Only people speaking the language of known conflict have become the entire housing military.

I was talking about homeless people.

Well I, for one, can't think of a better solution to any social ill than to hand the most useless members of society vast sums of other peoples money.

Do you accept Kunta Kinte when he tells you his name is Kunta Kinte?
Or do you get to decide what his name is?

If I got a bill of sale, I'll call him what I damn well please.

"Toby" is a lot easier to say.

Another idiot has entered the fray

That was 100 posts ago, actually.

English isn't my first language.

Yes it is.

Don't be a ------- liar.

Who did crushing the US in every measurable metric in a matter of 30 years without the benefit of 200 years of free labor and centuries of colonial extraction benefit?

LOL.

Damn, Tres Jerbos.....that's a weird kink to get off on....pulling that kind of stuff from your ass....

Republicans would rather provide the wealthy hundreds of millions in subsidies rather than make sure children are adequately fed.

Quick.

Does somebody wanna tell this cock-choking moron about the Holodomor?

In (of all places) his new favorite country that he couldn't point to on a map 2 years ago?

Why are these stupid ------------- allowed to vote?

We're not fascists!!

You're fascists!!

Sincerely,

~The Online Order of the Preferred Pronoun People

Whereas the left wing extreme is just some small fringe

Anybody wanna tell him?

LOL

The fact that the contemporary Democrat now publicly advocates for the sexual mutilation and grooming of children makes it difficult for me to any way romanticize their beliefs and world view.

Ocho Cinco

All the more reason to support marriage equality.

Not really.

The number of "married" homosexuals raising human children is statistically negligible in terms of potential tax revenue.

The homosexual never really wanted "marriage" anyways.

It just wanted weddings.

Since the Gov is now setting family policy, one supposes the rwing Base will be fine with a China-esque one child rule

You stupid ----.

The one-child policy prosecuted or imprisoned people for having more than one child.

This is a property tax reduction for married people with kids.

There are more children.

It doesn't matter if there's more of them.

Children in stable households require far less healthcare than a 70+ year old indigent elderly persons.

OK

#35 was a joke.

Kind of.

But the original question stands:

Is the principle of using tax policy to encourage (or discourage) individual choices and behavior based on the political palatability of those choices and behaviors a bad principle?

Plenty of dysfunctional families, neglectful families and abusive families prove this isn't always the case.

Sure there are. There are always anecdotal examples to the contrary.

But as a whole, kids raised by two-parent, married households have much better overall outcomes than those who were not.

And children who drink only water have better outcomes than those who drink soda. Should we tax sugar at 10,000%?

That's a good question.

Should we?

Self-absorbed, hedonistic homosexuals like Clownshack tend to have disparate mental and physical health outcomes because of their lifestyle.

Should we tax affiliates that air the Bravo network?

Childless heterosexuals. Screw you!

No. Not "screw you". They just don't get to this particular exemption on their property tax. Maybe they can run some cows on it, instead?

Unmarried couples with children. Who cares?

The idea is that you need to be legally married. Because being legally married helps foster stability. That's apparently the behavior they're attempting to encourage with tax policy bills like this.

There's nothing special to dumping in a woman and sitting back for 10 months.

But there is something special about marrying that woman and spending 18 years trying (hopefully successfully) to raise the child so that it might contribute to society in a positive way.

That's the kind of behavior bills like this encourage. You get a property tax deduction. Yee haw.

Okay, but in the equation, that means I have to subsidize the raising and education of YOUR kids. It's not debatable.

Sure it's debatable.

One's failure to partake in the most basic function of humanity (procreation) means an aging process more prone to isolation, loneliness, poor health, poverty and being unable to access formal care due to a lack of familial support. That means I have to subsidize the indigent elderly.

There are many societal benefits we could encourage through taxation.

This bill is an example of that.

Children raised by stable, 2 parent households have better outcomes than those that aren't and are therefore less likely to be a burden on society.

Childless couples subsidizing parents

Not really.

Having and rearing kids is beneficial to a society of normal people.

People who do so get to pay a little less money to the federal government through their taxes.

I guess the principle of using tax policy to encourage (or discourage) individual choices and behavior based on the political palatability of those choices and behaviors is a bad principle, no?

I made the best goddamn Fideo I've ever made tonight.

That needed to be said.

Expect to see more of this thanks to climate change.

#6 | POSTED BY WHATSLEFT

Your post upset me and my ole Fibro flare up again.

Shame on you.

If someone gots the Long COVID, then by God that's their Truth.