn't it make sense that, all else
being equal, people with more children would have larger homes and
that larger homes would be more expensive?

They are.

But I have a large home, and I am paying the same property taxes as my
neighbor who has five kids.

Post by Jonathan
I think we should consider limiting the number of children.

Come on, where is your creativity? How did you miss the obvious link
to your gun rights views? :)

What?

Jonathan

Georgiana Gates

2004-10-12 04:51:46 UTC

the US is completely anti-responsibility.

Like other civilized nations, the US believes children must be nurtured,

I agree that the US believes this.
I personally think children are a bad thing generally.

While I may not turn my back, that should be a decision I should make for
myself.

Post by Jerri
Jerri [don't even like kids,

Actually I can't stand the little buggers.

Post by Jerri
but realizes there are responsibilities to them
that cannot be denied, regardless]

My wife and I made a conscious decision not to have kids, because we find
them yucky.
Yet, I have to pay for everyone else's kids. Why?
Jonathan

I believe it's called survival of the species.

Jonathan

2004-10-12 05:48:57 UTC

the US is completely anti-responsibility.

Like other civilized nations, the US believes children must be nurtured,

I agree that the US believes this.
I personally think children are a bad thing generally.

While I may not turn my back, that should be a decision I should make for
myself.

Post by Jerri
Jerri [don't even like kids,

Actually I can't stand the little buggers.

Post by Jerri
but realizes there are responsibilities to them
that cannot be denied, regardless]

My wife and I made a conscious decision not to have kids, because we find
them yucky.
Yet, I have to pay for everyone else's kids. Why?
Jonathan

I believe it's called survival of the species.

Why should that be of interest to me?

Jonathan

Jerri

2004-10-12 12:31:01 UTC

Post by Jonathan
Why should that be of interest to me?

You sounds like my nephews [grown men] that refuse to take off their caps in
the house. Every plea to make them remove the caps is met with "why should
I?" Okey dokey. Some games just aren't worth the candle.
Jerri

Georgiana Gates

2004-10-12 17:10:49 UTC

the US is completely anti-responsibility.

Like other civilized nations, the US believes children must be nurtured,

I agree that the US believes this.
I personally think children are a bad thing generally.

While I may not turn my back, that should be a decision I should make for
myself.

Post by Jerri
Jerri [don't even like kids,

Actually I can't stand the little buggers.

Post by Jerri
but realizes there are responsibilities to them
that cannot be denied, regardless]

My wife and I made a conscious decision not to have kids, because we find
them yucky.
Yet, I have to pay for everyone else's kids. Why?
Jonathan

I believe it's called survival of the species.

Why should that be of interest to me?
Jonathan

You are a member of the human species, right?
I went to public schools through high school, and attended a private
university. While I was there, the Board of Regents integrated the
school. The reason they gave was that the school would want to take
Federal money in the future. And that struck me as a very sensible
reason. (Actually, integration meant no blacks - there were Asians in
the school.)

My daughter went to public schools, and my grandson is now in public
schools, not in my school district. I just received my tax bill from the
school system. I didn't think "This is morally wrong. I have no children
in this school system. My money is being extorted to subsidize people
who had children without thinking about how to pay for them." What I
thought was "Well, I'm making a contribution to future generations."

No Spam

2004-10-12 21:03:46 UTC

Post by Jonathan
Yet, I have to pay for everyone else's kids. Why?
Jonathan

I believe it's called survival of the species.

I hate to say it since I basically agree with your conclusion but your
reason does not hold up. We have no shortage of people reproducing so
we hardly need to give government incentives in order to keep the
species from disappearing.

Georgiana Gates

2004-10-12 22:21:59 UTC

Post by Jonathan
Yet, I have to pay for everyone else's kids. Why?
Jonathan

I believe it's called survival of the species.

For any species to survive, the members of that species, be it dogs,
goldfish, or humans, have to want to reproduce. I'm certainly not saying
that the human race is in danger of dying out. I meant that the urge to
reproduce is hard-wired into us - if not, we'd never have survived the
cave man days.

