Prop 8 Oral Arguments

Mastametz · Post by **Mastametz** » Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:36 pm

I'm actually strictly monogamous, and committed to someone currently.

That doesn't mean we have to get married - ever.

Camaro · Post by **Camaro** » Thu Apr 11, 2013 1:21 am

BackTrak wrote:QUOTE (BackTrak @ Apr 10 2013, 10:33 AM) I think you hit the nail right on the head Cam. We should eliminate the team bonus, and put the bonus on the actual behaviors that we want to encourage.

< 300lbs tax credit
> 0 kids tax credit
> 1 humans per dwelling tax credit
non-smoking tax credit
1st time home buyer in Washington D.C. tax credit for representatives who have just been elected and need to move to DC. Oh, wait, that one's real.

etc.

You cannot say you are against inequality and then suggest replacing inequality with inequality... it just doesn't make sense.

Post by **BackTrak** » Thu Apr 11, 2013 3:49 am

I'm against inequality at the cellular level. Financial inequality is what makes this country great.

Adept · Post by **Adept** » Thu Apr 11, 2013 9:31 am

lexaal wrote:QUOTE (lexaal @ Apr 10 2013, 09:05 PM) Major in philosophy?

I Just dabble, like everybody should.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem

Guiding people's behavious with tax incentives is a perfectly valid thing for the government to do IMO. Make healthy food affordable, and we all benefit in higher quality of life and less healthcare / unemployment costs. Make tobaacco and alcohol expnsive and the same happens. Make it financially easy to have one kid, but expensive to have three or more to tackle the population problems.

It really works.

Kopperhead · Post by **Kopperhead** » Thu Apr 11, 2013 3:30 pm

Actually, it isn't valid yet it has been the common way of doing things around since always, give incentives, forgive payments to gain subjects and have no revolts...

It's the friging way of buying your clumsy soul whatever name you want to put it upfront.

$#@! them.

Mastametz · Post by **Mastametz** » Thu Apr 11, 2013 5:32 pm

Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Apr 11 2013, 02:31 AM) Make tobaacco and alcohol expnsive and the same happens. Make it financially easy to have one kid, but expensive to have three or more to tackle the population problems.

It really works.

No.

djrbk · Post by **djrbk** » Thu Apr 11, 2013 5:47 pm

Mixed thoughts on population control that way...

On one hand, I hate that half retarded women can get knocked up by 4 different guys by the age of 22, not have high school completed and have never worked a job in their lives make more money than I do and have state sponsored housing... On the other, I hate the prospect of suffering children, even if it is on account of failures on the parents part..

Mastametz · Post by **Mastametz** » Thu Apr 11, 2013 5:51 pm

People have kids because they want to/they won't use any form of birth control, not because of the financial implications of it.

Same with alcohol and tobacco. Sin tax is immense. Everyone drinks. Plenty of people smoke.

Adept · Post by **Adept** » Thu Apr 11, 2013 9:34 pm

Nordic countres have child support money from the state. Daycare is subsidised, so women can have children and a career. As a result births / woman haven't plummeted like they have in places like Italy or Korea where the above isn't true. Financial situation and prospects for your working life have big effects on people's willingness to have children.

Society needs fairly stable population levels, and sane, educated citizens. It makes sense that the government subsidises these vital things (daycare, schools...)

Mastametz · Post by **Mastametz** » Thu Apr 11, 2013 9:53 pm

Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Apr 11 2013, 02:34 PM) Financial situation and prospects for your working life have big effects on people's willingness to have children.

The people who are smart and responsible enough to think about reproduction that way are the ones most likely to never reproduce, at all.
Most people are thoughtless. Pop out kids, figure it out later.