PDA

View Full Version : If I were king of the world...


el borracho
06-27-2007, 11:21 PM
I would implement the following:

Child tax- for every child a person has their tax rate would increase by $3,000 per year. Persons who were unable to pay the additional tax would be prosecuted in the same manner tax evaders are now.

Why is this a good idea?-Because it defrays some of the cost of a child (school, health care, etc.) to the persons responsible (the parents), it would dissuade people bearing children into poverty (more fair to the child) and it would combat population increase.

Paternity testing- DNA paternity testing would be automatically administered at birth to any man listed on the birth certificate.

Why is this a good idea?- Because it would eliminate the possibility of any man unknowingly paying for another man’s child and should dissuade adultery.

Jail- incarceration would consist of a secure area only. Food, water, utilities and medical services would all be available at reasonable cost to the incarcerated. Of course, prisoners would have the option of working while incarcerated to earn credit toward these services. Additionally, no prisoners would be placed outside of general population facilities without additional cost to the prisoner.

Why is this a good idea?-Because it is a stronger deterrent to crime and it defrays the costs of incarceration to the person responsible- the criminal. Additionally, the government might actually make money on prisoners willing to pay for nicer accommodations.

Right to die- all competent persons over the age of 18 (including prisoners) would have the right to free physician-assisted suicide.

Why is this a good idea?-Because it would eliminate needless suffering and combat population increase.

Abortions- free abortions would be made available to all women in the first two trimesters.

Why is this a good idea?-Because it would eliminate unwanted babies and combat population increase.

Child Support- child support would become due only after DNA confirmation and legal notification of the father.

Why is this a good idea?- Women will be more likely to notify the father earlier (currently women can wait until the child is grown and still collect money from the father dating back to birth- even if the father was unaware there was a child). This would also be more fair to the father and the child (neither can recoup the lost years before notification).

Sterilization- deadbeat dads (those who knowingly fail to make 12 consecutive or 24 total child support payments) would be sterilized. Welfare would still be available to women but on a limited basis. Career welfare mommies (those who are unable to provide for their children for 12 consecutive months or 24 months total) would also be sterilized.

Why is this a good idea?-Because it would inspire financial responsibility among parents, combat unwanted babies and combat population increase.

Health care- health care would be free to all citizens 0-18 and 60 to death. Between 18 and 60 you are on your own (disabled persons would merit special consideration, depending on ailment).

Why is this a good idea?-Because children and elderly persons cannot reasonably be expected to bear the financial burden of health care.

Narcotics- narcotics would be legalized for citizens of legal drinking age (21).

Why is this a good idea?-Because it would reduce government costs associated with the war on drugs, reduce prison populations and promote personal responsibility.

Marriage- marriage licenses would no longer be government issued- instead the government would issue civil union documents to any applicants over the age of 18. Any number of competent, willing adults could enter into a civil union but any benefits typically associated with marriage would be limited to one spouse only (the primary spouse would be named in the document).

Why is this a good idea?-Because it is not the job of the government to regulate consensual adult relations. This would allow adults to enter into and maintain any agreements they wished but would still limit costs and obligations to government and businesses.

pikesome
06-27-2007, 11:33 PM
I'm too lazy to go point by point...

Are you crazy?

Logical
06-27-2007, 11:40 PM
Some interesting ideas, mostly impractical in today's society.

el borracho
06-27-2007, 11:43 PM
I'm too lazy to go point by point...

Are you crazy?
Not that I'm aware of.

el borracho
06-27-2007, 11:46 PM
Some interesting ideas, mostly impractical in today's society.
Yeah, most of those are unlikely in our society; we like to coddle everyone and pretend others are responsible for our actions.

WoodDraw
06-27-2007, 11:50 PM
I love how your last statement contradicts your entire post. It's not the government's job to regulate consensual adults, except in every proposal I mention above. Beautiful.

el borracho
06-27-2007, 11:55 PM
"Adult relations" not "adults". Specifically, I am saying that the goverment should have no interest in people's sex lives until the point that their sex lives become a negative for other members of the society. Welfare moms and deadbeat dads are a drain on society as are unwanted babies.

WoodDraw
06-28-2007, 12:15 AM
"Adult relations" not "adults". Specifically, I am saying that the goverment should have no interest in people's sex lives until the point that their sex lives become a negative for other members of the society. Welfare moms and deadbeat dads are a drain on society as are unwanted babies.

