- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Good evening 2m. I'm not sure I would want to meet the person who would base their decision on bringing a child into the world for a $100/month government subsidy...
If you think $100/month doesn't matter, you've obviously never been poor.
Then you just want to keep the same convoluted system as is where the government decides what behaviors to reward and which to punish...
When placed into the context of raising a child, it isn't much...
No, I've stated that's not the case. I don't want a system that rewards or punishes people for having kids. I want a system that recognizes that kids are a drain on a family's resources. That's not an unrealistic thing to expect, since the vast majority of people in this country will have children some day.
When it's the difference between eating this week and not it's a hell of a lot.
You're running around in circles. On the one hand you don't want a system that rewards/punishes the choice to have children, while on the other you want the government to recognize the children are a "drain" on resources. This is where we began. Just let each person have some exclusionary amount of income not subject to taxation and then let them choose how to lead their lives from that point forward...
You continue to miss the point that if it was done that way the exclusionary amount of income you want each person to have would include an amount for children, whether they would have any or not. The whole point of having a deduction is for basic living expenses. Food, water, shelter, transportation to and from work, clothing, etc. Those living expenses are higher if you have kids, which is why the deduction should be higher.
When you start talking about a given class of people that shouldn't be breeding, what other conclusion would you expect?That's quite a leap your attempting to make. I'm sorry for you if that's all you took away from the post...
What makes you think this? If so, do not exclude any amount from taxation. You have income; you pay tax...
When you start talking about a given class of people that shouldn't be breeding, what other conclusion would you expect?
Or don't you know what eugenics is?
When you start talking about a given class of people that shouldn't be breeding, what other conclusion would you expect?
Or don't you know what eugenics is?
Even when I was working and doing rather well I didn't blow that kind of money on coffee and lunch.Good evening, AP.:2wave:
$100 isn't even two weeks of coffee and lunch at work anymore.:shock:
Even when I was working and doing rather well I didn't blow that kind of money on coffee and lunch.
Even when I was working and doing rather well I didn't blow that kind of money on coffee and lunch.
Of course it was. Shall I quote you? "$100 a month is chicken feed". That's in direct relation to poor people any way you slice it. For many people $100 per month is a lot of money and can tip the scale between being able to afford something or not being able to afford it. For you to say those people shouldn't breed is a eugenics opinion that poor people shouldn't have children.Class was never mentioned. That is your fiction. Feel free to debate the points made, but don't feel free to make up your own thoughts as to what was posted...
Then the quote obviously wasn't directed at you, was it?I don't drink coffee, and I eat lunches for < $10/week...
Of course it was. Shall I quote you? "$100 a month is chicken feed". That's in direct relation to poor people any way you slice it. For many people $100 per month is a lot of money and can tip the scale between being able to afford something or not being able to afford it. For you to say those people shouldn't breed is a eugenics opinion that poor people shouldn't have children.
Then the quote obviously wasn't directed at you, was it?
When I was working I spent ~$20/week on lunch. Now, $60/week is more than what my wife and I each spend for all our food and various household items from the store. We budget ~$100/week for both of us for groceries and cleaning supplies.About $4/day on coffee; about $8/day on lunch = $12/day X 5 days = $60/week X 2 weeks = $120.
When I was working I spent ~$20/week on lunch. Now, $60/week is more than what my wife and I each spend for all our food and various household items from the store. We budget ~$100/week for both of us for groceries and cleaning supplies.
It won't change a thing. You either have $100 a month to blow or you don't. A huge portion of the population doesn't make the kind of money where $100/mo is insignificant.Would you mind putting the "quote" into full context? When you do, you'll find it takes on a whole new meaning...
I personally don't care what you blow your money on. I preferred investing all I could in a house and reliable cars. When I was younger, I gave up eating out at lunch for a year just so I could afford a computer. Later, that paid off because my computer skills were important for my job.Different strokes for different folks.
It won't change a thing. You either have $100 a month to blow or you don't. A huge portion of the population doesn't make the kind of money where $100/mo is insignificant.
I personally don't care what you blow your money on. I preferred investing all I could in a house and reliable cars. When I was younger, I gave up eating out at lunch for a year just so I could afford a computer. Later, that paid off because my computer skills were important for my job.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?