1. shut the hell up in public places and
2. try their best not to spread disease until they are 18.
This may sound a bit totalitarian, but in reality we adults that do not have children are quite pro-freedom for children.
No, seriously, we are.
We actually encourage kids to be kids. To be free. To do what they want, whenever they want to. And with reckless abandon for the respect for others. To be wild and crazy, as crazy as the kids from the book “Lord of the Flies.” This ultimate, irresponsible freedom can be attained just as long as it follows one rule;
It is in the presence and abode of the people that brought them into this world; their parents.
If it’s just their parents and their parents’ house, I’m all for kids being kids. Write on the walls. Kick your brother. Bring malaria, lice and the plague into the household. Scream at the top of your lungs until 3AM. Demand all resources be spent on you. Play with matches indoors and with gasoline no less. Shave the dog. Light the cat on fire. Fill diapers like Ted Kennedy drains scotch bottles. Run with scissors. Go my little children, become what you’ve been destined to become! Destroy, DESTROY!!!! MWUAAA-HA HA HAAAAAA!!!!
All I ask is that it be done;
1. In the presence of your parents.
2. In the house of your parents.
The reason we ask this of course, is when children are unleashed upon society, havoc ensues. Children packed SUV’s and school buses cripple the entire transportation network to the level only terrorists could envy. We have to pay property taxes so that public schools may baby sit them while their parents pursue a career. They lengthen lines practically everywhere, grocery stores, restaurants, gun shops, crippling not the production side of GDP, but the consumption side. They divert resources from the Lingerie Fund and Tropical Cruise Fund to the Baby Food Fund and Children's College Fund. They make it so you can only attend movie theaters either LATE at night or during the day time when school is on. (Seriously, tried watching “Cars” over the weekend, needed to either shoot something or drink heavily by the end of the movie.)
They’re screeching in planes, trains and automobiles. Not to mention they drive up the costs of health care. Serious, go to a Minute Clinic. 90% of the people ahead of me are just some panicked, hypochondriac, hyper-sensitive mother with her child that might be suffering from that horrible and wretched thing known as the (GASP) THE COMMON COLD!!!! My lung could be shot out and I’m coughing blood, but no, I got to wait in because Ms. Prissy Suburban Princess’ little boy has a sliver.
Thus, fellow countrymen and economist lend me your ears. How would any normal economist treat such a ward on society? How do the college text books recommend dealing with such a horribly negative externality.
Well, of course the answer is we tax them.
Just like cigarettes, booze, hard work and other vices, governments tax certain behaviors to deter them. And since children, which have been proven by NASA and Harvard scientists, are evil, we should tax them too.
Alas, we don’t. Matter of fact, in a twisted, bizarre, counter-intuitive fashion that only North Koreans could replicate we SUBSIDIZE CHILDREN! We PAY PEOPLE TO HAVE CHILDREN! WE PAY TO BRING EVIL TO THIS WORLD! And what do we do to those who do not have children? To those who do not bring evil into this world?
We punish them.
This does not make sense when children are such an evil curse upon this world. Why, you don’t need NASA or Harvard scientists to prove it, just look at Nation Master.
Oddly we tax another thing that is largely believed to be evil by some, but in reality has literally been the best creation in humankind;
Corporations.
Now I know that the majority of people out there know that corporations are not “living entities” that are evil. That corporations are really owned by people.
And I also know that the majority people know that the majority of shares out there are owned not by rich elitists, but rather everyday people through their 401k plans and IRA accounts via mutual funds and that this is what makes up the majority of everybody’s retirement.
And I also know that the majority of people know corporations tend to bring in jobs, growth, innovation, wealth and GDP growth wherever they go.
And I also know that the majority of people know that if we tax corporations, not only would this bevy of POSITIVE externalities leave, but people’s retirement funds would take a hit as the underlying stock prices that make up their retirement funds would tank.
But what I don’t get is the NON-STOP assault on corporations from idiots on the left who think that somehow corporations are these evil abominations that wreak havoc upon society and somehow must be taxed to death and punished as if they were as destructive a negative externality as children (which, unlike corporations, have actually been proven to be evil!) Hell, all you hear is nothing but how EVIL US corporations are. Wal-Mart. Haliburton. Big Oil. “Corporate America” in general. And without pausing for a breath, the left immediately follows up its beratement of corporate America for higher corporate taxes.
Of course, this just goes to show you how ignorant and uninformed people on the left are. It also lends credence to my theory that “leftish” ideology in general is more about giving a person meaning or purpose in life, than anything as noble as trying to figure out what’s best for society, for it seems they get an emotional or psychiatric high from protesting and “crusading against evil corporate America” when in reality
AMERICAN CORPORATIONS ARE NOW THE HIGHEST TAXED CORPORATIONS IN THE ENTIRE OECD (that’s developed world for you people in Amery, Wisconsin)
I’d like to say, “Congratulations! You leftists have won.” but I REALLY don’t think the majority of people who demand higher taxation upon US corporations even know what the corporate tax rate is NOR do they know IT’S ALREADY THE HIGHEST TAXED!!!!