AWriteny

2004-10-13 00:37:41 UTC

Georgiana Gates ***@hal-pc.org
writes

"...we hardly need to give government incentives in order to keep the

Post by No Spam
species from disappearing.

I've worked for about 26 years and have a co-op. I haven't worked for about 3
years but get no government benefits. No kids or plans to have any. Yet. I
have to reconcile that there are people who have never worked..never will..but
are healthy enough to have 2-3-4-5 kids with 2-3-4-5 different men. They get
government benefits. Will someone wake me up from this stupid nightmare?

Brett A. Pasternack

2004-10-13 07:13:48 UTC

Post by AWriteny
writes

"...we hardly need to give government incentives in order to keep the

Post by No Spam
species from disappearing.

Yes.

The number of people who will get through their entire lives without
working is very, very small.

No Spam

2004-10-13 15:06:33 UTC

Post by Jonathan
Yet, I have to pay for everyone else's kids. Why?
Jonathan

I believe it's called survival of the species.

Is that not basically an argument for the opposite position -- that
people are quite motivated to reproduce, even without Jonathan paying
for it?

However, maybe you did mean survival of a healthy, educated, sane,
etc. species.

Georgiana Gates

2004-10-13 15:51:23 UTC

Post by Jonathan
Yet, I have to pay for everyone else's kids. Why?
Jonathan

I believe it's called survival of the species.

Is that not basically an argument for the opposite position -- that
people are quite motivated to reproduce, even without Jonathan paying
for it?
However, maybe you did mean survival of a healthy, educated, sane,
etc. species.

Yes, that indeed is what I meant. To me, it is very cost-effective to
pay for public schools - I'm sorry that Jonathan doesn't think so.

Peachy Ashie Passion

2004-10-12 23:14:51 UTC

Post by Jonathan
Yet, I have to pay for everyone else's kids. Why?
Jonathan

I believe it's called survival of the species.

I don't think it's the lack of children we'd suffer from, but as
you said in your last post, sane, healthy, educated adults that we
would lack.

--
Having a great deal of time on their hands, and being a relatively
closed society, all vampires were natural gossips. ~ Slayer, Karen
Koehler

Jerri

2004-10-12 12:26:57 UTC

Post by Jonathan
My wife and I made a conscious decision
not to have kids, because we find them yucky.
Yet, I have to pay for everyone else's kids. Why?

Well, I made my peace with this fact o' life years and years and years ago.
I didn't attend private schools, so someone else was paying for my education
from kindergarten through college. My parents fully supported me, but ... I
went to school, got educated, and became a productive, tax-paying member of
society. At the taxpayers' expense. I figure I owe some payback for all
those years in the education system.

I used [and still use] public libraries *and* the Internet ... which at one
time was kind of a government-construct to keep lines of communication open
in case of catastrophic attack. Hmmmm ... I drive on public roads, the
gov'mint tries kinda-sorta to keep maggoty meat out of the grocery stores I
shop at. The government is a major funder of research that provides drugs
'n' such to those who need 'em. So I don't see myself as independent of the
gov'mint. So I don't mind paying reasonable taxes to keep things moving.
Including educating the little nippers of others, and feeding, clothing and
housing them if necessary ... 'cause *I* ain't gonna do it. And someone's
gonna have to take care of me when I can no longer care for myself. And I
don't want to have to hire some uneducated yahoo that can't read the label
on a bottle of arsenic.

Unless you are completely self-sufficient in your home on your own land,
you're taking advantage of the government, too. And you ain't
self-sufficient, regardless ... 'cause you've got the defenses of the ole
USA and the sheriff's dept of your county, probably the police and fire
departments of your area, too ... keepin' watch on you and yours. Might as
well make peace with the process. Or whine and complain. It's your right.
Jerri

Jonathan

2004-10-12 15:10:56 UTC

Post by Jonathan
My wife and I made a conscious decision
not to have kids, because we find them yucky.
Yet, I have to pay for everyone else's kids. Why?

Same here, which is why I spent 10 years in the US Army.

Post by Jerri
I used [and still use] public libraries *and* the Internet ... which at one
time was kind of a government-construct to keep lines of communication open
in case of catastrophic attack. Hmmmm ... I drive on public roads, the
gov'mint tries kinda-sorta to keep maggoty meat out of the grocery stores I
shop at. The government is a major funder of research that provides drugs
'n' such to those who need 'em. So I don't see myself as independent of the
gov'mint.

Neither do I.

I have said this numerous times.

My complaint is NOT taxes.

It is the cutting of taxes for those who use MORE resources.

Every highway I drive on in Illinois is a toll road, I pay those tolls.

I also pay huge property taxes and I am in the second highest income
bracket.

I am not complaining about my taxes, they are fine.

I am complaining about tax cuts to those who act irresponsibly by having
more than two children.

The EITC is fine, but it should not be given for more than one child.

Post by Jerri
So I don't mind paying reasonable taxes to keep things moving.

Nor do I.

Post by Jerri
Including educating the little nippers of others, and feeding, clothing and
housing them if necessary ... 'cause *I* ain't gonna do it. And someone's
gonna have to take care of me when I can no longer care for myself. And I
don't want to have to hire some uneducated yahoo that can't read the label
on a bottle of arsenic.

Don't confuse my argument.

I am not opposed to taxes.

I am opposed to tax cuts for people with children.

If the goal is to get these kids educated (something I am strongly in favor
of), then let's do it. Don't cut taxes for people who have kids. And don't
make me pay more taxes because I do not.

It is about fair.

Post by Jerri
Unless you are completely self-sufficient in your home on your own land,
you're taking advantage of the government, too. And you ain't
self-sufficient, regardless ... 'cause you've got the defenses of the ole
USA and the sheriff's dept of your county, probably the police and fire
departments of your area, too ... keepin' watch on you and yours. Might as
well make peace with the process. Or whine and complain. It's your right.

Well, my opinion of most police is pretty high.

Traffic cops probably need to be fired en masse (keep a few to handle
traffic and accidents), but the ones that hide out just to give tickets,
need to have their cars relabeled for what they really are: Tax collectors.

Jonathan

Peachy Ashie Passion

2004-10-12 18:23:30 UTC

Post by Jonathan
My wife and I made a conscious decision
not to have kids, because we find them yucky.
Yet, I have to pay for everyone else's kids. Why?

Same here, which is why I spent 10 years in the US Army.

Neither do I.
I have said this numerous times.
My complaint is NOT taxes.
It is the cutting of taxes for those who use MORE resources.
Every highway I drive on in Illinois is a toll road, I pay those tolls.
I also pay huge property taxes and I am in the second highest income
bracket.
I am not complaining about my taxes, they are fine.
I am complaining about tax cuts to those who act irresponsibly by having
more than two children.
The EITC is fine, but it should not be given for more than one child.

Post by Jerri
So I don't mind paying reasonable taxes to keep things moving.

Nor do I.

Don't confuse my argument.
I am not opposed to taxes.
I am opposed to tax cuts for people with children.
If the goal is to get these kids educated (something I am strongly in favor
of), then let's do it. Don't cut taxes for people who have kids. And don't
make me pay more taxes because I do not.
It is about fair.

Well, my opinion of most police is pretty high.
Traffic cops probably need to be fired en masse (keep a few to handle
traffic and accidents), but the ones that hide out just to give tickets,
need to have their cars relabeled for what they really are: Tax collectors.
Jonathan

Interesting.
I think those cars that hide are a deterrant, because half my
family won't go over the speed limit.. because just cuz you can't
see a cop, doesn't mean there isn't a cop.

--
Having a great deal of time on their hands, and being a relatively
closed society, all vampires were natural gossips. ~ Slayer, Karen
Koehler

Jonathan

2004-10-13 05:29:30 UTC

Post by Jonathan
My wife and I made a conscious decision
not to have kids, because we find them yucky.
Yet, I have to pay for everyone else's kids. Why?

Same here, which is why I spent 10 years in the US Army.

