Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (9621)	3/9/2010 6:09:30 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15994

If the society wanted to, such fees could be assessed and administered by non government trustees. It could, but it would seem then your just sending the fees to some particular private organization. Maybe you could distribute them equally to each citizen, but I just don't think the larger idea is worthwhile, so I'm not to into trying to find mechanisms for it. An example of a distorting tax code is the unlimited quantity of dependent deductions available under the IRS tax code. It can be legitimately argued that the deduction does not approach the cost of raising a child. So what? It is not the IRS's duty to reduce taxes to cover the cost of childrearing. An unlimited amount isn't itself a distortion, its just a lack of limit on the number of tax breaks/distortions each family can get. If the limit was one, that one would be just as much as a distortion as the specific benefit for child number thirty seven. I think that distortion is better justified than the reverse (charging for the birth), but if you want to remove the distortions you would neither charge for the birth, nor provided benefits because of it.