re: J.D. Vance wants people with kids to be in a lower tax bracket than people without kids.

quote:

---

You either have more babies or you import workers.

---

Or you stop spending more money than you have a tax base to fund.

That's a choice too.

I can tell you and your fat wife live a fulfilling life that allows you to have 100k post on a message board

quote:

---

Oh frick off. Having kids is the primary function of a relationship.



No it's not, dumb arse. It's one of the functions, but it's not the primary reason.

---

quote:

---

No reason to punish people that don't have kids.

---

Like it or not, you need younger people to keep your investments valuable, to make your social security work, etc. why would you think you are being punished? We are assuming debt…who do you think is going to pay it? Your taxes don’t mean shite to our spending that you are currently “enjoying” the benefits of.

Kids make the entire economy work.

quote:

---

Conservatism... real conservatism... has always promoted big families. Tax bracket differences is a small price to pay for promoting marriage and kids, especially in an era where the first world is committing demographic suicide. Until we get to a point where we have no income tax anymore and we fund things with Tariffs again, this kind of policy is small potatoes that'll do more good than harm. Gripes about this are leftover Me Generation bullshite.

---

Big families has not ever necessarily been a foundational principle of conservatism as far as I know.

Intact, strong families were. Solvent, financially self-sufficient families were.

And conservatism has also traditionally frowned bigly upon the government engaging in social engineering by deciding who the winners and losers of society were going to be based on what social outcome they desired.

And the reason is obvious. Most people here agree with this incentive, so they like it. But what if Harris were POTUS and the proposal was to give only gay couples a tax break so that they could afford to adopt children?

This is the biggest thing that has been lost in this epidemic of populism: the ability to extract a general principle and respond to the possibilities and unintended consequences it proposes rather than just the specific idea in front of you at any given time.

All that said, conservatism has lost in our society of ADD, nonexistent attention spans, ever eroding capacity for abstract thought, and tribalistic populism. It's gone and it's not coming back.

So if the government is going to engineer outcomes no matter what (God help us), this one is far better than others it could choose.

Screw you. The Bush tax cuts and child credit allowed me to purchase my first home.

This is exactly who needs to be getting a tax cut. Working men and women with children.

BTW, I raised three, strong conservatives who all vote for Trump.

quote:

---

Or you stop spending more money than you have a tax base to fund.

---

We’re talking about social security. Do you know how that works?

quote:

---

And conservatism has also traditionally frowned bigly upon the government engaging in social engineering by deciding who the winners and losers of society were going to be based on what social outcome they desired.

---

This just isn’t true.

That’s just an argument progs use against conservatives when they disagree with conservative ideals.

Says the guy that first went to personal insults. I’m sorry this place is such a huge place in your life.

(no message)