Neither do I.
I have said this numerous times.
My complaint is NOT taxes.
It is the cutting of taxes for those who use MORE resources.
Every highway I drive on in Illinois is a toll road, I pay those tolls.
I also pay huge property taxes and I am in the second highest income
bracket.
I am not complaining about my taxes, they are fine.
I am complaining about tax cuts to those who act irresponsibly by having
more than two children.
The EITC is fine, but it should not be given for more than one child.

Post by Jerri
So I don't mind paying reasonable taxes to keep things moving.

Nor do I.

Don't confuse my argument.
I am not opposed to taxes.
I am opposed to tax cuts for people with children.
If the goal is to get these kids educated (something I am strongly in
favor of), then let's do it. Don't cut taxes for people who have kids.
And don't make me pay more taxes because I do not.
It is about fair.

Well, my opinion of most police is pretty high.
Traffic cops probably need to be fired en masse (keep a few to handle
traffic and accidents), but the ones that hide out just to give tickets,
need to have their cars relabeled for what they really are: Tax collectors.
Jonathan

Interesting.
I think those cars that hide are a deterrant, because half my family
won't go over the speed limit.. because just cuz you can't see a cop,
doesn't mean there isn't a cop.

And that cop's primary function is not public safety, it is revenue
collection.

Jonathan

No Spam

2004-10-12 18:45:43 UTC

Post by Jonathan
My wife and I made a conscious decision not to have kids, because we find
them yucky.
Yet, I have to pay for everyone else's kids. Why?

I find the suburbs yucky but the government has put boatloads of money
into the highways that made them possible.

Some people find the military a lot more than yucky but they don't get
to opt out of paying for it.

By the way, I agree with the basic point that parents should support
their children and should not have more children than they can
support. However, both common decency and self-interest cause me to
support use of tax dollars to feed, clothe, immunize, educate, etc.
kids who otherwise would go without. This is not like telling adults
to be responsible for themselves. Children do not have complete
ability to provide for themselves should not have to suffer for their
parents' sins. Further, society has an interest in increasing the
proportion of adults 20 years from now who will be healthy, sane, and
well-educated enough to contribute to society.

Jonathan

2004-10-13 05:31:43 UTC

Post by Jonathan
My wife and I made a conscious decision not to have kids, because we find
them yucky.
Yet, I have to pay for everyone else's kids. Why?

I find the suburbs yucky but the government has put boatloads of money
into the highways that made them possible.

Actually the highways were built to facilitate national defense and
interstate commerce.

Post by No Spam
Some people find the military a lot more than yucky but they don't get
to opt out of paying for it.

Yes they do.

While their numbers are few, some people choose to make less money so they
will pay no Federal taxes so they won't finance the military.

Post by No Spam
By the way, I agree with the basic point that parents should support
their children and should not have more children than they can
support. However, both common decency and self-interest cause me to
support use of tax dollars to feed, clothe, immunize, educate, etc.
kids who otherwise would go without.

I am not talking about that.

I am talking about a tax system that rewards those who have kids and
penalizes those who do not.

Post by No Spam
This is not like telling adults
to be responsible for themselves. Children do not have complete
ability to provide for themselves should not have to suffer for their
parents' sins. Further, society has an interest in increasing the
proportion of adults 20 years from now who will be healthy, sane, and
well-educated enough to contribute to society.

You aren't addressing my argument.

Jonathan

Jerri

2004-10-13 12:47:54 UTC

Post by Jonathan
Actually the highways were built to facilitate
national defense and interstate commerce.

... and to promote use of the private automobile and petroleum. But the
national defense and interstate commerce thingies were there, too, I'm sure.
Jerri

No Spam

2004-10-13 15:41:49 UTC

Post by Jonathan
My wife and I made a conscious decision not to have kids, because we find
them yucky.
Yet, I have to pay for everyone else's kids. Why?

I find the suburbs yucky but the government has put boatloads of money
into the highways that made them possible.

Actually the highways were built to facilitate national defense

Sure but how often do you hear the latest highway bill justified on
that basis these days? That was an argument to taxpayers 50 years
ago, not now.

Post by Jonathan
and interstate commerce.

I am not exactly sure why it is ok to spend tax money on commerce and
not on children. However, if either defense or commerce is actually
the goal these days, we are failing. The commuters and other
individual travelers are slowing down the trucks.

Post by No Spam
Some people find the military a lot more than yucky but they don't get
to opt out of paying for it.

Yes they do.
While their numbers are few, some people choose to make less money so they
will pay no Federal taxes so they won't finance the military.

Great. There is your solution to having to pay for kids. Problem
solved.

I am not talking about that.
I am talking about a tax system that rewards those who have kids and
penalizes those who do not.

I don't even totally disagree. And I respect you for seeing the big
picture, unlike the people who complain about welfare mothers getting
more money for each kid (which I am not sure is even as true as they
think) but have no problem with the tax deduction for each kid. I
guess my answer mostly comes in four parts.

1) The incentives and penalties are small enough that I doubt many
people are having or not having children because of the tax
consequences.

2) I think the reasoning is basically the same as allowing people to
take exemptions/deductions for themselves and their spouses (even
those with no income). There is at least a token attempt to set aside
money to support one's family before subjecting income to taxes.

3) We have rewards and penalties for lots of other things, such as
owning your home. My deduction for my mortgage is a lot bigger than
for my son. Why concentrate on the child incentive before going after
the others?

4) Instead of what? Especially if you accept #1, there are going to
be children. Some of them are going to be born to parents who really
cannot afford them and should not have had them but they are going to
be here, anyway. So are we not better off directing some money to
getting them fed, educated, immunized, and otherwise cared for?

Georgiana Gates

2004-10-13 20:07:40 UTC

Post by No Spam
3) We have rewards and penalties for lots of other things, such as
owning your home. My deduction for my mortgage is a lot bigger than
for my son. Why concentrate on the child incentive before going after
the others?

The deduction for mortgage interest is bigger for gays than for
heterosexuals - I'm surprised no one has commented on this.

Example: Joe and Jim have the same income. Joe is married with children;
Jim is gay. So Joe pays less income tax, which we would think fair. Both
buy a house, with identical mortgage interest payments. Both see their
taxes go down, thanks to the mortgage interest deduction. But Jim
benefits more. He still pays more income tax than Joe, but the gap has
narrowed. Is this "family-friendly"?

Brett A. Pasternack

2004-10-14 07:38:37 UTC

The deduction for mortgage interest is bigger for gays than for
heterosexuals - I'm surprised no one has commented on this.
Example: Joe and Jim have the same income. Joe is married with children;
Jim is gay. So Joe pays less income tax, which we would think fair. Both
buy a house, with identical mortgage interest payments. Both see their
taxes go down, thanks to the mortgage interest deduction. But Jim
benefits more. He still pays more income tax than Joe, but the gap has
narrowed. Is this "family-friendly"?

Joe and his wife are free to file separately, aren't they?

But, no, it isn't family friendly to allow Joe to marry but prohibit Jim
from doing so.

Jonathan

2004-10-14 05:25:55 UTC

Post by Jonathan
My wife and I made a conscious decision not to have kids, because we find
them yucky.
Yet, I have to pay for everyone else's kids. Why?

I find the suburbs yucky but the government has put boatloads of money
into the highways that made them possible.

Actually the highways were built to facilitate national defense

Sure but how often do you hear the latest highway bill justified on
that basis these days? That was an argument to taxpayers 50 years
ago, not now.

However, the original statement was 'that made them possible.'

IOW, a thing that occured int he past, not current construction.

Post by Jonathan
and interstate commerce.

I am not exactly sure why it is ok to spend tax money on commerce and
not on children.

So, their parents will have jobs, so the gov't doesn't have to make them
wards of the state.

Post by No Spam
However, if either defense or commerce is actually
the goal these days, we are failing. The commuters and other
individual travelers are slowing down the trucks.

Actually, it is the other way around.

Post by No Spam
Some people find the military a lot more than yucky but they don't get
to opt out of paying for it.

Yes they do.
While their numbers are few, some people choose to make less money so they
will pay no Federal taxes so they won't finance the military.

Great. There is your solution to having to pay for kids. Problem
solved.

