NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/abortion/58229

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 7.8 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58229 misc.legal:23424 alt.abortion.inequity:6748 alt.child-support:4705 soc.men:23364 soc.women:23126
Path: sparky!uunet!digex.com!digex.com!not-for-mail
From: [e-mail] (William Johnson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal: Illegitimate-conception Tax
Date: 27 Jan 1993 22:43:24 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 135
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>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?
>>>
>>>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
>>
>>A) Since when is Canada OVERSEAS?
>
>I was using it as a generic term for travelling to another country.

But, bozo, you used overseas because it costs so much.  There are many sections
of this country where Canada or Mexico is only a couple hours drive.  And
a couple hours of driving is NOT a huge expense.

>And the Tax is income-graduated, so
>poor people would pay little to nothing.

Oh, great.  So your whole point, trying to keep irresponsible people from
their irresponsibility, goes totally by the wayside when the MOST
irresponsible thing which you can do is to have a child when you can't
afford it.  So those who are the MOST irresponsible don't get punished,
those who are less so do.  Does this make sense to you?  Yes, I thought
it did.

>>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.

No no, the comment I was referring to was you saying that men might still
skip out like they do today, but it wouldn't get any WORSE, just might not
get BETTER.  So how does that make things more gender fair, if many men will
STILL just skip out?

>>>>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.

Which again you only object to because you buy into judeo-christian
philosophies in this country in which, correct me if I'm wrong, we are
supposed  to have freedom of religion and other philosophical belief.

>>>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.?

So again, you say you want to "punish" (your word) "irresponsibility" (ditto),
and yet those who are the MOST irresponsible, conceiving a child with no way
to support it, don't get touched at all.

I don't have anything against poor people, by the way.  But the statistics
show that in the poor inner city areas where children can least be afforded
and are most likely to grow up on the wrong side of the law, the use of
effective (or even ANY) contraception is at it's lowest.  I don't mean to
imply that ALL poor people are irresponsible, but I believe they ARE the
highest percentage of them, from what I've read.  And they would also be
those who would be exempt.  Makes NO sense.

>>> 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...

Lousy fit?  Are you kidding?  That sucker slid right in there.  I didn't
even have to push.  *YOU* said it was a valid objective for the state.
The *ONLY* objective of the state according to our country's philosophy
is to protect the people's freedoms, and attempt to limit infraction of
those freedoms by other people.

Ascribing anything else as "a valid objective for the state" sounds VERY
socialist.  If you can't see that, well, I guess I'm not surprised.

>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...

Ok.  Then let's take it a step further, as another poster suggested.  Let's
tax fat people to pay for all the research into heart disease, and all the
benefits paid to those who suffer from it.  Let's tax gun owners to pay the
benefits to victims of shootings.  Let's tax people who leave their homes
because many accidents happen outside the home.  Let's tax anyone who doesn't
have medical insurance, to pay their medicaid.  Let's tax anyone who eats to
pay for the medical bills of people who choke and are poor enough to get
benefits for losses due to choking.  Let's tax EVERYONE who EVER has sex, in
or out of marriage, because sex spreads AIDS, and then use that money to pay
for AIDS research.

Face it, part of the philosophy of our country is that your taxes may not
all go to things you approve of.  And you may never have any use for some
of the things you pay for.  But then again, someone else may be paying for
something THEY don't approve of and/or will never use that YOU will.

Will.
--
Copyright (C) 1993 by William Johnson  All rights wronged, all lefts made
[e-mail]                     without benefit of turn signal.
Will Johnson, 307 S. Reynolds St Box P-216, Alexandria, VA  22304
"Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have included a quote in your .sig file."