Our Taxes Subsidize Breeders
J L Ray
People get a tax break for each and every one of their rug rats. It
recently even went up by $500! Contrarily, people who have been
responsible enough not to have children get no tax break. Breeders
should be paying more taxes, not less, because they take up more
resources. They use the roads more, they use health departments more
and they get the benefit of free public schools. We need a major
shift in our tax system so that breeders pay for their kids instead of
essentially being paid to have kids while the rest of us foot the
bill.
L a r a
You're right. I agree.
What should we do?
Chris Petit
L a r a wrote in message <6sc99f$etv$1...@picasso.op.net>...
I'm not sure what we can do---it would be political suicide for someone
to DARE charge those breeders what their sprog cost.
If I were dictator of the world (benevolent yet stubborn), I would have
the breeders PAY a surcharge for every child they have. If they can't
afford it, no child. If they have one illegally, the child is ok (no need
punishing IT), but its PARENTS are branded as outcasts---everything will be
denied to them, their children taken away.
J L Ray
channels. The net is a great place to start this. The people who
choose for themselves to have sprogs have sponged off us long enough.
They get to take out tax deductions and exemptions and we subsidize
them for having kids. Speak out. The squeeky wheel gets the grease.
J L Ray
>
>L a r a wrote in message <6sc99f$etv$1...@picasso.op.net>...
>>J L Ray wrote in message <35e8ca4d...@news.mindspring.com>...
>>>It's time us child free people stopped subsidizing breeders.
>>>
>>>People get a tax break for each and every one of their rug rats. It
>>>recently even went up by $500! Contrarily, people who have been
>>>responsible enough not to have children get no tax break. Breeders
>>>should be paying more taxes, not less, because they take up more
>>>resources. They use the roads more, they use health departments more
>>>and they get the benefit of free public schools. We need a major
>>>shift in our tax system so that breeders pay for their kids instead of
>>>essentially being paid to have kids while the rest of us foot the
>>>bill.
>>
>>You're right. I agree.
>>
>>What should we do?
>
>
> I'm not sure what we can do---it would be political suicide for someone
>to DARE charge those breeders what their sprog cost.
>
Yeah, they start yelling "family values" and get another $500 per year
while we don't get any breaks at all. Even the wealthy get to take
this tax deduction from what is essentially our pockets.
> If I were dictator of the world (benevolent yet stubborn), I would have
>the breeders PAY a surcharge for every child they have.
They should pay more. They chose to have children and they should pay
for them.
> If they can't
>afford it, no child. If they have one illegally, the child is ok (no need
>punishing IT), but its PARENTS are branded as outcasts---everything will be
>denied to them, their children taken away.
>
Well, we're already doing that with Welfare Reform, aren't we? Why
don't we start doing it with people who DO have money? Why should we
be paying for the public education and tax breaks of breeders? As it
is now, it doesn't matter how much money a breeder makes, he or she
gets those deductions and exemptions for having kids. When someone
has kids, their taxes should go up, not down.
Becky Blanchard
going to subsidize schools,etc that benefit parents and kids, that
plenty of childless people paid taxes so YOU could have schools, and
that YOUR parents got deductions for you? Thats the way it goes.
BTW, I am a parent of one child, and dont plan on having any more,
due to the fact that I dont want more than I can afford to clothe, feed
and shelter.
Becky
...............................................................Do not
meddle in the affairs of dragons because you are crunchy and taste good
with ketchup.
J L Ray
benefit from you having that child. Instead, you get to pick our
pockets. Just because there's been that injustice in the past doesn't
mean it should be continued. Be responsible already. It's time that if
people can't afford to take care of a kid and school it without a hand
out, they shouldn't have the kid in the first place.
Kent Parks
: Did it ever occur to you people who are complaining about your taxes
: going to subsidize schools,etc that benefit parents and kids, that
: plenty of childless people paid taxes so YOU could have schools,
I went to private schools much of the time. sorry.
: and
: that YOUR parents got deductions for you? Thats the way it goes.
But they didn't get $500 CREDITS on top of the deductions. Nor did they
get "stork parking" or paid maternity/paternity leave, either.
: BTW, I am a parent of one child, and dont plan on having any more,
: due to the fact that I dont want more than I can afford to clothe, feed
: and shelter.
Bully for you. Now what are you doing on a.s.cf?
Kent
Becky Blanchard
> child. The rest of us get no benefit from you
> having that child. Instead, you get to pick our
> pockets. Just because there's been that
> injustice in the past doesn't mean it should be
> continued. Be responsible already. It's time
> that if people can't afford to take care of a kid
> and school it without a hand out, they
> shouldn't have the kid in the first place.
That is like saying if elderly people cant afford to live with a"
handout"from the taxpayers, they shouldnt be allowed to exist. The fact
of the matter is, children are guranteed the right to a free public
education, and in fact are required to go until a certain age. Also, we
parents pay taxes to run the schools too, so its not like we are
sitting on our butts, collecting handouts.
Another anology for you: should people who dont drive have to pay taxes
to keep the highways kept up? They dont directly benefit, so why pay for
them?
Im sorry you resent paying taxes that go toward education. But thats
the way of the world,so deal with it.
Grimly Fiendish
Blanchard) wrote:
>Did it ever occur to you people who are complaining about your taxes
>going to subsidize schools,etc that benefit parents and kids, that
>plenty of childless people paid taxes so YOU could have schools, and
>that YOUR parents got deductions for you? Thats the way it goes.
> BTW, I am a parent of one child, and dont plan on having any more,
>due to the fact that I dont want more than I can afford to clothe, feed
>and shelter.
Apparently you can't afford apostrophes for your contractions (don't,
that's), either.
>Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons because you are crunchy and taste good
>with ketchup.
Big hint, Becky: Here there be dragons, and I've got plenty of Heinz.
Still want to meddle? Don't make me ask Pete to light the grill with
his flamethrower.
Grim
Stephie Coane
> People have choices. You chose to have a child. The rest of us get no
> benefit from you having that child. Instead, you get to pick our
> pockets. Just because there's been that injustice in the past doesn't
> mean it should be continued. Be responsible already. It's time that if
> people can't afford to take care of a kid and school it without a hand
> out, they shouldn't have the kid in the first place.
I must say I agree with Becky. If people must spawn, I would rather the
offspring grew up well-educated rather than ignorant. Everyone gains if
more people are better educated and make better life choices, perhaps,
than their own parents did. If that means I pay taxes for other people's
kids, so be it. Penny-pinching and mean-mindedness on education has a
deleterious effect on the wider society. If kids from rotten families grow
up knowing no better because there was no decent public education for them
regardless of whether their parents could afford to have them, of course
they are going to screw up royally themselves nine times out of ten.
Stephie (four years in American school in Italy, five in state
school, five in Catholic school)
> bec...@webtv.net (Becky Blanchard) wrote:
>
> >Did it ever occur to you people who are complaining about your taxes
> >going to subsidize schools,etc that benefit parents and kids, that
> >plenty of childless people paid taxes so YOU could have schools, and
> >that YOUR parents got deductions for you? Thats the way it goes.
> >
> > BTW, I am a parent of one child, and dont plan on having any more,
> >due to the fact that I dont want more than I can afford to clothe, feed
> >and shelter.
> >
> > Becky
> >...............................................................Do not
Stephie Coane
> >People have choices. You chose to have a
> > child. The rest of us get no benefit from you
> > having that child. Instead, you get to pick our
> > pockets. Just because there's been that
> > injustice in the past doesn't mean it should be
> > continued. Be responsible already. It's time
> > that if people can't afford to take care of a kid
> > and school it without a hand out, they
> > shouldn't have the kid in the first place.
>
>
> That is like saying if elderly people cant afford to live with a"
> handout"from the taxpayers, they shouldnt be allowed to exist. The fact
> of the matter is, children are guranteed the right to a free public
> education, and in fact are required to go until a certain age. Also, we
> parents pay taxes to run the schools too, so its not like we are
> sitting on our butts, collecting handouts.
> Another anology for you: should people who dont drive have to pay taxes
> to keep the highways kept up? They dont directly benefit, so why pay for
> them?
I'd rather pay for public transportation such as TRAINS!!! :-)
Stephie
J L Ray
>>People have choices. You chose to have a
>> child. The rest of us get no benefit from you
>> having that child. Instead, you get to pick our
>> pockets. Just because there's been that
>> injustice in the past doesn't mean it should be
>> continued. Be responsible already. It's time
>> that if people can't afford to take care of a kid
>> and school it without a hand out, they
>> shouldn't have the kid in the first place.
>
>
> That is like saying if elderly people cant afford to live with a"
>handout"from the taxpayers, they shouldnt be allowed to exist.
What is? That makes no sense. Explain it please.
>The fact
>of the matter is, children are guranteed the right to a free public
>education, and in fact are required to go until a certain age.
I have no problem with public education. It's just the people who
chose to have these children should be ones doing the paying. If you
have 1 child, you should pay taxes to cover that child's education.
If you have 5 children, you should pay 5 times that amount. If you
have 0 children, you should not have to pay. The way it is now, it is
exactly the opposite: the more kids you have, the less taxes you pay.
That's what is not right.
> Also, we
>parents pay taxes to run the schools too, so its not like we are
>sitting on our butts, collecting handouts.
You may or may not be sitting on your butt, but you are collecting
handouts. When you are getting tax breaks for having a kid and I'm
not getting a break, I'm giving you a handout.
> Another anology for you: should people who dont drive have to pay taxes
>to keep the highways kept up? They dont directly benefit, so why pay for
>them?
That's another reason people with children should be paying higher
taxes. Parents use the highways to car their little darlings around,
but they don't pay more for driver's licenses or car tags. Also,
their kids often get free transportation to school--another item
subsidized by child free taxpayers
As far as people who don't drive, they don't have to pay for a
driver's license or car registration. Probably some of their tax
dollars go to highways. However, I don't know anyone who, even if
they don't drive, don't use the highways.
> Im sorry you resent paying taxes that go toward education. But thats
>the way of the world,so deal with it.
I'm not going to sit down and shut up.
J L Ray
>> People have choices. You chose to have a child. The rest of us get no
>> benefit from you having that child. Instead, you get to pick our
>> pockets. Just because there's been that injustice in the past doesn't
>> mean it should be continued. Be responsible already. It's time that if
>> people can't afford to take care of a kid and school it without a hand
>> out, they shouldn't have the kid in the first place.
>
>offspring grew up well-educated rather than ignorant.
I'd rather the offspring be well-educated also. Their parents should
think about that before they have them.
> Everyone gains if
>more people are better educated and make better life choices, perhaps,
>than their own parents did. If that means I pay taxes for other people's
>kids, so be it.
Look at it this way. People have kids and get thousands of dollars in
tax breaks per year. The more kids they have, the more tax breaks they
get. Child free people, on the other hand, get no tax breaks because
they have been responsible enough not to have children. Also, child
free people are probably subsidizing the incomes of people who make
much more money than they do.
>Penny-pinching and mean-mindedness on education has a
>deleterious effect on the wider society. If kids from rotten families grow
>up knowing no better because there was no decent public education for them
>regardless of whether their parents could afford to have them, of course
>they are going to screw up royally themselves nine times out of ten.
Keep in mind that we're not just talking about public education for
poor kids. We're also talking about people getting their tax breaks
from our pockets. They are paying less. We are paying more.
Tim Irvin
<slc...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>I must say I agree with Becky. If people must spawn, I would rather the
>offspring grew up well-educated rather than ignorant. Everyone gains if
>more people are better educated and make better life choices, perhaps,
>than their own parents did. If that means I pay taxes for other people's
>kids, so be it. Penny-pinching and mean-mindedness on education has a
>deleterious effect on the wider society. If kids from rotten families grow
>up knowing no better because there was no decent public education for them
>regardless of whether their parents could afford to have them, of course
>they are going to screw up royally themselves nine times out of ten.
Fine. When it comes to education, I'd agree that we're "penny wise,
pound foolish."
And even though I'm willing to accept some level of taxation for
the education of other children -- seeing as I do recognize some
indirect benefit to me and to all of society -- the current system
results in people with children paying *less* in taxes and
using *more* in social services.
That's not right.
--
Tim Irvin, zig...@netgate.net ::::: http://u1.netgate.net/~ziggy29
"Trouble no one about their religion; respect others in their view, and
demand that they respect yours... Abuse no one and nothing, for abuse
turns the wise ones to fools and robs the spirit of its vision."
-- Tecumseh (1768-1813), Shawnee chief and statesman
Grimly Fiendish
Blanchard) wrote:
> That is like saying if elderly people cant afford to live with a"
>handout"from the taxpayers, they shouldnt be allowed to exist. The fact
>of the matter is, children are guranteed the right to a free public
>education, and in fact are required to go until a certain age. Also, we
>parents pay taxes to run the schools too, so its not like we are
>sitting on our butts, collecting handouts.
> Another anology for you: should people who dont drive have to pay taxes
>to keep the highways kept up? They dont directly benefit, so why pay for
>them?
> Im sorry you resent paying taxes that go toward education. But thats
>the way of the world,so deal with it.
I'm sorry you resent people here arguing with you, but nobody asked
you to come here and explain the ways of the world to us, and I'd like
to see you and your brat go play in the nearest busy intersection and
take a couple of hood ornaments to the skull. Deal with THAT.
Grim
Becky Blanchard
>But they didn't get $500 CREDITS on top of
> the deductions. Nor did they get "stork
> parking" or paid maternity/paternity leave,
> either.
Kent I am in agreement with you on the issues of stork parking and paid
materinity leave and paterinity leave.I would much rather see those
spaces reserved for people with lgetitimate disabilties. As far as paid
maternity leave, why should the company pay me to have a baby if Im not
there being productive.I made the choice to get pregnant- it was not job
related.
>Bully for you. Now what are you doing on
>Kent
I am here because i just wanted to give my opininion from the
perspective of a parent who doesn"t think the world automatically owes
us a living just because we have kids.BTW, we are the ones who pay for
school fees for our kids, their school supplies, clothes, etc. So
basically tax money pays for the school itself,the faculty and staff and
things like books that are reused over and over. No different really
than any other county or city employee, who also get paid by taxpayers.
Becky Blanchard
> your contractions (don't, that's), either.
>Big hint, Becky: Here there be dragons, and
> I've got plenty of Heinz. Still want to meddle?
> Don't make me ask Pete to light the grill with
> his flamethrower.
>Grim
Thanks for the warning, Grim, but Im a big girl and can fend for
myself. I have lurked here for quite a while and have seen Pete"s posts.
I don"t intimidate easily.
Stephie Coane
> >> People have choices. You chose to have a child. The rest of us get no
> >> benefit from you having that child. Instead, you get to pick our
> >> pockets. Just because there's been that injustice in the past doesn't
> >> mean it should be continued. Be responsible already. It's time that if
> >> people can't afford to take care of a kid and school it without a hand
> >> out, they shouldn't have the kid in the first place.
> >
> >I must say I agree with Becky. If people must spawn, I would rather the
> >offspring grew up well-educated rather than ignorant.
>
> I'd rather the offspring be well-educated also. Their parents should
> think about that before they have them.
Of course, but they don't, and given the choice between the cycle
perpetuating itself ad infinitum and the possibility of actually doing
something constructive and generally beneficial to society about it, I
prefer the latter.
> Look at it this way. People have kids and get thousands of dollars in
> tax breaks per year. The more kids they have, the more tax breaks they
> get. Child free people, on the other hand, get no tax breaks because
> they have been responsible enough not to have children. Also, child
> free people are probably subsidizing the incomes of people who make
> much more money than they do.
But it is patently obvious that anyone who has children spends WAY more on
them than they save on the tax break - talk about false economies!
> Keep in mind that we're not just talking about public education for
> poor kids. We're also talking about people getting their tax breaks
> from our pockets. They are paying less. We are paying more.
But we also have more to start with, which we can spend on ourselves -
remember, they spend more than they get. And if their kids are educated to
desire better things for themselves, they may break free of the cycle.
From what I read in the papers, public schools in the US are in a pretty
bad state all round, but it doesn't need to be that way. There are many
damn good state-run schools in Italy - even if the system is fairly
antiquated (or was when I was there, I hear they've reformed the
antediluvian exam system since then), there are some excellent schools,
and I probably owe 30% of my subsequent success with languages to Signora
Pattumelli's Italian grammar and syntax lessons and Signorina Ghislandi's
French lessons.
Stephie
Becky Blanchard
What difference can it possibly make to you how much parents pay for
their drivers licences and car tags? We pay the same amount of money for
ours as you do for yours, so its really not your concern.
Why do you wish to see a higher burden placed on people whd decide
to have families?
I for one, respect the decision of cf"ers to not reproduce and wish
that my decision was respected. Your posts make me think that you want
to punish parents for having kids, by wanting to see outrageous tax
burdens imposed..
Becky Blanchard
> you, but nobody asked you to come here and
> explain the ways of the world to us, and I'd
> like to see you and your brat go play in the
> nearest busy intersection and take a couple of
> hood ornaments to the skull. Deal with THAT.
>Grim
Of the childish and immature things to say to someone!!!!! Can't you
even respond to people in an adult manner without resorting to wishing
death upon them? That is not the sign of someone who is mentally stable!
As long as I am seeing posts on misc.kids from cf"ers bitching about
having to pay taxes to pay for schools and implying that parents don't
pay their fair share, i will continue to post my opinions here.
elizabeth moore
people have kids and frankly that's not going to change any time soon.
So, unless I want to kill myself(which I don't) it is better for them to
at least have some sort of an education. Paying for public education is
a pain, but not paying for public education would be considerably more
of a pain. IMHO
>
> I must say I agree with Becky. If people must spawn, I would rather the
> more people are better educated and make better life choices, perhaps,
> than their own parents did. If that means I pay taxes for other people's
> kids, so be it. Penny-pinching and mean-mindedness on education has a
> deleterious effect on the wider society. If kids from rotten families grow
> up knowing no better because there was no decent public education for them
> regardless of whether their parents could afford to have them, of course
> they are going to screw up royally themselves nine times out of ten.
>
Becky Blanchard
> been responsible and not had kids. So now
> I'm being punished by having to make up the
> taxes for the breeders.
><snip>
The way i see it, its not irresponsible to have kids if you 1]limit
the number of kids and 2]make sure you can feed and clothe them.
Howver, peoples circumstances do change for the worse. People who could
afford them end up in dire straits. Then what? Should society let them
go hungry or homeless, because people without kids dont want to pay ?
Btw, todays kids that you dont want to pay taxes for efucation for will
one day be working to pay your Social Security check. An education will
give the opportunity to make more money to have it withheld from. Think
about it.
Dont get me wrong, I dont like people who keep having one child right
after another knowing damn well they cant feed,shelter and clothe them (
theres plenty of birth control out there),only to have the state take
them away one by one. But for decent responsible parents who do the best
they can and want the best education possible for them, then certainly
taxes should be paid to fund it.
I dont know about where you are at, but here, county personal property
taxes are based on the value of owned property, so naturaly someone who
drives a $40,000 car and owns a $250,000 home is gonna pay a hell of a
lot more than someone driving an 86 dodge colt and renting their hojme.
And yes, a lot of the money directly benefits kids. Thatis just life.
That measly 500 credit I keep hearing about doesnt even begin to cover
the cost of raising a child. ( I responsibly decided to limit myself to
one kid, that I can afford)
Chris Petit
elizabeth moore wrote in message <35EB48...@reed.edu>...
>You took the words right out of my mouth. The reality of life is that
>people have kids and frankly that's not going to change any time soon.
>So, unless I want to kill myself(which I don't) it is better for them to
>at least have some sort of an education. Paying for public education is
>a pain, but not paying for public education would be considerably more
>of a pain. IMHO
I agree. I'm willing to pay for other kids' school, and other social
services. These have a clear benefit to everyone and have a vital function
that may not be met properly without it (i.e. education).
However, I do not view having children in and of itself as something
worthy of subsidizing. Subsidizing is done when something vital is in short
supply or might be in short supply. I don't see this happening for
children.
They are a personal life choice each of us has the responsibility to
make wisely, without assuming that other people will foot the bill for our
choice.
Becky Blanchard
> admit that I lurk over there now and again
> (mostly to offer silent and fervent support to
> those ascf'ers who *try* to offer measured
> rebuttals to Jihad Dean). All the bitching about
> paying taxes seems to be *here*, not *there*. I
> guess that means you can go away now.
Look again, Teri,
This thread was started by an ascf-er, not by me, so no that
doesn't mean I can go away now.Im just offering rebuttals to the
original poster and to those who feel that they should not have to pay
taxes for things that benefit kids.
>::sig line already used in better context by an
> ascfer:::
<..............................................Donot
meddle in the affairs of dragons because you are crunchy and taste good
with ketchup.>
>Several Weyrfolk on this list, so 'ware how you >speak of us
Dragonriders.
>Terri
>Red Helix Rider
What does my sig line have to do with any thing? I have noticed that
several people here resort to childish insults when all else fails.
To say nothing of the cruel comments pertaining unfortunate things
happing to kids.
And if I dont watch how I speak of you Dragonriders, whats gonna
happen? Is a Dragonrider part of some fantasy role-playing game or
something?
Becky Blanchard
My husband and I are contributing now, and our son will be contributing
when he grows up and gets a job.
What multi-thousand dollar handout are you talking about? WE sure
as hell dont get one!
If I remember correctly our refund was a total of about 800 dollars
state and federal combined, so no we didnt get to deduct huge sums for
our son.
my husband happens to drive a truck,so I am aware of fuel charges and
taxes,etc.
I do pay for my kids lunch out of pocket and walk him to and
fromschool.
HCF
Angelmoon wrote:
> How about when a person has kids and can't afford them, we just remove the
> children from the home and give the adults nothing. They'll work or starve
> and I won't have any pity.
Works for me! I once debated this topic with a class full of breeder idiots (I
didn't know they were breeder idiots until the debate had started) and one
person said "I think if you can give a child a lot of love, you should be able
to have them even if you can't afford them." This was a University class too.
It was then that I lost all hope of ever getting through to people.
I like your idea Angelmoon but thanks to the pronatalist culture in which we
live, it won't ever happen.
Geoffrey V. Bronner
ga...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote:
>
>People get a tax break for each and every one of their rug rats. It
>recently even went up by $500!
>
Oh that's nothing. These idiots want to QUADRUPLE it.
<http://www.wetheparents.com/>
Send 'em e-mail.
-Geoff
--
<http://www.dartmouth.edu/~geoffb/>
J L Ray
>them than they save on the tax break - talk about false economies!
It was their choice to have children. Children cost WAY more. DUH.
That doesn't mean the rest of us should have to pay for those kids
ALREADY.
>
>> Keep in mind that we're not just talking about public education for
>> poor kids. We're also talking about people getting their tax breaks
>> from our pockets. They are paying less. We are paying more.
>
>But we also have more to start with, which we can spend on ourselves -
>remember, they spend more than they get. And if their kids are educated to
>desire better things for themselves, they may break free of the cycle.
>
J L Ray
> What difference can it possibly make to you how much parents pay for
>their drivers licences and car tags?
ripped off. People who have kids do a lot more running around and you
don't pay for the wear and tear on the roads that you do.
> Why do you wish to see a higher burden placed on people whd decide
>to have families?
Boo hoo. You decided to have the kids. It was your decision. I'm
tired of subsdizing you. That's all.
> I for one, respect the decision of cf"ers to not reproduce and wish
>that my decision was respected. Your posts make me think that you want
>to punish parents for having kids, by wanting to see outrageous tax
>burdens imposed..
>
I'm not asking for anything more than what you owe. I don't see how
you paying for your own kids is an "outrageous tax burden". To the
contrary, I'm paying an "outrageous tax burden" with giving you these
tax exemptions, deductions and credits. On top of that, I also have to
pay taxes for your kids to go to school. Sheesh. If anyone is being
punished, it is the child free.
pigo
> That is like saying if elderly people cant afford to live with a"
> handout"from the taxpayers, they shouldnt be allowed to exist.
The elderly have already contributed and under a fairer system you
wouldn't become elderly unless you did.
> The fact
> of the matter is, children are guranteed the right to a free public
> education, and in fact are required to go until a certain age. Also, we
> parents pay taxes to run the schools too, so its not like we are
> sitting on our butts, collecting handouts.
Oh No? What about the handout in the form of a multi-thousand dollar tax
deduction that I don't get?
> Another anology for you: should people who dont drive have to pay taxes
> to keep the highways kept up? They dont directly benefit, so why pay for
> them?
Since you brought it up, tuna muffin, do you think the diapers for your
fucktrophy walked to the store, how do you think your case of cheap
make-up and twinkies gets from the factory to the dumpster where you
pick it up? We all pitch in for _that_ type of road usage. THEN the
drivers pay ALOT MORE when they buy fuel. Isn't it about 1/3 of the
price of a gallon now?
We'll pitch in on the plain building, and the books "like when I was
younger". Buy you own fucking shitholder lunch an walk it to school if
your worried about it's safety.
> Im sorry you resent paying taxes that go toward education. But thats
> the way of the world,so deal with it.
So if your taxes paid for my whores and beer.......?
pigo
Helix-Riders
Speaketh Grim:
>I'm sorry you resent people here arguing with you, but nobody asked you to
come here and explain the ways of the world to us, and I'd like to see you
and your brat go play in the nearest busy intersection and take a couple of
hood ornaments to the skull. Deal with THAT.<
Beckies hysterical retort:
<Of the childish and immature things to say to someone!!!!! Can't you even
respond to people in an adult manner without resorting to wishing death upon
them?>
<shrug> Get used to it. There are all levels of postings on this NG and
that's not the *worst* that's ever been said, so if you can't stand the
heat...........
And it's back to Becky!!
<That is not the sign of someone who is mentally stable!>
Whatever. Who are you? Mrs. Dean?
::winding watch, scratching chin as Becky makes wildly ludicrous remark::
<As long as I am seeing posts on misc.kids from cf"ers bitching about
having to pay taxes to pay for schools and implying that parents don't
pay their fair share, i will continue to post my opinions here. >
Eh? Well, ever since this Dean stuff started, I admit that I lurk over there
now and again (mostly to offer silent and fervent support to those ascf'ers
who *try* to offer measured rebuttals to Jihad Dean). All the bitching about
paying taxes seems to be *here*, not *there*. I guess that means you can go
away now.
::sig line already used in better context by an ascfer:::
<...............................................................Do not
meddle in the affairs of dragons because you are crunchy and taste good with
ketchup.>
Several Weyrfolk on this list, so 'ware how you speak of us Dragonriders.
Terri
Red Helix Rider
pigo
mommeeeees for the first five years with taxes so they could stay home
with their pollutant. With a ph. # of the offending bloodsucking org.
My newsserver seems to have lost everything about the same time.
Did it make it or is it that uninteresting?
On another related topic: the last week or two I've seen ads for
"wetheparents.com" those fuckwads want to TRIPLE the tax deduction for
snotlickers. Lamar somebody, one of the presidential also rans.
pigo
pigo
> Of the childish and immature things to say to someone!!!!! Can't you
> even respond to people in an adult manner without resorting to wishing
> death upon them? That is not the sign of someone who is mentally stable!
You think that's bad, howdya like this?
Somebody must have taken a big long crap in your mouth, 'cause that's
all that's coming out of it .
> As long as I am seeing posts on misc.kids from cf"ers bitching about
> having to pay taxes to pay for schools and implying that parents don't
> pay their fair share, i will continue to post my opinions here.
There is NO implying about it. The system now IS : the more
crackmonsters you have, the more deductions you get. Now you can be
happy about that if you want, but how is it your "fair share" for me to
pay more, shaghole?
pigo
Grimly Fiendish
Blanchard) wrote:
>Of the childish and immature things to say to someone!!!!! Can't you
>even respond to people in an adult manner without resorting to wishing
>death upon them?
Sure I can. I didn't say I wished death upon you. I merely suggested
you and Jr. go play in the street and get a hood ornament or two in
the skull. Your choice. It's a free country, you know. I couldn't care
less if you live, die, play in the street, or visit Sea World.
>That is not the sign of someone who is mentally stable!
My mental stable has an Appaloosa, and boy, is he pretty. Rides well,
too.
>As long as I am seeing posts on misc.kids from cf"ers bitching about
>having to pay taxes to pay for schools and implying that parents don't
>pay their fair share, i will continue to post my opinions here.
Big ol' hint, Beckinator: Address your gripes to the people who
bitched about it on misc.kids, and don't bitch about the responses you
get here. I warned you about dragons and Heinz. You didn't pay
attention. Your screw-up. You should know better, what with your .sig
and all.
Have a swell day. Thanks for playing. Your consolation prize is a
dream date with a doctor - Jack Kevorkian, as a matter of fact. Would
your little shriekling like to learn how to hook up the tubes and
press the button? (Your choice, of course. I'm not wishing death on
you.)
Grim
Jason Gill
dizzy.
Why are you here? Never mind, doesn't matter. Go away.
In article <4054-35E...@newsd-161.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
bec...@webtv.net (Becky Blanchard) wrote:
>Did it ever occur to you people who are complaining about your taxes
>going to subsidize schools,etc that benefit parents and kids, that
>plenty of childless people paid taxes so YOU could have schools, and
>that YOUR parents got deductions for you? Thats the way it goes.
> BTW, I am a parent of one child, and dont plan on having any more,
>due to the fact that I dont want more than I can afford to clothe, feed
>and shelter.
>
> Becky
>................................................................Do not
>meddle in the affairs of dragons because you are crunchy and taste good
>with ketchup.
>
>
--
Jason Gill
"Power without morality is disaster.
Morality without power is useless."
L.E. Modesitt, Jr. _The Paradigms of Power_
Jason Gill
recruiting for the Yabbut Army again?
Big hint, Beck: EVERYTHING you have to say HAS BEEN SAID OVER AND OVER AND
OVER AND OVER here by parents who just can't stay away from ASC for some
perverse reason. You have nothing to add to this conversation.
You are, upon arrival, a cliché.
Please exit now and leave us in peace.
In article <4036-35E...@newsd-164.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
bec...@webtv.net (Becky Blanchard) wrote:
>>Apparently you can't afford apostrophes for
>> your contractions (don't, that's), either.
>
>
>>Big hint, Becky: Here there be dragons, and
>> I've got plenty of Heinz. Still want to meddle?
>> Don't make me ask Pete to light the grill with
>> his flamethrower.
>
>>Grim
>
>
> Thanks for the warning, Grim, but Im a big girl and can fend for
>myself. I have lurked here for quite a while and have seen Pete"s posts.
>I don"t intimidate easily.
>
>
J L Ray
>>Yeah, I have more to start with because I have
>> been responsible and not had kids. So now
>> I'm being punished by having to make up the
>> taxes for the breeders.
>
>><snip>
>
> The way i see it, its not irresponsible to have kids if you 1]limit
>the number of kids and 2]make sure you can feed and clothe them.
1) If you can't pay for the first kid, don't have it. If you have it
anyway, don't expect me to subsidize your expenses with my taxes.
2) You should make sure you can feed and clothe them without my tax
subsidies.
> Howver, peoples circumstances do change for the worse. People who could
>afford them end up in dire straits. Then what? Should society let them
>go hungry or homeless, because people without kids dont want to pay ?
I pay unemployment taxes in case I have hard times. And I'm even
willing, temporarily, to pay taxes to help other people who fall on
hard times. However, the way it is now, I have to subsidize ALL people
who choose to have kids no matter what their financial circumstances
are. It's time you people with children quit having sprogs with the
expectation that the rest of us will help foot your bill.
>Btw, todays kids that you dont want to pay taxes for efucation for will
>one day be working to pay your Social Security check. An education will
>give the opportunity to make more money to have it withheld from. Think
>about it.
OK, I've thought about it.I think I'd rather take all that money
that's being robbed from me and put it in my retirement account.
>Dont get me wrong, I dont like people who keep having one child right
>after another knowing damn well they cant feed,shelter and clothe them (
>theres plenty of birth control out there),only to have the state take
>them away one by one. But for decent responsible parents who do the best
>they can and want the best education possible for them, then certainly
>taxes should be paid to fund it.
Once again. People who have children should pay the taxes for the
children they CHOOSE to have. There are plenty of ways to keep from
having a kid. Those of us who have utilized those ways shouldn't have
to give a handout to the rest of you.
> I dont know about where you are at, but here, county personal property
>taxes are based on the value of owned property, so naturaly someone who
>drives a $40,000 car and owns a $250,000 home is gonna pay a hell of a
>lot more than someone driving an 86 dodge colt and renting their hojme.
>And yes, a lot of the money directly benefits kids. Thatis just life.
That's just life? LOL. Not. That's just our unfair tax system. It
still doesn't address the problem that someone without kids who drives
that 86 dodge colt still pays more taxes than someone with a rug rat
under the same circumstances.
> That measly 500 credit I keep hearing about doesnt even begin to cover
>the cost of raising a child. ( I responsibly decided to limit myself to
>one kid, that I can afford)
>
You are not being responsible nor affording your own kid if you're
taking out deductions and exemptions that I don't get. Your measly
little $500 credit comes out of my pocket. Just like your tax
deductions and exemptions that you get for having your little darling
come out of my pocket. People who want to have a kid shouldn't expect
the rest of us to fork out money to give you a tax break.
J L Ray
>
>elizabeth moore wrote in message <35EB48...@reed.edu>...
> The reality of life is that
>>people have kids and frankly that's not going to change any time soon.
I don't have a problem with people having kids. I do have a problem
with them getting tax breaks when they CHOOSE to have kids. I do have
a problem when I have to subsidize their CHOOSING to have kids.
>>So, unless I want to kill myself(which I don't) it is better for them to
>>at least have some sort of an education.
Why would you have to kill yourself?
>> Paying for public education is
>>a pain, but not paying for public education would be considerably more
>>of a pain. IMHO
So just let the people who choose to have kids pay for the public
education. You have a kid, you pay more taxes. Stop this silly tax
break stuff for people who will get all the benefits.
>
> I agree. I'm willing to pay for other kids' school, and other social
>services. These have a clear benefit to everyone and have a vital function
>that may not be met properly without it (i.e. education).
I'm not willing. The people who have the kids should be the ones who
pay the higher taxes instead of them getting a tax break and sponging
off the rest of us.
> However, I do not view having children in and of itself as something
>worthy of subsidizing. Subsidizing is done when something vital is in short
>supply or might be in short supply. I don't see this happening for
>children.
So why are we giving them a subsidy in the form of tax breaks whenever
they have a kid?
>
> They are a personal life choice each of us has the responsibility to
>make wisely, without assuming that other people will foot the bill for our
>choice.
We are already footing the bill.
J L Ray
>How about when a person has kids and can't afford them, we just remove the
>children from the home and give the adults nothing. They'll work or starve
>and I won't have any pity.
But you are perfectly willing to rob my pocketbook to take tax
deductions to support your little rugrats. Gawd, what a hypocritical
whiner you are.
Chris Petit
J L Ray wrote in message <35eba6d...@news.mindspring.com>...
>"Chris Petit" <bluemist at mindspring dot com> wrote:
>> I agree. I'm willing to pay for other kids' school, and other social
>>services. These have a clear benefit to everyone and have a vital
function
>>that may not be met properly without it (i.e. education).
>
>I'm not willing. The people who have the kids should be the ones who
>pay the higher taxes instead of them getting a tax break and sponging
>off the rest of us.
The problem is, if you try to allocate social services based on who
should receive them, and say exempt people who don't use them from paying
taxes on them---it gets into a real mess real fast.
"Oh, you didn't pay for the fire dept? Then we'll let your house burn
down."
>> However, I do not view having children in and of itself as something
>>worthy of subsidizing. Subsidizing is done when something vital is in
short
>>supply or might be in short supply. I don't see this happening for
>>children.
>
>So why are we giving them a subsidy in the form of tax breaks whenever
>they have a kid?
We agree here---tax credits for popping out kids are stupid. IMO,
paying for social services that benefit us all (through more educated
people) is not.
Stephie Coane
>
> Fine. When it comes to education, I'd agree that we're "penny wise,
> pound foolish."
>
> And even though I'm willing to accept some level of taxation for
> the education of other children -- seeing as I do recognize some
> indirect benefit to me and to all of society -- the current system
> results in people with children paying *less* in taxes and
> using *more* in social services.
>
> That's not right.
But that is a very short-termist, short-sighted approach.
Stephie
Stephie Coane
> I'm not asking for anything more than what you owe. I don't see how
> you paying for your own kids is an "outrageous tax burden". To the
> contrary, I'm paying an "outrageous tax burden" with giving you these
> tax exemptions, deductions and credits. On top of that, I also have to
> pay taxes for your kids to go to school. Sheesh. If anyone is being
> punished, it is the child free.
This is just getting silly. Since when does not getting a tax credit mean
being *punished*? Until there is (God forbid) a tax only for childfrees,
it isn't punishment. It's just a recognition that parents have higher
expenses. It is different from expenditure on many hobbies because in the
fullness of time the children will become productive members of society,
and if they're raised on peanuts you'll get unemployable monkeys. I
believe charities get tax breaks too.
Stephie
CapnBlue
and tax deductions.
I have no problem with paying taxes to support services such as police, fire
protection, education, roads, utitlities, trash collection, etc.
I do have a problem with the federal (US) tax laws that allow people tt take
deductions from their taxes for each child they have. I find it irritating.
My co-worker with three kids got a huge refund - while myself and several other
co-workers had to pay above the amount that has already been taken out of our
paychecks. Last year it was two hundred dollars for my husbadn and I. According
to the rules we did not pay enough taxes.
That is the issue. On the federal level parents are not paying their fair
share of federal income taxes.
Granted the amount of deduction does not come close to covering the expenses of
raising a child but it is still grossly unfair that a larger family pays fewer
taxes than a smaller family.
I also realize that tax breaks is not a motive for having kids but the
deductions do send the wrong message.
Every country in the world really needs to do what it can to discourage large
families.
I propose the tax deduction to apply to only the first child. To encourage
adoption perhaps a second child can get a deduction if the child is adopted.
Linda Causey
check out Linda's Little Web Empire
http://members.tripod.com/~Toonhead/
Cartoons, Clip Art, Art, Rants, Biography and Other Stuff
J L Ray
>|> That is the issue. On the federal level parents are not paying their fair
>|> share of federal income taxes.
>|>
>|> Granted the amount of deduction does not come close to covering the expenses of
>|> raising a child but it is still grossly unfair that a larger family pays fewer
>|> taxes than a smaller family.
>|>
>
>means). Some might think, for example, that it is not "fair" that I can withold
>$5K from my salary, pre-tax, and use it to pay for childcare.
Just another example of how the child free are getting ripped off by
the breeders.
>That money,
>however, is supporting another taxpayer, and they are paying taxes on it, so I
>wonder if my tax savings (probably a couple hundred bucks) is recouped by the
>taxes paid by my childcare provider. I assume that it is (and more).
>
That does not justify you getting YET ANOTHER tax break that comes out
of my pocket.
>|> I also realize that tax breaks is not a motive for having kids but the
>|> deductions do send the wrong message.
>|>
>|> Every country in the world really needs to do what it can to discourage large
>|> families.
>|>
>|> I propose the tax deduction to apply to only the first child. To encourage
>|> adoption perhaps a second child can get a deduction if the child is adopted.
>|>
>
>Frankly, I can think of nothing more obnoxious than the government intruding into
>the reproductive lives of its citizens. And that's what I read your proposal to
>be. You state that tax breaks are not motives for having kids. Why use them,
>then, to encourage citizens not to have children? By your own reasonings it
>seems doomed to failure.
All I want is for you breeders to pay for the kids you choose to have
instead of alway having this whiny attitude. "Oh, it costs so much"
"Oh, those tax breaks don't help much" "Children cost a lot" Yeah,
right. Kids cost money. You chose to have them, so it should be your
money instead of you dipping into my pockets. You get deductions,
exemptions, credits, tax free child care, extra benefits at work, on
and on. And all we hear from you breeders is gimme gimme gimme.
Gutterboy1
>Oh that's nothing. These idiots want to QUADRUPLE it.
>
><http://www.wetheparents.com/>
>
*This* is what Lamar Alexander is doing with his time these days? Yipes.
Gutterboy
Jason Gill
> Some might think, for example, that it is not "fair" that I can
> withold
>however, is supporting another taxpayer, and they are paying taxes on it, so I
>wonder if my tax savings (probably a couple hundred bucks) is recouped by the
>taxes paid by my childcare provider. I assume that it is (and more).
So, if you didn't get to pay with pre-tax money, you wouldn't use child care?
I don't think so. Child care is a rather inelastic demand. The provider will
pay taxes on the income whether you pay taxes on the money or not. Your
argument is specious.
>Frankly, I can think of nothing more obnoxious than the government intruding
> into
>the reproductive lives of its citizens. And that's what I read your proposal
> to
>be. You state that tax breaks are not motives for having kids. Why use them,
>then, to encourage citizens not to have children? By your own reasonings it
>seems doomed to failure.
You're right. The tax code should not be used for social engineering. That's
why there should be a flat tax. nn% of income, period. Problem solved.
Geoffrey V. Bronner
gutte...@aol.com (Gutterboy1) wrote:
>
>>Oh that's nothing. These idiots want to QUADRUPLE it.
>>
>><http://www.wetheparents.com/>
>
>*This* is what Lamar Alexander is doing with his time these days? Yipes.
>
Yea... the TV ads are especially annoying. Lamar is BEYOND self-righteous.
I sent them e-mail and told them that Lamar shouldn't bother coming to New
Hampshire in 2000 if he's still selling this load of goods.
They didn't answer me of course.
-Geoff
--
<http://www.dartmouth.edu/~geoffb/>
Becky Blanchard
If yu reread the posts, you will see that I am not the one using the
abusive language and insults.
i have tried to communicate in a civil manner.
And yes, there are child-free people posting on misc-kids about this.
The only difference is that the the misc.kid members are a lot more
civil to ascf-ers that post there than ascf-ers are to parents that come
here.
Becky
Owen Strawn
snip
> Btw, todays kids that you dont want to pay taxes for efucation for will
> one day be working to pay your Social Security check. An education will
> give the opportunity to make more money to have it withheld from. Think
> about it.
Bwaaahahahaha! I will never get a single Social Security check! To
believe otherwise is criminally foolish.
--
Owen Strawn
Owen Strawn
snip
> From what I read in the papers, public schools in the US are in a pretty
> bad state all round, but it doesn't need to be that way. There are many
> damn good state-run schools in Italy - even if the system is fairly
> antiquated (or was when I was there, I hear they've reformed the
> antediluvian exam system since then), there are some excellent schools,
> and I probably owe 30% of my subsequent success with languages to Signora
> Pattumelli's Italian grammar and syntax lessons and Signorina Ghislandi's
> French lessons.
US schooling sucks because Mommee and Daddee take no responsibility for
their children's education. Better-funded schools do NOT have a
correspondingly better performance record, they just have a better-fed
bureaucracy.
--
Owen Strawn
Owen Strawn
Bullshit.
It is not short-sighted to expect people who choose to use more
resources to pay _AT_LEAST_ as much as those who choose to use less?
--
Owen Strawn
Rabbit
Becky Blanchard wrote:
> JL Ray,
> What difference can it possibly make to you how much parents pay for
> their drivers licences and car tags? We pay the same amount of money for
> ours as you do for yours, so its really not your concern.
> Why do you wish to see a higher burden placed on people whd decide
> to have families?
>
Why shouldn't you be subsidizing my decision to go on a cruise every year?
I will admit, you are right ... public education is in everyone's best
interest, and while I'd rather keep my bucks in my own pocket, it does have
to come out of my taxes. But fair is fair. One, maximum two children per
family using these resources. Once you've reproduced yourself, you're on
your own. THAT is when you should be paying out of your own pocket, and no
tax subsidies.
Rabbit
Rabbit
Stephie Coane wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Aug 1998, Tim Irvin wrote:
> >
> > Fine. When it comes to education, I'd agree that we're "penny wise,
> > pound foolish."
> >
> > And even though I'm willing to accept some level of taxation for
> > the education of other children -- seeing as I do recognize some
> > indirect benefit to me and to all of society -- the current system
> > results in people with children paying *less* in taxes and
> > using *more* in social services.
> >
> > That's not right.
>
> But that is a very short-termist, short-sighted approach.
>
> Stephie
And we are short-term and short-sighted. Remember, once we're gone,
that's it!
Rabbit
Rabbit
> taxes are based on the value of owned property, so naturaly someone who
> drives a $40,000 car and owns a $250,000 home is gonna pay a hell of a
> lot more than someone driving an 86 dodge colt and renting their hojme.
> And yes, a lot of the money directly benefits kids. Thatis just life.
No, that ISN'T just life! (Why am I bothering ... ?)
Okay, hon, here's the scenario. I work hard, I invest my money, I
accumulate enough so that I can afford a $40,000 car instead of an 86 Dodge
Colt, and I can afford a house that costs $250,000. I can do this because
I've saved my money, instead of spending it on diapers and formula and
Sesame Street toys.
I worked for it. I earned it. That's capitalism.
Now you're telling me that because of YOUR children, I should be forced to
fork over a higher percentage of what I earned to the benefit of YOUR
children, even though I do not have any children myself?
Give your head a shake, darlin', while you're moseying on back to misc.kids.
Rabbit
Kent Parks
: This is just getting silly. Since when does not getting a tax credit mean
: being *punished*? Until there is (God forbid) a tax only for childfrees,
: it isn't punishment. It's just a recognition that parents have higher
: expenses. It is different from expenditure on many hobbies because in the
: fullness of time the children will become productive members of society,
: and if they're raised on peanuts you'll get unemployable monkeys. I
: believe charities get tax breaks too.
Yabbut, if they didn't give so many benefits for breeding, they'd be able
to afford to give EVERYONE a break. The extra moeny that's given out for
reproducing has to be made up somewhere, and so the base tax rates are
higher than they'd be without such exemptions/deductions...never mind
CREDITS.
Kent, waiting for the day, just you wait, when our taxes are jerked up to
compensate for the "$500 per child credit".
Gil Kloepfer Jr.
Becky Blanchard wrote:
> The fact
> of the matter is, children are guranteed the right to a free public
> education, and in fact are required to go until a certain age. Also, we
> parents pay taxes to run the schools too, so its not like we are
> sitting on our butts, collecting handouts.
Pigo <pigop...@yahoo.com> responded:
> Oh No? What about the handout in the form of a multi-thousand dollar tax
> deduction that I don't get?
Folks, this is not the way to look at this. Let's assume for a moment
that we (as cf'ers) actually should contribute something to the school
system through taxes (I think we should, but that's me). What gets my
goat is that nearly 35% (it has to be at least that) of my income goes
to taxes of some kind or another. $1200+/year of that goes to
school taxes.
While I'm not against paying for the schools, don't you think $1200
a year is ENOUGH for me (without kids) to be paying to subsidize
the schools? (nevermind the amount of my federal tax money that
is also used for this purpose) C'mon now, it's time that the
school system stopped using kids as "human shields" and start
budgeting the way the rest of us have to. I agree that we "owe
it to the chillllddruunn" to provide a solid education. But that
doesn't mean that the schools should be funded daycare/babysitting,
nor does it mean that the school should be equipped with *extra
stuff* it can't pay for. If it costs THAT much, maybe it's time
to start returning to cardboard boxes and imagination for some
things. (please don't misinterpret me to mean they should sacrifice
a good education by using trash...I am refering to other things, and
those reading this in the right light will see what I mean)
Becky also said...
> Another anology for you: should people who dont drive have to pay taxes
> to keep the highways kept up? They dont directly benefit, so why pay for
> them?
In many ways, they don't. They don't pay auto registrations, auto
insurance, license fees, gas taxes, tolls, etc. Like we all help fund
the school, we do it in part because it makes our community a better
place to live (and for you more militant CBCers, remember it also helps
maintain the value of your real-estate as well).
The community pays for something collectively because to pay for
it individually would not be cost-effective. My beef is that the
education system in this country is among that which is becoming less
and less effective at a greater and greater cost. The answer is not
throwing more money at the problem, CBC or parent/breeder (you know
who you are :). The answer is for the schools' administrations to
start getting back to what the schools were designed for and provide
a solid education for a reasonable amount of money. Anything above
that is icing on the cake. It's up to parents to teach their
little sproggen above and beyond what is taught in the school. If
they don't have time because they're a two-parent-working family
to pay for the minivan and the $200K house, then perhaps maybe it's
time to re-evaluate those things that are important in their
lives... Comprende'?
And by the way, for all the money the schools get, the teachers
are *still* grossly underpaid, and in many cases, underappreciated.
Becky said...
> Im sorry you resent paying taxes that go toward education. But thats
> the way of the world,so deal with it.
And pigo responded...
>So if your taxes paid for my whores and beer.......?
Whores & beer? That's a drop in the bucket compared to the ongoing
costs that I have to pay in order to keep up in my line of work (which
happens to be my hobby as well)...which I suppose could be considered
education in its own right.
You're both missing the point though. I think most reasonable people
would consider paying school taxes to be money well-spent, and that
paying for one's whores and beer to be...well...nevermind. BUT...it
is NOT reasonable for people to think that they can tax the public in
an irresponsible and inconsiderate manner, which is quickly becoming the
norm here in the USA.
As for the per-child tax credit...I'm ready for a flat tax. That
puts everyone on an even playing field. If your dependents cost
you more, that doesn't mean you should have a lower tax. That
makes as much sense as, "Because I buy cola, I should get a
government-funded $5 discount on crushed ice and cups." Does anyone
consider the financial impact on their families before they have
their kids anymore? That's something that should be taught in
the home (not in school), and isn't anymore...
</SOAPBOX> Argh.
---
Gil Kloepfer
gi...@NOSPAM.gc2.kloepfer.org (remove the NOSPAM. to send mail...)
Cathleen
>Angelmoon wrote:
>
>> How about when a person has kids and can't afford them, we just remove the
>> children from the home and give the adults nothing. They'll work or starve
>> and I won't have any pity.
>
>Works for me! I once debated this topic with a class full of breeder idiots (I
>didn't know they were breeder idiots until the debate had started) and one
>person said "I think if you can give a child a lot of love, you should be able
>to have them even if you can't afford them." This was a University class too.
>It was then that I lost all hope of ever getting through to people.
>
>I like your idea Angelmoon but thanks to the pronatalist culture in which we
>live, it won't ever happen.
I know what you mean. I once remarked that people shouldn't have children
they can't afford (novel idea, I guess) and someone remarked "You mean
poor people don't have a right to have children? You're an elitist!" I
felt like an alien.
elsworth
Becky Blanchard wrote in message
<6716-35...@newsd-164.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
>Leslie,
I>f yu reread the posts, you will see that I am not the one using the
>abusive language and insults.
>i have tried to communicate in a civil manner.
>And yes, there are child-free people posting on misc-kids about this.
>The only difference is that the the misc.kid members are a lot more
>civil to ascf-ers that post there than ascf-ers are to parents that come
>here.
HoneyChil', What planet you from?
This is a child-FREE newsgroup. The opinions expressed herein are unpopular
amongst the child-ridden population, or else we wouldn't need a support group.
We are not here to have our minds changed by you. Better, more articulate, and
much more persuasive people have tried, people we respect (such as our parents),
and have not succeeded, because we believe our decision to be right, even though
many people (parents in general, it seems) do not agree.
This is our haven, our place to say things without being slammed for our
opinions. Don't you think we haven't heard your bleating before? Why do you
think we congregate here?
It is not your mission to change our minds. We do not want your opinions, we've
heard them. Are you so threatened by the written word that you must crush and
censor it whenever it does not agree with your child-centric views?
Get out of our newsgroup. Go back to misc.kids, where you belong. This is not
your group.
You are not being polite. You are not being reasonable. You are being
particularly rude. Your behaviour resembles someone walking into an abuse
support group and telling the beaten victims that they should have been beaten -
even more - that beatings are the correct way to discipline a spouse who
disagrees.
Did that offend you? Well, it's how your presence feels to me. Now do you
understand why we want you to leave? We are not censoring you (though you seem
to be trying that on us). We just don't want to listen to your pro-child
blither in a support group for those who do not wish to have, or pay for,
children.
We believe in conserving our resources. Conservation is our future.
HTH. FOAD.
elsworth
Chris Petit
Scott Lindstrom wrote in message <6sh4v1$o...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>...
>Because I can take advantage of a tax break that you can't, why is that
coming
>out of your pocket?
Because the government needs to pull in enough money to cover its
services, any tax breaks in one place MUST be made up in another place.
mer
the following:
> The way i see it, its not irresponsible to have kids if you 1]limit
> the number of kids and 2]make sure you can feed and clothe them.
> Howver, peoples circumstances do change for the worse. People who could
> afford them end up in dire straits. Then what? Should society let them
> go hungry or homeless, because people without kids dont want to pay ?
Yes.
> Btw, todays kids that you dont want to pay taxes for efucation for will
> one day be working to pay your Social Security check. An education will
> give the opportunity to make more money to have it withheld from. Think
> about it.
By the time I retire, Social Security will be bankrupt anyway, and I
won't get any SS benefits. I'm not depending on them. I won't need
them; I'm making other financial arrangements.
> Dont get me wrong, I dont like people who keep having one child right
> after another knowing damn well they cant feed,shelter and clothe them (
> theres plenty of birth control out there),only to have the state take
> them away one by one. But for decent responsible parents who do the best
> they can and want the best education possible for them, then certainly
> taxes should be paid to fund it.
Your kids. Your taxes. Your money. Not mine.
> I dont know about where you are at, but here, county personal property
> taxes are based on the value of owned property, so naturaly someone who
> drives a $40,000 car and owns a $250,000 home is gonna pay a hell of a
> lot more than someone driving an 86 dodge colt and renting their hojme.
I don't drive a $40,000 car or own a $250,000 home. I rather doubt
any of the regulars on this group do. But we still pay more taxes
than breeders.
> And yes, a lot of the money directly benefits kids. Thatis just life.
Why the hell should it be this way? We want it to change. That's our
point.
> That measly 500 credit I keep hearing about doesnt even begin to cover
> the cost of raising a child. ( I responsibly decided to limit myself to
> one kid, that I can afford)
Well goody for you. Now go away. We don't give a dead rat's ass
about your opinions anyway.
>
> Becky
> ................................................................Do not
> meddle in the affairs of dragons because you are crunchy and taste good
> with ketchup.
>
>
(Yeah, yeah, I know, don't feed the trolls. Sorry, I just couldn't
help it. Bad day.)
--mer
I'm SICK of junk e-mail! Send mail to merush at metronet dot com
Marley Elizabeth Greiner
>
>
> US schooling sucks because Mommee and Daddee take no responsibility for
> their children's education. Better-funded schools do NOT have a
> correspondingly better performance record, they just have a better-fed
> bureaucracy.
>
> --
> Owen Strawn
I worked for the Ohio State University College of Education for 2 years in
a special student leadersip project. I learned very quickly that the
average public school teacher doesn't WANT parental involvement. They held
total contempt for parents, and claimed they were being persecuted by the
project's head because he insisted that the teachers have contact visits
with parents.
On a personal note, my parents took a personal interest in my education,
and I hated it. I wanted to be left alone. Once I slugged my mother in
the face when she attempted to help me with algebra, and I'd do it again 38
years later.
Marley
Tommy
<<snip>>
> You're right. The tax code should not be used for social engineering.
That's
> why there should be a flat tax. nn% of income, period. Problem solved.
Close, Jason. But why should the government know how much money you make
and where?
A consumption tax is clearly the way to go because the government doesn't
keep track of who's consuming what for the most part. That keeps the
government completely out of your personal life.
- Tommy
elizabeth moore
hypocritical for people without kids to demand their own forum and then
do exactly what they are accusing parents of doing here over in the
parenting newsgroups.
Becky Blanchard
> I will admit, you are right ... public education is
> in everyone's best interest, and while I'd rather
> keep my bucks in my own pocket, it does
> have to come out of my taxes. But fair is fair.
> One, maximum two children per family using
> these resources. Once you've reproduced
> yourself, you're on your own. THAT is when
> you should be paying out of your own pocket,
> and no tax subsidies.
>Rabbit
Point well taken, Rabbit. I have reproduced my husband with a son, and
have decided against more. As it is I can support the one I have but I
dont want the financial and eomotional responsiblity of any more. maybe
they should stop giving deductions for anything over 2 kids.
They stopped upping welfare checks for women everytime they had a baby
so there went the incentive to reproduce at will. Maybe it would work
if they only gave the deductions for up to 2 kids per family.
Becky
Chris Clarke
Kent Parks wrote:
> Yabbut, if they didn't give so many benefits for breeding, they'd be able
> to afford to give EVERYONE a break. The extra moeny that's given out for
> reproducing has to be made up somewhere, and so the base tax rates are
> higher than they'd be without such exemptions/deductions...never mind
> CREDITS.
>
> Kent, waiting for the day, just you wait, when our taxes are jerked up to
> compensate for the "$500 per child credit".
Hmmmm... i believe i'll still reserve my quota of tax-related upset for things
like federally-subsidized logging roads used to allow federally-subsidized
logging corporations to cut below-cost timber for sale as raw logs to export
markets, after which the corporations turn around and file "takings" claims
against the taxpayers because we insisted they refrain from extirpating every
last damn tree, or the hundreds of billions of dollars paid out each decade
for defense contractors' nonessential cost overrruns, or the hideously massive
subsidy to the former operators of former S&Ls, whose libertarian squealings
changed in nature when it was them personally what needed the government
bailout.
But that's just me. Given the choice between targeting millions of people with
$hundreds in tax breaks, or hundreds of corporations with $billions in
government subsidies, I tend to go with the math. YMMV.
pigo
>
> Leslie,
> If yu reread the posts, you will see that I am not the one using the
> abusive language and insults. (snip)
I disagree! You said that you had pushed out a stinking, screeching,
shitbag from between your putrid thighs, that sounds abusive to me!
pigo
Gutterboy1
>On a personal note, my parents took a personal interest in my education,
>and I hated it. I wanted to be left alone. Once I slugged my mother in
>the face when she attempted to help me with algebra, and I'd do it again 38
>years later.
Huh?
Gutterboy
Jason Gill
low-income person who buys food, clothing, and furniture would end up paying a
higher percentage of their income as tax. Say for example, a person making
$10k spends $5k on taxable items with a 20% tax rate. That person pays $1000,
or 10% of their income as tax.
If a high-income person making $100,000 bought the same stuff, they would
pay a mere .01% of their income as tax. (Note: I would be one of those with
the .01% tax rate, so this isn't just a selfish opinion.)
This is an extreme example, of course. Granted a person making 100k will buy
more things, but after a certain level the items consumed level off while
income may not. How much more does a person making 1 million purchase than a
person making 2 million? Yet the person making 1mil pays twice the tax rate
of the 2mil person.
Also, I believe that a sales-only tax would create a huge black market and/or
outright noncompliance orders of magnitude larger than the current
under-the-table labor market. People who would never consider not filing
their income tax wouldn't think twice about buying tomatoes from a farmer
selling out of his truck beside the road. How would they know if he pays the
sales tax? How would he ever get caught? Noncompliance would be so rampant
that a sales-tax only system is unworkable.
A national sales tax is a valid idea, but impossible to implement and
administer as the sole means of government revenue.
In article <tcp1342-0109...@ppp-31.ts-8.lax.idt.net>,
--
Gutterboy1
>Rebecca (who hasn't been paid because the payroll department lost her
>paperwork, has worked entirely too many days straight, and thinks anyone
>who buys TITANIC and screams at the clerks about the goddamnmotherfucking
>behind-the-scenes tape that is supposed to come with it should be taken out
>and sterilized with a rusty fork....)
>
Sympathies! Poor thing!
You could solve both of your problems if you tell your boss that until you get
your check, you'll be advising customers that reel.com is selling the damn
thing for a measly $9.95...and they don't have to stand in line for it.
Gutterboy
Jason Gill
Renting This Smile For The Campaign" Forbes didn't have the balls to stick to
a true flat tax, but caved to the Sprog Lobby.
In article <01bdd5f8$288a4d40$79bffdd0@reserve>, "Angelmoon"
<computer...@mailexite.com> wrote:
>>
>> You're right. The tax code should not be used for social engineering.
>That's
>> why there should be a flat tax. nn% of income, period. Problem solved.
>>
>> --
>> Jason Gill
>>
>Don't forget that it's that percentage with NO deductions/exemptions for
>the number of people in the family--just the percentage of gross--period.
>Current "flat" taxes being proposed still include a $ deduction/exemption
>per person. This means people with no kids would pay a larger percentage
>of their gross than people with one kid (who would pay a higher percentage
>than people with 2, etc.) due to that kiddie deduction. Current proposals
>are more fair than what we have now, BUT they still aren't fair to those
>who choose not to have any kids.
Marley Elizabeth Greiner
Chris Clarke <chris...@igc.org> wrote in article
<35ECC384...@igc.org>...
I agree totally. And I'd like to add to your list the hundreds of millions
paid out by FEMA to people who get their homes blown away every couple of
years by hurricaines, and rebuild and rebuild and rebuild. They have a
right to live where they want, but they do not have the right to demand
that taxpayers serially compensate them for their inability to comprehend
the power of nature.
Marley
--
I like Pearl Jam--and I have a personal relationship with God. But I think
He likes Pearl Jam, too."
.....John Kasich
*****BASTARD NATION*****
www.bastards.org
>
Marley Elizabeth Greiner
<199809020151...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Yeah, I don't think that parents have any businses interfering in their
kids lives in general. The sooner parents learn the score the better off
we all are. Parents are just a smaller system of state control.
Marley
>
Stephie Coane
> >
> > But that is a very short-termist, short-sighted approach.
> >
> > Stephie
>
> And we are short-term and short-sighted. Remember, once we're gone,
> that's it!
Yes, but (hopefully) there will be another 4-5 decades before I'm gone,
which is ample time to reap what one sows socially. Even if I don't have
offspring to want a better world for.
Stephie
Stephie Coane
<SNIP SNIP>
> As for the per-child tax credit...I'm ready for a flat tax. That
> puts everyone on an even playing field. If your dependents cost
> you more, that doesn't mean you should have a lower tax. That
> makes as much sense as, "Because I buy cola, I should get a
> government-funded $5 discount on crushed ice and cups." Does anyone
> consider the financial impact on their families before they have
> their kids anymore? That's something that should be taught in
> the home (not in school), and isn't anymore...
>
> </SOAPBOX> Argh.
But the fundamental difference between cold drinks and children is that
the cold drink doesn't have to grow into a functional member of society. I
agree that the US welfare isn't working very well, but whether or not we
have children and tax breaks, the children (poor sods) exist, and have no
choice about it. Unfortunately most welfare recipients one hears about are
the ones that grew up socially dysfunctional.
Stephie
Stephie Coane
> Stephie Coane <slc...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 31 Aug 1998, Tim Irvin wrote:
> > >
> > > Fine. When it comes to education, I'd agree that we're "penny wise,
> > > pound foolish."
> > >
> > > And even though I'm willing to accept some level of taxation for
> > > the education of other children -- seeing as I do recognize some
> > > indirect benefit to me and to all of society -- the current system
> > > results in people with children paying *less* in taxes and
> > > using *more* in social services.
> > >
> > > That's not right.
> >
> > But that is a very short-termist, short-sighted approach.
> >
>
> Bullshit.
>
> It is not short-sighted to expect people who choose to use more
> resources to pay _AT_LEAST_ as much as those who choose to use less?
Bullshit yourself. That is simplistic, and reduces everything to $$$.
Stephie
Stephie Coane
> Wrote Marley:
>
> >On a personal note, my parents took a personal interest in my education,
> >and I hated it. I wanted to be left alone. Once I slugged my mother in
> >the face when she attempted to help me with algebra, and I'd do it again 38
> >years later.
>
> Huh?
I know what she means - I hated the parental interest in my education too.
I felt they were constantly judging me by the grades I got. Luckily these
were generally good, but I always dreaded that the bubble would burst. My
mother *never* tried to help with maths though :-) and once we were in an
Italian school, our Italian was much better than hers, so there wasn't
much she *could* help with!
Stephie
Stephie Coane
> People, you are arguing with a parent who has barged in where
> she's not wanted. We're talking someone whose mind is clouded by
> her concentration on What's Best For My Babybee. Just what kind of
> response do you think you're going to get? Put her in your killfile and
> let her crawl back to misc.kids with her precious baybee.
On social matters *everyone* has their mind clouded by What's Best For
something or other. For some people it's their child(ren), for some it's
the environment, for some it's their self-interest.
