Kitch

Doesn't anybody find it... perverse, that media outlets designed to enlighten the public with objective (as much as is possible) reports of the happenings of the world are now factories of opinion? Are people incapable of developing their own opinion based on information that they must choose a newspaper that they agree with? Does everyone agree ALL the time??? NO!! So how can one trust any particular newspaper/tv station all the time? It's a Brave New World indeed.

My intention is not only to highlight possible reasons for the anger that is felt in some circles for the west. It is also to show that the west cannot assume to have gold standard morals enabling 'us' to both look so poorly on other people and punish them for doing things that 'we' have done in the past... and perhaps are still doing. We bring too many big rocks into our lovely glass house. No, citizens of those countries do not blow themselves up. But people of those countries had to endure some terrible atrocities... such as the Vietcong, to whom you refer. Although, it was the innocent people of Laos that paid the biggest price, isn't it? Sure people wanted to chase those who were firing weapons at them. But the US, rather than killing only those responsible, killed everyone around... and somehow felt justified??? Disgusting. THAT is my main point. Look in the mirror before you judge others.

I sympathize with your thoughts... I really do. I am a strong atheist myself and am furiously anti-religion. I agree that if people would realize that we're better off as a species without it... we'd be better off. But I have to say, you can't make claims like you have... in this post and past ones. I am a science teacher and have worked in world class research facilities at the University of Toronto under some world renowned scientists, so I have a good understanding of what science is and what it isn't. There could be no scientific evidence that refutes an afterlife. It's just not something that people can evaluate using scientific tools (not equipment, the mode of inquiry). So you can't make claims that scientific research suggests that when we die, we die. I believe that, but also know that it's not something that is 'testable'. On that note, I have a feeling that your posts about what 'radical islamists' are all about, why they do what they do, how many of them there are, etc. are as carefully thought out as the one above. I tried to point out to you that the information available out there must be scrutinized most carefully. I gave you examples in history which illustrate the dishonesty of government agents and media outlets. I gave you examples in history that, at least attempt to, explain why 'radical islamists' do what they do... the whole Isreali occupation thing... which, in itself is information that must be scrutinized. What you are doing is stating beliefs that are presumably based on shady information. Those beliefs don't hold well to logic and if acted upon can lead to serious consequences... so you had BETTER be sure of what you're advocating for. Dude, just read some more. Find out as much information as you can with the realization that you may very well NEVER know the answers that you're looking for. And because of that, you can't act on suspicion. Otherwise, you could be a murderer rather than a defender. Or... a terrorist rather than a freedom fighter.

You're still not going to read my post(s) again and try to form an intelligent rebuttal are you? Well, ridiculing me does little to support your point of view. So, whatever's clever, bud. PS: I know.

Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god This word, in my experience, is most often used in this way but one can take an agnostic stance toward any 'hypothesis'. It simply means that one does not know/can't know. It is not a belief... at least not in the god sense. It is not possible to 'know' whether one exists or not. But then, wouldn't that make EVERYONE agnostic? Even those who claim to know because they believe so strongly? Just a thought.

So a corporation that does VERY well, that is owned by a small number of people who, consequently, also do very well... that doesn't lead to/represent an imbalance of power? Money = power in our society. It's influence, it's options it IS power. The less money you have the less your decisions impact large portions of society. Take Rogers in Toronto. They own a lot of companies and real estate here. They own media outlets. Decisions that they make in a board room have an impact on people in the city who are not even Rogers customers. That, my friend, is undemocratically elected government. And it is the result of capitalism. I think that, because of your libertarian views, you are at odds with any control on your life from exterior forces. Yes, you sound, to me, like an anarchist. (Farther in that direction than a conservative... is what I mean). No Nirvana... that sounds like a shot at liberal types. I'm a strong atheist... no Buddha even. I am of the opinion that a communist society would be the most desirable model society, but most definitely wouldn't work because it would be too easy for people to take advantage of others. Money is nothing more than incentive to work. If people did not need that incentive, then our society could work much the way it does now without MANY of our problems. But, people seem to need that incentive and aren't keen on placing the good of society above their own interests. Egalitarianism is the most achievable goal of all those that I find important. Now, to me, that doesn't necessarily mean each person lives an equal lifestyle. But everyone deserves to be treated like a human being by every other human being. Capitalism doesn't address any of the things that I see as important for society. The nature of competition, which is capitalized by the fabricated competition amongst nieghbours (keeping up with the Jones), doesn't encourage people to consider the potential negative consequences of their actions on others. That's not to say that people don't do that (many don't), it's just to say that capitalism doesn't do so. And if it does, it's only for selfish reasons such as reputation. I want to strive for something in the middle, but left leaning... and I DO think that there are certain industries that are best controlled by a democratically elected government such as health care, justice AND insurance. There are more, but I'm tired and this line of thought is new to me.

I think I missed the part where you said this hypothetical nuclear attack would be in retaliation. I thought you meant as a preemption to attacks by 'radicals'. My bad... but my point of view doesn't change drastically. If some one punches me in the face, you had better believe that fucker is gonna get it back. But if I'm punched in the back of the head in a crowd... turn around and really have no way of knowing with ANY certainty who did it, am I going to pick the closest clown and make myself a new enemy? (Assuming he wasn't the guy I was looking for). Particularly with a nuclear bomb, you'd have to be a lot more sure of what you're doing... and I'd even argue that a nuclear bomb is something designed to kill far too many people to not accidentally kill people who are entirely innocent. So, while some right-wing, red neck, kill em' all types think that I'm a liberal pussy for not advocating for lashing out immediately, my reaction would be the more prudent and just one. You can't kill people for no reason!!! You can't kill people for suspicion of anything!!! I can show YOU articles that show how dishonest MANY people have been in the west, leading to chest beating at Iran. People have tried the exact same tactic that was used as an excuse to begin the Vietnam war. How do you attack a country based on an acknowledged lie and still claim to be justified in doing so? You can't! Do you remember that story about the Iranian fishing boat that approached an American navy ship and said "you will explode in minutes"? Well, it was all over the news at the time and painted as Iranian aggression. Did you ever see any news about how the state department/pentagon lied? Probably not. Take a look at these: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19085.htm http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/1...naval-incident/ If this is how distorted 'news' can be, then how can we trust what we hear about the islamic 'radicals'? I'm not saying at all that they're not a danger to us, but I am saying that it's worth investigating before you develop such a strong opinion. Maybe we've been lied to about how many REALLY radical people there are. Do you remember the report from US intelligence that suggested that Iran is not actively seeking nuclear weapons? Oh... here: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/03/america/cia.php Funny how quickly that was forgotten huh. On top of THAT, you have to remind yourself of the main source of anger for muslims who hate the west. Israel. The president of Iran allegedly said that he wants to 'wipe Israel off the map' while other translations have sounded VERY similar to Bush, such as 'wipe the map of the occupying regime'. Those are very different messages... but there's something to be taken from them... Israel is a point of anger!!! Why? Because of what they're doing to Palestinian people. We always hear/see on the news about Palestinian terrorists attacking Israeli cities. Don't you ever wonder why that happens? It's not simply antisemitic feelings... although that's what zionist jewish people would like you to believe. Imagine this; you live in a nieghbourhood that is ethnically split between white and black people. Let's say the black people, with the support of the government and help of the army, begin to throw all the white people out of their houses by sending bulldozers in to destroy them. Then new houses are built and black people move in. Let's also say that the white people forced out of their homes are segregated into slums that are enclosed by huge concrete walls to keep them in. Or, the white people are simply concentrated in certain areas and THEN big concrete walls are built around them. Also suppose that the government and army restrict shipments of food into these areas and send helicopters overhead who kill people that are claimed to be 'suspicious'. How would you feel? You'd feel like a Palestinian. Imagine that was happening in a country that you felt solidarity with and another very powerful nation, that has the capability of preventing this horrible act on your people, both does not do anything to stop it and actually supports it. How would you feel then? You'd feel like a muslim person in the middle east. This is exactly what is happening over there. The only articles that come to mind to support this are in my Adbusters magazine... but I'm sure, if you are interested/willing, you could find some information on the internet about the Israeli occupation. Now, why doesn't the US do anything? Because the small proportion of the US population that is zionist jews hold a lot of power through contributions to political parties, high ups in important companies, etc. Well, an American president cannot get elected without the support of this jewish community. Take a look at Obama who is, relative to his country, very left leaning. He's talking now like a war monger threatening to bomb Iran. Why? Because Iran wants the Israelis to leave Palestine alone and the Israelis, who have nuclear weapons, do not allow ANY criticism of their actions and attempt to hide them from the public eye. Hence why we only see bombs blowing up Israeli cities on the news. On top of THAT... Iran's president said a few weeks ago that he'd ....well, to paraphrase... would give up on his pledge of 'regime change' in Israel (notice the familiar language?). But that's nowhere to be found in the news... oh wait, Google this: Ahmadinejad accepts Israel right to exist How many big news corporations reported on this? Hmm. Interesting huh. The point is two fold. 1 You can't always know who attacked you, especially if it's a "terrorist" attack... and you can't always trust the news and/or intelligence reports. And 2. The reason that these radicals exist is because of the wests support for the terrible things that Israel is doing to muslim people! See? It's MUCH more complicated than 'threatening to bomb mecca' and hoping for the best.

You're clearly not on a level that would enable you to accurately predict my reaction to an attack in the US... or Canada. You're also clearly missing my point. Have at it again bud. Read a little more carefully and tell me how/why what I've said is wrong rather than weak shots at my character.

It is unfair of me to label the US as the focal point of blame... but could you define "way beyond" in your attempt to disperse blame? I hope that we're talking about the same events that the "west" is to blame for.

First... "I believe educating those kids should be the responsibility of society. How can I function as an individual if the people that I interact with are illiterate? I'll help pay for the education of others, no problem." This is what I said originally. What evidence could support that I believe this? If I had said YOU should believe it too, then it'd be prudent for me to give reasons why. But to simply say that I believe in something is not to make any assertions about anyone other than myself. So... proving that I like bacon on my pizza doesn't really matter. This whole discussion, really, is about the lower taxes that a working parent pays over a portion of their child's life, and whether or not that is fair. I BELIEVE that the incentives the government gives are not to prevent dying off of the population, but to encourage growth of the population. Particularly in earlier times. But today, it seems, that immigration is seen as another viable way to increase the population. We're not small, but, compared to the size of Canada, our population is far from dense. Wouldn't there be desirable effects from having larger, more dense population centres? I don't really know (or care), I'm just attempting to identify the governments' reasoning. But, you're not wrong. People will have kids regardless. The issue we have with each other's perspectives is that you think people who have kids should pay for the services provided for those kids and others who don't should be able to choose. Well... take a look at that bolded sentence of yours up there... I didn't say that there is little/no value to the non-parents!! On the contrary I tried to explain the value while admitting that it is VERY difficult (if possible at all) to assign a number value. Non-parents do indeed benefit from, for example, the education of the children belonging to other people! How can you not see this? You come into contact with people you're not related to everyday! You can thank their education for their (relative) ability to interact with you. Or, you could thank their parents. Either way, those parents did a service for you. Now, I am by no means trying to make an assertion about an absolute truth. I know that neither of us can really determine a value, or lack thereof, of 'other's kids'. So, as I said before, it's a matter of perspective which is indeed up for discussion. I can't refute a lot of the things that have been said (I can dispute, though)... the well thought out, intelligent things (that's not a shot at you). But I also can't ignore that it seems that some people can't accept any argument contrary to their own because everything that they... think... is shaded by this 'self-interest' initiative. And if people try to make sense of arguments FOR paying for public education, it's very difficult if they don't set aside their negative gut feelings about letting go of their hard earned money.

That sounds like NAFTA talk! And I, for one, knowing only a little bit about the agreement and it's consequences, would LOVE to see it go! Did you know that an American corporation can sue the Canadian government for passing ANY... ANY legislation that prevents the corporation from making money? I read, not too long ago, about the Canadian government banning some substance because of some negative affects to people's health, and the American pharmaceutical company, sure enough, sued the Canadian government. I don't know the result, but it's just ridiculous that it can happen! But I digress!

You really haven't got a clue how people work. Do you really think that it's that simple??? "They" want to kill "us", so we should kill "them" first? You believe that they "breed hatred" in Pakistan? You don't sound too loving yourself. You're spewing hatred!!! You really haven't got a clue what kinds of things the "West", aka the USA has done (with support/without objection from countries like Canada) around the world. Where, exactly, do you get so much information about how "the radicals" think? Do you converse with them often? Please, I really am interested in knowing what you read/watch/listen to in order to educate yourself about the situation. Do you really believe that Israel is an innocent bystander in these conflicts? And do you REALLY think that it would be possible to send over a nuclear bomb, kill, perhaps, millions of people, and there won't be anyone who gets angry at "us"??? For real though, don't just answer that last question, I'd like to read what you've read... maybe you're privy to information that I am not aware of.

That is messed up! I do want to check this out! But, that doesn't warrant "us" declaring war on them? By "them", I mean a portion of the population of... whatever country. I know people from Lebanon. I don't claim to know how many people have this whacked out motive, but, I'd find it hard to believe that it was a large number.

From my viewpoint, some of those things you listed would be advanced by empowering the individual while others would be affected negatively. Enhanced democracy... for sure! That includes all the 'accountability, secrecy-prevention' stuff that eyeball was talking about. I'm on board. Education and health care? I don't know. I don't disagree... I really don't know. Could you explain?

What technique??? Being illogical? Come on now. You need to read the conversation again... I just did and you made a pretty big logical error. I'll explain. I apologized already for mixing your post up with another person's. Again, I made an assumption about the guy's wife... and never pretended that it was the truth. It's the best case scenario for my assertion (would you expect me to argue weakly for my perspective?). Let's look at the Dad and the non-dad. The Dad get's tax breaks, let's say, from the time the first kid is born to the time the second kid turns 18 (I could be wrong, but it's somewhere in that neighbourhood). He gets that break because he MADE FUTURE TAX PAYERS. And kids don't come out ready to pay taxes. They need to develop... which isn't all that effective without parents. So, he's getting a break that the non-dad isn't, but he's got detriments that the non-dad doesn't. Now, the mistake YOU made is to only compare the taxes paid by the dad vs. non-dad but why is it that you must include his family members in the consideration of usage of the system? EVERYONE was once a child, and thus didn't pay taxes until a certain time in their life. If you're going to stay with the individual in terms of tax paying you have to stay with the individual in terms of system usage. Otherwise, you could easily make the argument that a stay at home non-mom/dad utilizes the system but doesn't pay taxes. One contributor, two users. Non fair? Really, your beef is about the, more or less, 20 years that a person gets some tax relief because of having kids. What happens when you retire? Are you going to collect old age pension? It's not a fund that you paid into over your life that stayed put... people used it when they retired. Those kids that other people are having will pay for non-dad's pension. So it IS really about perspective. Either you consider self-interest before all or you don't. And excuse me for getting angry over an unfair attack. But just for argument sake... let's say you thought I was a bad teacher. Would you have beef? Of course you would. Why? Because I'm educating the children in our society (on science, bud). Does this not imply that it is a benefit to you to have educated children entering society? Thus paying for public education is a self-interest? Thus people having kids is beneficial to society? Reflect on your own logic... try to give up on the "poor me" attitude first. Things will look more clear.

I really can't disagree with you or eyeball... you make very good points. I don't know how strongly I feel about the idea of government... maybe how government has worked, at least in my lifetime, but not government as a whole. Anyway... How do you define "advancement of society"? I mean, there are a few different directions that we could advance, none of which, to my knowledge, are mutually exclusive though. For example, advances in standard of living (and then how do you define that), advances in human interaction (meaning resolving conflicts in a way that doesn't lead to killing each other)... the list could go on. How does empowering the individual, or dis-empowering the government lead to these advancements... whatever your chosen direction(s) of advancement is/are?

Good points. I would have kids without tax incentives... and you called me on a false statement. We can't measure the value and so I can't really claim them to be close enough to equal. I suck. There is no benefit to you as an individual for perpetuating the species. This is going to fire us off on a new tangent. Perhaps it is about warm fuzzies, as you put it. But why do we, in every circumstance, have to consider self interest before interest of others? I don't think that we have to... in some cases, in my opinion, we're nickel and diming.

Sorry, I mixed up the posts from two different people. My apologies if I accused somebody of something that they didn't say.

For fuck sake!! I am so fucking sick of people taking shots because I'm a teacher. I make points that you don't agree with so... "I hope you don't teach that!"... you MUST be a Jack Layton supporter.. you MUST be a pussy ass liberal! I was going to say that you made a lot of sense in your post before this one... and that I have a hard time disputing it. I still think that but FUCK!! My logic is NOT invalid. It's a different perspective. And I made and assumption about the guy's wife and STATED that it was an assumption that I was making! "IF THIS IS SO..." is what I said. I KNOW that the Dad's personal contribution to taxes is not more over his lifetime. But he made a contribution of CREATING tax payers, who will also contribute to the economy. But the biggest contribution is to our species. I'll take your word that other places don't give such incentives to have children. And I won't disagree with you that they're not necessarily needed in order to perpetuate the species. (Nor will I disagree with you that we are the plague of the Earth... I agree wholeheartedly). I will try to open up another line of reasoning though. The more time parents spend with their children the more... civilized like they are. (I say civilized like because I HATE giving a standard that people must live up to in order to be considered 'normal'). The tax incentives for families help parents raise children in such a way that they are less likely to end up being burdens on society rather than contributors. Now, these lines of reasoning are easily disputed. NOT refuted, mind you. They're not infallible, nor are they fallacious. Simply a different perspective from yours. Because we can't easily measure a value to society of having kids (which I despise attempting anyway... just an opinion), we can't TRULY discuss whether people who don't have kids are being punished or not. All that we can do is make cases supporting each perspective and compare... but they're by no means absolute truths... on either side. So thank you for laying out your case in a coherent way. But get off your high horse for assuming that your perspective is a truth and mine is logical fallacy. My opinion about society paying for education is, as you said, an opinion. What facts would you like to support MY OPINION!!! What sense does that make? I like bacon on my pizza... do you want facts to support that opinion? I already said that I happily pay for education of the masses because I benefit from interacting with an educated society rather than an illiterate, ignorant one (we can debate, although I don't think we'd disagree, about the literacy/awareness of society). So, in the end, thank you for your perspective, and screw you for ridiculing me because I have a different view. When the hell would I ever engage in a conversation with my biology students about the economics of having children anyway??? Ad fucking hominem attacks... look the term up... are logical fallacies and do NOT support your argument. So don't accuse me of making illogical arguments before looking in the mirror bud. It's funny, people expect so much of teachers (both in AND out of the classroom) yet hold us to such low esteem. Not you, personally, but generally this is what I've seen. It sucks.

I'm not gonna lie, I haven't seen the movie you're talking about... or the ones posted above. I am interested in knowing the motives of people who blow themselves up. I'm confident that they won't make a lot of sense. BUT, whatever the motive is, it doesn't NECESSARILY represent the whole of the people. I gotta know though... do they do it because they believe that non-believers (infidels) prevent them from getting into heaven? I understand that you say it's a relatively objective film... but I mean, how objective is ANY film. Especially one about such a serious subject. Either way, regardless of their motives, the answer is not to blow them all up. They're still people regardless of what their intentions are. Do we prevent them from doing what they want to do? (Kill white people). SURE!! But shouldn't we exhaust all other forms of prevention before killing them???

Thank you, but why do you find it necessary to answer my question with a question that is unrelated? I understand that people dislike socialism and I'm STARTING to get an idea of why, although I still have a vague REAL working definition of what it is because whenever I ask "what is socialism", I get haters giving me answers like 'it's the end of the world!!!'. My ideal form of society is a true Marx communist one. I am fully aware of both the likelihood of that happening and inherent problems with that system. My reasons for liking it are irrelevant given the fact that it would be populated with humans who each have their own ideals. So, while I understand that, I still prefer a society that is more on the left. What I'm trying to do is REALLY understand how conservatives feel... REALLY feel. Not how they present themselves to lefties like me, typically. But a real, working explanation of their realistic ideal society. It would be amazing if this invisible hand theory would work as elegantly as it explains economics. But I also know that, for the same reasons a communist society wouldn't work, a truly free market society wouldn't work. The same reasons relating to the way that humans typically work... meaning that we all have different views of the world. So, I ask again, to all the righties out there. How would a totally free market society not lead to the problems that I outlined above? (The ones that all the people you hate cry about). And remember that I'm not expressing an opinion here, or even trying to set people up for an attack (I might have beef with some logic, but it's not my intention). I just want to know what you think.

I THINK I know where you are coming from... although the purpose of my rough breakdown was not to show that there are equivalent contributions:usages between parents and non-parents. They're obviously not equivalent just as your ratio is not the same as other non-parents. The point has more to do with things that aren't money. If everyone decided to not have kids... then what? Even if the majority of people decided not to have kids, then what? It'd be nice if our species carried on. Tax breaks are incentives for that purpose. Now, you rightly said that there are other incentives for people to have kids that are not tax related, but neglected to acknowledge that there are disadvantages that are not tax/money related. Having kids is a HUGE HUGE HUGE time commitment. It's a huge emotional commitment. It's just an enormous commitment. You have freedoms that your friend does not. He has benefits of having kids that you do not as well. Benefits/detriments, monetary and otherwise, seem, to me, to be close enough to equal. People who have kids do a service to all of society above and beyond paying taxes that is very difficult to measure in value. But my point is, why do we have to measure that value?

That's the most ridiculous repetition of George Bush that I've... heard in a while. Them or us? "The" war started september 11? First, there isn't any real certainty about who committed that act... a whole bunch of the alleged attackers are still alive. Whether or not that leads to what some people call 'conspiracy theories' is another story but the fact is that a MAJOR detail of the 'official' story is completely wrong. Doesn't that raise any questions in your head. But, even if this was an attack on the U.S... rather, the western world, by "radical islam", how do you target this group? How do you define this group? There are many groups that we could consider 'radical islamists' but don't have any intention to attack the 'western world'. Maybe they have beef with Israel, or some other middle eastern country. Are they our 'enemy'? Sure you can point out Bin Laden and his Al Queda, but then "we" have no business attacking countries. (I'm going to stop saying we, because I don't include myself with American war mongers). How many christian groups are there out there that want to/do/have committed violent acts? Why don't you lump them into one group called "radical christians"? It's convenient to lump muslims together because it gives people an outlet for anger about 9/11. It's not fair though, nor is it prudent. You create a whole lot more enemies than you originally perceived yourself having to begin with. You acknowledged the logic of my main point in my last post but ignore it. So westerners (US not included as we had nothing to do with such decisions) did some terrible things to people in the middle east. Not the least of which is enable the creation of Israel, which is not THAT bad in itself, except for that we ignore what the Israelis are doing to Palestinians. Regions of Israel used to have close to equal proportions of jews and muslims, but jews have effectively pushed muslims (Palestinians) out of their homes and taken over control of the land. On top of that, they've built what could be referred to as concentration camps for Palestinians to live in, with giant walls surrounding them and all. They have blocked supplies from getting into these 'ghettos' too, making it difficult for the people to live. On top of THAT, Israeli soldiers routinely attack citizens inside these areas (such as Gaza) by flying helicopters over them and firing missiles at cars of 'suspected terrorists'. How convenient has that definition become? Anyone that a politician/military doesn't like can be labeled as such, making them open to all sorts of attacks. Such people are treated as less than human by the U.S. in their 'secret prisons' and places like Guantanamo Bay. How can you treat a SUSPECTED terrorist worse than a CONVICTED PEDOPHILE!?!?!?! On one hand you have somebody that you suspect of having opinions that threaten, most often, your interests, not even your own people, your 'interests'. You hold that guy without telling him why. Torture him. Treat him like the fucking shitiest shit on Earth. Are people who admit to violently raping children treated this badly? Give your head a shake and get over your emotions before people like you advocate for some of the biggest mistakes and atrocities in human history.

The same reason that the president of Iran's words were mistranslated to mean "wipe Israel off the map" and still published. The same reason why it wasn't published when he was in NY this year and was asked if he would agree to a two state Israel if Palestine did and he agreed... indicating an acceptance of Israel's existence. The same reason why the U.S. navy admitted that no Iranian boat approached them saying "you will explode in minutes" (or whatever it was), but that was never a headline. I'm sure you can find more examples. Are you up on your solar physics though? I'm not really, but I'd like to be in order to understand what was said/observed rather than trusting a newspaper. Given their selective publishing record, wouldn't you?

How much more, if you don't mind me asking, do you pay in tax? I'll assume that it's not a very large number. His family, as you said, uses 4x the system that you use. So are you saying that he gets 400% more value for his taxes than you do? Well, there are some problems with that. Presumably, his wife won't stay home once the kids start school. If that's so, she'll begin to work and pay taxes and so the 4:1 usage to tax payment ratio is reduced to 2:1. So really, your friend's family contributes less taxes than you from the time their first kid was born until the second starts school, but still gets double the value after that because the kids still use the system. Well, that's only until those kids grow up and begin to work and then they'll begin to contribute to the system. So your friend gets extra value for his tax dollars for a relatively short period of time (compared to the span of your lives) for creating future tax payers and members of society. In a sense, you give and take an equal amount throughout your life whereas he takes more for a few years but gives MUCH more over a longer period of time. Keep in mind that he has expenses that you don't because of this extra contribution that he's made to society. It's almost as though society has invested in him and his family. I REALLY hate that it has to come down to a comparison of who contributes what and who takes what though. The dude is helping to perpetuate the species while you're not! And if anyone claims that it's still not fair, what about the people who created you, your friends, your customers, your employees? Are you not grateful to them? If not, you're nothing but selfish and there's no way around that.