ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
yeah right... was all peaches and loveliness for everyone...
When Will The US Government STOP Paying People To Have Children?
- Thread starter WileyCoyote
- Start date
WileyCoyote
Active Member
I'm not advocating allowing children to starve to death...no way...I wouldn't wish that on a dog...but I am strongly suggesting that we should STOP paying people to have children to have children by giving them tax breaks...
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
WileyCoyote
Active Member
It certainly was not...but no one starved...and no one today is paying for their welfare handouts back then...because, thankfully, there were none...
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Let them float on a piece of ice huh?
I see how you are and no one can help you. Those old people are the ones who funded you and the government.
You're going to need that RIU fund, and I'll make sure its funds go to good use buying your own slab of ice floating you out to sea when you're old. I'd hate to know the government had to pay because no one else volunteers.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
"but no one starved" thats an awefully strong statement that needs backing up
and even if true you think a great nation can be built on the back of people living under standards of great depression??
you could say in a well fed refugee camp in africa that no one dies but is it an ideal you strive for?
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
The overpopulation stories are pretty much a myth, and "The Population Bomb" (source of many of these myths) has been thoroughly debunked, just like "Silent Spring"
Farm subsidies arent tax breaks. They are direct payments to the farmer for each unit of a crop grown (52 cents per bushel harvested for wheat) which acts like an artificial increase in the market price for wheat. they were instituted specifically to increase production of particular crops to stabilize supply, and therefore prices, and to encourage greater production of crops that are usually not the most lucrative choice. (tomatoes pay more per acre than corn, until you add the subsidy) They also help to avert market gluts,where every farmer comes to the same decision about crop planting, and the market is flooded with say... watermelons, but there isnt a carrot in sight.
The downside to subsidies is the lack of a cap on payments. for smaller farmers with a hundred acres or less, a guaranteed minimum of $22.40 per acre (average wheat harvest of 35-40 bushels an acre x government guaranteed minimum price per bushel of 56 cents, so if wheat drops below 56 cents = $22.40/acre) isnt going to make him plant wheat instead of unsubsidized barley,($4.40/bushel x average barley harvest of 66.7 bushels/acre = $293.48/acre) but if you got 1/2 a million acres, that guaranteed $20 per acre becomes a fine choice, covering your investments and labour even if the bottom drops out of the wheat market, and all you get its the govt payout of 56 cents a bushel. if the bottom drops out of the barley market, you could get stuck with a crop that costs more to harvest than it's worth.
Crop subsidies with a cap of even $1 million/year per "farmer" (Archer Daniels Midland being counted as 1 farmer) would eliminate some of the advantage the super-corps and agricultural giants exercise over the small farmer, and actually making them pay real property taxes like a real farmer, instead of depreciated investment taxes would kick them square in the nuts.
As to the tax break for children, the deduction for children is just like the personal deduction for income tax. Their personal deduction is just claimed by their guardian rather than themselves. The actual cost of feeding clothing and housing crib-midgets is far higher than the deduction, so only a daft moron would use the child tax deduction as his impetus to reproduce... But then there are a lot of real pea-brains on the loose these days, and they seem to be voting Obama.
Welfare Foodstamps WIC and other "safety net" programs do increase payments "PER UNIT" (that's what they call kids in Dept. of Health and Human Services memos). In California, the payout increases significantly with each additional UNIT of yard-monster production, up to a limit of 9 UNITS. Course any sensible shopper will tell you, after 9 the cost per UNIT drops dramatically so thats just good sense... When you have been offered a $200 book of foodstamps for $20 by a bitch driving a new mercedes, you have to wonder who runs these programs. (happened to me in SF, in 1999) Sadly, those who will misuse the system are also those most likely to reproduce, by design or by stupidity. I dont want starving crotch-droppings littering the streets of every urban center,but I also dont want Welfare-Millionaires suckling at the government teat. It's a conundrum. Maybe we can feed the Welfare-Millionaires to poor children, like Soylent Green. Lets test this out by first Soylentizing the Congress and Senate. Why just the fat content between their ears could feed the nation for months!
Farm subsidies arent tax breaks. They are direct payments to the farmer for each unit of a crop grown (52 cents per bushel harvested for wheat) which acts like an artificial increase in the market price for wheat. they were instituted specifically to increase production of particular crops to stabilize supply, and therefore prices, and to encourage greater production of crops that are usually not the most lucrative choice. (tomatoes pay more per acre than corn, until you add the subsidy) They also help to avert market gluts,where every farmer comes to the same decision about crop planting, and the market is flooded with say... watermelons, but there isnt a carrot in sight.
