patrick.net

A guy should not be allowed to knock up a girl and then essentially force the girl to have an abortion or force the taxpayers to pay for raising his child, then rinse and repeat.

The mandatory child support should not be calculated based on the guy's income, but a fixed amount depending on the regional average cost for raising a child. So laws do not penalize productive people and encourage loser behavior like they do now. The cost of raising a normal healthy child by the mother alone has nothing to do with who provides the sperm. If the guy opts out of or is unable to provide half of the monthly basic cost of raising a child in the area, there ought to be adverse consequences for knocking a girl up, such as mandatory snipping or castration or locking up behind bars, so he is no longer a danger to other girls and taxpayers (unless the girl and her family is willing to pay for his share of the cost of raising the child or at least have an abortion). The guy is welcome to pay more than the mandatory minimum voluntarily; OTOH, if circumstances change much later and causes his ability to pay diminish, that's when adjustment downwards can be considered without penalty. At the time of procreation, both parties ought to be held to a standard that they are able to raise what they procreate. Otherwise, their action would be a crime on the child and the society at large.

There's complete groups and mindsets on some of this material (google MGTOW) and Tom Leykis back in the day.

I'd add that in Mass until a few years ago alimony was FOR LIFE!

Not a few years..not a decade...LIFE!
The vast majority of people believe that this is a good idea when the governor signed it.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/28/states-no-longer-wedded-to-idea-of-alimony-for-lif/?page=all

The idea that someone should accept payment for life just doesn't work well and actually hurt future couples from making payments on their own bills meanwhile it encourage those receiving extra funds from doing pretty much anything.

On the inverse it also meant that for quite some time if you met someone divorced in the state that this applied and acted like a huge deterrent because anyone getting divorced knew these terms at the time of filing.

I'd also add that I don't think "the pill" is that far off for guys. Once that is made that's going to really change things.

I think there has been some breaking down of some barriers but it does not always go as far as what we might think. Female truck drivers are rare, male babysitters are rarer.

Sometimes what has happened is frankly the amount of work performed has gone down to the point where identity can be questioned. For example a feminist argument probably held more validity 100+ years ago. But today when most household labor is automatic it is harder. Washers and driers, microwaves, dishwashers, refrigerators..heck Roombas, automatic timers, public education, television and the list goes on and on. Less household work means less incentives to pretty much get married. There was a time when tending land meant having to have a large family or if rich have slaves (that was the primary reason). Technology changed all that. Farming is automatic and cooking is pretty much on that level.

Having said this of course there are complications today. I know of one divorced couple where apparently both of them found someone else that was also going though it. So in effect they had to have about six people agree to custody terms (original spouse, new spouse with exes). Add in some grandparents here and there and she didn't know if she was going to live in Florida, PA or Mass.

It's part of the Liberal doctrine now, the economy is back on track, and we don't need the fucking old people around dragging us down with their SSI needs. They didn't adequately fund it after all.

That Old Hag don't stand a Chinaman's chance in hell.

why do those batillacs always let their hair grow long??

CaptainShuddup says

but not this one

Recent Dow day is Thursday, August 15, 2013

Anchor babies...

Dating & living with one now actually. She's already asked me to marry her, they all do, it's a profitable objective. I'll go back to living alone again after our lease is up. I can live cheaper and retire sooner on my own.

I just could not afford wife, or children.

Reality says

The guy should not be allowed to knock up a girl and then essentially force the girl to have an abortion or force the taxpayers to pay for raising his child, then rinse and repeat.

I'm assuming a guy cannot force a woman to get pregnant, and cannot prevent her from having an abortion.

My post comes in a thread that argues convincingly that woman have choice but a man can be stuck in financial slavery just by having sex, which is not the same as deciding to have a child. The consequence is that there needs to be a choice of men to opt out taking care of a child.

jessica says

And raising a child is more than just child support too. Who will stay home with them, how you plan on raising them and how they will affect your goals as a couple are all things that should be discussed.

I think what you mean is child support is more than just financial, which I agree. It doesn't require a couple either. In fact after divorce obviously there is no couple. So no "goal as a couple" involved.

Heraclitusstudent says

Reality says

The guy should not be allowed to knock up a girl and then essentially force the girl to have an abortion or force the taxpayers to pay for raising his child, then rinse and repeat.

I'm assuming a guy cannot force a woman to get pregnant, and cannot prevent her from having an abortion.

My post comes in a thread that argues convincingly that woman have choice but a man can be stuck in financial slavery just by having sex, which is not the same as deciding to have a child. The consequence is that there needs to be a choice of men to opt out taking care of a child.

There may be religious reasons why a woman may not be able to have an abortion. In fact, the biological urge for a woman to keep her fetus might be as strong as the biological urge for a man to have sex. The action may not be rational or up to reason at all.

Reality says

force the taxpayers to pay for raising his child

On this point, I would simply have childless people above 30 pay a special tax and give the proceeds to single parents.

Supporting the next generation has a cost (beyond schools) and there is no reason some totally escape this cost.

Reality says

There may be religious reasons why a woman may not be able to have an abortion. In fact, the biological urge for a woman to keep her fetus might be as strong as the biological urge for a man to have sex. The action may not be rational or up to reason at all.

If she has a religious reason to not have abortion, she should not have sex either or accept the consequences.

The same is true for the man: if he wants to avoid the abortion, he may be forced to accept to pay support.

Reality says

The guy should not be able to knock up a girl and then essentially force the girl to have an abortion or force the taxpayers to pay for raising his child, then rinse and repeat.

Women know how to use birth control, it is readily available and it is free. I think we've made a lot of great strides in its accessibility and removing stigma from single mother and certainly from the bastard children days!

Heraclitusstudent says

It doesn't require a couple either. In fact after divorce obviously there is no couple. So no "goal as a couple" involved.

Yea, I guess I meant more of if you went into it as a couple with the intention of remaining a couple but ended up separating. You would have had agreements with each other that extend beyond child support.

everything says

Anchor babies...

Dating & living with one now actually. She's already asked me to marry her, they all do, it's a profitable objective. I'll go back to living alone again after our lease is up. I can live cheaper and retire sooner on my own.

I just could not afford wife, or children.

And do what when you retire? Die a lonely old man with no family. Only your retirement money to keep you warm at night. Then off to a state home as you wait to die. You are not living life to the fullest without family. Children make the world new again. Most things you have probably seen in your life time. Not much to get excited about at your age. But when you have a child, that child becomes your world. You no longer see the world through your eyes, but instead through your child's eyes. The whole world becomes new again. All of your hopes and dreams transfer to that child. They are the greatest gift to man. There is no greater love than that for a child. In regards to the person you are dating. Is it possible that she is not concerned about profitability, but feels you two have bonded and genuinely wants to spend the rest of her life with you?

Heraclitusstudent says

Reality says

force the taxpayers to pay for raising his child

On this point, I would simply have childless people above 30 pay a special tax and give the proceeds to single parents.

You ARE kidding right?

Heraclitusstudent says

Supporting the next generation has a cost (beyond schools) and there is no reason some totally escape this cost.

Oh don't worry, they won't. What do you think happens to the worldly possessions of someone who dies with no heirs?

Even if the possessions go to other family members it always stays behind.

New Renter says

What do you think happens to the worldly possessions of someone who dies with no heirs?

No not really kidding. Why would other parents pay for single mothers welfare in addition to supporting their own kids? The one that should pay for this cost are childless people above 30.

As to "the worldly possessions of someone who dies with no heirs", assuming they exist, an heir is not necessarily a child. It could be a sibling.

Carolyn C says

And do what when you retire? Die a lonely old man with no family. Only your retirement money to keep you warm at night. Then off to a state home as you wait to die. You are not living life to the fullest without family. Children make the world new again. Most things you have probably seen in your life time. Not much to get excited about at your age. But when you have a child, that child becomes your world. You no longer see the world through your eyes, but instead through your child's eyes. The whole world becomes new again. All of your hopes and dreams transfer to that child. They are the greatest gift to man. There is no greater love than that for a child. In regards to the person you are dating. Is it possible that she is not concerned about profitability, but feels you two have bonded and genuinely wants to spend the rest of her life with you?

Carolyn

That's a nice sentiment but as we all know having children is NOT for everyone. We also have 7+ BILLION people on this planet and will hit 10B by 2062. The world does NOT need more children. It can't even handle the ones it already has. Foster or adopt instead.

