Administration Making Sure Gay Families Can Suck Up Tax Dollars Too! Huzzah....

[slim 1,530]

How would you make that happen? Would you assess people on the 'likelihood' of their becoming unemployed and provide them with a 'certificate of procreation' should they prove to be in a sufficiently stable (ie independantly wealthy) position?

I would say folks taking a handout from the governement should not have MORE kids. I would do that by temporarily sterilizing any woman and man who wanted money. You sign up, you roll up your sleeve for a shot. It's that simple.

If they have kids already, that's great. However, I don't think they deserve more money just because they have kids. If they lost a job and became unemployed they should get a rate based on their previous employment wages, not their previous employment wages PLUS whatever the allowance is for kids.

Why do single people not get that same "free money?" The person with kids doesn't pay extra because they have kids... yet they get extra. Why is that?

What if we started assessing MORE tax on people with kids?

It's taken into consideration because procreation is something that is considered a basic human right, not something that is simply available to the rich. You feel you are discriminated against, well, boo hoo.

It's a right... not a necessity.

I don't understand why we, as a soceity, reward people for making dumb financial decisions that're labeled as "children."

You live in a society where most people believe that procreation is not dependent on income and you will have to live with the responsibilities that that entails. If you choose to remain childless you will not directly benefit, but indirectly you certainly will.

I have to live with the responsibilities of caring for other peoples' children. Why is that?

And how do I indirectly benefit from remaining childless? I'd argue that I most definitely directly benefit from that. Unless, of course, I'm on the government's payroll. Then I lose out because I don't get "extra" money.

[Peikko 1,575]

I would say folks taking a handout from the governement should not have MORE kids. I would do that by temporarily sterilizing any woman and man who wanted money. You sign up, you roll up your sleeve for a shot. It's that simple.

If they have kids already, that's great. However, I don't think they deserve more money just because they have kids. If they lost a job and became unemployed they should get a rate based on their previous employment wages, not their previous employment wages PLUS whatever the allowance is for kids.

Why do single people not get that same "free money?" The person with kids doesn't pay extra because they have kids... yet they get extra. Why is that?

What if we started assessing MORE tax on people with kids?

It's a right... not a necessity.

I don't understand why we, as a soceity, reward people for making dumb financial decisions that're labeled as "children."

I have to live with the responsibilities of caring for other peoples' children. Why is that?

And how do I indirectly benefit from remaining childless? I'd argue that I most definitely directly benefit from that. Unless, of course, I'm on the government's payroll. Then I lose out because I don't get "extra" money.

Well, what can I tell you? You don't seem to value what most normal people value, which is family. I'm not quite sure what you want from life at all. Perhaps you should consider voluntary euthanasia?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Well, what can I tell you? You don't seem to value what most normal people value, which is family. I'm not quite sure what you want from life at all. Perhaps you should consider voluntary euthanasia?

The question is, why should one persons activity/choice get them more benefits at the expense of others doing the exact same job?

[slim 1,530]

Well, what can I tell you? You don't seem to value what most normal people value, which is family. I'm not quite sure what you want from life at all. Perhaps you should consider voluntary euthanasia?

I value money. Most people value money. Why is it that the government PAYS people to have a family?

Is the voluntary euthanasia govt. funded or do I have to pay for it? It is more expensive since I don't have kids?

The question is, why should one persons activity/choice get them more benefits at the expense of others doing the exact same job?

It's amazing that Paul gets this yet you're lost, Madame Cleo. Simply amazing.

[Peikko 1,575]

I value money. Most people value money. Why is it that the government PAYS people to have a family?

Is the voluntary euthanasia govt. funded or do I have to pay for it? It is more expensive since I don't have kids?

It's amazing that Paul gets this yet you're lost, Madame Cleo. Simply amazing.

Not really. I am amazed that anyone can believe that money has intrinsic value it does not. Humans place a value on it and very reasonably because what it does is facilitate one's position - for better or for worse, but it has no drive in what value one can place on life, or what it is to be human.

[Ban Hammer 13,408]

It's taken into consideration because procreation is something that is considered a basic human right, not something that is simply available to the rich.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

i can see it now: "your honor, she rejected my request for a date, i got rights!"

[Fandango 1,439]

This always bothers me.

If I'm doing the same job as someone with a wife and kids, why should they get paid more just because they have personal issues? I never understood why the military (especially) pays people with dependents more than single folks. They're doing the same job in the same place yet - not for the same money. Talk about discrimination!

I never looked at it that way, you make a v good point.

I have been annoyed in the past with scheduling....like back in the day, I'd be the one put on the sch for certain days because 'so and so has kids'. That used to irritate me.

[Peikko 1,575]

I never looked at it that way, you make a v good point.

I have been annoyed in the past with scheduling....like back in the day, I'd be the one put on the sch for certain days because 'so and so has kids'. That used to irritate me.

Why? Because having kids can't have any impact on one's availability within the work place structure? Yes, let's pretend that children don't require their parents to be available at all, let's pretend that work is more important than family. Let's set a steady course for complete and utter disaffection from our collegues based on some silly notion that people with kids are given preferential treatment

If one accepts the current values that society places on individuals, families and children, such scheduling is inevitable. However, if you prefer society to fracture and for the needs of the individual to supersedes all else, well, go for it, strive to make the necessary changes that that entails. Good luck with bringing up children in that environment, you would sure need some.

[Fandango 1,439]

Why? Because having kids can't have any impact on one's availability within the work place structure? Yes, let's pretend that children don't require their parents to be available at all, let's pretend that work is more important than family. Let's set a steady course for complete and utter disaffection from our collegues based on some silly notion that people with kids are given preferential treatment

If one accepts the current values that society places on individuals, families and children, such scheduling is inevitable. However, if you prefer society to fracture and for the needs of the individual to supersedes all else, well, go for it, strive to make the necessary changes that that entails. Good luck with bringing up children in that environment, you would sure need some.

Whoa, don't you get tired jumping to conclusions and humping everyone's legs? I, as a previously married woman with no kids shouldn't have have to work MORE day-before-holidays-and-Sundays than everyone else in my job description because I was childless.

You seem to think that you can have your cake and eat it with no consequences. You eat the cake, you take the calories. You want kids? Great. You want to work? Great. But if you can't do the same job as everyone else because of your kids, then is it really fair to shoulder the responsibility on childless people? My previous job required work on Sundays and days before holidays. If you can't do that, then are you really doing the same job?

[Peikko 1,575]

Whoa, don't you get tired jumping to conclusions and humping everyone's legs? I, as a previously married woman with no kids shouldn't have have to work MORE day-before-holidays-and-Sundays than everyone else in my job description because I was childless.

You seem to think that you can have your cake and eat it with no consequences. You eat the cake, you take the calories. You want kids? Great. You want to work? Great. But if you can't do the same job as everyone else because of your kids, then is it really fair to shoulder the responsibility on childless people? My previous job required work on Sundays and days before holidays. If you can't do that, then are you really doing the same job?

Obviously yes if you complete an equal amount of hours and procure a similar amount of closed deals or in some way produce a similar amount of successfully completed assignments. You seem to be arguing that women should tumble back down below the glass ceiling just because they happen to have the #######.

By the way, your language is always so colourful, I always enjoy it but I confess I miss your attempts to 'write' as if you were a resident of Huddersfield

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Obviously yes if you complete an equal amount of hours and procure a similar amount of closed deals or in some way produce a similar amount of successfully completed assignments. You seem to be arguing that women should tumble back down below the glass ceiling just because they happen to have the #######.

By the way, your language is always so colourful, I always enjoy it but I confess I miss your attempts to 'write' as if you were a resident of Huddersfield

Women ultimately have a choice to have a child or not. To get pregnant or not....

You shouldn't expect everyone else to pick up the slack, just because you want an extra perk in your life that takes you away from your job.

[Fandango 1,439]

Obviously yes if you complete an equal amount of hours and procure a similar amount of closed deals or in some way produce a similar amount of successfully completed assignments. You seem to be arguing that women should tumble back down below the glass ceiling just because they happen to have the #######.

By the way, your language is always so colourful, I always enjoy it but I confess I miss your attempts to 'write' as if you were a resident of Huddersfield

Obviously, no, if you actually READ what I said...it REQUIRED work on Sundays and days-before-holidays. I never said one word about 'amount of closed deals blah blah blah' that you're spouting. That would make it a completely different argument

The funniest part about your whole argument is that I never once mentioned 'women'. See, you're assuming I only reference mothers. Point out if I did. Oh wait, you can't because I didn't. So you can save your bra-burning 'hear me roar' speech for someone else.

[Peikko 1,575]

Women ultimately have a choice to have a child or not. To get pregnant or not....

You shouldn't expect everyone else to pick up the slack, just because you want an extra perk in your life that takes you away from your job.

How do you work out that looking after your kids when they are sick is a 'perk'? Parents do not get time off to go lark in the park with their offspring. Perk indeed, hilarious. Of course, I know that for you family is of little to no importance - irrelevant to begetting a successful and emotionally stable adult

[Obama 2012 1,714]

How do you work out that looking after your kids when they are sick is a 'perk'? Parents do not get time off to go lark in the park with their offspring. Perk indeed, hilarious. Of course, I know that for you family is of little to no importance - irrelevant to begetting a successful and emotionally stable adult

You ignore the point.

Why should person A who have to pick up the slack for person B who chose to have a child???

[Peikko 1,575]

Obviously, no, if you actually READ what I said...it REQUIRED work on Sundays and days-before-holidays. I never said one word about 'amount of closed deals blah blah blah' that you're spouting. That would make it a completely different argument

The funniest part about your whole argument is that I never once mentioned 'women'. See, you're assuming I only reference mothers. Point out if I did. Oh wait, you can't because I didn't. So you can save your bra-burning 'hear me roar' speech for someone else.

It's hardly worth the trouble to try but you do know that measures designed to ameliorate family situations ALWAYS IMPACT WOMEN MORE THAN THEY DO MEN, RIGHT? Oh, and I am not a rampant feminist and have never burned a bra or 'roared' at anyone but again, thanks for the colourful language, pet.