19 Nov 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesAh, I see Mel already brought this up.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Especially given this part of the quote:
* Whilst in most countries the introduction of a flat tax has coincided with strong increases in growth and tax revenue, [b]there is no proven causal link between the two. For example, it is also possible that both are due to a third factor, such as new government that may institute other reforms along with the flat tax.[/b]
19 Nov 09
Originally posted by zeeblebotSorry but this is too brief to mean anything to me. What's your point? If I am pregnant then in many situations (ie excluding force or undue pressure) I am responsible for that fact. I am not solely responsible (virgin births excepted). Social conditions are also shown to foster greater or lesser levels of single parenthood. However, once a child is born, then is it only the mother who is responsible for its care and upbringing? Is there a responsibility on the community to protect children for example? If only the mother is responsible, then presumably she must not only house, feed and cloth but also educate and socialise the child alone? It all sounds unrealistic to me. Parents cannot, in my view, raise children properly without support. In any event, I pointed out that single mothers are people who do in fact take responsibility for their children so that responsibility is not diluted but made realistic and sustainable only with support.
if you are "supported" then it's not your "responsibility", is it?
19 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotOK that's fair enough but the sentence for many crimes is far less than the sentence for having a child you can't support.
it's not responsible to have a kid you can't support.
And it is not responsible for fathers to have a kid they abandon but the sentence for abandoning your partner with her children is pretty close to the opposite of punishment.
A large proportion of the population (especially of the planet) have children they can't support. I am not sure if you advocate that only the better off part of the planet ought to reproduce.
I wonder if you would care to identify a level of resources that would be sufficient to have children you can support? (My wife and I were both highly qualified professionals but nearly crushed by the unexpected and hard to appreciate costs of our children, which continue though the youngest is 22).
And presumably it is not responsible to have a parent who can't support you and the children must accept with resignation their exclusion from opportunity and participation in the community on even moderately fair terms for this punitive reason.
And presumably the community which has within it a large number of children with one parent absent is not responsible in any way for the factors leading to that outcome and not responsible for the social outcomes from failure to offer support?
Presumably it is not responsible for middle class women to have served as housewives to professional men who suddenly abandon them (and their children) for a younger model?
Certainly it is not responsible to lose a father (or mother) through ill health or accident? Or to lose an income through discrimination against mothers of children?
Actually, I will stop for a while and see how you respond. By the way, I know this is a side debate to the thread topic but you raised this topic, not me.
19 Nov 09
in the US it's not the father's choice as to whether the kids are born, only the mother's. dropping the requirement that fathers provide support regardless of custody, mandating joint custody, and raising the bar for eligibility to maintain parental status could all reduce the no-income birth rate.
what makes kids so expensive to raise in your area? p.s., child support thru the college years is more like adult support. i.e, optional.
20 Nov 09
Originally posted by zeeblebotIf you think about it, I'm sure you'll come around.
nope.
Imagine that a government can impliment a system which dictates who is able to have children and who is not. That's what you're abdicating.
Basically you can force people into a situation (whether it's companies or governments doing this) in which they can't reasonably be able to support their children.
Is that what you want?
20 Nov 09
Originally posted by zeeblebotIf you want to reap massive profits and you need a cheap workforce to achieve this. And you have a government that agrees with you...
who wants to force people into that situation?
unless they wanted the people to become DEPENDENT on government ... that could be it ...
Voila...
20 Nov 09
Originally posted by zeeblebotWhat's your definition of middle-class?
where does that leave the middle class?
Generally speaking, white-collar workers are now working class; whereas in the 50's they were generally middle-class. The "working" working classes have now been outsourced to third world countries.
What if the government decides you can't smack a child? Or raise it with Christian values. Or raise it with capitalist values? All methods which make me feel inclined that the parents aren't very supportive of their children...
20 Nov 09
Originally posted by zeeblebotWhy can't they support their children.
the middle class has expanded rather than contracted.
why should parents who can't support their children be allowed to keep them? and if they're not allowed to keep them they don't need to worry about smacking them, etc.
What's the cause of that.
As for the middle classes expanding...
If you work for a boss, you're working class. No matter what your job is.
20 Nov 09
Originally posted by shavixmirit doesn't matter who you work for. it's what you have.
Why can't they support their children.
What's the cause of that.
As for the middle classes expanding...
If you work for a boss, you're working class. No matter what your job is.
---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class
The middle class are any class in the middle of a social schema. In Weberian socio-economic terms they are the broad group of people in contemporary society who fall socioeconomically between the working class and upper class. In Marxist terms, middle class commonly refers to either the bourgeoisie before or during capitalism, or some emergent new class within capitalism. In common parlance middle class refers to a set of culturally distinct contemporary Western cultures that emphasise sedentary consumerism and petty property ownership within capitalism.
...
The term "middle class" has a long history[by whom?]and has had several, sometimes contradictory, meanings. It was once defined by exception as an intermediate social class between the nobility and the peasantry of Europe.[by whom?] While the nobility owned the countryside, and the peasantry worked the countryside, a new bourgeoisie (literally "town-dwellers"😉 arose around mercantile functions in the city. In France, the middle classes helped drive the French Revolution. [1]
Within capitalism, middle class initially referred to the bourgeoisie and petit bourgeoisie. However, with the immiserisation and proletarianisation of much of the petit bourgeois world, and the growth of finance capitalism, middle class came to refer to the combination of labour aristocracy, professionals and white collar workers.
The size of the middle class depends on how it is defined, whether by education, wealth, environment of upbringing, social network, manners or values, etc. These are all related, though far from deterministically dependent. The following factors are often ascribed in modern usage to a "middle class":[by whom?]
* Achievement of tertiary education.
* Holding professional qualifications, including academics, engineers, and doctors regardless of their leisure or wealth.
* Belief in bourgeois values, such as high rates of house ownership and jobs which are perceived to be "secure."
* Lifestyle. In the United Kingdom, social status has historically been linked less directly to wealth than in the United States[citation needed], and has also been judged by pointers such as accent, manners, place of education, occupation and the class of a person's family, circle of friends and acquaintances.[citation needed]
* Cultural identification. Often in the United States, the middle class are the most eager participants in pop culture whereas the reverse is true in Britain [2].
The second generation of new immigrants will often enthusiastically forsake their traditional folk culture as a sign of having arrived in the middle class.[citation needed]
In the United States by the end of the twentieth century, more people identified themselves as middle class than as lower or "working" class (with insignificant numbers identifying themselves as upper class).[citation needed] In contrast, in the United Kingdom, in recent surveys up to two-thirds of Britons identify themselves as working class.[citation needed] The British Labour Party, which grew out of the organized labour movement and originally drew almost all of its support from the working class, reinvented itself under Tony Blair in the 1990s as "New Labour," a party competing with the Conservative Party for the votes of the middle class as well as the working class.