From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal: Illegitimate-conception Tax
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:36:25 GMT

In article <1jmu8bINNbs3@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>In article <1jl8beINNf5m@mirror.digex.com> adric@access.digex.com (William Johnson) writes:
>>How do you think paternity is determined NOW?
>
>Usually it *isn't*.  Usually paternity is not contested, so that there
>is no need for "determination.  

And what makes you think this would change, in the case of illegitimate-
births?

>Your proposal would require paternity to 
>be determined for every conception.  That would cost alot.

See above. I see no reason to believe that the percentage of men contesting
paternity would go up if this Tax existed. If anything, the percentage should
go DOWN, since the men affected have less at stake even if they lose the 
paternity suit.

>>William, you are part of the so-called "irresponsible" segment of the 
>>population who conceive a child out of wedlock, and decide to carry it to 
>>term. This is not a personal condemnation, just an observation. Your segment 
>>of the population is a problem. You create children which are FAR more 
>>likely to need welfare, FAR more likely to live in unsafe and unsanitary 
>>conditions, FAR more likely to get involved with drugs and crime, FAR less 
>>likely to complete their education, FAR more likely to be unemployed, (at 
>>least, this is my understanding, solid statistics to the contrary welcomed). 
>>None of these things may apply to your family specifically, but they do 
>>apply to your segment.
>
>Kevin, haven't you ever heard the truism:  the first one can come at
>any time, the rest usually take 9 months.  It soesn't sound to me like
>Will is part of the problem.  It sounds to me like he and his fiance are
>taking responsibility for their actions.  Who cares whether the child was
>conceived 6 mos before the wedding, or 6 mos after.  The important thing
>is that it has 2 parents who are committed to taking good care of it.

Not to be a jinx or anything, but what if William and his fiancee break
up tomorrow? Then the illegitimate child could VERY WELL end up as "the
problem", right? And the state is not about to get into the business of 
FORCING betrothed couples to follow through on their plans. The line has to
be drawn somewhere, and I think it's perfectly reasonable for the state to
say "if you're married when you conceive, you don't have to support the
Welfare of illegitimate children, but if you're UNmarried when you conceive,
then we'll expect you to contribute".

>>By my calculations, those "few" would number maybe as much as 32 million
>>taxpayers, if the proposal was implemented nationally. Given annual AFDC 
>>payouts of approximately 20 $billion, this would NOT appear to be an 
>>"unshoulderable" burden, even when the administrative overhead is added in.
>
>I *don't* buy your numbers.
>
>In 1989 (the last year for which I've seen numbers) the number of abortions
>was 1.6M.  The number of births was slightly less than that.  Lets be 
>generous and say 4M identifiable conceptions (I'm including miscarriages,
>IMO grossly unfair to further punish people who've suffered such misfortune!)
>
>If we accept your ADFC number of $2000M, the average tax bill would
>be $20000M/4M=$5000/person.  I consider that to be a non-negligible 
>amount of money.

You missed a step there, Michal. The total pool of taxpaying couples (note:
couples, not individuals, since each illegitimate conception reels in two
taxpayers) is computed as the total yearly turnover, which you quote as
4 million, TIMES the number of years they are liable for the tax, i.e. 18. 
So, by your numbers, we have 72 million taxpaying couples in the pool. This 
is significantly more generous than my figure of 32 million taxpaying 
couples, which was based on a yearly turnover of 1.8 million illegitimate 
conceptions.

Annual AFDC payouts of $20 billion, spread out over the pool of 72 million
taxpaying couples, comes out to an average annual tax burden of less than 
$300 per couple, or, to put it another way, less than $25 per month.

Is this an "unshoulderable burden"?

Consider also that this is an income-graduated tax. Rich people pay a higher
percentage, poor people a smaller percentage, perhaps even nothing if they
are at or near the poverty line.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion