From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal: Illegitimate-conception Tax
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:22:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.015406.4055@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>
>>
>>>Who determines the paternity of a fetus?
>>
>>There is no need to determine paternity while the fetus is still in the
>>process of gestation. It can be determined later, i.e. after abortion, 
>>miscarriage or birth, and then tax payments can be retroactively applied.
>
>You didn't answer the question.  Who determines the paternity of a fetus?

If we're talking about a fetus which is carried to term, then the procedure
is no different than paternity-determination is now. If, on the other hand,
we're talking about determining the paternity of an aborted or miscarried
fetus, then I suppose the physician who performed the abortion, or attended
to the miscarriage, would be responsible for having the paternity determined.

Is this a problem?

>>>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.
>
>So in other words, you're just looking for yet another way to control the
>lives of women.  What was that you were saying about being pro-choice?

This is an economic proposal, Keith. It doesn't "control" anything, except
the flow of money.

>>>>	o  Graduated taxation wouldn't "bite" low-income taxpayers as much as 
>>>>	   the current system
>>>
>>>The current system is graduated in most states.
>>
>>Hmmm... I was under the impression that most just ate a percentage of income.
>>My materials on Michigan law indicate that that's how it works here.
>
>And of course, we *KNOW* the rest of the country works _just like_
>Michigan law.  What was that you were saying about being able to read, Kebbin?

Is paternity child-support income-graduated in Colorado, Keith? Or do they
just take a percentage of income?

>>>>	o  Would create strong economic incentives for fertile men and women 
>>>>	   to use birth control (if they're not using it currently), or more 
>>>>	   effective birth control, and/or for sexually-active couples in long-
>>>>	   term relationships to marry each other, in order to avoid the Tax
>>>
>>>Ah, good, encourage unhappy shotgun marriages.  Very beneficial to society.
>>
>>Hmmm? The Tax is premised on marital status AT THE TIME OF CONCEPTION, Ted.
>>No economic incentive is given to marry _after_ conception occurs, which is
>>how I've always understand the term "shotgun marriage".
>
>"...and/or for sexually-active couples in long-term relationships to marry
>each other..."

That's not a "shotgun marriage", as I understand the term.

>This tax would also cause a tremendous increase in "quickie" marriages...

Fine by me.

>>>>(Cross-posted to misc.legal for the question of constitutionality, to 
>>>>talk.abortion & soc.men/soc.women, since I'm sure the pro-choice-for-women-
>>>>only crowd won't like it a damned BIT, and to alt.abortion.inequity and 
>>>>alt.child-support for obvious reasons)
>>>
>>>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.
>
>Whoever let you at a computer to type this should be shot, Darcy.

Do you have a point to make about the constitutionality of the proposal?

>>At least the "Illegitimate-conception Tax" proposal would 
>>spread the cost of that behavior over a wide base of "irresponsible" 
>>unmarried, fertile, sexually-active and unlucky adults, and leave them thar 
>>good, upstanding, married, abstinent, lucky and/or sterile/barren folks 
>>economically unscathed. Valid state objective, no?
>
>No.  

Why not? What's wrong with economically punishing those "irresponsible",
unmarried, fertile, sexually-active and unlucky adults? 

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57903 alt.society.civil-liberty:7519