| Author |
Message |
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_
Post Number: 1154
Registered: 11-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 5, 2003 - 11:09 pm: |   |
We don't have too many people; we just have too many people who expect a decent wage... |
Traineraz (Traineraz)
Elitist Bastard
Username: Traineraz
Post Number: 960
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 5, 2003 - 8:51 pm: | |
Actually, considering the rate at which we (the US) export jobs, we have too MANY people ALREADY!
I know SCADS of tech support people who are losing their jobs to India in a year.
He who would sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither.
 -- Thus Spake Zoboomafoo |
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin
Post Number: 833
Registered: 10-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 5, 2003 - 1:28 am: | |
Oh indeed, but then we Irish practically run your country. |
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_
Post Number: 1153
Registered: 11-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 5, 2003 - 1:24 am: | |
Not to mention those damn Irish... |
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin
Post Number: 832
Registered: 10-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 5, 2003 - 1:18 am: | |
Very true, current tough immigration laws are absolute madness and are self-defeating.
But then politicians have made so much out of fostering the image of immigrants as lazy, worthless scroungers who want to sponge off our system and be a drain on us; much better that they stay in a Nike sweatshop getting paid a pittance just so that we can pay a few £/$/Euros less for our trainers.
If we don't have enough young people to fund our society in the future then we should open our doors more widely, not just to immigrants who can immediately fill vacancies that need filled, but to immigrants with young families and young immigrant couples likely to start families (these children may be net-beneficiaries now but they are an investment for our future).
Our current immigration laws are not so much based on the negative effects on our economy increased numbers of immigrants would cause (it has been shown that immigrant groups are actually net-contibutors to our economy) rather the laws exist to keep out more brown and black skinned people. |
Pervert Euchre (Perruche_verte)
Elitist Bastard
Username: Perruche_verte
Post Number: 498
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, August 4, 2003 - 5:13 pm: | |
"We could just let in more immigrants to make up the difference, but who am I kidding...?"
Well, exactly. If they wanted to be at least somewhat scientific about it, governments could tie immigration quotas to census data and make sure that they're replacing workers at the approximate rate they're losing them. They could (as they already do) give priority to young, healthy people who speak the lingua franca, have job skills and don't have any dependents.
But no -- we prefer that the wretched of the earth remain in the low-wage manufacturing havens already set aside for them.
"Drink accomplished what God did not." --Marguerite Duras |
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_
Post Number: 1143
Registered: 11-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, August 3, 2003 - 5:01 pm: | |
quote:So you actually have a penalty for married couples that don't have children?
Not exactly. When two people file their taxes as a married couple, their income bracket is determined by the sum of their incomes, so a married couple can end up paying more in tax than the sum of the tax they paid when they were single, but this depends on their incomes. A married couple also gets a lower total personal deduction, on the assumption that it costs less per person to live together.
Interestingly, if there is only one wage-earner in a couple, marriage will reduce their taxes significantly. So it's not so much a marriage penalty as a not-keeping-your-wife-home penalty...
And there isn't a penalty for not having children; you just don't get as much of a deduction. It's not like the tax break is enough to make up for the cost of the darn things.
(The "marriage penalty" is not an old law, BTW. It dates back to the 1960's, and was an attempt to even out the unfair tax advantages married people used to have...)
quote:Why bother getting married then, just sort out a legal agreement about possessions, will etc and have a family outside marriage?
The primary advantages are:
-Getting to share insurance coverage (tho some employers now recognize domestic partnerships)
-Automatic recognition of inheritance, pensions, etc.
-The right to make health-care decisions if the spouse is incapacitated. (This a particularly big deal in the gay community in dealing with AIDS.)
-In some states, it's the only time you can get your name changed on your documants for free.
The main advantage is that it takes care of a huge amount of paperwork in one swell foop. What would require drafting wills, limited-liability corporations, powers-of-attorney, deeds, etc., you get with one piece of paper, and some (like some pensions and social security benefits) cannot be shared except by man and wife under present law.
Oh, and you also can't be compelled to testify against a spouse in court...
|
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_
Post Number: 1142
Registered: 11-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, August 3, 2003 - 4:26 pm: | |
quote:Rather than offering incentives not to produce children the state should look at children as being crucial for the future well-being of our society and offer substantial financial incentives for having children and support for the cost of bringing them up.
We could just let in more immigrants to make up the difference, but who am I kidding...? |
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_
Post Number: 1141
Registered: 11-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, August 3, 2003 - 4:23 pm: | |
quote:If homosexuals don't support the children in our society, why do they have to pay school taxes, or have their income taxes go to AFDC
Nit-pick: Clinton killed AFDC. It's called TANF now, and the T stands for "Temporary". Funny thing is, the first reports are coming in, and it looks like welfare "reform" is costing more money while providing less assistance. |
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin
Post Number: 827
Registered: 10-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, August 3, 2003 - 9:35 am: | |
So you actually have a penalty for married couples that don't have children? What about unmarried couples with children? Why bother getting married then, just sort out a legal agreement about possessions, will etc and have a family outside marriage? |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