Stephie
pigo
>
> On social matters *everyone* has their mind clouded by What's Best For
> something or other. For some people it's their child(ren), for some it's
> the environment, for some it's their self-interest.
>
> Stephie
Boils down to, for _everyone_ it's their self-interest, some people just
don't don't have the backbone to say so, so they 'package' it to appear
'less selfish'.
pigo
Owen Strawn
Of course it is simplistic. This is a very simple argument. Any
complications are red-herrings.
1) Children use resources.
2) Anyone that chooses to have children pays less income tax than they
would if they chose not to have children.
This is the sole and entire point.
We are not claiming that we should not have to pay for social services
that we do not use. We are merely claiming that those who make choices
that deliberately exploit those services should not pay less than those
who make choices that conserve them.
--
Owen Strawn
Stephie Coane
> And what really pisses me off is that the governments (of the USA,
> Finland, and probably all other Western industrialized countries)
> subsidize breeding by people who don't even pay any taxes to be
> given a tax break from and who have more kids while on welfare.
> Shit happens - people with kids can lose their jobs, etc. - but
> giving taxpayer money to people who spawned while already being
> unable to support themselves is just the way to breed poverty.
I think most of these laws in europe came about after the War, when many
men and women died and there was a need to increase the labour pool - in
Germany there were concessions for "child-rich" families (3+ kids) and
immigrant workers were encouraged. Of course now that unemployment is
promoted as a way to keep inflation down (don't let the scut workers get
uppity and demand a decent wage), there is a pool of underskilled people,
including those nasty different-coloured people who haven't the decency to
bugger off back where they came from <SARCASM>. Some of them probably
have children for something to do, rather than to get benefits, and
because they don't know better. Removing benefits is unlikely to make
these people sit up and say, "Hey, better not get pregnant after all" - it
will just make them more fatalistic. Some of them may drift in and out of
temporary employment. Others will probably turn to crime, feeling they
have no stake in society because their education hasn't shown them any
different. It's pointless to say, "Well they should have made sure they
had the skills" unless policies are instated that make that a real
possibility for the people who probably don't even know they need it. I
know the general opinion is that these pesky people ought to put
themselves out of our misery, but people don't do that, they tend to try
to survive whichever way they see open to them.
Stephie
Stephie Coane
Or so the more selfish like to tell themselves, so they don't have to make
any effort to do otherwise.
Stephie
elsworth
elizabeth moore wrote in message <35EC9A...@reed.edu>...
>Elsworth the point she was trying to make is that it is rather
>hypocritical for people without kids to demand their own forum and then
>do exactly what they are accusing parents of doing here over in the
>parenting newsgroups.
>
The point she was trying to make had nothing to do with that. It was simply an
excuse and justification in her eyes for putting her views where they were not
wanted.
I do not post in misc.kids, so I expect the same courtesy from them.
If all your friends were going to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you do it
too?
elsworth
(posted and mailed)
RFerrie
<elizabe...@reed.edu> wrote:
>Elsworth the point she was trying to make is that it is rather
>hypocritical for people without kids to demand their own forum and then
>do exactly what they are accusing parents of doing here over in the
>parenting newsgroups.
Although misc.kids is not a support group. It is a discussion group,
on topics related to kids. Childedness is not a requirement. I would
agree 100% that NO ASC people should post to "alt.support.parents" (if
it exists), but if a CFer has opinions on "kids", they are well within
reason to post about it on a group like misc.kids.
I occasionally read misc.kids, because (a) I occasionally have to deal
with kids, (b) I wonder about some things I see kids and parents
doing, and (c) there's the chance I might possibly have a kid someday.
It's not beyond the realm of possibility that I may post, either with
a question or a comment. And because it's a *discussion* group, not a
*support* group, I'm entitled to do so. I am even entitled to post a
message with the header "Children are Satan's spawn and should be
shot" if that's how I feel, and open it up for discussion. "Children
are wonderful and everyone should have two", on the other hand, is NOT
an acceptable topic in ACF, and the first would not be acceptable in
"alt.support.parents". Get what I'm saying? It's not so much the forum
itself, as the nature and charter of it.
>> >The only difference is that the the misc.kid members are a lot more
>> >civil to ascf-ers that post there than ascf-ers are to parents that come
>> >here.
>>
>> HoneyChil', What planet you from?
>>
>> This is a child-FREE newsgroup. The opinions expressed herein are unpopular
>> amongst the child-ridden population, or else we wouldn't need a support group.
>>
>> We are not here to have our minds changed by you. Better, more articulate, and
>> much more persuasive people have tried, people we respect (such as our parents),
>> and have not succeeded, because we believe our decision to be right, even though
>> many people (parents in general, it seems) do not agree.
>>
>> This is our haven, our place to say things without being slammed for our
>> opinions. Don't you think we haven't heard your bleating before? Why do you
>> think we congregate here?
>>
>> It is not your mission to change our minds. We do not want your opinions, we've
>> heard them. Are you so threatened by the written word that you must crush and
>> censor it whenever it does not agree with your child-centric views?
>>
Renee
Warning: Keep out of reach of children. They're really, really annoying.
RFerrie
>In article <35EB82E5...@childfree.com>, HCF <h...@childfree.com> wrote:
>
>>Angelmoon wrote:
>>
>>> How about when a person has kids and can't afford them, we just remove the
>>> children from the home and give the adults nothing. They'll work or starve
>>> and I won't have any pity.
>>
>>Works for me! I once debated this topic with a class full of breeder idiots (I
>>didn't know they were breeder idiots until the debate had started) and one
>>person said "I think if you can give a child a lot of love, you should be able
>>to have them even if you can't afford them." This was a University class too.
>>It was then that I lost all hope of ever getting through to people.
>>
>>I like your idea Angelmoon but thanks to the pronatalist culture in which we
>>live, it won't ever happen.
I believe I may have mentioned this before, but my well-educated (but
lefty bleeding heart-type) MIL actually said to me that "people on
welfare should be encouraged to have more children, to give them
someone to care for and a sense of well-being". Since I'm perilously
close to the "before they get their cheque, they have to prove some
kind of functioning birth control is in place" philosophy, you can see
why I rarely talk to her about social issues....
And, oddly enough, I honestly believe that *my* philosophy is better
"for the chillldruuuun". I don't think kids should be born and raised
in poverty. I don't believe that kids should have welfare parents as
role models. I don't believe that kids should get the message that
it's okay to do nothing and get paid for it. I don't believe that
children should have to suffer for parents' mistakes. I'd like nothing
better than for every child to be wanted, and raised by parents who
love them *and* can afford to feed and shelter them adequately. Wealth
doesn't automatically confer a great childhood, but stifling poverty
virtually guarantees a crappy one, with a questionable outlook for the
future. "Encouraging" a welfare mother (with or without a
corresponding welfare father) to put out more mouths to feed pretty
much guarantees they'll stay impoverished for life.
naomi pardue
Stephie Coane (slc...@ermine.ox.ac.uk) wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, Owen Strawn wrote:
> > > > And even though I'm willing to accept some level of taxation for
> > > > the education of other children -- seeing as I do recognize some
> > > > indirect benefit to me and to all of society -- the current system
> > > > results in people with children paying *less* in taxes and
> > > > using *more* in social services.
> > > >
> > > > That's not right.
> > >
> > > But that is a very short-termist, short-sighted approach.
> > >
> >
> > Bullshit.
> >
> > It is not short-sighted to expect people who choose to use more
> > resources to pay _AT_LEAST_ as much as those who choose to use less?
>
> Bullshit yourself. That is simplistic, and reduces everything to $$$.
But they DO. I presumably pay about the same in property taxes (i.e.
school taxes) as the CF couple next door. (Similar sized house and yard.)
But they don't have to buy
school supplies. They aren't going to get a bill in their mailbox in the
next few weeks telling them to pay several hundred dollars for 'book
rental.' They don't have to buy new school clothes (with the sales tax
that goes along with them.)
Parents who choose to drive minivans are certainly paying a LOT more in
gas taxes than non-parents who drive two-seat subcompacts.
Naomi
Grimly Fiendish
wrote:
>Although misc.kids is not a support group. It is a discussion group,
>on topics related to kids. Childedness is not a requirement. I would
>agree 100% that NO ASC people should post to "alt.support.parents" (if
>it exists), but if a CFer has opinions on "kids", they are well within
>reason to post about it on a group like misc.kids.
>
>I occasionally read misc.kids, because (a) I occasionally have to deal
>with kids, (b) I wonder about some things I see kids and parents
>doing, and (c) there's the chance I might possibly have a kid someday.
>It's not beyond the realm of possibility that I may post, either with
>a question or a comment. And because it's a *discussion* group, not a
>*support* group, I'm entitled to do so. I am even entitled to post a
>message with the header "Children are Satan's spawn and should be
>shot" if that's how I feel, and open it up for discussion. "Children
>are wonderful and everyone should have two", on the other hand, is NOT
>an acceptable topic in ACF, and the first would not be acceptable in
>"alt.support.parents". Get what I'm saying? It's not so much the forum
>itself, as the nature and charter of it.
AMEN AMEN AMEN...I've been dying to post the same thing for about 6
months now (except for the part about possibly having children some
day), and you said it better than I could have.
Out of a sense of politeness and respect, I don't stir up anything on
misc.kids or barge in demanding that they justify their comments to
me. I expect the same courtesy from them, especially because this is
indeed a support group. When they (or anyone from any other ng) storm
in here and cop an attitude about something we are discussing in our
ng, "respect" and "politeness" are no longer in my vocabulary.
Grim
Grim
Marley Elizabeth Greiner
Stephie--
Thanks so much for your comments. What I'm seeing on asc more and more
often among some people is a very narrow Americanist middle class view of
society. Most people, whatever their child status barely make ends meet,
work shit jobs, and take comfort where they can. Those of us who have been
lucky enough to escape narrow middle class American culture through
whatever method and whether it be for a summer or a decade often have a
totally different value system which does not include the puritanical
bossing around of people who are not like us.
Marley
--
I like Pearl Jam--and I have a personal relationship with God. But I think
He likes Pearl Jam, too."
.....John Kasich
*****BASTARD NATION*****
www.bastards.org
>
Gil Kloepfer Jr.
> If your dependents cost
> you more, that doesn't mean you should have a lower tax. That
> makes as much sense as, "Because I buy cola, I should get a
> government-funded $5 discount on crushed ice and cups."
Stephie Coane <slc...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> replied:
>But the fundamental difference between cold drinks and children is that
>the cold drink doesn't have to grow into a functional member of society.
In the context in which I wrote this, does it matter? Are you saying
that without the tax breaks, the family will be in such a poor state
that the children will needlessly suffer? I hope not. Good parents
will either refrain from having kids until they can afford them, or
will make things work regardless of the tax breaks. Bad parents will
be bad parents no matter how much money they get.
> I agree that the US welfare isn't working very well, but whether or not we
>have children and tax breaks, the children (poor sods) exist, and have no
>choice about it.
I didn't mention the US welfare system. Probably better I didn't. I
know there are success stories from the depths of welfare, but I've
personally seen more often the disgusting mess some of these people
have made of what were originally nice places. It's funny how when
people EARN what they have they tend to appreciate it more.
>Unfortunately most welfare recipients one hears about are
>the ones that grew up socially dysfunctional.
Yes, and I agree that's a shame. Unfortunately the ones that are
"socially dysfunctional" are the ones that are perpetually leeching off
the rest of society, which is why they're noticed. I think if you
re-read what I said, it had nothing to with eliminating welfare...although
from what I've said here, you'll see that I do feel that it should be
*limited.*
As for "socially dysfunctional" in general...if you take a close look
at what's happening in the world, it's becoming quite apparent that
these dysfunctional children are spanning the full range of economic
levels. My opinion is that a lot of this stems from the PNB vs. BNP
differences that are so often pointed-out in this forum.
A final note (oh gawd, I'm starting to sound like Jerry Springer...)...
If parents teach their offspring (by setting a good example) that
life is more than just money and "things," and that one does not get
places in life by stealing and/or expecting handouts/breaks...when
the object of life is NOT "s/he who has the most toys wins"...then
you'll start to see people who are less dependent on social programs,
will have a greater respect and admiration for living creatures of
all kinds, and won't sacrifice teaching their own children all about
life so that they have a few more dollars for luxuries. Maybe they'll
learn the real fact of life: "you *can't* have everything." Make an
informed choice. Stick with it. Be responsible about it. If you want
to make a change, don't *expect* the world to bail you out (although we
may just help you if we notice you're trying hard...).
---
Gil Kloepfer
gi...@NOSPAM.gc2.kloepfer.org (remove the NOSPAM. to send mail...)
Jim
>
> >Yeah, I have more to start with because I have
> > been responsible and not had kids. So now
> > I'm being punished by having to make up the
> > taxes for the breeders.
>
> ><snip>
>
> The way i see it, its not irresponsible to have kids if you 1]limit
> the number of kids and 2]make sure you can feed and clothe them.
And I don't think most people would think that is irresponsible. <pete
excepted>
> Howver, peoples circumstances do change for the worse. People who could
> afford them end up in dire straits. Then what? Should society let them
> go hungry or homeless, because people without kids dont want to pay ?
Dire straits and changed circumstances are one thing, but when you have
people who can't afford the children they have pumping out more, then
there is a problem.
> Btw, todays kids that you dont want to pay taxes for efucation for will
> one day be working to pay your Social Security check. An education will
> give the opportunity to make more money to have it withheld from. Think
> about it.
Okay, I've thought about it. Aside from the fact that your argument
falls into the same category as the child who: 1.) grows up to cure
cancer/AIDS, or 2.) will care for me when I'm old, it is also
irrelevant. By the time I'm ready to collect Social Security (October,
2030 if it's still age 65), the system will have been drained by the
baby boomers. If it hasn't, I expect it to allow me to buy a
cheeseburger each month, and nothing else. Besides, Social Security was
*never* intended to be the sole source of a persons retirement. It was
intended to be a safety net to keep the elderly out of abject poverty.
That's why I'm fully funding my Thrift Savings Plan at work, and why we
have other investments.
> Dont get me wrong, I dont like people who keep having one child right
> after another knowing damn well they cant feed,shelter and clothe them (
> theres plenty of birth control out there),only to have the state take
> them away one by one. But for decent responsible parents who do the best
> they can and want the best education possible for them, then certainly
> taxes should be paid to fund it.
I believe in public education, but I get steamed when I see the things
being funded with our school taxes. Things such as lights for the
football field, jackets for winning sports teams, decorative additions
for the high school, focus groups for the elementary district, and a
multi-million dollar faux Victorian administration building for the
regional H.S. district. [1]
> I dont know about where you are at, but here, county personal property
> taxes are based on the value of owned property, so naturaly someone who
> drives a $40,000 car and owns a $250,000 home is gonna pay a hell of a
> lot more than someone driving an 86 dodge colt and renting their hojme.
> And yes, a lot of the money directly benefits kids. Thatis just life.
Nope, that's just apples and oranges, or are you assuming the childfree
family is going to own the more expensive stuff. The childfree family
with the $250K home and the $40K car [2] would pay exactly the same tax
as the family with five children in school with the same $250K house and
$40K car, while using fewer services.
As a data point, schools here [3] are funded by a mix of local property
taxes and state aid, which comes from income taxes. The house we own was
previously owned by a family with five children, three of whom were in
the local schools. Property taxes are based on the assessment of the
house X the tax rate. Our assessment did not change when we bought the
house. We are paying the same tax rate as the folks with three kids in
school. We do not use the school services, therefore, we are subsidizing
those who do. As for the second component, the state income tax, adults
are worth a $1000 deduction each. Dependent children are worth $1500
each.
> That measly 500 credit I keep hearing about doesnt even begin to cover
> the cost of raising a child.
Strawman. It may not begin to cover your costs, but it has to be made up
by the rest of us.
( I responsibly decided to limit myself to
> one kid, that I can afford)
>
Good. I wish more people were as responsible.
> Becky
> ...............................................................Do not
> meddle in the affairs of dragons because you are crunchy and taste good
> with ketchup.
>
Jim
[1] Township elementary school district and regional high school
district. Two school boards, two administrations, two transportation
departments, fully one half of our total property tax bill.
[2] You tax cars as property? That's awful.
[3] Southern Ocean County, NJ.
Kent Parks
: But the fundamental difference between cold drinks and children is that
: the cold drink doesn't have to grow into a functional member of society.
Last time I checked, there was no guarantee that any given child would
grow up to be a functional member of society--despite the paradox that,
according to their parents, each and EVERY child alive to day is all set
to discover the cure for cancer! (Literally, almost every time I question
someone's having reproduced, they get defensive and claim that THEIR child
will be the one!) All those rapists and murderers in prison were once
somebody's child, and their parents probably thought THEY were the Golden
Gift To The Universe, too.
Steph, I'm glad you have been responsible to stop at one child, really I
am, but unfortunately your mentality DOES lean toward the "breeder" POV. I
think you will rest easier if you no longer patronize this newsgroup, as,
I promise you, we've heard it ALL before and haven't changed our minds
yet.
Kent
Geoffrey V. Bronner
<spam...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>A mother came in and screamed at me today because there was (gasp!) nudity
>in the movie, and PEOPLE DIED!!!! Hellooooo! Isn't that _obvious_ from the
>trailers and the subject matter? Another woman wanted to know if there was
>really a ship called Titanic. I give up!
>
Dear [insert deity here]!!!!
She probably wonders where Speilberg got the amusing idea to set a war
movie in France too. Doesn't anyone pay attention to history any more?
-Geoff, ex-history major
--
<http://www.dartmouth.edu/~geoffb/>
Rabbit
>
> Steph, I'm glad you have been responsible to stop at one child, really I
> am, but unfortunately your mentality DOES lean toward the "breeder" POV. I
> think you will rest easier if you no longer patronize this newsgroup, as,
> I promise you, we've heard it ALL before and haven't changed our minds
> yet.
>
> Kent
Speak for yourself, buddy. Just yesterday I called my tax office and
requested that they double my property taxes to help pay for a new school. I
couldn't figure out why, and then I realized that it was the postings here on
asc from parents.
I'm very rapidly going over the edge. I think one or two more days of reading
parents' posts will make me want to become pregnant.
Rabbit
Kent Parks
: I believe I may have mentioned this before, but my well-educated (but
: lefty bleeding heart-type) MIL actually said to me that "people on
: welfare should be encouraged to have more children, to give them
: someone to care for and a sense of well-being".
Yeah, fighting over the last bread crumb with Mommee is a great way to
develop well-being...
Kent
Gutterboy1
>A brief note about TITANIC...
>A mother came in and screamed at me today because there was (gasp!) nudity
>in the movie, and PEOPLE DIED!!!! Hellooooo! Isn't that _obvious_ from the
>trailers and the subject matter? Another woman wanted to know if there was
>really a ship called Titanic. I give up!
>
God forbid she ever discovers "Schindler's List," which also has both nudity
and dead people. But then she'd probably wonder if there was ever a World War
II...
Gutterboy
Steve/Beth George
: They aren't going to get a bill in their mailbox in the
: rental.'
"Book rental?" IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL? That's horrible. I never had to pay
for books (unless I lost them) until college, and I could KEEP them if I
chose.
Seems that taxpayers, childed and CF, pump more and more money into
schools, and the kids get less and less, tangibly and intangibly.
--Beth
pigo
>
> In article <01bdcf9e$256e2600$2fcc...@maine.ime.net>, "A & R"
> <spam...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >in the movie, and PEOPLE DIED!!!! Hellooooo! Isn't that _obvious_ from the
> >trailers and the subject matter? Another woman wanted to know if there was
> >really a ship called Titanic. I give up!
> >
There's a video rental company near Provo, Ut. that's 'editing' peoples
copies for $5. You have to bring in your own copy and they'll snip it
for you. The mormon simpletons on the news were gushing about "now my
kids can see it". Disgusting.
There's talk about Paramount Pictures coming down on them for copyright
violations though. One can only hope.
pigo
Kent Parks
: Kent Parks (kmp...@nina.pagesz.net) writes:
:>
:> Steph, I'm glad you have been responsible to stop at one child, really I
:> am, but unfortunately your mentality DOES lean toward the "breeder" POV. I
:> think you will rest easier if you no longer patronize this newsgroup, as,
:> I promise you, we've heard it ALL before and haven't changed our minds
:> yet.
: AFAIK, Stephie is CF. She was responding to Becky, who wrote that she
: stopped at one child.
You are correct. My bad.
Marley Elizabeth Greiner
> There's a video rental company near Provo, Ut. that's 'editing' peoples
> copies for $5. You have to bring in your own copy and they'll snip it
> for you. The mormon simpletons on the news were gushing about "now my
> kids can see it". Disgusting.
> There's talk about Paramount Pictures coming down on them for copyright
> violations though. One can only hope.
>
> pigo
Here's an alternative for those who find Titantic "disturbing" that
would no doubt play well in Mormon country. I was at the grocery tonight
and on the bulletin board saw a flyer for freelance sonograms for pregnant
women. For $40 you and your family and friends can get 15 minutes of
songram viewing. Cameras and video cameras welcome. No mention of
complimentary popcorn. Obviously, the best show in town.
Livia
>Also, when I look at what they've been spending what they already have on,
>I discover a good deal of it isn't even on education. Until the
>superintendent of schools here gives up his fancy office in a fancy
>building, I'm not voting for one cent more.
Article here yesteday about how local high schools are spending
millions on new parking lots for all the spoiled brats who insist on
driving to school, complete with quotes about how they gotta look
cool, man, and a picture of a snooty little cheerleader type at the
wheel of her car.
The best part was how most of them claim that they need the car to get
to their after-school job, and they need the after-school job to pay
for the car.