|
|
On November 11 2012 10:14 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 10:07 heliusx wrote:On November 11 2012 09:57 Falling wrote:
@SayGen
Are there some number on that? Because I'm rather curious.
I just can't believe the tax breaks are sufficient enough to be the prime motivator. It may be enough to allow a couple realize their dream of having more than one child. http://www.irs.gov/uac/Ten-Facts-about-the-Child-Tax-Creditthere are more rebates on top of that such as most of their income taxes being refunded if they make less than a certain amount. don't take this as me agreeing with saygen because i think he hasn't a clue about living in the real world raising children on minimal wages. it's rough and i watched my mom work her ass off to raise us and it still wasn't enough. my dad was disabled 100% while serving in the us army and we relied on that measly welfare check. $1000 tax credit/ child? Yeah, I think that's pretty comparable to Canada. Income tax refund for low wages- we have that too. The tax credit is helpful to survive, but that's not going to make poor families pop out a bunch of babies to start rolling in the dough.
It's more than 1000.
The tax credit is one part of the overall tax spending. There are multipul programs. WIC for example is not part of the tax credit and yet it gives money. Also the food you get from welfare stamps (a plastic card now) is increased based on number of children. I do not know the full scale of all the programs since I will never qualify for them, but I do take the word of the people i've tlaked to about it. The money is out there, you need only claim it.
|
On November 11 2012 09:48 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 09:40 Lombard wrote:On November 11 2012 09:24 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 09:10 Falling wrote:On November 11 2012 09:00 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 08:54 oneofthem wrote:
saying that poor babies is a drag on society is not the particular angle one might take on that, being callous and all. not trying to help them is even worse. If one wants to be serious about fixing our civilization, one can not afford ot be politically correct, or worried about offense. Poor babies arn't the problem, rather the poor parents who choose to bring them into the world knowing that lack the capability to give them a fair shot are the problem. The fact they do this for selfish reasons is dispicable. There is no reason, none--- to have kids when you can not afford the time to raise them, feed them, shelter them, and clothe them. The desire to have children is despicable if you are poor? I'd think it's a very human thing. Even if you're poor, a person may still desire to have children despite all the sacrifices. Is that really selfish? Children is reason enough to have children. I don't think it's reasonable to say if you fall below a certain poverty line, you should just never have children. Poverty doesn't kill that desire even if it is impractical. We are not robots. We are not rational creatures, only creatures capable of rationality. (I feel like there's some comparison to art, but that feels like it downplays children.) And maybe we can do something about how to increase economic mobility instead. Rather than worrying about how many babies poor people have. I wouldn't go as far as to say poor people shouldn't have kids (though I'd be lying if I said I would be against such an initiate) I think we should remove the incentive to have children, and potentially tax (see China) anyone who has more than 1 kid. I however don't think we are at a critical stage that taxing should be needed, though it would be a card to hold onto. Is the desire to have kids, any more or less than to want the best for your child? If you know you lack the time to raise a child- why have one? If you know you lack the funds to feed a child, why have one. If you know you can't keep a roof over your head, why would you allow your-soon-to-be child to without one as well? If we simply stop encouraging the poorest and stupidest (no not all poor are stupid, but statically there is an intelligent gap there) to reproduce in excess many problems would be solved. Millions of dollars saved--it's uncalculatable. Justice system costs --Prisons/jails --judges/public attorneys --Section VIII housing --Welfare checks --Added disability checks and if you want to stretch a little bit imagine the lower carbon footprint for all the kids who wouldn't be driving--not because they were killed in a womb, but because the parents cared enough not to bring them into the world when they could not care for them. Uhm, you are ignoring the primal imperative instinct of every single organism on this planet, procreate. No logic will help against that. Only education seems to help against having lots of kids. education fosters logic. are you contradicting yourself, or am I missing something.
Yes you are right, I was too short in my comment. What I meant was that introducing something like chinas 1 child law is totally unrealistic (for now anyway, phew) and increased education has been shown to reduce the number of children people have. For example my country Sweden would have a decreasing population right now if it wasnt for immigration, I think I read somewhere the same goes for some other european countries aswell.
So basicly I was saying what you proposed probably wont work and was giving an alternative  .
|
On November 11 2012 10:19 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 10:14 Falling wrote:On November 11 2012 10:07 heliusx wrote:On November 11 2012 09:57 Falling wrote:
@SayGen
Are there some number on that? Because I'm rather curious.
I just can't believe the tax breaks are sufficient enough to be the prime motivator. It may be enough to allow a couple realize their dream of having more than one child. http://www.irs.gov/uac/Ten-Facts-about-the-Child-Tax-Creditthere are more rebates on top of that such as most of their income taxes being refunded if they make less than a certain amount. don't take this as me agreeing with saygen because i think he hasn't a clue about living in the real world raising children on minimal wages. it's rough and i watched my mom work her ass off to raise us and it still wasn't enough. my dad was disabled 100% while serving in the us army and we relied on that measly welfare check. $1000 tax credit/ child? Yeah, I think that's pretty comparable to Canada. Income tax refund for low wages- we have that too. The tax credit is helpful to survive, but that's not going to make poor families pop out a bunch of babies to start rolling in the dough. It's more than 1000. The tax credit is one part of the overall tax spending. There are multipul programs. WIC for example is not part of the tax credit and yet it gives money. Also the food you get from welfare stamps (a plastic card now) is increased based on number of children. I do not know the full scale of all the programs since I will never qualify for them, but I do take the word of the people i've tlaked to about it. The money is out there, you need only claim it.
so people are having babies so they can have food for their babies from the government? that doesn't even make sense. you claimed people have babies to receive extra funds from the government.
WIC is not money, it's a voucher to receive basic healthy foods for young children, such as bread, milk, cheese and other staples. It's basically an attempt to give a balanced diet to children in contrast of food stamps which allows the parent to buy any foods.
|
On November 11 2012 10:20 Lombard wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 09:48 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 09:40 Lombard wrote:On November 11 2012 09:24 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 09:10 Falling wrote:On November 11 2012 09:00 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 08:54 oneofthem wrote:
saying that poor babies is a drag on society is not the particular angle one might take on that, being callous and all. not trying to help them is even worse. If one wants to be serious about fixing our civilization, one can not afford ot be politically correct, or worried about offense. Poor babies arn't the problem, rather the poor parents who choose to bring them into the world knowing that lack the capability to give them a fair shot are the problem. The fact they do this for selfish reasons is dispicable. There is no reason, none--- to have kids when you can not afford the time to raise them, feed them, shelter them, and clothe them. The desire to have children is despicable if you are poor? I'd think it's a very human thing. Even if you're poor, a person may still desire to have children despite all the sacrifices. Is that really selfish? Children is reason enough to have children. I don't think it's reasonable to say if you fall below a certain poverty line, you should just never have children. Poverty doesn't kill that desire even if it is impractical. We are not robots. We are not rational creatures, only creatures capable of rationality. (I feel like there's some comparison to art, but that feels like it downplays children.) And maybe we can do something about how to increase economic mobility instead. Rather than worrying about how many babies poor people have. I wouldn't go as far as to say poor people shouldn't have kids (though I'd be lying if I said I would be against such an initiate) I think we should remove the incentive to have children, and potentially tax (see China) anyone who has more than 1 kid. I however don't think we are at a critical stage that taxing should be needed, though it would be a card to hold onto. Is the desire to have kids, any more or less than to want the best for your child? If you know you lack the time to raise a child- why have one? If you know you lack the funds to feed a child, why have one. If you know you can't keep a roof over your head, why would you allow your-soon-to-be child to without one as well? If we simply stop encouraging the poorest and stupidest (no not all poor are stupid, but statically there is an intelligent gap there) to reproduce in excess many problems would be solved. Millions of dollars saved--it's uncalculatable. Justice system costs --Prisons/jails --judges/public attorneys --Section VIII housing --Welfare checks --Added disability checks and if you want to stretch a little bit imagine the lower carbon footprint for all the kids who wouldn't be driving--not because they were killed in a womb, but because the parents cared enough not to bring them into the world when they could not care for them. Uhm, you are ignoring the primal imperative instinct of every single organism on this planet, procreate. No logic will help against that. Only education seems to help against having lots of kids. education fosters logic. are you contradicting yourself, or am I missing something. Yes you are right, I was too short in my comment. What I meant was that introducing something like chinas 1 child law is totally unrealistic (for now anyway, phew) and increased education has been shown to reduce the number of children people have. For example my country Sweden would have a decreasing population right now if it wasnt for immigration, I think I read somewhere the same goes for some other european countries aswell. So basicly I was saying what you proposed probably wont work and was giving an alternative .
I see, all good then.
I did say that a one child law should be kept in reserve as a crisis control measure and I don't think we are at that level yet. I have also seen studies that show more education/wealth generation tends to lead to less children.
Perhaps we should add incentives for our best and brightest to reproduce---though I foubt that would be a popular initive as it would only be seen as a tax break to the wealthy.