I am not talking about that.
I am talking about a tax system that rewards those who have kids and
penalizes those who do not.

I don't even totally disagree. And I respect you for seeing the big
picture, unlike the people who complain about welfare mothers getting
more money for each kid

Which I have no problem with.

I am not talking about those in poverty trying to feed their kids.

I am talking about those with jobs who get a tax cut every time they squeeze
one out, while my taxes go up for not having kids.

Post by No Spam
(which I am not sure is even as true as they
think) but have no problem with the tax deduction for each kid. I
guess my answer mostly comes in four parts.
1) The incentives and penalties are small enough that I doubt many
people are having or not having children because of the tax
consequences.

IOW, people will have precisely the same number of kids they do now,
regardless of the tax system.

So, why do people with kids get an additional tax break?

Post by No Spam
2) I think the reasoning is basically the same as allowing people to
take exemptions/deductions for themselves and their spouses (even
those with no income). There is at least a token attempt to set aside
money to support one's family before subjecting income to taxes.

You are talking about deductions.

I am talking about EITC.

Post by No Spam
3) We have rewards and penalties for lots of other things, such as
owning your home.

And I think that is wrong too.

I think all people need a place to live, and the costs for housing should be
tax deductable, regardless of whether it is a house you own, or if you pay
rent.

Post by No Spam
My deduction for my mortgage is a lot bigger than
for my son. Why concentrate on the child incentive before going after
the others?
4) Instead of what? Especially if you accept #1, there are going to
be children. Some of them are going to be born to parents who really
cannot afford them and should not have had them but they are going to
be here, anyway. So are we not better off directing some money to
getting them fed, educated, immunized, and otherwise cared for?

Immunization is free, that is a public health issue.

Education is free, I support education fully (well, I would if the system
weren't shit).

I oppose tax cuts for people with kids, that's all.

Jonathan

Peachy Ashie Passion

2004-10-14 13:01:16 UTC

Post by Jonathan
My wife and I made a conscious decision not to have kids, because we find
them yucky.
Yet, I have to pay for everyone else's kids. Why?

I find the suburbs yucky but the government has put boatloads of money
into the highways that made them possible.

Actually the highways were built to facilitate national defense

Sure but how often do you hear the latest highway bill justified on
that basis these days? That was an argument to taxpayers 50 years
ago, not now.

However, the original statement was 'that made them possible.'
IOW, a thing that occured int he past, not current construction.

Post by Jonathan
and interstate commerce.

I am not exactly sure why it is ok to spend tax money on commerce and
not on children.

So, their parents will have jobs, so the gov't doesn't have to make them
wards of the state.

Post by No Spam
However, if either defense or commerce is actually
the goal these days, we are failing. The commuters and other
individual travelers are slowing down the trucks.

Actually, it is the other way around.

Post by No Spam
Some people find the military a lot more than yucky but they don't get
to opt out of paying for it.

Yes they do.
While their numbers are few, some people choose to make less money so they
will pay no Federal taxes so they won't finance the military.

Great. There is your solution to having to pay for kids. Problem
solved.

I am not talking about that.
I am talking about a tax system that rewards those who have kids and
penalizes those who do not.

I don't even totally disagree. And I respect you for seeing the big
picture, unlike the people who complain about welfare mothers getting
more money for each kid

Which I have no problem with.
I am not talking about those in poverty trying to feed their kids.
I am talking about those with jobs who get a tax cut every time they squeeze
one out, while my taxes go up for not having kids.

IOW, people will have precisely the same number of kids they do now,
regardless of the tax system.
So, why do people with kids get an additional tax break?

You are talking about deductions.
I am talking about EITC.

Post by No Spam
3) We have rewards and penalties for lots of other things, such as
owning your home.

And I think that is wrong too.
I think all people need a place to live, and the costs for housing should be
tax deductable, regardless of whether it is a house you own, or if you pay
rent.

Immunization is free, that is a public health issue.

it's not, you know.
There are times and there are places you can get them free, but
they aren't always, and many times you have to prove need to get
them free.

Just so you know that you aren't subsidizing immunizations for
the rich kids.