Maybe, but your proposals are idiotic at best, and harmful at worst. None of them are based on sound economic, psychological, or political ideas. Your setting up a nanny state that would waste far more than it saves when there are far more logical solutions to the few real problems you somehow managed to throw into this rubbish.

el borracho
06-28-2007, 12:21 AM
How would eliminating the drains on society be idiotic, harmful or setting up a nanny state which wastes more than it saves?

ClevelandBronco
06-28-2007, 12:58 AM
You probably put far more effort into this than any of us will appreciate.

So, thanks. But not enough thanks to offset your time.

Taco John
06-28-2007, 02:27 AM
You lost me at "Child Tax." It's hard to read the worst idea ever in the history of taxation, and muster the concentration to continue through the rest of the long post.

patteeu
06-28-2007, 07:39 AM
I would implement the following:

Child tax- for every child a person has their tax rate would increase by $3,000 per year. Persons who were unable to pay the additional tax would be prosecuted in the same manner tax evaders are now.

Why is this a good idea?-Because it defrays some of the cost of a child (school, health care, etc.) to the persons responsible (the parents), it would dissuade people bearing children into poverty (more fair to the child) and it would combat population increase.

I'm against using tax policy for social engineering in general, but this idea produces exactly the wrong incentive. Our problem is that Americans are having too few babies, not too many, IMO. That's one of the reasons why so many people are so gung ho about importing new Americans.

Paternity testing- DNA paternity testing would be automatically administered at birth to any man listed on the birth certificate.

Why is this a good idea?- Because it would eliminate the possibility of any man unknowingly paying for another man’s child and should dissuade adultery.

Most parental affiliations are uncontested. This would be a lot of wasted expense IMO. Perhaps a less costly alternative would be allowing men who are listed as fathers on birth certificates the opportunity to have a DNA test if they choose to contest paternity. I think this is what we do today. I just don't see a good reason to change it.

Jail- incarceration would consist of a secure area only. Food, water, utilities and medical services would all be available at reasonable cost to the incarcerated. Of course, prisoners would have the option of working while incarcerated to earn credit toward these services. Additionally, no prisoners would be placed outside of general population facilities without additional cost to the prisoner.

Why is this a good idea?-Because it is a stronger deterrent to crime and it defrays the costs of incarceration to the person responsible- the criminal. Additionally, the government might actually make money on prisoners willing to pay for nicer accommodations.

What are you going to do about prisoners who refuse to pay? If the current system isn't enough of a deterrent, I don't know why your changes would make it so. There are a lot of countries with really horrible prison experiences, but they still manage to find people who earn their way in.

Right to die- all competent persons over the age of 18 (including prisoners) would have the right to free physician-assisted suicide.

Why is this a good idea?-Because it would eliminate needless suffering and combat population increase.

I'm not against some form of physician-assisted suicide (we already have an underground form of it now), but I don't see any reason why it should be provided for free.

Abortions- free abortions would be made available to all women in the first two trimesters.

Why is this a good idea?-Because it would eliminate unwanted babies and combat population increase.

I don't think we should be combating population increase. And even if I were sanguine with abortion on demand, I wouldn't want the government providing them for free.

Child Support- child support would become due only after DNA confirmation and legal notification of the father.

Why is this a good idea?- Women will be more likely to notify the father earlier (currently women can wait until the child is grown and still collect money from the father dating back to birth- even if the father was unaware there was a child). This would also be more fair to the father and the child (neither can recoup the lost years before notification).

If this is true, I think there's a problem here. I'm not sure a blanket rule is the right solution though. What about the case where a deadbeat father intentionally avoids being notified to avoid his responsibility? Don't get me wrong though, I think there may be good reasons for reform in this area because I think men come out on the short end of the stick in too many child support situations.

Sterilization- deadbeat dads (those who knowingly fail to make 12 consecutive or 24 total child support payments) would be sterilized. Welfare would still be available to women but on a limited basis. Career welfare mommies (those who are unable to provide for their children for 12 consecutive months or 24 months total) would also be sterilized.

Why is this a good idea?-Because it would inspire financial responsibility among parents, combat unwanted babies and combat population increase.

I think there are quite a few irresponsible parents out there who ought to be sterilized, but I'm not comfortable with forced sterilization. Perhaps, in some cases, it can be offered to people who may decide it is an attractive option compared to whatever their other option is (garnishment of wages, etc.).

Health care- health care would be free to all citizens 0-18 and 60 to death. Between 18 and 60 you are on your own (disabled persons would merit special consideration, depending on ailment).

Why is this a good idea?-Because children and elderly persons cannot reasonably be expected to bear the financial burden of health care.

Most citizens 0-18 and 60-death can bear the financial burden of their own health care (or their relatives/parents can). I see no reason for the government to provide it to everyone.

Narcotics- narcotics would be legalized for citizens of legal drinking age (21).

Why is this a good idea?-Because it would reduce government costs associated with the war on drugs, reduce prison populations and promote personal responsibility.

I'm basically supportive of this idea although the potential for major, negative unintended consequences is there. Some would say it's more than just potential. I think we should try to find a way to decriminalize as many drugs as possible to the greatest extent possible. I don't think decriminalizing pot would be a big deal, but I'm less sure about narcotics.

Marriage- marriage licenses would no longer be government issued- instead the government would issue civil union documents to any applicants over the age of 18. Any number of competent, willing adults could enter into a civil union but any benefits typically associated with marriage would be limited to one spouse only (the primary spouse would be named in the document).

Why is this a good idea?-Because it is not the job of the government to regulate consensual adult relations. This would allow adults to enter into and maintain any agreements they wished but would still limit costs and obligations to government and businesses.

Great idea, IMO.

el borracho
06-28-2007, 09:25 AM
You lost me at "Child Tax." It's hard to read the worst idea ever in the history of taxation, and muster the concentration to continue through the rest of the long post.
"Welcome to the Budget home page of the United States Department of Education (ED). Here you'll find a wealth of information about the President's FY 2008 Budget Request for ED, including a program-by-program description of the request. In Budget News, we track Congressional action on the Department's budget and keep you updated on other important budget-related news. We also provide a variety of detailed budget tables on key aspects of the Department's budget, including the President's Budget Request, Congressional action on appropriations, State allocations, and historical funding levels.

ED currently administers a budget of about $67.2 billion per year—$57.5 billion in discretionary appropriations and $9.7 billion in mandatory appropriations—and operates programs that touch on every area and level of education. The Department's elementary and secondary programs annually serve more than 14,000 school districts and approximately 56 million students attending some 94,000 public schools and 28,000 private schools. Department programs also provide grant, loan, and work-study assistance to more than 10 million postsecondary students.

That said, it is important to point out that education in America is primarily a State and local responsibility, and ED's budget is only a small part of both total national education spending and the overall Federal budget, as we explain in a primer on the Federal role in education. In addition to this historical background, we try to demystify the Federal budget process and show how it is carried out in ED."

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/index.html

"Children under age 18

Percent without health insurance: 9.2 (2004)
Percent with private insurance: 63 (2004)

Percent with Medicaid or SCHIP: 26 (2004)"

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/hinsure.htm

So the U.S. Department of Education has a $67 + billion budget and more than 1/3 of all children's health is dependent on government programs. What is wrong with asking parents to pay more to cover some of the expense of their children? Why should others pay to educate your children and keep them healthy?

Taco John
06-28-2007, 09:38 AM
You apparently have no understanding of how regressive your tax is. You are making poor people destitute. Worse, you're making poor people with children destitute.

el borracho
06-28-2007, 10:12 AM
I'm against using tax policy for social engineering in general, but this idea produces exactly the wrong incentive. Our problem is that Americans are having too few babies, not too many, IMO. That's one of the reasons why so many people are so gung ho about importing new Americans.
The population is growing exponentially so I don't see how anyone could say Americans aren't having enough babies. Already the population is too high, IMO, but I can see where that is subjective and understand that anyone who thinks we need to expand the population would oppose measures to limiting it. Out of curiosity, how high would you like to see the population of the US go?


Most parental affiliations are uncontested. This would be a lot of wasted expense IMO. Perhaps a less costly alternative would be allowing men who are listed as fathers on birth certificates the opportunity to have a DNA test if they choose to contest paternity. I think this is what we do today. I just don't see a good reason to change it.
I guess I just feel sorry for the men who get suckered.


What are you going to do about prisoners who refuse to pay? If the current system isn't enough of a deterrent, I don't know why your changes would make it so. There are a lot of countries with really horrible prison experiences, but they still manage to find people who earn their way in.
I wouldn't do anything about them- they are welcome to sit there and die of thirst. Increasing the deterrent would do two things 1) it should be a more effective deterrent and 2) it would be cheaper to operate.


I'm not against some form of physician-assisted suicide (we already have an underground form of it now), but I don't see any reason why it should be provided for free.
It would be an effort towards limiting population and reducing federal costs. Dead people don't need food or medicine.


[/QUOTE] I don't think we should be combating population increase. And even if I were sanguine with abortion on demand, I wouldn't want the government providing them for free. [/QUOTE]
Again we disagree on population growth and again it would be an effort towards reducing federal costs.


If this is true, I think there's a problem here. I'm not sure a blanket rule is the right solution though. What about the case where a deadbeat father intentionally avoids being notified to avoid his responsibility? Don't get me wrong though, I think there may be good reasons for reform in this area because I think men come out on the short end of the stick in too many child support situations.
Intentionally evading notification would be difficult to prove but should also carry a stiff penalty.


I think there are quite a few irresponsible parents out there who ought to be sterilized, but I'm not comfortable with forced sterilization. Perhaps, in some cases, it can be offered to people who may decide it is an attractive option compared to whatever their other option is (garnishment of wages, etc.).
The problem is that some people would keep on having children that they could not/ would not afford. Outside of killing them or putting them in jail forever, sterilization is the only alternative. I would prefer sterilizing them to paying for their incarceration or paying for their children.


Most citizens 0-18 and 60-death can bear the financial burden of their own health care (or their relatives/parents can). I see no reason for the government to provide it to everyone.
Less than 2/3 of children 0-18 have private insurance; I'm not sure about 60-death. In any case, the government currently provides health care to people who cannot afford it. I would see that continue with children and the elderly.


I'm basically supportive of this idea although the potential for major, negative unintended consequences is there. Some would say it's more than just potential. I think we should try to find a way to decriminalize as many drugs as possible to the greatest extent possible. I don't think decriminalizing pot would be a big deal, but I'm less sure about narcotics.
I just don't care what someone does to themself. If someone wants to sit in their basement and smoke their face off- I don't care. If someone wants to shoot heroin until their brains leak out of their ears- I don't care. I only care when their actions affect others negatively.


Great idea, IMO.
1 out of 10 isn't so good, even in baseball but at least we agree on something.

el borracho
06-28-2007, 10:15 AM
You apparently have no understanding of how regressive your tax is. You are making poor people destitute. Worse, you're making poor people with children destitute.
I'm asking poor people not to be a burden on society. I'm encouraging them to fix their lives before bearing children into poverty.

BucEyedPea
06-28-2007, 10:19 AM
I don't quite understand the obsession with population control.
Like GW it's an exaggerated boogeyman.

I can live with govt out of marriage. But I wouldn't want blanket civil unions either. I don't want hetero couples hooking up casually in some civil union for benefits. It destroys the institution of marriage.

It's none of the govt's business to socially engineer a free society, including encouraging or discouraging how many kids someone has due to income.
The entire list seems to be left-libertarianism,cultural Marxism and Naziism.

And I don't think men, in general, get screwed on child support. You'd think they'd want their children to be supported. Geesh!

el borracho
06-28-2007, 10:30 AM
More people = more development/ less nature for everyone, greater drain on natural resources and more crime.

And yes! I would think that men would want to support their children.

el borracho
06-28-2007, 10:35 AM
As for the civil unions I stated that benefits would be restricted to one spouse only which should curb abuse of the system. Considering the divorce rate and shows like "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire" I'm not sure how intact the institution of marriage in the traditional sense is anyway.

As far as social engineering, I think there should be some deterrent to bearing children into poverty and leeching off of society. Perhaps you have a better suggestion.

bkkcoh
06-28-2007, 10:35 AM
I'm asking poor people not to be a burden on society. I'm encouraging them to fix their lives before bearing children into poverty.


My God, eb, what kind of cold hearted person are.................. Why should people need to be held accountable for their actions.

BucEyedPea
06-28-2007, 10:37 AM
More people = more development/ less nature for everyone, greater drain on natural resources and more crime.
That can be handled with better managment. There's still a lot to go around for a long time....and then there is space. This boogeyman has the capability of leading to massive social engineering.

And yes! I would think that men would want to support their children.
I don't disagree with that. But I thought I had read in here somewhere that men got screwed on child-support. ( generally stated not others kids).

el borracho
06-28-2007, 11:54 AM
Ah, I think I see the confusion. No, I am not making a general complaint about men getting screwed with child support payments. I am, however, unhappy that a woman can keep a child without notifying the father and years later receive child support in arrears- even though the father had no previous knowledge of the child. It is unfair that the man should be expected to pay for that time when the woman knowingly kept him ignorant of the child because that man can never recoup the lost time. It is also unfair to the child.

el borracho
06-28-2007, 12:00 PM
"A lot to go around for a long time" is very subjective. KCWolfman and I used to go around and around on this topic because he was convinced that we could quadruple the population of the states and still be fine. While it is true we have a long way to go to turn every square inch of the US into a NY or a Chicago I can tell you I have no interest in living in a place like that.