|
On November 11 2012 10:15 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 09:52 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 11 2012 09:48 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 09:40 Lombard wrote:On November 11 2012 09:24 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 09:10 Falling wrote:On November 11 2012 09:00 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 08:54 oneofthem wrote:
saying that poor babies is a drag on society is not the particular angle one might take on that, being callous and all. not trying to help them is even worse. If one wants to be serious about fixing our civilization, one can not afford ot be politically correct, or worried about offense. Poor babies arn't the problem, rather the poor parents who choose to bring them into the world knowing that lack the capability to give them a fair shot are the problem. The fact they do this for selfish reasons is dispicable. There is no reason, none--- to have kids when you can not afford the time to raise them, feed them, shelter them, and clothe them. The desire to have children is despicable if you are poor? I'd think it's a very human thing. Even if you're poor, a person may still desire to have children despite all the sacrifices. Is that really selfish? Children is reason enough to have children. I don't think it's reasonable to say if you fall below a certain poverty line, you should just never have children. Poverty doesn't kill that desire even if it is impractical. We are not robots. We are not rational creatures, only creatures capable of rationality. (I feel like there's some comparison to art, but that feels like it downplays children.) And maybe we can do something about how to increase economic mobility instead. Rather than worrying about how many babies poor people have. I wouldn't go as far as to say poor people shouldn't have kids (though I'd be lying if I said I would be against such an initiate) I think we should remove the incentive to have children, and potentially tax (see China) anyone who has more than 1 kid. I however don't think we are at a critical stage that taxing should be needed, though it would be a card to hold onto. Is the desire to have kids, any more or less than to want the best for your child? If you know you lack the time to raise a child- why have one? If you know you lack the funds to feed a child, why have one. If you know you can't keep a roof over your head, why would you allow your-soon-to-be child to without one as well? If we simply stop encouraging the poorest and stupidest (no not all poor are stupid, but statically there is an intelligent gap there) to reproduce in excess many problems would be solved. Millions of dollars saved--it's uncalculatable. Justice system costs --Prisons/jails --judges/public attorneys --Section VIII housing --Welfare checks --Added disability checks and if you want to stretch a little bit imagine the lower carbon footprint for all the kids who wouldn't be driving--not because they were killed in a womb, but because the parents cared enough not to bring them into the world when they could not care for them. Uhm, you are ignoring the primal imperative instinct of every single organism on this planet, procreate. No logic will help against that. Only education seems to help against having lots of kids. education fosters logic. are you contradicting yourself, or am I missing something. I would argue that the reason most people are "poor" is because of the divide between the wealthy and the rich. Of course you'll get the argument "But they're bums and beggars! they stay on welfare to get money for free1 but the majority of poor people are working as hard as they can to make ends meet. The problem is equalizing shares of wealth, not regulating production of babies from the non-wealthy. I'm all for abortions, but not for such a ridiculous reason as to negate people the ability to procreate freely. I would disagree, I think it has to do with parenting and work ethics. Take a look at poor people- say a 40 year old man. Ask him about high school. Did he get a 4.0? Did he have a part time job Did he have parents who made sure be obeyed authority (no drugs, stealing, etc) I bet the answer is no. While there are exceptions to the rule of course, I'm talking only in generalities. Also I don't know any poor people who work really hard least on the East Coast. Don't get me wrong, doing remedial labor is offputting for many Americans who are too 'proud' to get their hands dirty, but I'm not one of em. I got no problem with it, I started off in Aircraft Maintence--lube, hydro, oil, fuel not fun stuff and very dirty. So what some consider hardwork, isn't hard work to me. Then again what I used to do for a living was middle class in America, but our Russian and Japanese counterparts did it for much less. I can assure you if you do hard work, you are getting alot more than ends meet.
Wait, did you just say aircraft maintenance is hard work? Oh man, you're in for a surprise...
|
On November 11 2012 10:15 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 09:52 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 11 2012 09:48 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 09:40 Lombard wrote:On November 11 2012 09:24 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 09:10 Falling wrote:On November 11 2012 09:00 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 08:54 oneofthem wrote:
saying that poor babies is a drag on society is not the particular angle one might take on that, being callous and all. not trying to help them is even worse. If one wants to be serious about fixing our civilization, one can not afford ot be politically correct, or worried about offense. Poor babies arn't the problem, rather the poor parents who choose to bring them into the world knowing that lack the capability to give them a fair shot are the problem. The fact they do this for selfish reasons is dispicable. There is no reason, none--- to have kids when you can not afford the time to raise them, feed them, shelter them, and clothe them. The desire to have children is despicable if you are poor? I'd think it's a very human thing. Even if you're poor, a person may still desire to have children despite all the sacrifices. Is that really selfish? Children is reason enough to have children. I don't think it's reasonable to say if you fall below a certain poverty line, you should just never have children. Poverty doesn't kill that desire even if it is impractical. We are not robots. We are not rational creatures, only creatures capable of rationality. (I feel like there's some comparison to art, but that feels like it downplays children.) And maybe we can do something about how to increase economic mobility instead. Rather than worrying about how many babies poor people have. I wouldn't go as far as to say poor people shouldn't have kids (though I'd be lying if I said I would be against such an initiate) I think we should remove the incentive to have children, and potentially tax (see China) anyone who has more than 1 kid. I however don't think we are at a critical stage that taxing should be needed, though it would be a card to hold onto. Is the desire to have kids, any more or less than to want the best for your child? If you know you lack the time to raise a child- why have one? If you know you lack the funds to feed a child, why have one. If you know you can't keep a roof over your head, why would you allow your-soon-to-be child to without one as well? If we simply stop encouraging the poorest and stupidest (no not all poor are stupid, but statically there is an intelligent gap there) to reproduce in excess many problems would be solved. Millions of dollars saved--it's uncalculatable. Justice system costs --Prisons/jails --judges/public attorneys --Section VIII housing --Welfare checks --Added disability checks and if you want to stretch a little bit imagine the lower carbon footprint for all the kids who wouldn't be driving--not because they were killed in a womb, but because the parents cared enough not to bring them into the world when they could not care for them. Uhm, you are ignoring the primal imperative instinct of every single organism on this planet, procreate. No logic will help against that. Only education seems to help against having lots of kids. education fosters logic. are you contradicting yourself, or am I missing something. I would argue that the reason most people are "poor" is because of the divide between the wealthy and the rich. Of course you'll get the argument "But they're bums and beggars! they stay on welfare to get money for free1 but the majority of poor people are working as hard as they can to make ends meet. The problem is equalizing shares of wealth, not regulating production of babies from the non-wealthy. I'm all for abortions, but not for such a ridiculous reason as to negate people the ability to procreate freely. I would disagree, I think it has to do with parenting and work ethics. Take a look at poor people- say a 40 year old man. Ask him about high school. Did he get a 4.0? Did he have a part time job Did he have parents who made sure be obeyed authority (no drugs, stealing, etc) I bet the answer is no. While there are exceptions to the rule of course, I'm talking only in generalities. Also I don't know any poor people who work really hard least on the East Coast. Don't get me wrong, doing remedial labor is offputting for many Americans who are too 'proud' to get their hands dirty, but I'm not one of em. I got no problem with it, I started off in Aircraft Maintence--lube, hydro, oil, fuel not fun stuff and very dirty. So what some consider hardwork, isn't hard work to me. Then again what I used to do for a living was middle class in America, but our Russian and Japanese counterparts did it for much less. I can assure you if you do hard work, you are getting alot more than ends meet.
There's a HUGE difference between "hard work in school" and "hard work"... So many young people, including myself when I was in highschool, had to work 8 hours everyday while supporting my single mother, I barely got into university by getting a 0.2% (needed a 70% average). You can't possibly understand the stress of a young poor person unless you are one at some point, you can't possibly equate equality of sections of classes when the classes are so different. A lot of people are born into ivy league schools like harvard. How many Pursuit's of Happyness happen everyyear? It wouldn't be such a popular movie and the rich/poor divide wouldn't be so wide if it was possible for EVERYOEN to just get by on hard work alone, a lot is blind luck and help from others.
So I would argue that unless there is an equal footing, people born into similar circumstances withi similar oppourtunities to achieve, that there should not be a discussion on the handling of those people later in life because they were at an extremely unfair disadvantage from birth to death.
|
Canada11363 Posts
On November 11 2012 10:24 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 10:20 Lombard wrote:On November 11 2012 09:48 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 09:40 Lombard wrote:On November 11 2012 09:24 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 09:10 Falling wrote:On November 11 2012 09:00 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 08:54 oneofthem wrote:
saying that poor babies is a drag on society is not the particular angle one might take on that, being callous and all. not trying to help them is even worse. If one wants to be serious about fixing our civilization, one can not afford ot be politically correct, or worried about offense. Poor babies arn't the problem, rather the poor parents who choose to bring them into the world knowing that lack the capability to give them a fair shot are the problem. The fact they do this for selfish reasons is dispicable. There is no reason, none--- to have kids when you can not afford the time to raise them, feed them, shelter them, and clothe them. The desire to have children is despicable if you are poor? I'd think it's a very human thing. Even if you're poor, a person may still desire to have children despite all the sacrifices. Is that really selfish? Children is reason enough to have children. I don't think it's reasonable to say if you fall below a certain poverty line, you should just never have children. Poverty doesn't kill that desire even if it is impractical. We are not robots. We are not rational creatures, only creatures capable of rationality. (I feel like there's some comparison to art, but that feels like it downplays children.) And maybe we can do something about how to increase economic mobility instead. Rather than worrying about how many babies poor people have. I wouldn't go as far as to say poor people shouldn't have kids (though I'd be lying if I said I would be against such an initiate) I think we should remove the incentive to have children, and potentially tax (see China) anyone who has more than 1 kid. I however don't think we are at a critical stage that taxing should be needed, though it would be a card to hold onto. Is the desire to have kids, any more or less than to want the best for your child? If you know you lack the time to raise a child- why have one? If you know you lack the funds to feed a child, why have one. If you know you can't keep a roof over your head, why would you allow your-soon-to-be child to without one as well? If we simply stop encouraging the poorest and stupidest (no not all poor are stupid, but statically there is an intelligent gap there) to reproduce in excess many problems would be solved. Millions of dollars saved--it's uncalculatable. Justice system costs --Prisons/jails --judges/public attorneys --Section VIII housing --Welfare checks --Added disability checks and if you want to stretch a little bit imagine the lower carbon footprint for all the kids who wouldn't be driving--not because they were killed in a womb, but because the parents cared enough not to bring them into the world when they could not care for them. Uhm, you are ignoring the primal imperative instinct of every single organism on this planet, procreate. No logic will help against that. Only education seems to help against having lots of kids. education fosters logic. are you contradicting yourself, or am I missing something. Yes you are right, I was too short in my comment. What I meant was that introducing something like chinas 1 child law is totally unrealistic (for now anyway, phew) and increased education has been shown to reduce the number of children people have. For example my country Sweden would have a decreasing population right now if it wasnt for immigration, I think I read somewhere the same goes for some other european countries aswell. So basicly I was saying what you proposed probably wont work and was giving an alternative . I see, all good then. I did say that a one child law should be kept in reserve as a crisis control measure and I don't think we are at that level yet. I have also seen studies that show more education/wealth generation tends to lead to less children. Perhaps we should add incentives for our best and brightest to reproduce---though I foubt that would be a popular initive as it would only be seen as a tax break to the wealthy.
How would you create incentives to a group of people that already have the financial means to raise dozens of children? I don't think money is the issue and I'm not sure what you could possibly offer beyond patronage.
edit
And one child policy should never be held in reserve. It is a very good way to create new bubble of retirees with an increased dependency load on the remaining workers.
|
On November 11 2012 10:21 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 10:19 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 10:14 Falling wrote:On November 11 2012 10:07 heliusx wrote:On November 11 2012 09:57 Falling wrote:
@SayGen
Are there some number on that? Because I'm rather curious.
I just can't believe the tax breaks are sufficient enough to be the prime motivator. It may be enough to allow a couple realize their dream of having more than one child. http://www.irs.gov/uac/Ten-Facts-about-the-Child-Tax-Creditthere are more rebates on top of that such as most of their income taxes being refunded if they make less than a certain amount. don't take this as me agreeing with saygen because i think he hasn't a clue about living in the real world raising children on minimal wages. it's rough and i watched my mom work her ass off to raise us and it still wasn't enough. my dad was disabled 100% while serving in the us army and we relied on that measly welfare check. $1000 tax credit/ child? Yeah, I think that's pretty comparable to Canada. Income tax refund for low wages- we have that too. The tax credit is helpful to survive, but that's not going to make poor families pop out a bunch of babies to start rolling in the dough. It's more than 1000. The tax credit is one part of the overall tax spending. There are multipul programs. WIC for example is not part of the tax credit and yet it gives money. Also the food you get from welfare stamps (a plastic card now) is increased based on number of children. I do not know the full scale of all the programs since I will never qualify for them, but I do take the word of the people i've tlaked to about it. The money is out there, you need only claim it. so people are having babies so they can have food for their babies from the government? that doesn't even make sense. you claimed people have babies to receive extra funds from the government. WIC is not money, it's a voucher to receive basic healthy foods for young children, such as bread, milk, cheese and other staples. It's basically an attempt to give a balanced diet to children in contrast of food stamps which allows the parent to buy any foods.
really, come on you have to realize that they simply hold onto the 1000 and use the wic vouchers and other programs to 'care' for the child until it's 18.
|
On November 11 2012 10:24 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 10:20 Lombard wrote:On November 11 2012 09:48 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 09:40 Lombard wrote:On November 11 2012 09:24 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 09:10 Falling wrote:On November 11 2012 09:00 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 08:54 oneofthem wrote:
saying that poor babies is a drag on society is not the particular angle one might take on that, being callous and all. not trying to help them is even worse. If one wants to be serious about fixing our civilization, one can not afford ot be politically correct, or worried about offense. Poor babies arn't the problem, rather the poor parents who choose to bring them into the world knowing that lack the capability to give them a fair shot are the problem. The fact they do this for selfish reasons is dispicable. There is no reason, none--- to have kids when you can not afford the time to raise them, feed them, shelter them, and clothe them. The desire to have children is despicable if you are poor? I'd think it's a very human thing. Even if you're poor, a person may still desire to have children despite all the sacrifices. Is that really selfish? Children is reason enough to have children. I don't think it's reasonable to say if you fall below a certain poverty line, you should just never have children. Poverty doesn't kill that desire even if it is impractical. We are not robots. We are not rational creatures, only creatures capable of rationality. (I feel like there's some comparison to art, but that feels like it downplays children.) And maybe we can do something about how to increase economic mobility instead. Rather than worrying about how many babies poor people have. I wouldn't go as far as to say poor people shouldn't have kids (though I'd be lying if I said I would be against such an initiate) I think we should remove the incentive to have children, and potentially tax (see China) anyone who has more than 1 kid. I however don't think we are at a critical stage that taxing should be needed, though it would be a card to hold onto. Is the desire to have kids, any more or less than to want the best for your child? If you know you lack the time to raise a child- why have one? If you know you lack the funds to feed a child, why have one. If you know you can't keep a roof over your head, why would you allow your-soon-to-be child to without one as well? If we simply stop encouraging the poorest and stupidest (no not all poor are stupid, but statically there is an intelligent gap there) to reproduce in excess many problems would be solved. Millions of dollars saved--it's uncalculatable. Justice system costs --Prisons/jails --judges/public attorneys --Section VIII housing --Welfare checks --Added disability checks and if you want to stretch a little bit imagine the lower carbon footprint for all the kids who wouldn't be driving--not because they were killed in a womb, but because the parents cared enough not to bring them into the world when they could not care for them. Uhm, you are ignoring the primal imperative instinct of every single organism on this planet, procreate. No logic will help against that. Only education seems to help against having lots of kids. education fosters logic. are you contradicting yourself, or am I missing something. Yes you are right, I was too short in my comment. What I meant was that introducing something like chinas 1 child law is totally unrealistic (for now anyway, phew) and increased education has been shown to reduce the number of children people have. For example my country Sweden would have a decreasing population right now if it wasnt for immigration, I think I read somewhere the same goes for some other european countries aswell. So basicly I was saying what you proposed probably wont work and was giving an alternative . I see, all good then. I did say that a one child law should be kept in reserve as a crisis control measure and I don't think we are at that level yet. I have also seen studies that show more education/wealth generation tends to lead to less children. Perhaps we should add incentives for our best and brightest to reproduce---though I foubt that would be a popular initive as it would only be seen as a tax break to the wealthy.