Sadly, nor do I think it would stop them from demanding higher taxes. They doubt to see the similarities between corporations and wives; if you want them to come to you, you should treat them nice, not beat them.
Sadly for the left, the day may come where corporations do leave, and like many a man has learned in the past, when he loses his wife, you don’t realize what you have till it’s gone. And instead of your wife running off with some Italian playboy, the left may beat corporations to the point, they may just run off with a handsome Irish suitor that treats them a heck of a lot better.
11 comments:
You said...
"It also lends credence to my theory that “leftish” ideology in general is more about giving a person meaning or purpose in life, than anything as noble as trying to figure out what’s best for society..."
Both of those points are characteristically leftist, really: a meaning for thier lives needs to be given to them, since they cannot see the value of their own lives right before their eyes (bunch of relativist, ultimately nihilist idiots), and they try to figure out "what's best for society" because they've given themselves over to the altruist-collectivist "ethic."
This is assuming they're the rank and file, not the puppet masters, of course.
But I know what you meant by that statement, and I agree. It's the difference between the warm/fuzzy/useless set and the constructive set. I'll take the latter.
Oh, and by the way - I can't stand those screaming, disease vectoring, wallet draining grubs we call children, either. Cheers!
Seeing as the whole point of economic development becomes kind of meaningless without the continued existence of the species and that there is relatively little benefit to having kids these days, i.e. they are now a liability rather than an asset, I see little reason to be concerned about subsidizing child rearing. In fact you should be thankful that others have been willing to take on the rather selfless task of perpetuating the species while you sit around and provide little meaningful long-term growth, consuming your income on non-value added items such as convertibles and bar tabs rather than saving and investing in the education of other entities who will ultimately be the engine for further economic growth in the later years to come while you and I are sitting around on our old non-productive butt living off the back of their production. Since you have chosen to selfishly opt out of fulfilling your social duty of perpetuating the species and would rather keep all of your income to yourself, instead of being annoyed that you have to deal with children for a brief period of time while in public spaces you should be thankful for those of us who voluntarily take it upon ourselves to fulfill this task, having to live with them every waking hour and getting really nothing in return except for a measly little tax break, which by the way is wiped out by the AMT anyway.
I am also sure you full well know that the causation between the HDI and fertility is the opposite of what you are trying to imply.
Additionally, your graph on taxes is in regards to statutory tax rates, which is quite different from effective tax rates.
Corporations aren't evil, just selfish and short sighted (just like children). If they put down a factory that ruins the local ecology and they make a profit on selling bendy straws then it's a net gain in their books. If the local area is ruined, it isn't any of their concern because they made enough money to just move on and ruin another place.
Unfortunatly, consumers are just as child like. They will buy bendy straws ten cents cheaper without regard to how the corporation produces them. I know people that hate Wal-Mart but still shop there from time to time ("where else am I going to get a cheap pair of sandals?").
If people took into account what things actually cost and not just what the price tag says, we could all grow up.
However, social security is dependent on young working population to support old folks. If I am raising children, I am not just raising them for myself, I am raising them to feed other childless retirees in future. Raising productive member of society is not an easy task.
I think childless people should not receive any social security money which really suck away from my hard working tax-paying children.
As many of you have pointed out, me not having children will result in OTHER people's children paying for my social security.
All I have to say is;
"Yeah, I know, ain't it GREAT?!!!"
The only other thing I will say is in response to the asieaquana's accuastion that I am selfish. No, I'm not selfish, I'm just smart.
Naturally the Captain does would not lead us to belevie that negative population growth is a good thing! It is not a sound decison in the long run for any generation to inadequatly reproduce (with capital goods or labour) so that it can be provided for when it no longer wishes to produce. On the one hand, I beleive that the social good is provided for by businesses of all sizes. On the other, a system that strictly favoured education and child rearing as a business decision of a family may not yield the typical results we expect from business. Underinvestment in children and overinvestment in current consumption. For reasons already pointed out, like Social Security, there ought to be some subsidizing of children, such as school vouchers and disease prevention and control. And shock collars for the ones that scream in restaraunts...
Less children = more machines invented to keep up productivity. Solved.
And isn't it funny - all of these critical comments assume socialism has to be the case.
Actually I have no problem with negative population growth, as long as GDP per capita increases.
BEsides which, people out there DEMANDING I have children and claiming I'm selfish if I do otherwise are fools. I am the LAST person that should father a child. I thought the feminazi's were bad enough saying the man should have no say whether his child is born or not, NOW they DEMAND men have children!!!
I'll start practicing my goose-step.
Hey Brad,
Yeah, capitalism will work regardless. Capitalism is not an option, that's jsut how human nature works. It's when countries finally get a clue and gear their economy around a capitalist model that we experience wealth.
That being said, there would be different phenomena that occur. Like housing prices would not eternally go up. National GDP may decrease, but GDP per capita can go up.
I remember a post shownig that a fair amount of the increase in GDP per capita is not so much due to increases in technology and women entering the labor force as much as it is we haven't been having that many children.
Oh, sorry, meant Bucktown.
Busy as heck, sorry.
Post a Comment