If a human child is too much of a commitment foster or adopt a pet. You can get a lot of satisfaction from a non-human companion as well.

This is bullish.
This will heal the economy fast.

Heraclitusstudent says

New Renter says

What do you think happens to the worldly possessions of someone who dies with no heirs?

No not really kidding. Why would other parents pay for single mothers welfare in addition to supporting their own kids? The one that should pay for this cost are childless people above 30.

Why SHOULD childless people above the age of 30 pay for people who have children without the means to support them?

Heraclitusstudent says

As to "the worldly possessions of someone who dies with no heirs", assuming they exist, an heir is not necessarily a child. It could be a sibling.

So what - that sibling may have children who will benefit from the deceased childless person. If not then the possessions will be passed along until they are used up supporting the economy or they end up in the state coffers which is in essence a 100% tax on childless people.

New Renter says

No not really kidding. Why would other parents pay for single mothers welfare in addition to supporting their own kids? The one that should pay for this cost are childless people above 30.

Why SHOULD childless people above the age of 30 pay for people who have children without the means to support them?

Because someone needs to have some kids, and one person is not enough to support a kid. Therefore someone should pay. It's a charge at the community level. That's fairer than all other solutions.

You can always adopt or have your own child if you want and get exemption.

Reality says

A guy should not be allowed to knock up a girl and then essentially force the girl to have an abortion or force the taxpayers to pay for raising his child, then rinse and repeat.

Following that philosophy, a woman should not be allowed to have a child she cannot support. If we go down that road, the logical conclusion is that anyone who wants to have a child must meet a fiscal requirement by purchasing "child poverty" insurance. Anyone who cannot make the payment, cannot have a child.

That will prevent childhood poverty and ensure that the tax payers don't have to bear the burden of raising the children of irresponsible parents. However, it also has the consequence of changing reproduction from being a right to being a privilege. Are you willing to accept that trade-off?

Dan8267 says

If we go down that road, the logical conclusion is that anyone who wants to have a child must meet a fiscal requirement by purchasing "child poverty" insurance. Anyone who cannot make the payment, cannot have a child.

And include an IQ test too.
And people who don't pass must leave some body parts at the exit.

Heraclitusstudent says

Reality says

force the taxpayers to pay for raising his child

On this point, I would simply have childless people above 30 pay a special tax and give the proceeds to single parents.

Supporting the next generation has a cost (beyond schools) and there is no reason some totally escape this cost.

I would have the parents, single or not, pay a special tax and give the proceeds to the childless over 30. That is far more socially just.

The childless pay all sorts of taxes, including real estate taxes, that go to services they don't use. To add more insult and injury, the childless pay more not less in income taxes even though they use far fewer resources.

In our disgusting legal system, the state arrested and prosecuted single and childless men for using a public park -- for which they paid through their tax dollars -- to play chess. The state wanted only parents with their children to use the park -- a total violation of the 14th Amendment -- and considered any chess-playing single man to be a pedophile -- don't even get me started on that.

Finally, we live in a world where we cannot even support the number of people on the planet already. Every additional person adds ecological, economic, and political strain on the world and may lead to a mass death event. A third of the world's population doesn't even have adequate safe drinking water. Even America cannot support its population at the current level of technology and so we are borrowing from the future both in terms of dollars and in terms of ecological resources.

If anything, we should structure our tax code to severely discourage reproduction, particularly after two children. And we should reward the single. The single and childless produce more advancements in science and technology by far than the married or parents. These advancements are exactly what we need to support the soon-to-be 10.1 billion people on the planet without destroying the world's ecosystem.

And quite frankly, the childless guy spending massive amounts of time working in a STEM career is way the fuck more important to accomplishing this goal and avoiding a mass death event than you typical parent is. That's the cold hard truth. So I find no social or ethical justification for punishing and exploiting people for being childless.

Heraclitusstudent says

Dan8267 says

If we go down that road, the logical conclusion is that anyone who wants to have a child must meet a fiscal requirement by purchasing "child poverty" insurance. Anyone who cannot make the payment, cannot have a child.

And include an IQ test too.

And people who don't pass must leave some body parts at the exit.

The good news is that most politicians won't pass. The bad news is that the politicians will rig the test and write exceptions into the law just like they do with TSA security. The wealthy and connected don't have to go through rape scanners and get molested because they are on a "privilege list" of "ok people" that you will never be able to get on. They would do the same thing for an IQ requirement for reproduction.

Dan8267 says

In our disgusting legal system, the state arrested and prosecuted single and childless men for using a public park -- for which they paid through their tax dollars -- to play chess.

Are you sure they weren't card carrying members of NAMBLA?

Lets see a link!

A sure sign of the imminent skyrocketing of real estate prices.

A better class of buyers is entering the market, well-heeled and with the resources to outbid those without the cash reserves. Soon they will drive the prices far higher than anyone can afford, and everyone will be priced out forever.

One thing never considered in economics 101 is the case where the supply and demand curves no longer intersect. Demand vanishes, yet price becomes effectively infinite.

Those holding real property will soon own the universe: the money supply will be inadequate to purchase a single home in Stockton, and all real estate transactions will be in kind. Literally everyone will be priced out forever.

Dan8267 says

If anything, we should structure our tax code to severely discourage reproduction, particularly after two children. And we should reward the single.

Sounds like China

We just went through a phase where people had too much debts. On the other side of this equation, a lot of people actually have tons of cash.

How do we resolve this? People with cash buy the assets of people with debts. This is very healthy.

It doesn't say anything about prices. We can simply build a lot more real-estate. So no one is priced-out provided they are flexible and not bent on one location.

SubOink says

as of today, the bears of last few years have been wrong - period

The bears have been absolutely correct. The market place is manipulated which is fine as long as you buy to sell, but Real Estate is a long term hold with high expenses.

So it would have been better to trade in things easier to trade than Real Estate.

It's a matter of choices which the people who invest in Real Estate don't get. I'm happy to sell off my Real Estate holdings in this market, and wish I would have been able to do more in this past year.

I'm afraid that waiting is a time bomb of lost opportunities.

Dan8267 says

The childless pay all sorts of taxes, including real estate taxes, that go to services they don't use. To add more insult and injury, the childless pay more not less in income taxes even though they use far fewer resources.

Married couples pay more than 2 singles.
And the childless will still want to retire and have younger people pay for their social security and medicare, and take care of things around them when they're old.

The argument about overpopulation is specious, because having 1 or 2 children doesn't create overpopulation. If these children are educated and push the world in the right direction, it helps more than anything else. This just masks people washing their hands about a future that necessarily includes children.

grywlfbg says

For me I don't think the recovery is sustainable and we will slide back into recession and see the dow ~8,000. The Fed and their cronies have managed to roll the boulder back up the hill for much longer than I thought possible.

Please elaborate if possible. Why do you think they can't do it forever? So are you expecting hyperinflation, depression or stagflation going forward, say, 1 year from now?

New Renter says

Dan8267 says

If anything, we should structure our tax code to severely discourage reproduction, particularly after two children. And we should reward the single.

Sounds like China

From http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/opinion/chinas-brutal-one-child-policy.html

Village family-planning officers vigilantly chart the menstrual cycle and pelvic-exam results of every woman of childbearing age in their area. If a woman gets pregnant without permission and is unable to pay the often exorbitant fine for violating the policy, she risks being subjected to a forced abortion.

No, economic incentives to limit overpopulation are way the fuck kinder than any other means, man-made or natural, for population control.

New Renter says

Dan8267 says

In our disgusting legal system, the state arrested and prosecuted single and childless men for using a public park -- for which they paid through their tax dollars -- to play chess.

Are you sure they weren't card carrying members of NAMBLA?

Lets see a link!

NY Post

A squad of cops in bulletproof vests swooped into an upper Manhattan park and charged seven men with the "crime" of playing chess in an area off-limits to adults unaccompanied by kids -- even though no youngsters were there.

I'm surprised that no one was shot and killed.

From CopBlock

We’ve long maintained that chess is one of the least aggressive gentleman’s sports, just a wee bit behind Horseshoes on the blood-and-sweat chart. Who could find fault in benign chess players? But no minor infraction is too small for the NYPD: according to DNAinfo, seven chess players are due in court this month after they were arrested in Inwood for the grave offense of playing chess…on chess boards…in a park…illegally!

Nope, I don't make this shit up. Our country really is that fucking crazy. I wish it was just me; I'd prefer to be crazy and this shit all being in my head, but it's not.

SoftShell says

The Real Estate industry is trying to hijack the meaning of the word "inventory",

RE industry bastardized the term and confused everybody.

Nevertheless, "inventory" is a good indicator of price trend. Growing inventory usually mean possible future price weakness and vice versa.

Heraclitusstudent says

Married couples pay more than 2 singles.

In less than one in ten situations where both persons are high income and with no children. In the other 90% of the cases, single and childless people pay way the fuck more.

Heraclitusstudent says

Married couples pay more than 2 singles.

Marriage does not not equal parentage. This is a different argument altogether.

Heraclitusstudent says

And the childless will still want to retire and have younger people pay for their social security and medicare, and take care of things around them when they're old.

Yes just as they did for the generation before. If people payed into a system they are entitled to get back at least what they put into it.

How about immigrants who become citizens. Their parents are not benefiting from their SS/Medicare. Shall we exempt new citizens?

Heraclitusstudent says

The argument about overpopulation is specious, because having 1 or 2 children doesn't create overpopulation. If these children are educated and push the world in the right direction, it helps more than anything else. This just mask people washing their hands about a future that necessarily includes children.

Those 1-2 children DO create overpopulation when added to the 3-4 children of a neighbor or even the 14 children of "Octomom". The population number doesn't care if the kid is an only child or has 20+ siblings.

Heraclitusstudent says

The argument about overpopulation is specious, because having 1 or 2 children doesn't create overpopulation.

Unless, of course, everyone has more than two children. To say that overpopulation doesn't cause malnutrition, poverty, and death is ridiculous.

Yes, technology produced by STEM workers will eventually enable this world to support 10.1 billion people, but if technology outpaces food production, water supply, and technological advancement, then the result is mass human suffering in the form

As long as the population of the world stabilizes at 10.1 billion as predicted, technology will have advanced enough to sustain this population by the end of the 21st century. If the population continues to increase like it did during the 20th century, our world ecosystem will collapse as clean technology and renewable resources will not be able to sustain such a population.

What is ridiculous is the argument that it is a person's duty to have children because our species would go extinct otherwise. Going forth and multiplying was necessary in the Stone Age, not today.

jessica says

Reality says

The guy should not be able to knock up a girl and then essentially force the girl to have an abortion or force the taxpayers to pay for raising his child, then rinse and repeat.

Women know how to use birth control, it is readily available and it is free. I think we've made a lot of great strides in its accessibility and removing stigma from single mother and certainly from the bastard children days!

Jess, please do not take this as a criticism of you personally. IMHO, you are writing from the perspective of a woman who has never been pregnant. In my experience (admitted as a man engaged in serial monogamy with women, often in their early to mid-20's), the fetus often works like a alien body snatcher, turning a woman previously rational about abortion etc. into a fool-hardy protector of "the baby," risking her entire future well being and even her own life to keep "the baby."

It's about as irrational as a man wanting to have sex, which serves nearly no purpose for the individual himself (at least nothing more than what a 2hr workout plus masturbation can provide at much lower risk and cost), yet men (and women) love having sex.

There is not a rational basis to explain what a woman (or sometimes a man) does often times.

Dan8267 says

New Renter says

Dan8267 says

In our disgusting legal system, the state arrested and prosecuted single and childless men for using a public park -- for which they paid through their tax dollars -- to play chess.

Are you sure they weren't card carrying members of NAMBLA?

Lets see a link!

NY Post

Yikes! That IS silly!

It sounds like there was some community pushback. Good!

Aren't there already laws excluding convicted sex offenders from parks?

New Renter says

Aren't there already laws excluding convicted sex offenders from parks?

I'm not a lawyer, but it is my understanding that "sex offenders" including 12-year-old girls taking self-portraits of their own breasts are prohibited at punishment of prison for being within so many yards of any place children congregate, such as the 12-year-old's school.

That's how fucked up our laws are.

Dan8267 says

Yes, technology produced by STEM workers will eventually enable this world to support 10.1 billion people,

It doesn't even take a STEM worker to recommend mosquito netting and water filters made from sand and charcoal.