Well , the issue there would be whether they pay NET taxes ( that is what they pay more taxes than what they receive in benefits from government ) or not.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Interesting.How would that work? .And would that prevent things like abortion because of rape?
no that would not prevent abortions. if you thought that as a measure to prevent abortions, that's a horrible idea, cause then women will fuck without marriage and have all the children they want, cause government pays for them if they do xDi'm not sure what problem a governmentally funded insurance paying for women after divorce is supposed to solve, since alimony is a thing. so maybe you can enlighten me on what exactly that insurance is supposed to do.as for how the help for help for rape-victims, that would just work like every tax based redistribution system. and to avoid exploitation, there would have to be a convicted rapist in order to claim that support.if having a baby would give you government money, trust me, women would go crazy and just fuck every man they can.
I mean an "insurance net" in terms of a transfer of resources from one side of the population to the other, like for example, through tax funded programs, in contrast, with a more laissez faire structure in which there is absolutely no welfare programs ( if you fuck it up due to your own irresponsibility, you are the one paying the price ).
what's wrong with paying the price for what "you" fuck up youself? and then how do you secure that system against exploitation from women just fucking to be single moms and get the money?
That last one is a very good point. Seems like a difficult balancing act to secure that a relationship between a father's authority and his responsibility towards his children and the same time avoid such system to be exploited by system surfing single mothers. I guess the problem relies very much on the implementation more than the wording of a law, given that even neutral terms are usually ignored in favored of a biased implementation.
the concept you're suggesting is insanely dangerous, which probably is not your intention. but there we come in a territory where the government will have to devine "what is love and what is not" in order to tell women striving to be single moms appart from those looking for love. i mean i don't have to tell you about the growing number of patchwork families. who's to tell which of those were actually trying to find love and which of those just wanted to be moms?
decide not devine**
and i don't know about you but i'm not ok with a government defining love for the people.
Neither do I.
you do realise how dumb your opinion is, you'd have every women accusing an innocent man of rape just so she can get a free house.
@ChocoBrownieMonster yeah we have that now already anyway. how are we preventing that from happening now?
errr a condom?
@ChocoBrownieMonster oh yeah that's a super smart idea. i bet unwanted pregnancies happen all over the place, cause people never heard of condoms...
@ChocoBrownieMonster besides what rapist puts on a condom?
well if you're not married you should always use a condom
@ChocoBrownieMonster yeah no shit Sherlock. That is not new. We still have abortions and teenage pregnancy and rapists don't give a shit about putting on a condom when what they're doing puts them to jail anyway. So if everyone already used condoms, there could not be false rape accusations with a pregnancy as a result, cause there would be no pregnancy after rape. And if it wasn't rape, there would not be a baby cause again: condoms. So yeah if you want to push the use of condoms down people's throats even more, go and try that but it is already not helping at all.
It encourages all kinds of bad decision making and countless consequences for society.
Can you give any example of those situations and their proper context?
Well, a woman with children whose father (s) can't or won't support them.
Well, that depends on the context of the situation.First of all, on whether the father is given enough authority over the children in exchange of assuming the responsibility of supporting them. If the father decides to assume no responsibility, he should be given no authority. Is that simple. If the women doesn't want the guy to have a part in their children's life, he should provide no support. If he wants to be part of his children's life as a father and authority figure, he should provide support. Second is the fact that such agreement should be voluntary, there is no sense in forcing a compulsory agreement in which only one side obtains a net benefit. As such, it is a private affair in which the government should not be taking any part in it, except that one of the participants decides to commit a crime.
Not so fast. If the father opts out, there are still children who usually need support.
Be the first girl to share an opinion and earn 1 more Xper point!