These folks in Louisiana seem to think it will help.
Would tying the tubes of Italian women teachers would have prevented the rise of Mussolini, or those of poor Italian women could have hampered the rise of the Mafia?
Maybe neutering elitist fathers who produce wacko presidents would keep us out of dumb wars.
The possibilities here are endless.
Full Version: Paying the poor not to reproduce
Just thought I'd post this here because I think it is a dot possibly related to the subject of the thread. Massachusetts is again considering dropping the state income tax.
The reason I think it's related is that there is a growing separatist movement in the country. It's not one between north and south, or necessarily the secession of any single state or group from the rest of the country.
But I see a growing desire for people to circle the wagons and baton down the hatches to protect themselves and let everyone else go it alone.
Even the growing desire to allow ministers to openly support one politician over another could be considered a part of this movement.
Clearly people do not want to pay for problems they did not cause or laws they do not support. And I would certainly be one of them.
But these folks seem willing to throw the baby (the Constitution) out with the bathwater (laws they don't like).
The reason I think it's related is that there is a growing separatist movement in the country. It's not one between north and south, or necessarily the secession of any single state or group from the rest of the country.
But I see a growing desire for people to circle the wagons and baton down the hatches to protect themselves and let everyone else go it alone.
Even the growing desire to allow ministers to openly support one politician over another could be considered a part of this movement.
Clearly people do not want to pay for problems they did not cause or laws they do not support. And I would certainly be one of them.
But these folks seem willing to throw the baby (the Constitution) out with the bathwater (laws they don't like).
QUOTE(sportinlife @ Sep 28 2008, 05:54 PM) 
Just thought I'd post this here because I think it is a dot possibly related to the subject of the thread. Massachusetts is again considering dropping the state income tax.
The reason I think it's related is that there is a growing separatist movement in the country. It's not one between north and south, or necessarily the secession of any single state or group from the rest of the country.
But I see a growing desire for people to circle the wagons and baton down the hatches to protect themselves and let everyone else go it alone.
Even the growing desire to allow ministers to openly support one politician over another could be considered a part of this movement.
Clearly people do not want to pay for problems they did not cause or laws they do not support. And I would certainly be one of them.
But these folks seem willing to throw the baby (the Constitution) out with the bathwater (laws they don't like).
I'm not sure I understand the connection, here. Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming already don't have a state personal income tax. Right now, New Hampshire and Tennessee only have taxes on dividends and interest income.
So are these states already throwing the baby out with the bathwater, too?
That would depend, Tennis Guy, on who is paying for the state services, if any, that are provided by those states. Is there a private industry that draws more income into the state than is exported as company profit as is the case in Alaska with oil, or in Texas with oil and financial gimmicks, or Nevada perhaps with gambling? Likewise the other states also have to have some exceptional source of income other than that paid by average working citizens.
And if they are the ones paying for the state's functions who owns that state and what do they expect for their payments? In other words they own the baby already, and determine its fate.
There is no free lunch just as there is no free market. Someone pays for it and that someone may expect to collect something for it at some point if they have not already.
We would all like to just cash out of society and pretend we can make it on our own as many of our forefathers did going to the wild west, or just as relatively independent subsistence farmers as mine did. but that world does not exist now, if it ever really did. Guns won't protect us from Wall Street.
And the more complex it becomes the more individual citizens will have to educate themselves and take control of their self-governance. I think that is what many have tried to do by contributing to the campaigns of one politician or another. It would be better to make each vote equal by removing money as their reward.
And if they are the ones paying for the state's functions who owns that state and what do they expect for their payments? In other words they own the baby already, and determine its fate.
There is no free lunch just as there is no free market. Someone pays for it and that someone may expect to collect something for it at some point if they have not already.
We would all like to just cash out of society and pretend we can make it on our own as many of our forefathers did going to the wild west, or just as relatively independent subsistence farmers as mine did. but that world does not exist now, if it ever really did. Guns won't protect us from Wall Street.
And the more complex it becomes the more individual citizens will have to educate themselves and take control of their self-governance. I think that is what many have tried to do by contributing to the campaigns of one politician or another. It would be better to make each vote equal by removing money as their reward.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.