NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/abortion/57143

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-25 | 5.5 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57143 misc.legal:23029 alt.abortion.inequity:6623 alt.child-support:4632 soc.men:23047 soc.women:22926
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!nigel.msen.com!heifetz!rotag!kevin
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal: Illegitimate-conception Tax
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Who, me???
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:40:20 GMT
Lines: 95

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William Johnson) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>What happens when rich women have secret abortions outside the country,
>>>figuring the cost of a plane ticket to Canada is cheaper than paying
>>>a graduated income tax?
>>>
>>>For that matter, I easily see a black market of doctors in this country
>>>willing to give secret abortions.
>>
>>I.e. yet more forms of "tax cheating". I'm not saying that cheating won't
>>occur, just that the possibility of cheating, in and of itself, is not
>>sufficient reason to defeat a tax-based approach, unless the cheating is
>>absolutely trivial to do, which I don't think is the case here (requires an
>>overseas trip, or the necessity to find and induce an unethical doctor,
> ^^^^^^^^
>>probably at significant additional under-the-table expense, and risk of being
>>caught, to perform the unreported abortion). Given sufficient effort, all
>>taxes can be cheated on, yet most if not all taxes are workable, even
>>indispensible, in our society.
>
>A) Since when is Canada OVERSEAS?

I was using it as a generic term for travelling to another country.

>B) Why would a significant under-the-table expense deter someone?  Let's put
>it this way, abortion now costs what, a couple hundred dollars?  (I'm
>guessing).  This tax of yours, over 18 years would cost thousands (what's the
>estimate about bringing up children?  $150,000 over 18 years or something?).
>So slipping the doctor $1000 instead of $200 to save $140,000 makes PLENTY of
>sense.

Er, your input values are off. Count a tax base of, say, 32 million, and AFDC
payouts of roughly 20 $billion, plus administrative overhead. We're talking
a few hundred bucks a year, on average. And the Tax is income-graduated, so
poor people would pay little to nothing.

>C) If you aren't saying cheating won't occur, how does this tax make things
>more gender fair, as you claimed in your earlier post?

I'm not sure I understand the question. If a woman "cheats" by getting an
illicit abortion, neither she nor her boyfriend get taxed.

>>>Unconstitutionally penalizes women who choose to have abortions.
>>
>>I don't honestly see how. The Tax is levied whether or not the woman chooses
>>to abort.
>
>So again, you want to penalize those who AREN'T causing the problem, which,
>if I understand you, is the high cost of welfare on those of us not on it.

As explained in an earlier post, the "problem" that the proposal addresses
is any and all behavior which leads to illegitimate conception.

>>>Incidentally, note the rise in the number of women who would choose *not*
>>>to have abortions.  A poor woman, who is going to be taxed whether or not
>>>she bears the child, will choose to bear the child so that she can receive
>>>offsetting child-support payments from the government to compensate for the
>>>tax loss.
>>
>>Er, I have proposed no changes to the welfare RULES, only its funding. If a
>>poor pregnant woman can improve her personal financial situation by having
>>the child, rather than aborting it, that's a problem right NOW, that needs
>>to be addressed.
>
>No, read what he said again.  She would choose not to have an abortion because
>under your scheme, she's going to pay this tax either way.  If she's poor, the
>graduated tax will be LESS than she'll get in support payments for the child.
>Now keeping the child MAY still result in a lowering of standard of living,
>but when you tell someone "hey, you are going to pay this tax either way.  And
>you are allowed to choose whether you get any of the benefits back from it"
>how many people do you think are going to opt to pay for nothing?

A woman who is so poor as to need welfare is not going to be subject to the
Tax. It's income-graduated, remember, like the F.I.T.?

>> A valid objective for the state, eh?
>
>And here is the root of your argument:  Socialism.  The state should mandate
>everything such that the strong and weak, the rich and poor, everyone has the
>same standard of living.  No benefits for hard work, no benefits for being
>responsible, just take any group of people which have some reasonables and
>some slackers, and make the reasonables pay the slacker's bills.

Hmmm... seems you've found a pigeon-hole, and you're desperately trying to
force my proposal into it with a big wooden mallet. Sorry it's such a lousy
fit...

My proposal does NOT encourage people to go on welfare. It doesn't change the
welfare rules at all, as a matter of fact. All it does is change the source of
funding for illegitimate-children welfare, from "everyone" to "those
irresponsible individuals who contribute to the problem of illegitimate birth".
If that's "socialism", then I'd like to see your definition of the term...

                                - Kevin