From: adric@access.digex.com (William Johnson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal: Illegitimate-conception Tax
Date: 21 Jan 1993 13:18:30 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <1993Jan18.032012.19296@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan17.163155.20964@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>What happens when rich women have secret abortions outside the country,
>>figuring the cost of a plane ticket to Canada is cheaper than paying
>>a graduated income tax?
>>
>>For that matter, I easily see a black market of doctors in this country
>>willing to give secret abortions.
>
>I.e. yet more forms of "tax cheating". I'm not saying that cheating won't 
>occur, just that the possibility of cheating, in and of itself, is not 
>sufficient reason to defeat a tax-based approach, unless the cheating is
>absolutely trivial to do, which I don't think is the case here (requires an 
>overseas trip, or the necessity to find and induce an unethical doctor, 
 ^^^^^^^^
>probably at significant additional under-the-table expense, and risk of being
>caught, to perform the unreported abortion). Given sufficient effort, all 
>taxes can be cheated on, yet most if not all taxes are workable, even 
>indispensible, in our society.

A) Since when is Canada OVERSEAS?
B) Why would a significant under-the-table expense deter someone?  Let's put
it this way, abortion now costs what, a couple hundred dollars?  (I'm guessing).
This tax of yours, over 18 years would cost thousands (what's the estimate about
bringing up children?  $150,000 over 18 years or something?).  So slipping the
doctor $1000 instead of $200 to save $140,000 makes PLENTY of sense.
C) If you aren't saying cheating won't occur, how does this tax make things
more gender fair, as you claimed in your earlier post?

>>Unconstitutionally penalizes women who choose to have abortions.
>
>I don't honestly see how. The Tax is levied whether or not the woman chooses 
>to abort.

So again, you want to penalize those who AREN'T causing the problem, which, 
if I understand you, is the high cost of welfare on those of us not on it.

>>Incidentally, note the rise in the number of women who would choose *not*
>>to have abortions.  A poor woman, who is going to be taxed whether or not
>>she bears the child, will choose to bear the child so that she can receive
>>offsetting child-support payments from the government to compensate for the
>>tax loss.  
>
>Er, I have proposed no changes to the welfare RULES, only its funding. If a 
>poor pregnant woman can improve her personal financial situation by having the 
>child, rather than aborting it, that's a problem right NOW, that needs to be 
>addressed. 

No, read what he said again.  She would choose not to have an abortion because
under your scheme, she's going to pay this tax either way.  If she's poor, the
graduated tax will be LESS than she'll get in support payments for the child.
Now keeping the child MAY still result in a lowering of standard of living,
but when you tell someone "hey, you are going to pay this tax either way.  And
you are allowed to choose whether you get any of the benefits back from it"
how many people do you think are going to opt to pay for nothing?

> A valid objective for the state, eh?

And here is the root of your argument:  Socialism.  The state should mandate
everything such that the strong and weak, the rich and poor, everyone has the
same standard of living.  No benefits for hard work, no benefits for being 
responsible, just take any group of people which have some reasonables and 
some slackers, and make the reasonables pay the slacker's bills.

Tell you what, it doesn't work.  Because when there is no longer any benefit
to working hard and getting ahead, people lose the will to work.

Will.
-- 
Copyright (C) 1993 by William Johnson  All rights wronged, all lefts made
adric@access.digex.com                     without benefit of turn signal.
Will Johnson, 307 S. Reynolds St Box P-216, Alexandria, VA  22304
"Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have included a quote in your .sig file."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc