how-to block ads
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: In the home parents, not government , is the filter. said by Lumberjack  :When will governments and society learn that parents are the key holders to content their child sees while at home? Poor parenting already causes enough problems and for the governments of the world to believe they can 'help' just makes it worse. Hey why do the actual parenting when you can get the government to do it for you? I mean they do everyhting else so well, let them raise our kids too. | |
|  jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Re: In the home parents, not government , is the filter. Yep why not. We should go back to that model they used in the 16th century. Give away your kids until they are older and take them back then. The wealthy would have others raise their kids or ship them off. Hell, lets just have the government set up parental centers. This way they can do whatever the bleep they want, and parents can just continue to pop them out with no remorse. Now back to reality, this is sarcasm, but it's quite sad that a government feels the need to dictate stuff like this. Then again, it happens in the U.S too. | |
| nevtxjustin
join:2006-04-18
Dallas, TX
| Reminds me of a cartoon many years ago. Lady was entertaining a visiting couple and her kids were racing around the living room, swinging on the lampshades and climbing the drapes. She was saying, "I'm just going to let the government raise my children..." | |
| | jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Re: In the home parents, not government , is the filter. Yep sounds about right. My opinion welfare should exist, but should be something people have to WORK to stay on, NOT work to get off of. IE. If you are on welfare you must go to school or hold a job. Sort of like it is now, but without the ten million loopholes to get of it such. Personally, there's nothing wrong with a boost, its a problem when people think they can live off it.
As per the kids tax breaks, I guess this would be good idea. Either reward parents with three or less kids with the most breaks and base any additional breaks based upon income. IE if you got 5 kids, you must make the federal minimal guidelines to support those kids in order to claim them. If you don't, then you are only allowed to claim the max your income supports. I'm sure that'd clamp down on a lot of this baby popping. Too bad it won't happen though. | |
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: In the home parents, not government , is the filter. Just make a "no [or less then X number of] dependent children credit" on tax returns. Poor people get taxed higher. A couple $K each year per extra child should really clamp down. Otherwise you goto jail for 1 year. And your kids goto foster care obviously.
quote:
shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
»www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/7203.html | |
| | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Re: In the home parents, not government , is the filter. Well if I had it my way it'd be like such.
(see link for my math) - Federal Poverty Guidelines.
»aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/07poverty.shtml
Everyone should be allowed to claim up to three kids. Have more than three Kids, then you MUST make the minimum amount (federally accepted) in order to claim the fourth or above. Otherwise, you are allowed ONLY three kids to claim. For instance. A family of six (Mother + Father + Four Kids) MUST MAKE 27,610 within the 48 states to be considered above the poverty line. If this family MAKES less.. then Mother + Father should only be allowed 3 kids on their taxes. The fourth kid DOESNT count for ANY SORT of write off. It should go by age, too. So parents can't pick and choose which one will give them the most back. I bet such a system would stop people, too. Being it doesn't provide jail time but it also doesn't REWARD them for bad behavior. | |
| | | |
|
