From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal: Illegitimate-conception Tax
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:29:17 GMT

In article <1jl8ukINNg8m@mirror.digex.com> adric@access.digex.com (William Johnson) writes:
>In article <1993Jan18.015344.19059@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <17JAN199311115080@utkvx3.utk.edu> dchatham@utkvx3.utk.edu (Chatham, Doug) writes:
>>
>>>If the fetus is to be carried to term, the parents can simply marry
>>>and lie about the date of conception.  
>>
>>And then give the child up for adoption, right? Otherwise, what would be
>>the economic incentive (since the ACTUAL costs of raising a child in a 
>>marriage are likely to be significantly more than the pro-rated, income-
>>graduated "Illegitimate-concept Tax")? 
>>
>>Off-the-cuff solution: administer pregnancy tests along with the blood tests 
>>currently required for a marriage license. 
>
>Except that not all states require a blood test, and also, testing is a 
>state-by-state thing, where I gather this tax you want is a federal thing.
>Back to the drawing board.

Er, where did you get the impression that I wanted a federal "thing"?
The states which would adopt this proposal, and which currently require blood
tests, could just piggyback pregnancy tests with the blood tests. The states
which would adopt this proposal, and which DON'T currently require blood tests
(are there in fact any of those?), would have to make other arrangements,
perhaps by just enduring the "cheats". I have no problem with states
customizing their implementation of this proposal to local conditions...

>>>Furthermore, the methods used to
>>>avoid child support payment can probably be carried over with little difficulty
>>>to avoidance of the proposed Tax.
>>
>>Agreed. But I don't see the problem as getting any WORSE than currently, and, 
>>as noted, the child won't be as directly affected if and when its non-
>>custodial parent becomes a "deadbeat", since it is not _directly_ dependent on
>>those funds.
>
>No, but the rest of the folks out there, the ones who ARE supporting each 
>other and the child, now have an even BIGGER burden on their shoulders.

Are these folks who conceived a child while in wedlock you're talking about?
They wouldn't be subject to the Tax.

>Face it, the point of welfare et. al., as I've said before, is for the
>MANY to shoulder the burden of the FEW.  

Precisely! Which is why I propose that the MANY, who conceive out of wedlock, 
shoulder the burden of the FEW, who carry that conception to term, take custody
of the child(ren), and subsequently go on welfare.

>If 1% of the population has a
>single-parent child with no support, then 99% of the population each pay
>1.01% of the welfare costs.  (Not exactly, since it's based on income, but
>you get the idea).  If 5% of the population has out-of-wedlock conceptions,
>and 1% of those are deadbeats, then each of the remaining 4% pay 25% of the
>cost of raising the deadbeat's children.  The optimal solution is for
>the deadbeats to pay themselves.  

The "deadbeat" problem is an enforcement problem, and therefore largely
beyond the reach of additional legislation. My proposal is not an attempt
to solve the "deadbeat" problem, per se, but at least it would prevent
"deadbeats" from directly damaging the well-being of their children.

>Failing that, everyone should take a 
>hand in it to make the burden small, or else no one should be forced to
>(a LET 'EM SUFFER mentality).  As I've said before, all your "solution"
>does is costs those who AREN'T the problem a higher burden.  

You say you want the burden small. I'm proposing to reduce it. You say you
want only those who are "the problem" to shoulder the burden. But what is
"the problem"? In the context of this proposal, people who conceive out of
wedlock are viewed as the "problem", and thus the burden falls on them,
equally (in income-graduated terms).

>I, with my pregnant fiancee, are no more a part of the problem than I would
>have been if this hadn't happened until June, after our wedding.  Why 
>should I shoulder more of the burden?

If this Tax had been a reality, instead of just a net.proposal, don't you 
think you (pl.) might have been more careful with your birth control, or 
married sooner? Think about it.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion