WestCoastRunner Posted June 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 No...just admiring the proposal and resulting contortions. It was a keen exercise in rhetoric method.In other words, you don't give a **** about kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 Unfortunately, this isn't how it works with kids. Single moms or dads exist with kids. Kids happen. For better or for worse and we are left to raise them. Do you understand the concept of 'a village raises a child'? Sure have....here is one retort: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 Unfortunately, this isn't how it works with kids. Single moms or dads exist with kids. Kids happen. For better or for worse and we are left to raise them. Do you understand the concept of 'a village raises a child'? If a woman or man isn't married, what's wrong with birth control? What's wrong with wearing protection? It's irresponsible not to. And all we're doing is subsidizing irresponsibility. Thus, getting more of it, like with anything subsidized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 No...just admiring the proposal and resulting contortions. It was a keen exercise in rhetoric method. Perhaps you meant rhetorical mode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 money for kids gravy train....I don't really think a lot of women go get pregnant so they can get on your so called gravy train. At least you had the decency in your latest to, sort of, admit that men may also bear some responsibility here. And for a more basic mathematical concept, how would you propose to tax someone who is in a position were they need to be subsidized. Maybe America style and just throw them in jail perhaps... Actually, in many cases it's worth having more kids. More kids equals a bigger welfare cheque. Bigger baby bonus', bigger child tax credits, etc, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) In other words, you don't give a **** about kids. Well actually I do...raised one with my dear wife. In typical fashion, you have reacted to a logical exercise in stupendous fashion, only bringing more import to a witty comparison. Profanity is not permitted here...we could tax that too (cuss jar). Edited June 10, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 If a woman or man isn't married, what's wrong with birth control? What's wrong with wearing protection? It's irresponsible not to. And all we're doing is subsidizing irresponsibility. Thus, getting more of it, like with anything subsidized. And are you going to tax single mothers who are paying daycare so they can go out and work to pay the bills... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 Stop the personal comments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 Well actually I do...raised one with my dear wife. In typical fashion, you have reacted to a logical exercise in stupendous fashion, only bringing more import to a witty comparison. Profanity is not permitted here...we could tax that too (cuss jar). I doubt many people could come up with an explanation of this as a witty comparison. So I guess in a way you are unique. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 Actually, in many cases it's worth having more kids. More kids equals a bigger welfare cheque. Bigger baby bonus', bigger child tax credits, etc, etc. Birth rates are below replacement levels in almost every Western country. Western populations are rapidly being replaced with immigrants from other parts of the world, some of which have much more backward social beliefs. In some cases, the cultures that gave rise to ideals like free speech, democracy, rule of law, etc, are being reshaped, and given present trends will be minorities in many Western countries within a generation or two. I would say that if baby bonuses and child tax credits encourage some of the existing populations of Western countries to have children where they otherwise wouldn't have, or to have more children, then the cost is one worth paying. Far better to have children raised by single parents than to experience a systemic demographic decline leading to economic stagnation and cultural suicide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 I doubt many people could come up with an explanation of this as a witty comparison. So I guess in a way you are unique. It's just a modest proposal that I had. Based on the leftist "tax things that we don't want" mantra. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 Sorry, I can't keep up with the insults and personal comments.... locking this thread now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 The thread is re-opened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) Well, I was told by another forum member that we should tax things that we don't want, like carbon. So even though that sentiment is rather juvenile, I figured why can't it apply to other things? Instead of subsidizing single parenthood, what if we taxed it instead? Consider it my version of a modest proposal. What if singles knew that they wouldn't be getting free money for their illigimate kids? What if they knew they'd instead be getting less? Would more people think twice before getting pregnant or getting somebody pregnant? Would people take more responsibility if they knew the money for kids gravy train was coming to an end? Actually, in many cases it's worth having more kids. More kids equals a bigger welfare cheque. Bigger baby bonus', bigger child tax credits, etc, etc. Really? You think a paltry tax-break is the real motivation single-mothers decide to take on such a task??? Wow. Edited June 10, 2015 by BC_chick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 If a woman or man isn't married, what's wrong with birth control? What's wrong with wearing protection? It's irresponsible not to. And all we're doing is subsidizing irresponsibility. Thus, getting more of it, like with anything subsidized. More nonsense. More often than not, people become single-parents after splitting from the other parent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 Sorry, I can't keep up with the insults and personal comments.... locking this thread now. It's a pretty charged topic. Personally I'm offended with the single-MOTHER assertion Shady is throwing around, it's very inappropriate. It puts the onus of single-parenting on women as though we make babies all by ourselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 More nonsense. More often than not, people become single-parents after splitting from the other parent. OK...but that is a different statistic. Childbirth to unwed parents continues to rise in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 OK...but that is a different statistic. Childbirth to unwed parents continues to rise in Canada. Common-law couples statistically fall into the unwed parent category so with less people getting married, it makes sense that there are more 'unwed' parents. However, it still stands that most single-parents do not start off single-parents at birth (as Shady is implying). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 ...However, it still stands that most single-parents do not start off single-parents at birth (as Shady is implying). I don't read that at all....the proposed tax would be targeted at new births, not existing parents/dependents. The government already provides for mandatory child support in the case of divorced parents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) I don't read that at all....the proposed tax would be targeted at new births, not existing parents/dependents. The government already provides for mandatory child support in the case of divorced parents. I addressed that issue in my other posts on this thread. Specifically, the post before and the post after the one you quoted. You have to be pretty obtuse to think money is the motivation for becoming a single-parent, and secondly, the onus of single parenting should not fall on the woman. A man helped make that baby but I don't see Shady saying men who make babies should be taxed. You're really defending this?? Edited June 10, 2015 by BC_chick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 You're really defending this?? I think it's a rhetorical exercise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 I addressed that issue in my other posts on this thread. Specifically, the post before and the post after the one you quoted. You have to be pretty obtuse to think money is the motivation for becoming a single-parent, and secondly, the onus of single parenting should not fall on the woman. A man helped make that baby but I don't see Shady saying men who make babies should be taxed. You're really defending this?? I was very careful to use the word parents, not single females. Nothing in the proposed tax would exclude the male parent as well. Should the government provide incentives or disincentives for new single parents, male or female ? And yes...I am enjoying this exquisite rhetorical exercise. Brilliant...just brilliant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) Taxes are for infrastructure. Not helping out who is having a hard time. On what planet? Name a single industrialized nation that doesnt have any social spending... Are you posting from Somalia maybe? Edited June 10, 2015 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) I was very careful to use the word parents, not single females. Nothing in the proposed tax would exclude the male parent as well. Should the government provide incentives or disincentives for new single parents, male or female ? And yes...I am enjoying this exquisite rhetorical exercise. Brilliant...just brilliant. I didn't engage with you initially. It was Shady's post which I addressed and he specifically was talking about single-MOTHERS. Perhaps, next time, read the quote to which I'm replying. As for the purpose of this tax, no it's ridiculous. It's nothing like a carbon-tax because single-parent families are not uniformly bad for the country. Lots of kids grow up to be productive members of society and their parents are self-reliant and, yes of course, some are some bad apples. But guess what? Same can be said about nuclear-families so if we want to tax bad parents, there has to be a different criteria. Edited June 10, 2015 by BC_chick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted June 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) I was very careful to use the word parents, not single females. Nothing in the proposed tax would exclude the male parent as well. Should the government provide incentives or disincentives for new single parents, male or female ? And yes...I am enjoying this exquisite rhetorical exercise. Brilliant...just brilliant. I'm seeing some brilliant back pedalling. Simply exquisite...just exquisite. Edited June 10, 2015 by WestCoastRunner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.