If Europe is any indication (which they often are) policies encouraging children fail to help birth rates among the educated and wealthier.
The solution could be as simple as a demographic reversal where you have to grimace and bear a population decline until it reverses, or it just never reverses. Or you could always import a ton of immigrants that work low wage and reproduce alot (oh wait Germany, the UK and we already do that).
|
I'm left wing, but the fact the Republicans are getting so out of touch with reality really worries me, because it means there's no competition. Losing this election with reality effectively stacked in their favour is just embarrassing.
If they could just drop the 19th Century social policies and love of the military and rich, then they could put together a powerful small government platform. This would force the democrats to be more prudent with their government spending, which benefits everyone.
Basically I'd like the democrats to go on winning, but for the Republicans to put up enough of a fight to keep standards high.
|
yes, well said Tal. A reformed Republican party would be a good thing for american politics
to touch on the thing earlier about ideology, it's precisely BECAUSE the Republicans rely so much on their ability to harness ideology that the obsolescence of their ideology is so threatening to the party
|
On November 11 2012 10:28 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 10:21 heliusx wrote:On November 11 2012 10:19 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 10:14 Falling wrote:On November 11 2012 10:07 heliusx wrote:On November 11 2012 09:57 Falling wrote:
@SayGen
Are there some number on that? Because I'm rather curious.
I just can't believe the tax breaks are sufficient enough to be the prime motivator. It may be enough to allow a couple realize their dream of having more than one child. http://www.irs.gov/uac/Ten-Facts-about-the-Child-Tax-Creditthere are more rebates on top of that such as most of their income taxes being refunded if they make less than a certain amount. don't take this as me agreeing with saygen because i think he hasn't a clue about living in the real world raising children on minimal wages. it's rough and i watched my mom work her ass off to raise us and it still wasn't enough. my dad was disabled 100% while serving in the us army and we relied on that measly welfare check. $1000 tax credit/ child? Yeah, I think that's pretty comparable to Canada. Income tax refund for low wages- we have that too. The tax credit is helpful to survive, but that's not going to make poor families pop out a bunch of babies to start rolling in the dough. It's more than 1000. The tax credit is one part of the overall tax spending. There are multipul programs. WIC for example is not part of the tax credit and yet it gives money. Also the food you get from welfare stamps (a plastic card now) is increased based on number of children. I do not know the full scale of all the programs since I will never qualify for them, but I do take the word of the people i've tlaked to about it. The money is out there, you need only claim it. so people are having babies so they can have food for their babies from the government? that doesn't even make sense. you claimed people have babies to receive extra funds from the government. WIC is not money, it's a voucher to receive basic healthy foods for young children, such as bread, milk, cheese and other staples. It's basically an attempt to give a balanced diet to children in contrast of food stamps which allows the parent to buy any foods. really, come on you have to realize that they simply hold onto the 1000 and use the wic vouchers and other programs to 'care' for the child until it's 18.
you don't know shit. and you have clearly been sheltered in your life from poverty. as i said earlier my dad was disabled while serving in the military and could not work. my mom worked 60 hour weeks and still is to this very day. they spent all of their money to make their children successful in life and even then it wasn't enough. your cynical view on anyone on welfare just shows how clearly sheltered you are Mr marine. you don't know shit about being poor and you come on here masquerading as someone who earned everything he has, give me a break. if you earned everything you have you would understand and clearly you don't have a clue.
|
On November 11 2012 10:30 Tal wrote:
I'm left wing, but the fact the Republicans are getting so out of touch with reality really worries me, because it means there's no competition. Losing this election with reality effectively stacked in their favour is just embarrassing.
If they could just drop the 19th Century social policies and love of the military and rich, then they could put together a powerful small government platform. This would force the democrats to be more prudent with their government spending, which benefits everyone.
Basically I'd like the democrats to go on winning, but for the Republicans to put up enough of a fight to keep standards high.
Reminds me of Intel and AMD, last I heard it wasnt working so good for AMD 
|
On November 11 2012 10:28 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 10:21 heliusx wrote:On November 11 2012 10:19 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 10:14 Falling wrote:On November 11 2012 10:07 heliusx wrote:On November 11 2012 09:57 Falling wrote:
@SayGen
Are there some number on that? Because I'm rather curious.