Post by Jonathan
Education is free, I support education fully (well, I would if the system
weren't shit).

That's not completely true either.

I spent roughly 100 bucks on the list of supplies the school sent
home as essential this year.

That doesn't count clothing, which I had to fork out some bucks
for too.

--
Having a great deal of time on their hands, and being a relatively
closed society, all vampires were natural gossips. ~ Slayer, Karen
Koehler

Peachy Ashie Passion

2004-10-13 20:28:49 UTC

Post by Jonathan
My wife and I made a conscious decision not to have kids, because we find
them yucky.
Yet, I have to pay for everyone else's kids. Why?

I find the suburbs yucky but the government has put boatloads of money
into the highways that made them possible.

Actually the highways were built to facilitate national defense and
interstate commerce.

So was the internet.

And now it's a more efficient service for the delivery of gossip
and pornography.

Initial intentions change.

--
Having a great deal of time on their hands, and being a relatively
closed society, all vampires were natural gossips. ~ Slayer, Karen
Koehler

Hunter Rose

2004-10-12 23:34:54 UTC

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 04:19:29 GMT, "Jonathan"

Post by Jonathan
Yet, I have to pay for everyone else's kids. Why?

Because it's in your own best interests that future
generations contain healthy, educated, productive citizens instead of
mentally deficient deadwood or criminals. Pay some now, or pay a
whole lot more later.

HR
"TANSTAAFL"

Jim.

2004-10-13 01:38:00 UTC

Post by Jonathan
Yet, I have to pay for everyone else's kids. Why?

I beg to differ. It is of no interest to me about future generations.

Daave

2004-10-13 02:57:53 UTC

Post by Jonathan
Yet, I have to pay for everyone else's kids. Why?

I beg to differ. It is of no interest to me about future generations.

That's a shame.

Hunter Rose

2004-10-13 03:33:24 UTC

Post by Jonathan
Yet, I have to pay for everyone else's kids. Why?

I beg to differ. It is of no interest to me about future generations.

Those future generations will be providing services and social
security funding for you in your old age. Or not.

HR

David Johnston

2004-10-14 02:43:29 UTC

Post by Jonathan
Yet, I have to pay for everyone else's kids. Why?

I beg to differ. It is of no interest to me about future generations.

If you don't give a damn about anyone else, why would anyone else give
a damn about whether you are inconvenienced?

Jim.

2004-10-14 02:53:36 UTC

Post by David Johnston

Post by Jonathan
Yet, I have to pay for everyone else's kids. Why?

I beg to differ. It is of no interest to me about future generations.

If you don't give a damn about anyone else, why would anyone else give
a damn about whether you are inconvenienced?

Because it is not a inconvenience - it is taking the money I earn and
giving it away to people who have made a choice to have a family.

Huge difference.

David Johnston

2004-10-14 06:43:58 UTC

Post by David Johnston
If you don't give a damn about anyone else, why would anyone else give
a damn about whether you are inconvenienced?

Because it is not a inconvenience - it is taking the money I earn

I am so not caring about your money.

Jonathan

2004-10-13 05:31:56 UTC

Post by Hunter Rose
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 04:19:29 GMT, "Jonathan"

Post by Jonathan
Yet, I have to pay for everyone else's kids. Why?

This isn't my argument.

I don't know how clearly I can state it.

I do not understand why having children is rewarded (via tax breaks), and
not having children is penalized (through higher taxes).

Jonathan

Brett A. Pasternack

2004-10-13 07:13:24 UTC

Post by Hunter Rose
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 04:19:29 GMT, "Jonathan"

Post by Jonathan
Yet, I have to pay for everyone else's kids. Why?

This isn't my argument.

No, but it IS the answer to your argument.

Jonathan

2004-10-14 05:27:04 UTC

Post by Hunter Rose
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 04:19:29 GMT, "Jonathan"

Post by Jonathan
Yet, I have to pay for everyone else's kids. Why?

This isn't my argument.

No, but it IS the answer to your argument.

By completely ignoring it?

Jonathan

Brett A. Pasternack

2004-10-14 07:34:45 UTC

Post by Hunter Rose
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 04:19:29 GMT, "Jonathan"

Post by Jonathan
Yet, I have to pay for everyone else's kids. Why?

This isn't my argument.

No, but it IS the answer to your argument.

By completely ignoring it?

No, by explaining the reason that overrides it.

Jerri

2004-10-13 12:54:11 UTC

Post by Jonathan
I do not understand why having children is
rewarded (via tax breaks), and not having
children is penalized (through higher taxes).

Because the government believes it is in its best interests to encourage the
getting and nurture of children. Someone, somewhere decided it was a *good*
thing to have young replacements for all the old folks that die off. Crazy
as it may sound, it is an effort to keep the tax roles constant. And that is
why having children is rewarded and remaining childless is *not*. My parents
with their 8 children, and infinite generations of offspring to come, will
be adding to the economy long after your parents with their single childless
child will have passed on.
Jerri [thinks this is just common sense]

Daave

2004-10-13 02:55:17 UTC

Post by Jonathan
I personally think children are a bad thing generally.

Well, at least you love them, right?

Dave

Jonathan

2004-10-13 05:33:24 UTC

Post by Jonathan
I personally think children are a bad thing generally.

Well, at least you love them, right?

No.

Jonathan

Daave

2004-10-13 22:22:53 UTC

Post by Jonathan
I personally think children are a bad thing generally.

Well, at least you love them, right?

No.

Since I remember you recently stating otherwise, I googled and found
that you said that both you and your wife indeed loved kids:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=V9bNc.20462169%24Id.3387610%40news.easynews.com&output=gplain

Just wondering what may have happened in your life in the last eleven
weeks... (Or is it just another case of "Let's see what kind of reaction
I can provoke now?")

Dave

Peachy Ashie Passion

2004-10-13 23:45:36 UTC

Post by Jonathan
I personally think children are a bad thing generally.

Well, at least you love them, right?

No.

Since I remember you recently stating otherwise, I googled and found
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=V9bNc.20462169%24Id.3387610%40news.easynews.com&output=gplain
Just wondering what may have happened in your life in the last eleven
weeks... (Or is it just another case of "Let's see what kind of reaction
I can provoke now?")
Dave

no, that's a case of you not recognizing sarcasm.

--
Having a great deal of time on their hands, and being a relatively
closed society, all vampires were natural gossips. ~ Slayer, Karen
Koehler

Jonathan

2004-10-14 05:31:19 UTC

Post by Jonathan
I personally think children are a bad thing generally.

Well, at least you love them, right?

No.

Interesting.

When Peachy first read that, I recall her thinking it was funny... I thought
it was funny when I wrote it.

My wife thinks its funny.

You thought I meant that my wife and I love children.

Interesting.

Jonathan

Brett A. Pasternack

2004-10-11 07:35:42 UTC

You have a very peculiar definition of "a small percentage". Or, to put
it more bluntly, your subject line is a lie, according to your own
information.

Post by Jim.
who's going to pay for that - THE REST OF US NO MATTER WHAT YOU EARN.

Then why isn't the same thing true of the *BUSH* tax cut, which is far
larger?

Post by Jim.
if someone wants to go to college, let them pay for it, take out loans
and go in debt. If they are not willing to do so, they don't have a
desire to attend college.

So are you willing to ban parental assistance in this endeavor?

Post by Jim.
Those who are struggling to raise their children - shouldn't have had
them. Don't me me pay for your friggin kid that you chose to pop out.

Right. Make the friggin' kid pay for it. Damn kid should have made plans
to pay for his own food before he went and popped out, if he wants to
eat.

No Spam

2004-10-12 18:51:29 UTC

A question for those of you who oppose the government subsidizing
children through tax and spending policy:

Do you also oppose the mortgage-interest deduction? If not, why do
you not think people should be responsible for supporting their own
homes?

I realize some of you may oppose this deduction. If so, while I think
children, as a general class, are more deserving of government help
than property owners, at least that is some degree of consistency.

Jonathan

2004-10-14 05:34:48 UTC