Question for parents on this board

Which is why I think the childfree should also receive special tax breaks -- I'm okay with receiving more of a refund to apply toward the non-working household member (though I think it's SHAMEFUL how most people use that tax refund), but I'm not okay with the thought that people who are childfree (and therefore paying in to a lot of systems they'll never use) don't see a similar credit. So I guess my view is that I'm okay with the tax credit, as long as it comes off my income tax, but I don't think parents should be the only ones to receive these credits.

I posted this on another thread on a similar subject:

Conservatives often rant that the "death tax" (actually, the estate tax on larger estates after someone's death) is unfair and that a rich person's death "should not be a taxable event". In other words, death should be unaffected by taxes.

They should apply the same principle in reverse to births and sprogs. To be consistent in the logic, they should advocate that sprogging should not be a reason for tax exemptions and deductions. So birth should be unaffected one way or another by taxes just as conservatives want death to be.

Mean Person Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> As for how I feel about it in general? I don't
> like it. The problem is that the people who
> usually end up NEEDING the tax break (people who
> breed children they can't support) are the same
> people who go through life thinking they are owed
> handouts and are unlikely to change. If the tax
> breaks (among many other benefits offered to them)
> were taken away, guess who would suffer? Kids who
> NEVER ASKED TO BE BORN. Now there's the rub. They
> didn't ask to be here, but here they are through
> no fault of there own, and while they are entitled
> to services to keep them fed and sheltered, it is
> their idiot parents whol hold the purse strings,
> always. So how do we know they aren't sustaining
> their kids on a square diet of Top Ramen and pork
> n' beans while using their tax refunds to help pay
> for smoking habit or trendy Manolos that they just
> HAD to have after seeing Sex and the City? We
> don't. Because the system is broken. I'm open to
> suggestions.

Well you've brought up a very interesting problem and actually we've discussed this solution on here many times.

While it is true that these kids born to the welfare breeders have no way of taking care of themselves without the welfare breeder that brought them into the world and the check the childfree provide through unfair taxation of us (we get no deductions of any type, and i'd like to see the tax system be a bit more fair to people that aren't contributing more to overpopulation), what is also true is that the taxpayer money is handed out to the breeders willy nilly. Also, the money goes to support the moo as well as her kids, not just her kids. I guess the gubmint figures you have to take care of the moo so the kids have a caretaker that sort of thing..

Ok, so what we have are food stamps, wic, general welfare, section 8 and so on. The biggest problem with all of this is that there is no supervision of the moos and how they are handling the taxpayer money they are given.

It's easy to say "food stamps can't buy moos cigarettes!" You are just fooling yourself with that. I have SEEN food stamps buy a moo cigarettes with my own eyes, and how it goes down is something like this: Moo takes friend to the store with her. Moo buys food for friend, friend buys carton of cigs for moo. I stood in line at the supermarket and saw this myself, moo hand the food to friend, while friend handed moo the carton.

WIC is one of the most wasteful programs out there too, because inevitably moos get more milk, peanut butter, eggs, juice, than they can possibly use and the rest goes to family or friends.

I've also seen breeders with medicaid cards throw a fit and demand brand name medicines from the pharmacy, which apparently, medicaid will cover if that is what they want.

So what we do, MP, since you don't want to see kids starving to death, and I don't think anyone here would want to see that either, is that if we are going to run welfare programs, then we need to RUN a fucking welfare programs and not rely on private parties, such as the supermarkets to oversee what the moos are doing with this money.

If moo needs a nanny government to take care of her, then she needs to have the full nanny, not a sugar daddy uncle sam that just hands her dough.

Workfare was one of those programs that was supposed to be some kind of measure to keep the moos from sitting on their asses, but it's really a failure if you ask me.

What needs to happen is that the government needs to provide the food, measured and doled out for nutritional needs of her and the brats, nothing more and nothing less. End those fucking link cards and food stamps. That would cut down on a lot of moos abusing them if they knew they could no longer look at any of these government benefits as a paycheck. Ditto with Section 8, someone needs to make surprise visits and make sure the fuck of the week isn't living there and if moo can't follow the rules, then some sort of super nannied institutional care for moo and brats.

