Register for an adventure

Interested in learning new things that you never actually wanted to know?

Hawt Owning guns is a right, paying a low price for them is not

Discussion in 'useless chatter' started by water, Feb 13, 2013.

  1. the thing is i loooooooove shooting mine and before ammo went scarce i shot it often.
     
  2. #62 plot, Feb 13, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2013

    positive reinforcement is giving them a deduction for having kids with good grades.

    otherwise i propose we get rid of the kid deduction all together. (and then you could pay parents $100 monthly if their kids have good grades... increase benefits you gotta increase taxes).
     
  3. So the good grades deductions will mostly benefit families that most likely don't need it, unless you means test it. Then we're back at square one about negative reinforcement not working.

    Are we trying to fix basic education or just save money? Because I agree that removing the child income tax credit would save money. Also, closing down all schools would save money too. Lots of ways to save money.
     
  4. I can't wait to pay more taxes for people who don't give a shit about anything!
     
  5. It's not about saving money, it's a way to break even and still give massive incentives out to the parents. If they don't cash in on the incentive, tax payers will get the money instead. It's an everybody wins situation, the tax payers aren't burdened with "extra" entitlements, the parents still receive a benefit, and hopefully the kids grades will improve because parents will be involved. You don't like it because it's not another handout on top of the handouts we already give?

    Education starts at home, a classroom has dick all to do with it. The article I linked above about the Kansas City School Districts more than proves a few billion in a classroom doesn't do dick.
     
  6. #66 Casper, Feb 13, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2013
    I don't think you're understanding how people rationalize this. Those families are used to getting that money. Now you're saying; hey parents, you have more work to do to maintain status quo. They'll feel like they are getting fucked and won't perform. They are discouraged.

    Now all this time they've probably had a budget that includes that assistance money and they no longer get it. Your policy has hinged family finances on a child's performance. When little Billy doesn't perform, he gets the belt from drunk old dad. Your policy isn't uplifting, it's repressing. It'll strain the family dynamic between child and parent -- which is probably already pretty stressed in the case of at-risk students. The incentive only works if the child's performance is bonus.
     
  7. And how do you fund this? How long before this added bonus is now apart of the family budget they require?

    Got to start somewhere, and maintaining the status quo is the perfect place IMO. It will also be an incentive to not pump out kids because the parents will actually have to raise them. What you are proposing is just a bonus some might take advantage of, and taxpayers will get raped on. What I'm proposing will force parents to be parents, especially if their finances hinge on the kids being successful.

    Tough love works better than coddling.
     
  8. Yeah, so lets give them a cookie instead for shit they should already be doing.
     
  9. like property taxes going toward schools paid by property owners that don't have kids?

    To me, since taxpayers are already paying their welfare, encouraging the welfare parents to make sure the kids get decent grades forces the curve toward getting an education instead of just getting by and becoming tomorrows welfare recipients.
     
  10. the definition of welfare seems to be:

     
  11. But as a responsible individual, with plot's idea, I don't have to pay more taxes for irresponsible people. We're telling them, teach your kids right or you're not going to get an extra $10k in January. Seems a good enough balance to me.
     
  12. I think you'd have to couple it with a monthly payout. Once a year is way too much time to slack off for slackers.
     
  13. I know you're not a fan of handholding for adults, but the potential positives are too good to ignore. Or we can do nothing and brace for another bigger generation of cretins. That is kicking the can down the road.
     
  14. Plots proposal is not a far step from child labor. Prepare for more broken homes and shittier grades.
     
  15. It's putting requirements on current entitlements. All you want to do is add more entitlements.

    Package right and you can do both of the plans, reduce the tax deduction for kids by 1200, they'll never know, then pay them 100 month for attendance/standardized test scores. Child labor? Making kids study is child labor now???

    You can't use normal grades because then you are pushing financial repercussions onto the teachers who may be influenced to pass everyone then.
     
  16. These low income people already receive a ton of free money. What makes you think THIS money will make the difference?
     
  17. I don't think you're this stupid. I think you're just acting this stupid. I've said I think three times now that hinging the money these families expect on the performance of their children will cause stress. If that family can't function without that money, then yes, that is akin to child labor. Studying is not labor.

    Amstel and I are interested in solving an issue with our shitty education system, recognizing that it will cost money -- but less money than what we currently spend for endlessly modifying school infrastructure and bloating DoE's across the country.

    Just say you don't want to spend money and people should take care of themselves. Done. But proposing an education program with the primary purpose of saving money is disingenuous to the debate. So what are you trying to solve?
     
  18. The child income tax credit is one of the largest credits we have. When removed, that 47% who pay no federal income tax drops to under 20%. That would make Romney happy, I think.
     
  19. seems to be a popular opinion here that low income people receive a ton of money and squander it...is anyone taking into account those that need the $ and live of of it every month such as a mentally or physically ill individual which accounts for a high % of welfare recipients?
     
  20. I take them into account and then dismiss them outright for being burdens on society and potential targets of eugenics.