Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lane3 who wrote (128314)	7/29/2005 2:58:50 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) of 793896

Did you intentionally ignore the alternative of having only the family that they can afford? No, I understand that point quite well. It is a hot issue that causes deep political splits as well, so didn't feel like muddying the waters further. Some time ago (last few years?) there was a very interesting cover page article in one of the main US weekly news magazines (US News or Time??) on entitlements in the US. IIRC, the cover photo was about the article, and showed a white lawyer who had 17 kids. He effectively paid no tax, (perhaps even got some back??). The article looked at the list of things people call entitlements (when someone else receives it) or one's rights (when you know you deserve it). Does society have a collective responsibility to feed, shelter, and educate the kids of families unable to fully cover the cost themselves? BTW, regarding farm workers, most of them also benefit from the Earned Income provision in the Federal tax code, so they are net receivers of Federal tax money, not payers. Yet another wrinkle in the social fabric, but one that seems to have good bipartisan support I think.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next