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.
Each one of us will hopefully burden the society when we get older. Who is paying that burden then? The younger generation, that's who.
I see it as each person has an obligation before the society to raise at least one child (or 2 for a couple), so that those children will support them when the couple gets older. Those who don't want to raise children keep all their money to themselves, yet would expect not lesser level of services when they hit retirement.
Huh? I never saw my mother as a burden on society as she lived on until age 96. She drew on Social Security as was due her along with supplementary income from two rental houses she owned.
I am not sure Democrats would agree to have a generation of children who weren't indoctrinated by their liberal values. That would be death to the Democratic Party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer
And the problem with that is......??
Quote:
Originally Posted by brrabbit
The problem with that is that Democrats have all the powers
Then surely to be fair you strongly want vouchers passed for private schools so Republican students can go be indoctrinated by private Christian schools on the right.
I support this measure, indeed. There must be some accountability though, especially if the vouchers are allowed to home-schooled children.
Why not? Have you ever heard of anchor babies, something Trump is against?
Immigrants bring their own culture, and that is not American. If there are too many of them, living in one place, then the country becomes less of USA and more of "the old country". On one hand, USA is a country of immigrants, on another - we're facing all sorts of criminal gang wars and other problems, we wouldn't have if american society is reproducing itself.
(hmm, all of the above is written by an immigrant...)
Given that Western society is aging, don't you think it would be a great idea to collect higher tax rates on each childless person? And, say, have the "normal" rate once a person parents 2 children (so, no advantage for having too many children either).
There could be also an "adoption" route for those who is not capable to give birth.
We already do and it's completely insane and totally backwards.
I think so, childless people should ay $1000/mo tax extra. We've probably spent $1M or more on our kids, definitely more now that I think of it.
You haven't given one reason why.
You've spent a million on YOUR kids. Why would I pay for them?
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.
