Birth Control and Personal Responsibility

titfortat in order wrote:

For the purposes of this thread, let's assume that HHS gets its way and birth control is available to all women free of charge.

Would it not be reasonable to at this point reexamine child tax credits and the significant increases in the earned income tax credit depending on the number of children one has?

I mean, if birth control is available to everyone for no cost, wouldn't it follow that those who have children are making a conscious choice to do so and should plan ahead to make sure they can live with the consequences of that choice without government support?

Uh, the HHS thing has nothing to do with all women getting BC free of charge. It is that insurance has to cover it. Have any idea how many people have no health insurance?

Do you also think well off people should not get to itemize child-related expenses, or is it just lower income people who don't get the tax code geared toward encouraging reproduction? Do you want to get rid of the home-mortgage interest deduction that incentivizes overbuying on houses and punishes enters? And, of course, the unwitting children of the selfish breeder (both lower income and upper income) shouldn't be further punished, should they?

Think about this:

If the Obama administration forces Catholic organizations to fund reproductive services, the Catholic church is going to let the organization close their doors prior to paying for abortions.

The media keeps harping on birth control, but that is only a smaller piece of the puzzle.

The Catholic Church is the largest non-governmental provider of health services, social services and education. They will not follow the law. Ethically, they do not feel as though they can. They will go out of business prior to paying for a child to be murdered.

Why is Obama and his administration so obsessed with reproductive services? Why? Why would he eliminate the largest caregiver on the planet for this single issue?

I am not Catholic, but this is astounding to me.

Brian wrote:

Uh, the HHS thing has nothing to do with all women getting BC free of charge. It is that insurance has to cover it. Have any idea how many people have no health insurance?

Do you also think well off people should not get to itemize child-related expenses, or is it just lower income people who don't get the tax code geared toward encouraging reproduction? Do you want to get rid of the home-mortgage interest deduction that incentivizes overbuying on houses and punishes enters? And, of course, the unwitting children of the selfish breeder (both lower income and upper income) shouldn't be further punished, should they?

Nice try derailing the conversation.

Everyone will have access to health insurance after obamacare takes off, we've been told, so that is the assumption with this thread. Either they buy it or they qualify for the ever-expanding medicare/medicaid income limits.

-Said nothing about itemizing child-care expenses, only the child tax credit and EIC based on number of children. These have no "spending" requirements. The only requirement is having children.

-Correct, i think they should phase out the mortgage interest deduction

-So if the child has "selfish breeder" parents how exactly does giving no-strings-attached money to those "selfish breeder" parents help the child?

If they won't provide health care without injecting religious mumbo jumbo into the mix, then someone else will.

Jefferson Hydroplane wrote:

Think about this:

If the Obama administration forces Catholic organizations to fund reproductive services, the Catholic church is going to let the organization close their doors prior to paying for abortions.

.

Simple, they should pay taxes. I am tired of the idea that as soon as a stupid belief calls itself "religion" we have to bend over backward for it. If I just make something up, it need not be respected nor kowtowed to, but religion gets special rights no othe empirical beliefs get. The truth is, they will play ball.

I mean, in the NT, isn't Jesus made to say Christians should pay taxes tot he State even when it funds things they don't believe in, that it doesn't sully their own moral upstanding?

Religion has had special rights for so long, they wouldn't no equal rights if it buggered them in the cloakroom.

titfortat in order wrote:

Nice try derailing the conversation.

Everyone will have access to health insurance after obamacare takes off, we've been told, so that is the assumption with this thread. Either they buy it or they qualify for the ever-expanding medicare/medicaid income limits.

-Said nothing about itemizing child-care expenses, only the child tax credit and EIC based on number of children. These have no "spending" requirements. The only requirement is having children.

-Correct, i think they should phase out the mortgage interest deduction

-So if the child has "selfish breeder" parents how exactly does giving no-strings-attached money to those "selfish breeder" parents help the child?

Everyone will have some kid of access to healrhcare, but it sure ain't a civilized single-payer plan.

Uh, do you do your taxes? People with kids get to deduct them as dependents. SO the tax code helps them take care of them by cutting their expenses.

How does it help the child? Food, medicine, clothes, etc, I suppose - the same things that well off parents intend to buy if we cut their taxes to nothing or let them keep their taxes for private schools.

I just find it odd that welfare that helps the middle class is never called that. I am just unsure why you conservatives get so fixated on the lazy poor allegedly getting all these great benefits, but godforbid we question the myriad ways taxes facilitate and incentivize the choices of the middle classes.

I think Mormons would have objections.

Brian wrote:

Simple, they should pay taxes. I am tired of the idea that as soon as a stupid belief calls itself "religion" we have to bend over backward for it. If I just make something up, it need not be respected nor kowtowed to, but religion gets special rights no othe empirical beliefs get. The truth is, they will play ball.

I mean, in the NT, isn't Jesus made to say Christians should pay taxes tot he State even when it funds things they don't believe in, that it doesn't sully their own moral upstanding?

Religion has had special rights for so long, they wouldn't no equal rights if it buggered them in the cloakroom.

Azaleas wrote:

If they won't provide health care without injecting religious mumbo jumbo into the mix, then someone else will.

To both of you. I totally think that Churches should pay taxes. There should be tax exemptions for certain things, like money collected for charity, etc, but other than that I would agree.

I am not even trying to get into a discussion about whether the Church is right or not, just that I cannot believe the Obama administration is willing to take that risk.

Azaleas, I am not sure you are correct. The Catholic Church does a lot of work in areas that are not profitable. I am not talking about Georgetown University hospital. I am talking about non-evangelical mission work both within the US and abroad. Obviously if others were going to do it, they would do it since the need is there...

Personally, I think the Church needs to understand that they are paying money for a health care plan. What that person does with a health care plan is their business, not the Church's. They could say the same things about paychecks. are they going to start docking paychecks when they find out that the employee is visiting a strip club or eating transfats or something? I mean, there needs to be a line...

Those that have children should pay a tax penalty for adding to our burden.

Brian wrote:

Everyone will have some kid of access to healrhcare, but it sure ain't a civilized single-payer plan.

Uh, do you do your taxes? People with kids get to deduct them as dependents. SO the tax code helps them take care of them by cutting their expenses.

How does it help the child? Food, medicine, clothes, etc, I suppose - the same things that well off parents intend to buy if we cut their taxes to nothing or let them keep their taxes for private schools.

Jesus Christ, just answer the question.

Do you think that, if birth control is free and accessible, we should pay people to have kids. Nothing about deductions, itemized expenses, nothing. Do you think that we should give refundable tax credits to people that have children knowing full well the responsibility that carries when they have a free alternative and are making a conscious choice to procreate?

titfortat in order wrote:

Would it not be reasonable to at this point reexamine child tax credits and the significant increases in the earned income tax credit depending on the number of children one has?

I've never understood why we subsidize reproduction. If we end that subsidy, what are we afraid is going to happen? People will stop having kids? Unlikely, since I doubt that a tax deduction factors in to most people's decision whether or not to have children. It's just bizzare to incentivize behavior that most people will do anyway.

MonkeyMan wrote:

I've never understood why we subsidize reproduction. If we end that subsidy, what are we afraid is going to happen? People will stop having kids? Unlikely, since I doubt that a tax deduction factors in to most people's decision whether or not to have children. It's just bizzare to incentivize behavior that most people will do anyway.

Isn't it to look out for the kids? I know it is faulty thinking, but I believe that is the reason behind it, not simply to encourage folks to have kids.

Well I'm not entirely sure about the reason for the deduction, but people really have stopped having kids. The US and most other countries in the West are below replacement levels of births. Our population is only growing here because of immigration.

hey dawg wrote:

Well I'm not entirely sure about the reason for the deduction, but people really have stopped having kids. The US and most other countries in the West are below replacement levels of births. Our population is only growing here because of immigration.

*moneyed people have stopped having kids. This is not true when you look at those with lower incomes.

Somebody has got to say it. If i can't afford a huge house or boat or fancy car on my salary, people will rightly say well don't get those things. Why does this not apply to children as well?

titfortat in order wrote:

Would it not be reasonable to at this point reexamine child tax credits and the significant increases in the earned income tax credit depending on the number of children one has?

Deductions for dependents are part of a progressive tax system. The philosophy of a progressive tax system is that those with higher effective incomes pay a higher tax rate. Thus if two people earn the same income, but one has no dependents and the other does, the person with no dependents has the higher effective income. That is, after meeting some level of basic necessities, the person with no dependents is left with more disposable income, and, by the tenents of a progressive tax philosophy is taxed at a higher effective rate.

Since a dependent is not necessarily a birth child (or a child at all) your argument for linking tax law relative to dependents to birth control provisions in health insurance law doesn't seem very well thought out.

Notice. No one is responding to you.

I think we should pay everyone not to have kids and have a planned soft-landing extinction of the human race period and use the money that would be going to future generations to ease the suffering of the current one, and the last people left can turn the lights out on their way out.

You don't honestly think people make reproductive decisions based on the tax code, do you? People don't think at all before having kids.

Fishing Instructor wrote:

Deductions for dependents are part of a progressive tax system. The philosophy of a progressive tax system is that those with higher effective incomes pay a higher tax rate. Thus if two people earn the same income, but one has no dependents and the other does, the person with no dependents has the higher effective income. That is, after meeting some level of basic necessities, the person with no dependents is left with more disposable income, and, by the tenents of a progressive tax philosophy is taxed at a higher effective rate.

Since a dependent is not necessarily a birth child (or a child at all) your argument for linking tax law relative to dependents to birth control provisions in health insurance law doesn't seem very well thought out.

That is a GREAT point. Don't know why i didn't think of that. Oh, wait. That may be why i said absolutely nothing about dependent exemptions or write-offs for dependant/child care.

That is why this thread was and is intended to talk ONLY about the CHILD TAX CREDIT and the EIC steps for number of children. These things are for having children, period, in addition to the various writeoffs and exemptions.

Jefferson Hydroplane wrote:

Think about this:

If the Obama administration forces Catholic organizations to fund reproductive services, the Catholic church is going to let the organization close their doors prior to paying for abortions.

The media keeps harping on birth control, but that is only a smaller piece of the puzzle.

The Catholic Church is the largest non-governmental provider of health services, social services and education. They will not follow the law. Ethically, they do not feel as though they can. They will go out of business prior to paying for a child to be murdered.

Why is Obama and his administration so obsessed with reproductive services? Why? Why would he eliminate the largest caregiver on the planet for this single issue?

I am not Catholic, but this is astounding to me.

The Obama administration would like nothing more than to get ALL private, non-governmental institutions OUT of health care. Then the federal government can completely fill that role.