If moos knew they would be facing 24/7 accountability to the taxpayers for what they are spending the money on, how they are raising their kids, etc, a lot of these whores would think twice about getting preggo.

Which brings us to the next point, I'd be interested in hearing your ideas on this one:

If I'm supporting the moos, how come I don't have any say in how the brats are raised?? MP, truly, "it takes a village to raise a child" actually means "it takes the village's WALLET to raise a child, and the village needs to mind it's own business when it comes to any say in the way the child is raised."

I wouldn't be so angry at welfare if I had some say in how these kids are raised.

If I'm supporting the moos, how come I don't have any say in how the brats are raised??

I think you should, to be honest. I think there should be a system in place for all taxpayers to choose how their tax money is spent in these situations -- i.e., no welfare to moms who don't work. No food stamps to moms who don't educate their children on sustainable farming, buying, and eating. No Medicaid to parents who use it to obtain cosmetic procedures, or who overuse it for their kids (like, say, dragging the kid to the E.R. for every sniffle), or who don't teach their kids about good health and hygiene practices. No WIC to mothers who refuse to breastfeed (way cheaper than formula), no WIC without ensuring that the food gets used appropriately (not just given away). And? I think that things like food stamps should automatically send a receipt to the government agency when they're used -- no more buying fancy cuts of meat, or entire live lobsters, on the government dime.

I'm right there with you on this one, nowhiggers. If you're paying for it, you should have a say in how it's used.

Sara Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
No
> WIC to mothers who refuse to breastfeed (way
> cheaper than formula),

My preggo relative is a prime example of this. My god, tell me why this girl CANNOT breastfeed? Tell my WHY she needs the convenience of disposable diapers? Tell me WHY she needs for the taxpayer to pay for the doctor to "induce birth a couple of weeks early" because she's "tiiiiirrreeeddd of being praayyygunnnntt" and also she "just wants to go to sleep through the whole thing and not wake up until the baby is there!"

Oh and believe me, my other relative that is on the same page with me (who is a parent, btw) has refused, as I have refused, to enable the rest of the crap like the two fucking baby showers. This girl has a family that can afford 2 goddamned showers and they (republicans, btw) run right out to get her signed up on the dole, with FUCKING ZERO interest in how the taxpayer money is spent.

I just thought up a great food stamp / link card solution that would 1. lower the current costs of all food stamps and wic to probably less than half that is is now 2. not create any additional government
bureaucracies or administration costs that assigning an overseer or setting up government food stores might cost.

1. Each Moo gets an electronic card, but instead of just a dollar amount moo can spend on that electronic card, actual lists of necessary foods in the exact amount to feed her and her brats are programmed into the system.

2. When moo applies at welfare office, and is given the food stamp card, she is also handed a grocery list, and the card will ONLY buy those things and nothing else in the exact amount necessary. Kind of like WIC, but more efficient because they would only receive what was necessary.

3. Moo is given no other food assistance, so that the card is not used to buy stuff for friends, family or cigs.

4. When Moo gets to the checkout and slides the card through, the software checks to makes sure there is no lobster and the foods on the list have been purchased. Anything not in the list of foods and amounts established just for her and her brats she has to pay cash for.

The only cost of running an electronic nanny like this is the software upkeep.

I like that plan, but I'd refine it a little for issues of health and a varied diet (because eating the same things day in, day out, isn't particularly healthy, and also because it's hard to determine a particular amount of food that is nutritious and adequate for every body -- bodies all being different and thereby having different needs).

So! We take your model, but instead of a list of specific foods and amounts, we have a list of categories of food with a spending cap for each one. Something like -- meats and fish, $50; vegetables and fruit, $100; whole grain carbohydrates, $50; liquids, $15. And instead of allowing any food from these categories to be purchased, you disallow non-nutritious and/or ridiculously expensive things, just like WIC does (for instance, you could buy a value pack of lean pork chops for your meat allotment, but not a $12 New York steak). All junk food would be disallowed as well.

