• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

We Saved $ 300,000.00 .........

 
 
 
Shadowy Man said:
Coleman Smith said:
.......by not having any children.
Click to expand...
Taylor and her husband weren't professionally established when they started their family. After their divorce, she had to shoulder the financial burden as a single parent.
Click to expand...

Sounds like her poor decision was more related to her husband than her child.
Click to expand...
Sounds like two irresponsible idiots started making babies. He's an irresponsible father and she married him.
I hope that the children learned from their parents mistakes. Unfortunately, lousy parenting is the gift that keeps on giving in my experience.
Tom
 
A good argument that single people should be taxed more and married couples (with children) taxed less.
 
Last edited:
laughing dog said:
Anyone who makes the decision to have children solely based on expected cash flow should not have children.
Click to expand...
Anyone who chooses to have children without being sure that they can provide a safe and secure home should be punished.
Tom
 
TomC said:
laughing dog said:
Anyone who makes the decision to have children solely based on expected cash flow should not have children.
Click to expand...
Anyone who chooses to have children without being sure that they can provide a safe and secure home should be punished.
Tom
Click to expand...
What prompted that non-sequitur?

Plenty of people have children without being sure of the future. They make be sure they will do everything they can to keep their childrend safe and secure.
 
laughing dog said:
TomC said:
laughing dog said:
Anyone who makes the decision to have children solely based on expected cash flow should not have children.
Click to expand...
Anyone who chooses to have children without being sure that they can provide a safe and secure home should be punished.
Tom
Click to expand...
What prompted that non-sequitur?

Plenty of people have children without being sure of the future. They make be sure they will do everything they can to keep their childrend safe and secure.
Click to expand...
It was following on the premise that I should be taxed to support the choices made by other people.
Maybe I should get a credit for not increasing the damage done by having children and the expenses of educated children and stuff like that.
Tom
ETA ~It occurs to me that you may have Swiz on ignore and don't understand the context.~
 
TomC said:
laughing dog said:
TomC said:
laughing dog said:
Anyone who makes the decision to have children solely based on expected cash flow should not have children.
Click to expand...
Anyone who chooses to have children without being sure that they can provide a safe and secure home should be punished.
Tom
Click to expand...
What prompted that non-sequitur?

Plenty of people have children without being sure of the future. They make be sure they will do everything they can to keep their childrend safe and secure.
Click to expand...
It was following on the premise that I should be taxed to support the choices made by other people.
Maybe I should get a credit for not increasing the damage done by having children and the expenses of educated children and stuff like that.
Tom
ETA ~It occurs to me that you may have Swiz on ignore and don't understand the context.~
Click to expand...
Swiz's views are irrelevant - you responded to my comment which had nothing whatsoever to do with taxes.

As to premise, taxes are levied to fund services based on collective choices - choices that may not reflect those of a particular individual. It is nature of living in a society. The notion that taxes should only reflect individual choices is a libertarian fantasy that is inconsistent with reality.
 
TomC said:
TSwizzle said:
A good argument that single people should be taxed more and married couples (with children) taxed less.
Click to expand...
I don't see the argument that I (non-parent) should be forced to subsidize the choice of other people to indulge in baby making.
Tom
Click to expand...
Then you better do something about all the young women who used to be my coworkers and had at least 4 kids. ;) One had 8 and one had 10. The one who had 8, had a sister who only had two twin boys. She had them when she was 17 and they were unplanned, but thanks to public health family planning, she was able to stop at two.

She used to vent to me about her sister who had 8. Luckily, she had a very supportive family who helped her out quite a bit. She worked with me too, but then got a job at a nursing home that gave her some decent benefits.

Poor people often choose to have kids because they don't have much else in their lives. The good ones take excellent care of their children and despite living in poverty, a lot of them go on to become successful adults. I guess you'd have to know a lot of poor people personally to totally understand. Some wealthy people treat their kids like shit, so not everything is about being able to financially afford having kids. I also doubt that it necessarily takes 300K to raise two kids.

