More Kids, More Tax?

Garr · Post by **Garr** » Fri May 25, 2007 9:17 am

I think that it's important to replace yourself in the scheme of things, but I think that the future holds hard times where resources are concerned. I pose a question: is it unreasonable to assess a higher tax on people who have more than two children?

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Fri May 25, 2007 9:54 am

That's one step away from China's one child policy and forced abortions.

And yes, it's unreasonable. In our market driven society, people with more children spend more money, thus pay more sales taxes and feed more revenue into the machine. If we were to go to a national health care plan, then those children would represent a burden on taxpayers.

On the other hand, I would be highly supportive of forced Norplant for women whose current children are on ANY form of public assistance. If that doesn't work, then force her to have her tubes tied. Oh, and a forced vasectomy for men whose children are likewise a financial burden to the people.

Oliver's Army · Post by **Oliver's Army** » Fri May 25, 2007 10:03 am

We cant/wont have children, ever.

Do I get a tax break since my dollars are going a school system that is not being used by my "family"?

I never needed welfare.

I dont want to pay for that either.

What else do my taxes go to that I never get to take advantage?

bwohlgemuth · Post by **bwohlgemuth** » Fri May 25, 2007 10:05 am

On the other hand, I would be highly supportive of forced Norplant for women whose current children are on ANY form of public assistance. If that doesn't work, then force her to have her tubes tied. Oh, and a forced vasectomy for men whose children are likewise a financial burden to the people.

I would change that a bit....

Anyone who is on public assistance should have free Norplant/Tubal Ligation if they want it. It should only be forced if they are on public assistance and have had children removed due to abuse or neglect.

There are a number of women who do receive public assistance, and eventually get off of it and are productive memebers of society. I would hate to see an eighteen year old possibly lose her chance of having a family because we assumned they would be on the state's teat for the next sixty years....

Jambrea · Post by **Jambrea** » Fri May 25, 2007 10:10 am

I don't think it is wrong to have a child limit. If people want more than two kids...adopt! There are so many unwanted children out there. Once all of those kids are adopted, then people can have as many kids as they want!

bwohlgemuth · Post by **bwohlgemuth** » Fri May 25, 2007 10:38 am

Jambrea wrote:Once all of those kids are adopted, then people can have as many kids as they want!

As a dad of four adopted kids.....

I honestly can say that the majority of parents out there cannot handle a good chunk of the kids available for adoption. Take an abused child who has some sort of psychiatric or personality disorder, then put that child into a "normal" family. This is why it is so hard to get parents to stay as foster parents (especially those who can have kids) and why the majority of parents in the foster care system are the ones who cannot have kids of their own.

I am not saying I am some sort of super parent, but I have seen how other kids act and how our kids act. I have an adopted son who most likely will spend the rest of his life in a mental hospital or in prison. He's 11. And he has a personality disorder that would drive parents insane very quickly.

Jambrea · Post by **Jambrea** » Fri May 25, 2007 10:41 am

I was just being idealistic.

WBOB · Post by **WBOB** » Fri May 25, 2007 11:05 am

More offspring = more consumers, larger tax base, etc.

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Fri May 25, 2007 11:10 am

bwohlgemuth wrote:
On the other hand, I would be highly supportive of forced Norplant for women whose current children are on ANY form of public assistance. If that doesn't work, then force her to have her tubes tied. Oh, and a forced vasectomy for men whose children are likewise a financial burden to the people.
I would change that a bit....

Anyone who is on public assistance should have free Norplant/Tubal Ligation if they want it. It should only be forced if they are on public assistance and have had children removed due to abuse or neglect.

There are a number of women who do receive public assistance, and eventually get off of it and are productive memebers of society. I would hate to see an eighteen year old possibly lose her chance of having a family because we assumned they would be on the state's teat for the next sixty years....

IF they continue to have children while on public assistance I would favor making sure they discontinue that pattern of behavior. One bad decision is just that. 2, 3, 4, now we're developing a pattern. Why should the taxpayer pay for your inability to control yourself sexually? That goes for men too.

Garr · Post by **Garr** » Fri May 25, 2007 11:17 am

But what about the economic strain on finite resources? Our money is imaginary. It's no longer based on any real assets. The more the population grows, the more strain that each individual will feel until collapse.

Ollie, I have said for years that people without children should not have to pay more taxes. As it is, people with kids get tax breaks. I think that's ass backwards, if you ask me.

I'm shocked to hear about forced birth control. It really shows something about a person who thinks it's not okay to ask more money from people who cause more strain on limited resources, but it is okay to forcefully physically alter them. Not only that, but it's coming from a person whom I know is against abortion. Where is the line drawn on what physical alterations can be made to a person after you allow just one?

I don't think that China is out of line in trying to protect the good of their entire people by controlling the growth of that population. I don't particularly agree with their methods, but I think that the idea is sound. How enlightened are humans who allow themselves to be bred into extinction? There is a limit to how much human life this planet can sustain, and oddly, it's the same people who are the "humans are destroying the earth" argumentatives who would allow our race to procreate itself into a situation that could end in our demise.

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Fri May 25, 2007 11:22 am

Of course, in this country it's essentially those of us who are of a european heritage that are unbreeding ourselves into extinction...

Garr · Post by **Garr** » Fri May 25, 2007 11:28 am

Of course, in this country it's essentially those of us who are of a european heritage that are unbreeding ourselves into extinction...

What does that have to do with anything? Statements like that are the reason why racial discrimination still exists in our world. I'm not calling you bigot, but thoughts like that breed hate and descension.

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Fri May 25, 2007 11:31 am

The reason for those tax laws is to encourage people to have families.

That said, I'm in favor of a flat tax, with no deductions for anything. Every person pays 15% of their income in Federal income tax period. If you make 100K, you pay $15,000. If you make $10K, you pay $1500. No child deduction, no "marriage penalty", etc... For business owners, it's 15% of your gross profits - i.e. after business expenses - but those expenses should be tightly regulated.

I'm also in favor of eliminating the property tax/school funding relationship alltogether. Well, first off, I'm in favor of eliminating the public school system completely. Go to a completely private school system. If not that, then I'd just make it part of the State budget. Parents could opt out of the public system, but no more of Homestead getting 25% more funding per student than FWCS.

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Fri May 25, 2007 11:34 am

Garr wrote:
Of course, in this country it's essentially those of us who are of a european heritage that are unbreeding ourselves into extinction...
What does that have to do with anything? Statements like that are the reason why racial discrimination still exists in our world. I'm not calling you bigot, but thoughts like that breed hate and descension.

No... just strictly statistically speaking, part of the reason for the percentage changes in the racial makeup of the US is that caucasians are not having children at the same rate as other racial groups. In fact, we're dangerously close to dying at a faster rate than we're reproducing.

Garr · Post by **Garr** » Fri May 25, 2007 12:01 pm

bassjones wrote:No... just strictly statistically speaking, part of the reason for the percentage changes in the racial makeup of the US is that caucasians are not having children at the same rate as other racial groups. In fact, we're dangerously close to dying at a faster rate than we're reproducing.

Okay, Now I understand.