The parents could still buy a variety of healthy foods in amounts that are adequate for their individual family's needs, but it would be about needs. You need healthy protein, lots of greenery, and complex carbs. You don't need junk, fancy dinners, and craploads of soda. The government mandates a healthy diet if you're going to use its funding, which is why instead of one flat amount you have certain amounts for certain categories (thereby assuring the parents buy, and so have to prepare, healthy foods in the correct proportions).

I would also propose that each county/district/state (I don't know how it's divided, really) have a few people who make regular checks on food stamp homes to ensure that the food is actually in the home, and not being used in trade for other stuff.

Thoughts?

Sounds a bit freaky on the surface, but it wouldn't be giving our government any more spy-powers than it already has. Not even the bit about random checkups @ home...they already spy on parents in several states to catch parents who are cheating* to send their kid to a better school.

What worries me is the electronic bit. I fear that it would be wide open to hand-in-the-till fraud from both outside and in.

(*lying about home location so your kid doesn't get packed off to the neighborhood 'holding pen')

nowhiggers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> So what we do, MP, since you don't want to see
> kids starving to death, and I don't think anyone
> here would want to see that either, is that if we
> are going to run welfare programs, then we need to
> RUN a fucking welfare programs and not rely on
> private parties, such as the supermarkets to
> oversee what the moos are doing with this money.

I AGREE! However, I think we'd need to seriously overhaul our social services here in the good ol' USA. Ideally it wouldn't be the private parties overseeing how the govt. handouts are spent, rather it would be agents of the service from which the parent (yes, it's usually just one) is getting the handouts.
>
> If moo needs a nanny government to take care of
> her, then she needs to have the full nanny, not a
> sugar daddy uncle sam that just hands her dough.

Well put. Yes.

>
>
> If moos knew they would be facing 24/7
> accountability to the taxpayers for what they are
> spending the money on, how they are raising their
> kids, etc, a lot of these whores would think twice
> about getting preggo.

The problem is, most of them don't even think ONCE.
>
> Which brings us to the next point, I'd be
> interested in hearing your ideas on this one:
>
> If I'm supporting the moos, how come I don't have
> any say in how the brats are raised?? MP, truly,
> "it takes a village to raise a child" actually
> means "it takes the village's WALLET to raise a
> child, and the village needs to mind it's own
> business when it comes to any say in the way the
> child is raised."
>
> I wouldn't be so angry at welfare if I had some
> say in how these kids are raised.

Financially, it's a bunch of crap that it should take a whole village's wallet to raise a child (good metaphor though). Two working parents should suffice just fine, and if it won't, find a free clinic in your area, and if you can't be bothered to do that, then you have no business having sex. Hey, if the reigns were handed over to me today, I'd advocate mandatory chemical sterilization until such time as two people want to "apply" to have their fertility temporarily restored. They'd have to jump through roughly as many hoops as prospective adoptive parents do right now. But since I just looked over my shoulder and saw that indeed there are no monkeys flying out of my butt, then I think this idea's time has not quite arrived.

More realistically, I'd like to see all forms of contraception available free of charge, no questions asked. Obviously, birth control pills might be regulated to a monthly supply at a time, but condoms and spermicide should be as available as informational pamphlets. I'd also like to see tax credits based on

Sorry about that non-ending sentence. I think I had a brilliant idea but lost it. DAMMIT! Must be the heat.

The frustration in all this is that some states have tried to restrict what foods food stamp recipients can buy, most recently in Minnesota. But the feds have forbidden the states from attempting to make these restrictions. Hence, the ongoing problem with food stamps used to buy steak, seafood, junk/snacks, and soda.

The best solution to this is to take away food stamps and other giveaway programs (like Section 8, WIC, free medical--the list goes on and on); there is no excuse to reward bastard factories. If there were no welfare handouts, there would be massive tax savings.

If the churches want to "save the baybeeeees," they can help out those who still insist on breeding kids they won't/can't support.

Keep working more hours, CF people! Millions of breeders depend on us.

nowiggers, you have it right. When are and where will you be running for office? I so agree, that if a fambly, moo whatever, is getting a benefit from my wallet, I should have a say in how that money is spent. No frills, cause I can't afford them for myself, why should the welfare rats? Seriously,here there has even been the "don't bring generic brands to the food shelves, cause the kiddies need Banco-'merican spaghetti'o's, NOT THE GENERIC BRAND". There goes my contribution to the food shelves, cause I won't donate something I won't buy for myself!

"If the churches want to "save the baybeeeees," they can help out those who still insist on breeding kids they won't/can't support."

This is a good point, but I would extend it to any group that seems to enable excessive breeding but stops short of actually taking responsibility for the offspring.

Of course I would extend it to any group that is for excessive breeding without breeder responsibility. Churches are fine examples. So is any other branch of the social services industry.

Let the people who are employed by these industries reach into their wallets voluntarily--not mine forcibly--and support the bastards.

Keep working more hours, CF people! Millions of breeders depend on us.

nokyds4me Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I dont care if innocent kids suffer. flame away,
> but its not my problem. If it was up to me, all
> welfare would stop, innocent kids suffer? oh
> well, lets thin out the herd, maybe breeders
> would think twice about crapping out more welfare
> babbyyeesss

NoKyds, did you have a good childhood? If so, you were lucky. If not, do you feel you should have suffered for the mistakes of others? If so, you are more than welcome to serve sentences for crimes that others have committed. Would you like to pay your parent's speeding tickets or DUI fines? Innocent kids do, everyday, every hour.

While this board is for child-free, I am having trouble locating a topic in it's rules that somewhere and somehow we are required to promote child neglect.

I welcome a well supported, thought out comment from anyone, regardless of their status. We are a society and if you want respect for CF, we, the CF have to respect others. Non-reciprocation has not worked anywhere. Would you like USA to be a better place for everyone? You can start here. Would you like one sided oligarchy? Mexico is waiting for you my friend.

Sara Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Double-posting because I forgot something: I also
> think that childfree people should receive a
> similar tax credit, a refund of the money they
> paid into schooling/Medicaid/etc. throughout the
> year. If you're not using the resources, you
> shouldn't have to pay for them. In the same way
> that my income tax works for the government
> throughout the year and then is (partially)
> refunded to me as a child tax credit, the
> childfree's tax payments toward kid/family
> programs should work throughout the year and then
> be returned. It's an unfair system as it is now.

I am an advocate of flat tax. While I have no kids, I may use Social Security when I am 67, if it is there.

Mean Person Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
> More realistically, I'd like to see all forms of
> contraception available free of charge, no
> questions asked. Obviously, birth control pills
> might be regulated to a monthly supply at a time,
> but condoms and spermicide should be as available
> as informational pamphlets. I'd also like to see
> tax credits based on

Condoms are cheap as they are. Birth control pills do need to be cheaper, much cheaper. All contraceptives should be available without prescription of any kind. All sterilization should not be denied or questioned. Any doctor found doing so, no longer needs to practice.

A thought came to my mind. Third world countries have no welfare, food assistance or even clean water. Breeding is going on like crazy, many kids are dying. While I have no support for welfare, however, eliminating it may not stop breeding.

We need to begin with our self-appointed 4th branch of our government - our media! Baby craze without reason has caused a baby boom of 2007. Media can make it or break it. Should we control free speech? No, but corrupt media driven by big business needs to be dealt with.

quote:Birth control pills do need to be cheaper, much cheaper. All contraceptives should be available without prescription of any kind. All sterilization should not be denied or questioned. Any doctor found doing so, no longer needs to practice.


This is so true. Its a paradox that viagra gets covered but hard to get birth control covered.

I think a flat tax based on income is a very good idea. First bracket pays X amount, second bracket pays X amount, etc. That should be it.

Also, in line with the birth control cost discussion, I kind of have a confession to make: Before my husband and I were eligible for insurance through his work (he started a new job two years ago), I was on Family Planning Medicaid for my birth control. We couldn't afford it any other way, and I wasn't about to go without it and end up pregnant again. So I guess I kind of... uh, suck, in that regard.

However, I bring it up not only to point out that I suck, but to mention that this service is available to ALL women of child-bearing age who can't afford BC on their own, or struggle to do so. If you're a hard-working taxpayer (which is what I've seen on this board) but you're still having a hard time paying for the birth control of your choice, this might be something to look into. It pays for everything -- pills, IUDs, shots, patches, even sterilization. It's also a way to get a little service out of the taxes you pay, you know? I'm not saying everyone should mooch off the government to avoid a BC bill, but if it's a real problem for you, it might help.

Sara Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think a flat tax based on income is a very good
> idea. First bracket pays X amount, second bracket
> pays X amount, etc. That should be it.
>
> Also, in line with the birth control cost
> discussion, I kind of have a confession to make:
> Before my husband and I were eligible for
> insurance through his work (he started a new job
> two years ago), I was on Family Planning Medicaid
> for my birth control. We couldn't afford it any
> other way, and I wasn't about to go without it and
> end up pregnant again. So I guess I kind of...
> uh, suck, in that regard.
>
What? You did what you could to avoid costing taxpayers high amounts of money. Where exactly do you get the "suck" from? I can assure you that a lifetime of your birth control would cost taxpayers less money than a single delivery of an illegal alien's "anchor" baby.

I can personally thank you for being responsible and not doing what welfare recipients do: Just have another one and send the bill to the taxpayer. I personally believe in low cost birth control availability. But, that's a different story.

Techie, As i said its my opinion, and i stand by it, im so sick of trying to "save the innocent children: this country (the USA) has become such a fucken shit hole in the last 20 years, caused by over breeding, the current welfare system is a mess and isnt doing any good, so lets try something new, give these whores welfare for 3 months (enough time to get back on your feet) for the 1st baby ONLY and lets see how that works.

most of these welfare bastards turn out to be just as shitty as their parents and do society no favors and the cycle continues, welfare bastrads are a waste of space, so I have ZERO interest in saving them

Techie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sara Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I think a flat tax based on income is a very
> good
> > idea. First bracket pays X amount, second
> bracket
> > pays X amount, etc. That should be it.
> >
> > Also, in line with the birth control cost
> > discussion, I kind of have a confession to make:
>
> > Before my husband and I were eligible for
> > insurance through his work (he started a new
> job
> > two years ago), I was on Family Planning
> Medicaid
> > for my birth control. We couldn't afford it
> any
> > other way, and I wasn't about to go without it
> and
> > end up pregnant again. So I guess I kind of...
> > uh, suck, in that regard.
> >
> What? You did what you could to avoid costing
> taxpayers high amounts of money. Where exactly do
> you get the "suck" from? I can assure you that a
> lifetime of your birth control would cost
> taxpayers less money than a single delivery of an
> illegal alien's "anchor" baby.
>
> I can personally thank you for being responsible
> and not doing what welfare recipients do: Just
> have another one and send the bill to the
> taxpayer. I personally believe in low cost birth
> control availability. But, that's a different
> story.

this is why I don't trust them. How do we know she's not going on a parenting board and repeating what we say? Sorry- I'm just not feeling the presence of parents here. I think it's highly inapproriate. Sara, you make me uncomfortable.

, some of you are going apeshit now, wringing your hands for the poor little children. Oh, but the dear little things can't HELP their situation! Their parents are poor, but the children can't help it, blah blah blah. There may actually be a grain of truth there. The kids can't help it. But if their parents were too goddamn stupid to use birth control, that's not even remotely my problem--nor should it be yours. The more we reward these nitwit breeders with charity handouts for their little monsters, the more we'll be encouraging them to continue their unchecked breeding patterns. Worst of all, their children will grow up to expect handouts. And what will they do? You guessed it--they'll breed like cockroaches and expect handouts for their little bastards, and the cycle will continue, ad nauseam.

this is exactly how i feel, I didnt write this, but its dead on!!