I just can't believe the tax breaks are sufficient enough to be the prime motivator. It may be enough to allow a couple realize their dream of having more than one child. http://www.irs.gov/uac/Ten-Facts-about-the-Child-Tax-Creditthere are more rebates on top of that such as most of their income taxes being refunded if they make less than a certain amount. don't take this as me agreeing with saygen because i think he hasn't a clue about living in the real world raising children on minimal wages. it's rough and i watched my mom work her ass off to raise us and it still wasn't enough. my dad was disabled 100% while serving in the us army and we relied on that measly welfare check. $1000 tax credit/ child? Yeah, I think that's pretty comparable to Canada. Income tax refund for low wages- we have that too. The tax credit is helpful to survive, but that's not going to make poor families pop out a bunch of babies to start rolling in the dough. It's more than 1000. The tax credit is one part of the overall tax spending. There are multipul programs. WIC for example is not part of the tax credit and yet it gives money. Also the food you get from welfare stamps (a plastic card now) is increased based on number of children. I do not know the full scale of all the programs since I will never qualify for them, but I do take the word of the people i've tlaked to about it. The money is out there, you need only claim it. so people are having babies so they can have food for their babies from the government? that doesn't even make sense. you claimed people have babies to receive extra funds from the government. WIC is not money, it's a voucher to receive basic healthy foods for young children, such as bread, milk, cheese and other staples. It's basically an attempt to give a balanced diet to children in contrast of food stamps which allows the parent to buy any foods. really, come on you have to realize that they simply hold onto the 1000 and use the wic vouchers and other programs to 'care' for the child until it's 18.
This is ridiculous. People do not actually end up with more money by having more children through welfare. It's just not true, I have no idea where you got this idea from.
|
On November 11 2012 10:39 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 10:28 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 10:21 heliusx wrote:On November 11 2012 10:19 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 10:14 Falling wrote:On November 11 2012 10:07 heliusx wrote:On November 11 2012 09:57 Falling wrote:
@SayGen
Are there some number on that? Because I'm rather curious.
I just can't believe the tax breaks are sufficient enough to be the prime motivator. It may be enough to allow a couple realize their dream of having more than one child. http://www.irs.gov/uac/Ten-Facts-about-the-Child-Tax-Creditthere are more rebates on top of that such as most of their income taxes being refunded if they make less than a certain amount. don't take this as me agreeing with saygen because i think he hasn't a clue about living in the real world raising children on minimal wages. it's rough and i watched my mom work her ass off to raise us and it still wasn't enough. my dad was disabled 100% while serving in the us army and we relied on that measly welfare check. $1000 tax credit/ child? Yeah, I think that's pretty comparable to Canada. Income tax refund for low wages- we have that too. The tax credit is helpful to survive, but that's not going to make poor families pop out a bunch of babies to start rolling in the dough. It's more than 1000. The tax credit is one part of the overall tax spending. There are multipul programs. WIC for example is not part of the tax credit and yet it gives money. Also the food you get from welfare stamps (a plastic card now) is increased based on number of children. I do not know the full scale of all the programs since I will never qualify for them, but I do take the word of the people i've tlaked to about it. The money is out there, you need only claim it. so people are having babies so they can have food for their babies from the government? that doesn't even make sense. you claimed people have babies to receive extra funds from the government. WIC is not money, it's a voucher to receive basic healthy foods for young children, such as bread, milk, cheese and other staples. It's basically an attempt to give a balanced diet to children in contrast of food stamps which allows the parent to buy any foods. really, come on you have to realize that they simply hold onto the 1000 and use the wic vouchers and other programs to 'care' for the child until it's 18. This is ridiculous. People do not actually end up with more money by having more children through welfare. It's just not true, I have no idea where you got this idea from.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/jan/26/cost-raising-child-rises-218000
That welfare check better be fucking huge! haha
|
On November 11 2012 10:39 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 10:28 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 10:21 heliusx wrote:On November 11 2012 10:19 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 10:14 Falling wrote:On November 11 2012 10:07 heliusx wrote:On November 11 2012 09:57 Falling wrote:
@SayGen
Are there some number on that? Because I'm rather curious.
I just can't believe the tax breaks are sufficient enough to be the prime motivator. It may be enough to allow a couple realize their dream of having more than one child. http://www.irs.gov/uac/Ten-Facts-about-the-Child-Tax-Creditthere are more rebates on top of that such as most of their income taxes being refunded if they make less than a certain amount. don't take this as me agreeing with saygen because i think he hasn't a clue about living in the real world raising children on minimal wages. it's rough and i watched my mom work her ass off to raise us and it still wasn't enough. my dad was disabled 100% while serving in the us army and we relied on that measly welfare check. $1000 tax credit/ child? Yeah, I think that's pretty comparable to Canada. Income tax refund for low wages- we have that too. The tax credit is helpful to survive, but that's not going to make poor families pop out a bunch of babies to start rolling in the dough. It's more than 1000. The tax credit is one part of the overall tax spending. There are multipul programs. WIC for example is not part of the tax credit and yet it gives money. Also the food you get from welfare stamps (a plastic card now) is increased based on number of children. I do not know the full scale of all the programs since I will never qualify for them, but I do take the word of the people i've tlaked to about it. The money is out there, you need only claim it. so people are having babies so they can have food for their babies from the government? that doesn't even make sense. you claimed people have babies to receive extra funds from the government. WIC is not money, it's a voucher to receive basic healthy foods for young children, such as bread, milk, cheese and other staples. It's basically an attempt to give a balanced diet to children in contrast of food stamps which allows the parent to buy any foods. really, come on you have to realize that they simply hold onto the 1000 and use the wic vouchers and other programs to 'care' for the child until it's 18. This is ridiculous. People do not actually end up with more money by having more children through welfare. It's just not true, I have no idea where you got this idea from.
This, saygen you are completely out of touch.
More children is more costs, in the past when you could have your kids work on your farm or help with other manual labor, and then when you got old and sick they would take care of you, because they are still living and working on your farm. Sure, that was "profitable" to have kids, but currently your just can't make "money" having kids. You also needed a ton of kids because half of them might not live past 12.
If your so worried about poor people having kids I recommend you fund sex education and planned parenthood please, ill totally support you in that.
|
Kind of random, but if you go to Romney's facebook page you can see the likes dropping if you keep refreshing. If you go to Obama's page, you can see the likes increasing.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
did someone propose wimmin for nerds? a lot would sign up for that
|
On November 11 2012 10:54 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 10:39 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 10:28 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 10:21 heliusx wrote:On November 11 2012 10:19 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 10:14 Falling wrote:On November 11 2012 10:07 heliusx wrote:On November 11 2012 09:57 Falling wrote:
@SayGen
Are there some number on that? Because I'm rather curious.
I just can't believe the tax breaks are sufficient enough to be the prime motivator. It may be enough to allow a couple realize their dream of having more than one child. http://www.irs.gov/uac/Ten-Facts-about-the-Child-Tax-Creditthere are more rebates on top of that such as most of their income taxes being refunded if they make less than a certain amount. don't take this as me agreeing with saygen because i think he hasn't a clue about living in the real world raising children on minimal wages. it's rough and i watched my mom work her ass off to raise us and it still wasn't enough. my dad was disabled 100% while serving in the us army and we relied on that measly welfare check. $1000 tax credit/ child? Yeah, I think that's pretty comparable to Canada. Income tax refund for low wages- we have that too. The tax credit is helpful to survive, but that's not going to make poor families pop out a bunch of babies to start rolling in the dough. It's more than 1000. The tax credit is one part of the overall tax spending. There are multipul programs. WIC for example is not part of the tax credit and yet it gives money. Also the food you get from welfare stamps (a plastic card now) is increased based on number of children. I do not know the full scale of all the programs since I will never qualify for them, but I do take the word of the people i've tlaked to about it. The money is out there, you need only claim it. so people are having babies so they can have food for their babies from the government? that doesn't even make sense. you claimed people have babies to receive extra funds from the government. WIC is not money, it's a voucher to receive basic healthy foods for young children, such as bread, milk, cheese and other staples. It's basically an attempt to give a balanced diet to children in contrast of food stamps which allows the parent to buy any foods. really, come on you have to realize that they simply hold onto the 1000 and use the wic vouchers and other programs to 'care' for the child until it's 18. This is ridiculous. People do not actually end up with more money by having more children through welfare. It's just not true, I have no idea where you got this idea from. This, saygen you are completely out of touch. More children is more costs, in the past when you could have your kids work on your farm or help with other manual labor, and then when you got old and sick they would take care of you, because they are still living and working on your farm. Sure, that was "profitable" to have kids, but currently your just can't make "money" having kids. You also needed a ton of kids because half of them might not live past 12. If your so worried about poor people having kids I recommend you fund sex education and planned parenthood please, ill totally support you in that.
Actually, there are studies that show that having kids has never been a financially profitable decision. Even during farm days, it was much cheaper to pay a worker to come in and work in the fields than raise your children to do it.
|
This is a bit old (in relative page count terms), but:
On November 11 2012 09:27 SayGen wrote:
Welfare is not a safety net for everyone, it's a safety net for people who qualify for it.
I will never be eligible for welfare therefore it does not work for me.
You are not an island. The community as a whole benefits from a safety net, even if you will "never be eligible" for it. And that means you, too.
You benefit, because you weren't mugged last week by a guy who needs food to feed himself and/or his family. You benefit, because having a safety net means that people who fall off the wheels and are poor are not so destitute that they will hurt and kill others to ensure that they live to see tomorrow. You benefit because it allows people to survive bad times, pick themselves up, and become productive again. You benefit because a safety net helps keep society functioning more efficiently by minimizing the number of people that become desperate enough to do things that are disruptive to that society in the name of their own survival.
This fiction that something that helps someone else doesn't help me needs to die. We are all part of society; helping others does help you.
Small community thinking doesn't work on the national scale.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
