Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You going to garnish an additional 10K?
what if you cant find him, what if he dosnt work, what if he dosent make enough.
You going to have the hospital absorb the cost or refuse treatment and have women giving birth in the street dying and what not.
Society could go to the extreme of extracting the eggs from the woman and sperm samples from men and then giving them a vasectomy. That way there would be ZERO unplanned children.
Society could go to the extreme of extracting the eggs from the woman and sperm samples from men and then giving them a vasectomy. That way there would be ZERO unplanned children.
How much of your tax dollars do you think that would cost?
Pretty scary you are good with the federal government having authority over individuals' bodies, reproductive choices, and medical procedures. Hitler much?
What has morality to do with anything? Is it morally acceptable to deduct mortgage interest payments from your taxes on a $5 million mansion? No. Do people do it? Yes. Would you do it? Yes. It is not gaming the system if it is perfectly legal and within the law.
Is it morally acceptable to take standard deduction or child tax credit while chastising other people from taking benefits they qualify for? No. Are you doing it? Yes.
Is it morally acceptable to drive a Ferrari while others do not have a car? No. Do people do it? Yes.
Is it morally acceptable for you to be posting on city-data while there are little kids starving in Africa? No. Do you still do it? Yes.
Spare me your commie moral superiority in front of society bs. Every US citizen has a duty to extract as much as possible from the system within their legal means and everyone does so. If you do not like it, change the laws.
How is it morally wrong to drive a Ferrari? That's messed up.
We've been through this before. 95% of those unintended pregnancies are due to complete lack of use of any birth control at all (54%), or using it incorrectly/inconsistently (41%) such as not taking one or more pills in a cycle.
Clearly, those who don't want a pregnancy are doing little to nothing to prevent it, despite the fact that the US has over 4,000 taxpayer-funded Title X Family Planning Clinics located through the US and it's extremely easy to get condoms and other forms of OTC contraceptives.
This statement doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Since the overall fertility rate in the United States is dropping and has been for quite some time, people who don't want a pregnancy are absolutely taking steps to avoid it.
How much of your tax dollars do you think that would cost?
Pretty scary you are good with the federal government having authority over individuals' bodies, reproductive choices, and medical procedures. Hitler much?
"Government" is already making me pay for others mistakes. I am just pointed it in the correct direction.
This statement doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Since the birth rate in the United States is dropping and has been for quite some time, people who don't want a pregnancy are absolutely taking steps to avoid it.
Perhaps he means that of those having unintended pregnancies, they are doing little to nothing to prevent it.
What would the fertility rate be under your proposal?
As the overall fertility rate continues to drop, the taxes will be going up long term, because the ratio of working adults to retirees will be abysmal in the future. Fewer working adults supporting more and more retirees. More children actually provide bigger tax base for the government (since 20 years later they become the new taxpayers), so people who want to disincentivize people from having kids in order to save on taxes are not thinking clearly.
TLDR: child tax credit and other childcare benefits are peanuts compared to the average amount of taxes the government will be able to extract from that child over their lifetime.
People are here reminiscing about how easy it was to support a family back in the 50s and 60s, but consider these facts:
- most of the world was still rebuilding from WW2, and most advanced economies who are potential competitors to the US, such as Europe, Germany, and Japan, were bombed out, so US had very little competition from abroad.
- lack of zoning laws, even in cities, resulted in huge amounts of new housing and infrastructure getting built, driving housing prices way down. We were building more houses in absolute terms than now with about half of the population. Now most new housing construction is very restricted.
- population was a lot younger and everyone had more kids. Back then about 12 taxpaying adults on average supported 1 retiree on social security, now the ratio is 3 adults to 1 retiree, and it is still going down.
Perhaps he means that of those having unintended pregnancies, they are doing little to nothing to prevent it.
You are assuming these pregnancies were unintended or unwanted.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