And, we have programs to help poor kids because it's not their fault that their parents can't afford to meet all their needs. One of my dearest poor friends has two grandchildren. The little girl is very smart, kind and caring. She wants to go into healthcare when she grows up. Her grades so far are excellent, so maybe we shouldn't judge poor people who have children, although I agree with my former coworker who thought her sister had way too many. 8 kids is way too many.

Here's the thing. It used to be very easy for poor women to access good birth control, like when I was working in public health back in the early to mid 80s. But, the R party has cut out a lot of that and today's Rs seem to want to end some types of birth control completely. Abortion used to be paid for by the federal government back in the early 80s, but now abortion has been banned or access is very limited in many states. So, when it comes preventing pregnancies, it can be complicated, especially since a good percentage of men don't even want to use condoms. How do I know that? I worked in public health, rotating to the STD clinic at times and one woman told me her boyfriend would beat her is she insisted he use a Condon. Of course, she should have dumped that guy, but condoms, if used properly almost always will prevent pregnancy. Therefore, I put the blame on men who won't wear them, if they don't want to be responsible for a child. Stop blaming the women! End of rant.
 
southernhybrid said:
Then you better do something about all the young women who used to be my coworkers and had at least 4 kids. ;)
Click to expand...
I have long been a supporter of Planned Parenthood.
They have prevented more disastrous pregnancies than all the judgemental preaching EVER!

Because they do it the right way. They provide empowerment. They give at risk people access to good information. Good advice. Contraceptives designed to work for their situation. With nearly no consideration for ability to pay.

PP prevented more crisis pregnancies than all the sermonizing and judgementalism EVER! Anyone claiming to be prolife and opposing full funding for PP is a liar.
southernhybrid said:
Therefore, I put the blame on men who won't wear them, if they don't want to be responsible for a child. Stop blaming the women! End of rant.
Click to expand...
It's not just men. Nor am I blaming women. It's dumbass people who are not much interested in the future when they want something right now.
Tom
 
TomC said:
southernhybrid said:
Then you better do something about all the young women who used to be my coworkers and had at least 4 kids. ;)
Click to expand...
I have long been a supporter of Planned Parenthood.
They have prevented more disastrous pregnancies than all the judgemental preaching EVER!

Because they do it the right way. They provide empowerment. They give at risk people access to good information. Good advice. Contraceptives designed to work for their situation. With nearly no consideration for ability to pay.

PP prevented more crisis pregnancies than all the sermonizing and judgementalism EVER! Anyone claiming to be prolife and opposing full funding for PP is a liar.
southernhybrid said:
Therefore, I put the blame on men who won't wear them, if they don't want to be responsible for a child. Stop blaming the women! End of rant.
Click to expand...
It's not just men. Nor am I blaming women. It's dumbass people who are not much interested in the future when they want something right now.
Tom
Click to expand...
Sure, that's true and the women are also responsible, but all a man who has intercourse with a woman, has to do if he doesn't want to have an unplanned child is to always wear a condom properly. So many men are careless and then they don't want to take any responsibility when a woman they had sex with gets pregnant. I've seen it so many times while working in public health and while working with poor women who had unplanned pregnancies. That's all I'm saying. A man can prevent a pregnancy by using an easily available, fairly inexpensive product. Sadly, there are still too many women who won't stand up to men.

I was joking with you in my last post and I agree about PP, which the Republicans are trying to destroy.
 
TomC said:
laughing dog said:
Swiz's views are irrelevant - you responded to my comment which had nothing whatsoever to do with taxes.
Click to expand...
You posted a personal opinion about who should have children.
I posted another personal opinion.
Tom
Click to expand...
Actually I posted my opinion about who should not have children. And my opinion was not driven by some hypothetical narcissistic effect on my finances.
 
TSwizzle said:
A good argument that single people should be taxed more and married couples (with children) taxed less.
Click to expand...
If this were a reasonable argument it should be of the form that property tax is tied to the number of square feet per person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom