Black Culture Discussion Thread

Barbara Hillary, the first Black woman to reach the North and South Poles, passed away last week at the age of 88.

na_NORTH_POLE_WOMAN2_color.jpg
 
blackintellect said:
I disagree, the approach I recommend doesn't keep certain individuals from having kids at all, rather it promotes having children later.
Click to expand...
It isn't full blown Eugenics, that is why I said you are somewhat moving in that direction.

It promotes having kids later? That is under the assumption they improve their economic situation.

I Get the reasoning but it is just a sensitive topic when discussing who should/shouldn't have kids.

But I get where you are coming from.
 
marikomorose said:
bollocks

the birthrate is already declining in the u.s. and that tax thing your proposed would likely only cause more poverty.
Click to expand...
On aggregate it is declining true, that's not what we are talking about here....

In the short term yes, it most likely would cause more hardship, in the long term it would shape behaviors as that's one of the consequences of tax policy.
 
blackintellect said:
On aggregate it is declining true, that's not what we are talking about here....

In the short term yes, it most likely would cause more hardship, in the long term it would shape behaviors as that's one of the consequences of tax policy.
Click to expand...
I don't think the tax thing would work for ppl in poverty especially being that they're already in poverty. Now if u proposed killing newborns then I could see that working.
 
alchemist iq said:
Great solution, keep people within the poverty line more impoverished with taxes/fines, your intelligence is by far exceeding your own potential by calling your self "blackintellect".
Click to expand...
More impoverished? By giving them more money? Low IQ you have "alchemist iq".
 
blackintellect said:
On aggregate it is declining true, that's not what we are talking about here....

In the short term yes, it most likely would cause more hardship, in the long term it would shape behaviors as that's one of the consequences of tax policy.
Click to expand...

only theoretically tho...from a practical perspective kids are inherently expensive so how could a tax be more prohibitive than the actual expense of taking care of the child(ren)? for people that already are low income?
 
Last edited:
tokes99 said:
only theoretically tho...from a practical perspective kids are inherently expensive so how could a tax be more prohibitive than the actual expense of taking care of the child(ren)? for peole that already are low income?
Click to expand...
Under the current system there is incentive in the short term via tax incentives to have more children, just like there is incentive to get married etc....The reasons for this are obvious and in the past have proven best for a society as a whole. You want married individuals which leads to a larger tax base and same with a higher birth rate you have more economic growth etc......One could argue that tax law is a lever that is leading to respective birth rates in certain demographics, which as you state leads to more expense long term for everyone involved.
 
Last edited:
alchemist iq said:
you saying we should we tax/fine people already in poverty who decide to have kids am I getting that correct?
Click to expand...
I am saying we need to revise our current tax law to adapt to the 21st century. It inherently favors middle class / upper middle class populations- most of which on laws regarding marriage and having kids.
 
blackintellect said:
Under the current system there is incentive in the short term via tax incentives to have more children, just like there is incentive to get married etc....The reasons for this are obvious and in the past have proven best for a society as a whole. You want married individuals which leads to a larger tax base and same with a higher birth rate you have more economic growth etc......One could argue that tax law is a lever that is leading to respective birth rates in certain demographics, which as you state leads to more expense long term for everyone involved.
Click to expand...

i get that there are incentives in the current tax law for children/dependents but i'm not sure it still offsets the actual caretaking costs such that you need to try to place a barrier with taxation? then considering the implementation of a standard for what level of income is sufficient in which area/hood/city/county/state. what is really the issue this would be trying to solve?
 
Privileged people shouldn't try to dictate how poorer people live their lives, such as whether they should have children or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom