🚀 go-pugleaf

No kidding.  I've been pissed at the way American seems to value children so
much when we're overpopulated.
We should be penalizing people for having more than two kids, not rewarding
them.

I firmly believe that every legal American citizen has the right to have one
child.
If you want to marry, you and your wife decide who gives up their allotment
first.
If you get divorced, there is not custody case.  If the child is the result
of your own one allotment, it's your child.  Very simple. No alimony either.

If women want to run around and have a beetle-browed club-footed child from
the first biker who beats the crap out of them when they're 17, fine.  but
they can't have anymore until they find a man who hasn't used up his own one
allotment.  But that first child is hers and she can't pawn him off, give
him away or dispose of him or her at all unless the court takes it away.
Then after she's born her 2nd, using the man's allotment, and her last, her
tubes are tied and his are too.  It's over.  If one of the kids gets run
over or taken away because of bad parenting, too bad.  You never see it
again or get another chance.  You get one chance.
Maybe under this system people might value their children more and wait
longer and make better decisions of whom to father and mother their child
with.
And the man would be especially carefull if the child is his allotment,
because he can't simply abandon and disappear; that's his child not hers and
he has to take care of it.

If you're some silly christian and can't bear the idea of abortion, fine.
Have the child.  We don't care if it's a rape child, an incest child,
whatever, it's not the child's fault.  It's yours.
But you do have the option of abortion up till the 3 trimester then it
becomes a legal human being.

We really must get away from this reward system for the worse of us to have
the most of us.

mapi'

<chico.esquela@strikeout.com> wrote in message
news:3aef6abb.21534125@24.14.77.6...
> How true.
>
> It is simply incredulous that single taxpayers still bear the bulk of the
> burden to pay for the services afforded the children of married taxpayers,
> who take a DEDUCTION for those -same- children.
>
> Now, WHO is in the -truly- unfair position?
>
> <g>
>
>
> On Wed, 02 May 2001 00:05:02 GMT, "mapanari"
> <mapanari.cutthisout@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Yes, but the reason why we have the marriage penalty is because for so
many
> >years the IRS screwed single people and the IRS laws were changed to
reflect
> >that.
> >
> >Over the years under the democrat's raising of taxes and getting rid of
> >exemptions and no bracketing for inflation or deflation, the marriage
> >penalty that used to even is now uneven.
> >
> >What is *not* needed is another stupid tweak to an immense 500 pound
gorilla
> >set of laws and exemptions; what is needed is a simple directive that
says,
> >"If you make X amount of money, you pay X amount of taxes.  And it
doens't
> >matter if you're single, double, gay, ball less or had a masectomy, you
pay
> >your fair share of taxes based upon how much you make.
> >
> >As it stands now under the democrat's ideas, they want to go back to the
old
> >standard and even worse, of screwing the single people.
> >
> >Thirty years from now the single people will finally get relief from
> >congress for all the unfair tax breaks married people get, and then
thirty
> >years after that the marrieds will be screaming about all the unfairness
of
> >it all.  And so it goes.
> >
> >
> >mapi
> >
> >"Henry" <Hgrover@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3AEE1E86.6C2829B8@aol.com...
> >> Okay,
> >> Bush Cheney.....lets get rid of the illegal marriage penalty from the
> >> IRS.
> >>
> >> Henry
> >>
> >
> >
>