Family Free-Riders (Childless adults are economic free riders)

Chicago Boyz ^ | March 03, 2006 | Shannon Love

[Navy Patriot]

Does that include the military who are also Government employees?

Although not currently in effect the military has been enabled by conscription, so I would classify the military as government servants more than government employees. I will stipulate that the military in general, especially the lower ranks, vote their nation ahead of their paycheck consistently.

[freedumb2003]

That's it. No Social Security for you!

Anyone under 50 who thinks they will ever see a dime of SSI living in a fantasyland.

SSI plays NO part in my retirement planning. If I see a few sheckels from it, I'll use it to buy hats or something.

[uglybiker]

I'll bet you are cute as a button now!

Ya darn right I am!

In fact, I am willing to donate my services to all attractive, childless women who want the 'permission' to vote.

It's a difficult job I know, but I do it ...for my country. (God Bless America starts playing in the background)

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

That's actually worth considering, whether you have children or not. Once you start on the government pension, you could conceivably get a more socialist mindset (suddenly, you see the socialist light), and we have enough of that already. :-)

[thespacecowgirl]

What is NOT OK is to come along and tell those of us who are doing the heaviest lifting that we are somehow doing "less that our part."

You can say that again. The childfree missed out on the majority of the tax relief, but you better believe if they ever have to RAISE taxes, they'll be grabbing for our paychecks first.

[freedumb2003]

How about letting the childless retain their suffrage until such time as they take their first Social Security check?

You think it unfair for us to get a small % of the money we paid into this Ponzi scheme?

You act like kids are somehow subsidizing SSI. The opposite is true.

[ThinkDifferent]

I simply made the argument that those with children tend to have longer time horizons when making decisions and that longer time horizons lead to better decision making.

Even if this is true, using a statistical tendency to disenfranchise millions of people is still silly. By that reasoning, men should be taxed more because they commit more crimes.

[Scourge of God]

You can say that again. The childfree missed out on the majority of the tax relief, but you better believe if they ever have to RAISE taxes, they'll be grabbing for our paychecks first.

Those raising children contribute a lot more to society than the childless. They deserve a lighter tax burden. The government, in a rare fit of clear-sightedness, realizes that families are what make a nation. Families ought to be encouraged.

Plus, from a purely partisan point of view, families tend to make more conservatives. Liberals, thanks to the Roe effect and environmental extremism, are aborting and non-reproducing themselves out of existence.

So, if you are truly conservative, you should whole-heartedly support the family institution in America. It’s abandonment of marriage and childrearing that has Europe in the Muslim-dependent mess that its in. That the future you’d like for this country?

[FreedomSurge]

Women should be taxed higher because they are more irritating.

[Galveston Grl]

**Ahh, yes - Dallas; the New York Yankees of football... except for the winning part, that is. (Go Green Bay!)**

It's one degree of insanity to advocate blocking all our childless aunts and uncles from voting...but you are really talkin' nasty to go after Dallas and Yankee fans. What, are you trying to start a civil war? :)

[FreedomSurge]

We use statistical tendencies to disenfranchise felons. There are million of felons, many of whom are productive members of society. We use statistical tendencies to disenfranchise those under 18. Many high school kids are better informed than adults. This doesn't seem to be fair.

Society makes decisions based on statistical tendencies all of the time.

[Galveston Grl]

**Childless people don't get a free ride at all. Do they not pay real estate taxes that support schools they'll never send childen to?... My taxes don't go down because I didn't give birth to one of my own.**

Thats right. I think some folks mine separation between marrieds and singles by referring to parents as "breeders" and being mean about kids. This is a really stupid topic.

[Godebert]

"Steaming Pantload Award"......that's funny.

[bannie]

Hey, I'm not saying that you should have kids. I'm thrilled when people are aware of their choices before it's too late.

However, those kids going to school will be the bottom contributers to the ponzi scheme we call "Social Security."

(That said, the article's ideas about "free riding" are totally silly.)

[Clemenza]

Re #44. THANK YOU!

I pay property taxes (albeit indirectly) to support the government daycare centers known as schools for the breeders, to say NOTHING of the federal income taxes deducted, much of it for programs "for the children."

[Jersey Republican Biker Chick]

LOL, I bet you would enjoy every minute of it!

[Antoninus]

Indeed. He is a textbood case of rectocranial inversion.

It's somewhat comforting to see that these threads consistenly attract hundreds and hundreds of posts. It demonstrates that there's a vast reservoir of individuals who feel extremely defensive about the issue and need to have their lifestyle choices affirmed and reaffirmed by others of a like mind. A certain sign of uncertainty.

[steve-b]

It demonstrates that there's a vast reservoir of individuals who feel extremely defensive about the issue and need to have their lifestyle choices affirmed and reaffirmed by others of a like mind.

Yep, Shannon Love (the original author) is a classic example of that phenomenon.

[Antoninus]

Have you been appointed as the judge to distinguish who is "childless for selfish reasons" from those who might be childless for perhaps a variety of other completely different reasons?

There is a Judge, madame, but it ain't me.

This sums up my feelings on the matter in a nutshell:

On motherhood as the true source of progress, Teddy Roosevelt said:

"A more supreme instance of unselfishness than is afforded by motherhood cannot be imagined."

Before an audience of liberal Christian theologians in 1911, he said:

"If you do not believe in your own stock enough to see the stock kept up, then you are not good Americans, you are not patriots, and ... I for one shall not mourn your extinction; and in such event I shall welcome the advent of a new race that will take your place, because you wil have shown that you are not fit to cumber the ground."

On the centrality of the child-rich family to the very existence of the American nation:

"It is in the life of the family, upon which in the last analysis the whole welfare of the nation rests....The nation is nothing but the aggregate of the families within its borders."

On parenthood:

"No other success in life, not being President, or being wealthy, or going to college, or anything else, comes up to the success of the man and woman who can feel that they have done their duty and that their children and grandchildren rise up to call them blessed."

On out-of-wedlock birth versus practiced sterility:

"After all, such a vice may be compatible with a nation's continuing to live, and while there is life, even a life marred by wrong practices, there is a chance of reform.

In another place, on the same subject:

"...[W]hile there is life, there is hope, whereas nothing can be done with the dead."

On the behavior of 90% of those who practice birth control:

"[It is derived] from viciousness, coldness, shallow-heartedness, self-indulgence, or mere failure to appreciate aright the difference between the all-important and the unimportant."

It should be pointed out that TR managed to have seven kids himself--despite being secretary of the navy, a Rough Rider, Vice President, and President.

[Antoninus]

Yep, Shannon Love (the original author) is a classic example of that phenomenon.

Pardon me, your transference is showing.