New America

[PLAYER57832]

Besides if we really wanted to deincentivize something meaningful wed stop giving preferential tax status to married couples.

Married couples offer (or are more likely to offer) a new citizen (or worker) to the common good than a single person would. Study upon study has offered evidence that children who are raised in a home w/ both parents end up as productive citizens. Therefore you offer the incentive of a tax break to married couples to that end.
Let's stay on topic.

It is topical, your point seems to be that by giving something to individuals who on are welfare they are burdening the state. It is very likely a far greater burden to allow for any and all married couples to get a benefit that deprives the state of revenue nor is logical to continue to provide such a benefit as you seem to be citing more children as a bad thing. Considering the changing nature of the family in general, its also a bit of an antiquated notion to use the logic that families are more likely to produce productive citizens, as the nuclear family which those studies tend to be hinged upon is less and less relevant in contemporary society.

I actually agree, but I have a slightly different slant on this.

Right now, if you are a single woman, the welfare system is more than happy to assist you in obtaining child support, find a job, childcare AND provide you with numerous benefits while you "get your act together" OR if you simply take a minimum-wage job.

If that woman remarries, none of that stops, at least in Pennsylvania, because step parents are not legally obligated to support step children (unless they adopt them, of course). She does not have to count child support as her income, because it is "for the kids". Except, usually the kids don't have to count it as income, either. Also, because this is not a joint property state, she does not count any of her new spouse's income as hers. By contrast, the non-custodial parent (in this case, the man), does not get to deduct one single penny from his income. So, he is required to live on, support his new family with less money, but according to the state, he is not in need. The ex wife, however, gets a free ride from the state.

Similar issues occur across the board when it comes to everything from financial aid to return to school, special training programs, etc.

I don't think the state needs to regulate morality specifically, but right now they are flat out saying "go ahead and have 5 kids from 6 fathers ... we will help you out, but dare to get married and have kids ... and forget any help at all. In fact, the state will penalize you if you should marry and have other kids."


Benefits to society: kids are usually (not always) better cared for than without assistance. (debateable in many cases, but that IS off topic).
Social security on the low wage job the woman gets (usually with help).
Increased income to a few child care providers, grocers (welfare checks spend), and landlords renting section 8 housing.

Costs to society: Poorer women have more kids that need assistance and while many are certainly raised to be responsible, upstanding citizens a high percentage are not.

Tax payers have to supplement income since low-wage job almost certainly won't provide effective health coverage (that is, health coverage she can actually afford to use.. that has a reasonable co-pay, etc.).

Tax payers need to supplement housing (Section 8 )
Tax payers usually supplement childcare, sometimes job training as well.
Job training may lead to an income that will allow mother to not need extra assistance, but that is rare. When job training does result in higher income, it usually means woman must do things like work night shift, long factory shifts, etc. -- which might be OK if kids have decent childcare, but too often that is not the case. (professional care givers are often limited to 10 hours a day, for example).

ETC.

[Johnny Rockets]

because I’m not seeing the relevance. We already have ways of stopping abuse that don't involve resurrecting honest-to-god Nazi policy

Try not to get so hysterical.

If the prerequisite was a simple 6 month parenting course, proof of a good home and an income to properly support children do you truly believe this would evolve into a Nazi type kill every child without blue eyes sort of program? And while you’re at it, what are these ways you speak of for stopping abuse? Oh...Those ones! The ones that work soooo well. Try to think proactively instead of reactively. Demanding that one learns a skill set and have some aptitude and proper facilities and finances to so THE MOST IMPORTANT JOB ON EARTH will help lower abuse, illiteracy, crime, drug abuse and the host of social ramifications that come with them.

If you wish to adopt a child, or become a foster parent you need to prove that you’re able and capable. Is it not that far a leap to ensure that all parents have the basics in place to provide a good stable upbringing for the next generation?

What is it with people who think that the injection of a little common sense, leads to some slippery slope that ends up with the worst possible scenario?

JRockets

[nesterdude]

Besides if we really wanted to deincentivize something meaningful wed stop giving preferential tax status to married couples.

Married couples offer (or are more likely to offer) a new citizen (or worker) to the common good than a single person would. Study upon study has offered evidence that children who are raised in a home w/ both parents end up as productive citizens. Therefore you offer the incentive of a tax break to married couples to that end.
Let's stay on topic.

It is topical, your point seems to be that by giving something to individuals who on are welfare they are burdening the state. It is very likely a far greater burden to allow for any and all married couples to get a benefit that deprives the state of revenue nor is logical to continue to provide such a benefit as you seem to be citing more children as a bad thing. Considering the changing nature of the family in general, its also a bit of an antiquated notion to use the logic that families are more likely to produce productive citizens, as the nuclear family which those studies tend to be hinged upon is less and less relevant in contemporary society.

To be honest, I'd actually agree w/ you on this in retrospect, only because as it is i'd rather keep the government out of suggesting or deterring a lifestyle through taxes, again I believe it's the community's responsiblity to determine how the community will operate.
However, here are some other things I'd eliminate:

400% tobacco tax
As a matter of fact all sin taxes in general. Yes keep a flat sales tax, but the whole idea of consumption "special taxes" is ridiculous
Government over legislation on the workplace; pay etc. Yes, basic rules to protect basic safety, etc, but it's way overdone now.
The whole idea of government health care.
etc.
etc.
etc.

[Timminz]

I know it's ridiculous to continue to discuss this, have you not put any thought into implementation? How the hell could you ensure that "uncertified" people wouldn't have kids? Forced sterilization? Mandatory abortions? Jail time?

[AAFitz]

... This is a class completely dependent on government. I've mentioned it many times before, but they are virtual slaves, on "Uncle Sam's Plantation".

... And government prefers its citizens to be this way. The ignorance is dumbfounding.

...

I think this analogy is completely insulting to the idea of slavery...and all that fought against it...all that suffered through it...and was not well thought out at all.

The ignorance is dumbfounding.

With this I completely agree.

[AAFitz]

However, here are some other things I'd eliminate:

400% tobacco tax

This tax is to:

one...regulate an industry, that has for years, resisted regulation
two... pay for the health care costs associated with its products
three...pay to educate the people that still do not fully realize the magnitude of the risk of this product.
four...it helps limit to some degree the availability of the product...to the degree that a price can affect consumption of such a drug

The only way this tax should be eliminated, is if someone finally gets the courage to eliminate the very product itself.

It is a drug. It is the one of the most addictive drugs available, and yet it is still essentially treated like a bottle of water....except that you couldn't possibly sell a bottle of water, with the ingredients of cigarettes.

The reason for the tax, is because its simply been the only way to fight the massive industry as yet.

Im not sure there is actualy a tax that makes more sense to be honest. The only question would be how it was spent, and if its enough to achieve the overall objective.

[thegreekdog]

However, here are some other things I'd eliminate:

400% tobacco tax

This tax is to:

one...regulate an industry, that has for years, resisted regulation
two... pay for the health care costs associated with its products
three...pay to educate the people that still do not fully realize the magnitude of the risk of this product.
four...it helps limit to some degree the availability of the product...to the degree that a price can affect consumption of such a drug

The only way this tax should be eliminated, is if someone finally gets the courage to eliminate the very product itself.

It is a drug. It is the one of the most addictive drugs available, and yet it is still essentially treated like a bottle of water....except that you couldn't possibly sell a bottle of water, with the ingredients of cigarettes.

The reason for the tax, is because its simply been the only way to fight the massive industry as yet.

Im not sure there is actualy a tax that makes more sense to be honest. The only question would be how it was spent, and if its enough to achieve the overall objective.

Unfortunately, this is incorrect. The tax is not imposed for any of the above-referenced reasons. Rather, it is imposed to generate revenue for state and local governments. The absolute last thing the government wants to see is the elimination of the tobacco industry. Further, the taxes are, by their nature, transaction taxes. Thus, the tobacco companies don't actually pay the tax out of profits. In fact, the tobacco companies don't have anything to do with the tax. The tobacco companies sell tobacco to retailers tax-free (as a sale for resale). The retailers then collect tax from you, the customer, and then pay that tax to the state or local government.

[Snorri1234]

Unfortunately, this is incorrect. The tax is not imposed for any of the above-referenced reasons. Rather, it is imposed to generate revenue for state and local governments. The absolute last thing the government wants to see is the elimination of the tobacco industry. Further, the taxes are, by their nature, transaction taxes. Thus, the tobacco companies don't actually pay the tax out of profits. In fact, the tobacco companies don't have anything to do with the tax. The tobacco companies sell tobacco to retailers tax-free (as a sale for resale). The retailers then collect tax from you, the customer, and then pay that tax to the state or local government.

I wouldn't say it's solely for increasing revenue. At least, there is certainly a group of thought who really think cigarettes should be taxed to death because they're bad for you. The anti-smoking lobby is pretty big. I mean, smoking bans in public places don't increase anyones revenue but they still exist.

I think it's more of a corruption of the original intent. A huge sudden tax on cigarettes would actually decrease tobacco-consumption. It's just that the gov has made it small increases over an extended period of time which means people don't actually quit and just fuel the hoard of money the gov has.


That said, AAfitz reasons aren't correct. I don't know bout the US but over here no smoker is clueless about the risks, nor do the taxes regulate the industry since their not taxes on the industry itself. (The taxes are basically on the people.)

[nesterdude]

I'm finally happy that I'm two people at least have the smarts and wherewithal to understand that these taxes on tobacco products do nothing what Fitzy outlined.
These taxes were sold to the public early on as such, but have been munipulated to fund state/local/fed g'vemtns.
Ever heard of impact fees? Home Building?
Same thing.

[Snorri1234]

Btw, with regards to healthcare costs: The money lost on treating people suffering from the effects of longtime smoking aren't that great compared to if those people didn't suffer those effects. At least, that's what research in my country found.

Of course there is stuff to be said about all the factors that weigh into the equation but basically smoking isn't really that big of a burden on healthcare. There is the very strong possibility that it is actually less expensive than non-smoking. Sure, I would advise against smoking but only from a consideration of health and not cost-effectiveness.

[PLAYER57832]

Btw, with regards to healthcare costs: The money lost on treating people suffering from the effects of longtime smoking aren't that great compared to if those people didn't suffer those effects. At least, that's what research in my country found.

Of course there is stuff to be said about all the factors that weigh into the equation but basically smoking isn't really that big of a burden on healthcare. There is the very strong possibility that it is actually less expensive than non-smoking. Sure, I would advise against smoking but only from a consideration of health and not cost-effectiveness.

I would like to see the data on this. It truly flies in the face of every paper I have read on the subject.

One complication may be the impact of "second hand" smoke. I don't believe the Netherlands has very strict laws in that regard, so that the average person who does not smoke is still subjected to a lot of smoke in various situations. That would definitely skew the data. Here in the US, that has become a major issue, is considered to be a considerable health issue and one reason for the high costs.

A more draconian isse regards child custody. People who smoke may have a harder time adopting, can lose custody in favor of a non-smoking parent (given no other, more serious, issues). This is because the negative health effects on kids is significant.

Another issue, though not publicized as much as emphazema, etc., is the dangers of driving while smoking. It does not compare to drinking, except that smoking and drinking often go "hand in hand". However, taking a hand off the wheel, reacting to falling ashes, etc... all contribute to traffic injuries and fatalities.

[nesterdude]

Btw, with regards to healthcare costs: The money lost on treating people suffering from the effects of longtime smoking aren't that great compared to if those people didn't suffer those effects. At least, that's what research in my country found.

Of course there is stuff to be said about all the factors that weigh into the equation but basically smoking isn't really that big of a burden on healthcare. There is the very strong possibility that it is actually less expensive than non-smoking. Sure, I would advise against smoking but only from a consideration of health and not cost-effectiveness.

I would like to see the data on this. It truly flies in the face of every paper I have read on the subject.

One complication may be the impact of "second hand" smoke. I don't believe the Netherlands has very strict laws in that regard, so that the average person who does not smoke is still subjected to a lot of smoke in various situations. That would definitely skew the data. Here in the US, that has become a major issue, is considered to be a considerable health issue and one reason for the high costs.

A more draconian isse regards child custody. People who smoke may have a harder time adopting, can lose custody in favor of a non-smoking parent (given no other, more serious, issues). This is because the negative health effects on kids is significant.

Another issue, though not publicized as much as emphazema, etc., is the dangers of driving while smoking. It does not compare to drinking, except that smoking and drinking often go "hand in hand". However, taking a hand off the wheel, reacting to falling ashes, etc... all contribute to traffic injuries and fatalities.

LOL you sound like a PSA and a perfect example of how stupid these arguments against smoking really are.
You know what, just seriously do a search on the int-er-net for smoking advocates, and you'll see some data that flies in the face of second hand smoke, etc.
Then double check their sources and you'll find it pretty right on.

[PLAYER57832]

LOL you sound like a PSA and a perfect example of how stupid these arguments against smoking really are.
You know what, just seriously do a search on the int-er-net for smoking advocates, and you'll see some data that flies in the face of second hand smoke, etc.
Then double check their sources and you'll find it pretty right on.

Been there, "done that" already. You are just wrong.

But any real research effort has to go well beyond the internet.. into true original sources. Most of what you claim is "real data" is actually garbage put out by the tobacco industry.

[Snorri1234]

Btw, with regards to healthcare costs: The money lost on treating people suffering from the effects of longtime smoking aren't that great compared to if those people didn't suffer those effects. At least, that's what research in my country found.

Of course there is stuff to be said about all the factors that weigh into the equation but basically smoking isn't really that big of a burden on healthcare. There is the very strong possibility that it is actually less expensive than non-smoking. Sure, I would advise against smoking but only from a consideration of health and not cost-effectiveness.

I would like to see the data on this. It truly flies in the face of every paper I have read on the subject.

One complication may be the impact of "second hand" smoke. I don't believe the Netherlands has very strict laws in that regard, so that the average person who does not smoke is still subjected to a lot of smoke in various situations. That would definitely skew the data. Here in the US, that has become a major issue, is considered to be a considerable health issue and one reason for the high costs.

Barendregt JJ, Bonneux L Van Der Maas PJ 1997. The Health Care Costs of Smoking. The New England Journal of Medicine. Volume 337:102-1057.

But I can't find it on the web anymore.

Anyway, the more important reason as to why this might not apply to the US is the fact that there is less preventative care for the elderly. (in the US that is.) We do actually have pretty strict laws about second hand smoke right now.

Anyway, the point of that article is that while smokers do indeed rack up costs during their life they also die far sooner. Thus they avoid much of the costs that come with health care for older citizens. If you live 10 years longer because you don't smoke then that's 10 years where you rack up costs because your body naturally begins to break down.

Now these conclusions are not hard but they do point out that over the long time the effects of decreasing smoking rates isn't that great. Therefore economic arguments really aren't worth much in the discussion, especially compared with all the other very good arguments you can make against smoking.


Note: This study doesn't even take into account the frankly astonishing taxes on tobacco. A pack a day smoker nets the gov now about 100 euros a month.

[PLAYER57832]

Anyway, the point of that article is that while smokers do indeed rack up costs during their life they also die far sooner. Thus they avoid much of the costs that come with health care for older citizens. If you live 10 years longer because you don't smoke then that's 10 years where you rack up costs because your body naturally begins to break down.

Now these conclusions are not hard but they do point out that over the long time the effects of decreasing smoking rates isn't that great. Therefore economic arguments really aren't worth much in the discussion, especially compared with all the other very good arguments you can make against smoking. .

This does make sense. I had just not understood what you were saying.

It reminds me of a study I saw back when a helmet law was first being passed in California. Making riders wear helmets would have a negative impact on the state, because more people would survive crashes and require advanced medical care, instead of simply dying.

Yes, sometimes you do have to look beyond the numbers and see what is really being said.

[Coronaholic]

I would like to see estimates as to how much these programs could cost.

[Nobunaga]

IRS can read your e-mail (but why would they want to?)

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valle ... -a-warrant

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill is 1000 pages. Will have one hearing. They're in a hurry. Anybody know what's in this bill? (Reminds one of health care).

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 ... il-17?lite

[Phatscotty]

I would like to see estimates as to how much these programs could cost.

SWEET AVATAR BRO!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Phatscotty]

IRS can read your e-mail (but why would they want to?)

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valle ... -a-warrant

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill is 1000 pages. Will have one hearing. They're in a hurry. Anybody know what's in this bill? (Reminds one of health care).

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 ... il-17?lite

Oh, we'll be "finding out what's in it" for many years to come I am sure. How anyone can support something they don't know anything about borders on brainwash if you ask me. "Something needed to be done!" too bad that something looks nothing like anyone imagined. Congrats

[BigBallinStalin]

IRS can read your e-mail (but why would they want to?)

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valle ... -a-warrant

That's disgusting, but it's not surprising.

[Gilligan]

I would like to see estimates as to how much these programs could cost.

SWEET AVATAR BRO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Blitz' multi

[Symmetry]

I would like to see estimates as to how much these programs could cost.

SWEET AVATAR BRO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Blitz' multi

It's someone's multi, for sure.

[thegreekdog]

There are so many people in this thread that I miss... Snorri, sultan, gottonkaed, nester... sigh.

[AndyDufresne]

There are so many people in this thread that I miss... Snorri, sultan, gottonkaed, nester... sigh.

TGD, stop going down memory lane. We'll just end up puttin' you in one of those homes if you don't shape up and live in the real world.


--Andy

[thegreekdog]

There are so many people in this thread that I miss... Snorri, sultan, gottonkaed, nester... sigh.

TGD, stop going down memory lane. We'll just end up puttin' you in one of those homes if you don't shape up and live in the real world.


--Andy

Start being like sultan... NOW! Make some awesome comment about how everyone is stupid!