The downside to subsidies is the lack of a cap on payments. for smaller farmers with a hundred acres or less, a guaranteed minimum of $22.40 per acre (average wheat harvest of 35-40 bushels an acre x government guaranteed minimum price per bushel of 56 cents, so if wheat drops below 56 cents = $22.40/acre) isnt going to make him plant wheat instead of unsubsidized barley,($4.40/bushel x average barley harvest of 66.7 bushels/acre = $293.48/acre) but if you got 1/2 a million acres, that guaranteed $20 per acre becomes a fine choice, covering your investments and labour even if the bottom drops out of the wheat market, and all you get its the govt payout of 56 cents a bushel. if the bottom drops out of the barley market, you could get stuck with a crop that costs more to harvest than it's worth.
Crop subsidies with a cap of even $1 million/year per "farmer" (Archer Daniels Midland being counted as 1 farmer) would eliminate some of the advantage the super-corps and agricultural giants exercise over the small farmer, and actually making them pay real property taxes like a real farmer, instead of depreciated investment taxes would kick them square in the nuts.
As to the tax break for children, the deduction for children is just like the personal deduction for income tax. Their personal deduction is just claimed by their guardian rather than themselves. The actual cost of feeding clothing and housing crib-midgets is far higher than the deduction, so only a daft moron would use the child tax deduction as his impetus to reproduce... But then there are a lot of real pea-brains on the loose these days, and they seem to be voting Obama.
Welfare Foodstamps WIC and other "safety net" programs do increase payments "PER UNIT" (that's what they call kids in Dept. of Health and Human Services memos). In California, the payout increases significantly with each additional UNIT of yard-monster production, up to a limit of 9 UNITS. Course any sensible shopper will tell you, after 9 the cost per UNIT drops dramatically so thats just good sense... When you have been offered a $200 book of foodstamps for $20 by a bitch driving a new mercedes, you have to wonder who runs these programs. (happened to me in SF, in 1999) Sadly, those who will misuse the system are also those most likely to reproduce, by design or by stupidity. I dont want starving crotch-droppings littering the streets of every urban center,but I also dont want Welfare-Millionaires suckling at the government teat. It's a conundrum. Maybe we can feed the Welfare-Millionaires to poor children, like Soylent Green. Lets test this out by first Soylentizing the Congress and Senate. Why just the fat content between their ears could feed the nation for months!
WileyCoyote
Active Member
You'll never have to help me at all...nor will the US government...no has any one of my ancestors...because I've worked har all my life, and saved my money, while also VOLUNTERING to give money to those less fortunate than me...which should be the only charity devoted to said suckers on the economy...
WileyCoyote
Active Member
Sorry my friend, but you're wrong...just plain wrong...take some college courses, and think for yourself, and then get back to me...
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Go hump one of your Ayn Rand books.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
says the man benefiting from living in a country that had invested in its citizens
would your hard work have given same results in somalia?
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
More than 30 years in agriculture tells me im right... I reckon them small farmers must be doin ok then, maybe we should raise taxes on family farms, and make em pay their fair share.
BA142
Well-Known Member
WileyCoyote
Active Member
Somalia is not my problem, although its citizens have my sympathy.
I was fortunate, yes. Fortunate enough to be born in a country where I was allowed to work hard in an unincumbered fashion, to achieve my goals. And I have. With no handouts or help from anyone, except my parents.
WileyCoyote
Active Member
No, but it's sometimes difficult to deal with boring assertions like yours. Forgive me for my lack of patience with you.That's the best reply you could come up with?
WileyCoyote
Active Member
You have so perverted my original assertions...maybe you need to get the bat guano and worm castings off your hands and out of your hair...
If 30 years in agriculture tell you you're right, then how the hell can I or anyone else argue with you? Thank you for tolerating peons like me.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i am not a fan of dr kynes, but he laid the ownage on wiley here big time.
of course, wiley did a generous amount of self ownage when he said no one starved during the depression.
and who ever mentioned ayn rand has it right as well, wiley does seem to be going through that insufferable "just read ayn rand" phase.
of course, wiley did a generous amount of self ownage when he said no one starved during the depression.
and who ever mentioned ayn rand has it right as well, wiley does seem to be going through that insufferable "just read ayn rand" phase.
WileyCoyote
Active Member
What the hell is self-ownage?
No hard-working person who provides value to society should be burdeoned with having to subsidize (against their will) people who are so weak and non-productive as to need handouts to survive. Such suckers should be at the mercy of soup kitchens, which did an admirable job of feeding starving people during the Great Depression...
You and anyone else who WANTS to subsidize such suckers should be allowed to do so...to whatever degree you desire...and you have my undying respect...but I shouln't be required to do so...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
another freeloading mooch shows his appreciation for the greatest generation.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
You don't know my name anymore? I'm hurt!