home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57504 misc.legal:23172 alt.abortion.inequity:6667 alt.child-support:4672 soc.men:23136 soc.women:22988
- 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: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
- Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal: Illegitimate-conception Tax
- Message-ID: <1993Jan22.145159.14134@rotag.mi.org>
- Organization: Who, me???
- References: <1993Jan17.042429.16551@rotag.mi.org> <1993Jan21.160755.6249@rotag.mi.org> <1993Jan21.181027.21289@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:51:59 GMT
- Lines: 50
-
- In article <1993Jan21.181027.21289@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:
- >In article <1993Jan21.160755.6249@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
- >> In article <1jl8beINNf5m@mirror.digex.com> adric@access.digex.com (William Johnson) writes:
- >> >>In article <1993Jan17.042429.16551@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org
- >> >>(Kevin Darcy) writes...
- >> >>>
- >> >>> [The biggest load of horse crap I've seen in a while]
- >> >>>
- >> By my calculations, those "few" would number maybe as much as 32 million
- >> taxpayers, if the proposal was implemented nationally. Given annual AFDC
- >> payouts of approximately 20 $billion, this would NOT appear to be an
- >> "unshoulderable" burden, even when the administrative overhead is added in.
- >>
- >[lots deleted]
- >
- >I have held my tongue (writing fingers) for about a week now, hoping
- >this subject would die the death it deserves. In fact, I thought the
- >concept was a joke or a flame to start with.
- > The tax is moronic. It is unenforceable. It is excessively punitive
- >to the wrong people.
-
- Illegitimate conception is a major cause of illegitimate birth, yes?
- And illegitimate children are more susceptible to social ills, are they
- not? How does this Tax punish "the wrong people", then? Prevention would
- seem to be a more prudent path than the half-assed "cure" for the problem
- we have now, which is quite obviously a failure.
-
- >Notwithstanding the calculation above seemingly
- >to indicate the tax would be around $600-700 per parent, the actual tax
- >would be in EXCESS of $10,000 per parent per conception. What the
- >author above forgot to account for is that the child support continues
- >for 18-25 years where the conception occurance occurs at one point in
- >time. To estimate that 32 million taxpayers would pay the tax in
- >one year is incorrect....50 million taxpayers might pay the tax during
- >an 18 year period, some once, some more than once. Against this the
- >support bill would be 18 times $20 billion. (neglecting inflation
- >and population growth)
-
- Well, apparently you prefer stating things in bulk amounts, instead of
- annual rates. I admit, an average bulk 18-year total of $10,000 sounds like
- a HUGE tax (actually, the average 18-year total would be $11,250, given my
- input numbers). But when you consider that that total is paid out over 18
- years -- at an average of $600-700 per year -- it really doesn't seem like an
- "unshoulderable burden", which was the original claim.
-
- Actually, I made an error in my original statement. The taxpayer pool would be
- 32 million COUPLES, not individuals (it takes two to tango, duh!). So cut all
- of my tax estimates in half to get the per-taxpayer amounts.
-
- - Kevin
-