Pope Francis has died.
They say don’t say anything bad about those who have died. I won’t
Just hope next Pope is a Catholic. (OK, I am not religious, but recognize that the Pope has a lot of influence)
Well put Shirehome.
There is bear scat in the forest. Just sayin’ …
Morning rant at Ace of Spades suggests republicans can use RCV to game elections in blue states and that we shouldn’t summarily reject it as a weapon.
Rod Dreher on the possibility that Francis’s passing is the end of liberal Catholicism and a new beginning. I’m not convinced this will be so, given the composition of the College of Cardinals, but here’s his take:
I watched “The Conclave” and I wouldn’t put it past Francis to put something in place like the film: Manipulate things such that the one who is eventually selected to succeed him is someone unknown but checks of the woke boxes.
I’m not a Roman Catholic, but still interested in what direction the new Pope will go on a number of issues – both internally and externally to the church.
J.J. Sefton at the Ace of Spades HQ site in an article says he would like to see a Cardinal from Nigeria elected Pope who has seen what the Muslims are doing to the Christians.
I agree with JJ Sefton. I recall about twenty years ago or so, the former Primate of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Church) expressed his, uh, frustration with the Anglican Church in England — they had NO idea what he had to face in Nigeria.
expressed his, uh, frustration with the Anglican Church in England — they had NO idea what he had to face in Nigeria.
==
Nothing prevented them from having an idea. They didn’t want an idea.
I apologize if any of the following comment is offensive.
I apologize, I’m ranting, so this might be an unpleasant comment to read, but:
China’s Government has just outlawed foreigners, aka people who aren’t from China- from doing missionary works (inside China).
That includes missionaries of: the Christian religion, the Muslim religion, and the Hindu religion, + all other religions.
The Chinese government doesn’t trust [any religion], or [any group], that is not approved by, or controlled by, the Chinese govt..
If you aren’t a Chinese citizen, + maybe even if you are one, you CAN’T talk to people about: your religious beliefs, your church, your religious group, your religion, or how people can join a religion.
If you do any of those things, China’s govt. might arrest you for, in its mind, [being a danger to China, + the Chinese govt..]
I don’t use this term often, but- these are 100%: Nazi party tactics, [Nazi police tactics], Third Reich tactics, totally oppressive tactics, and bad tactics, that are being used by China’s government.
China’s government doesn’t trust anyone that it can’t control.
In my opinion, these things are human rights, and all people should be given + guaranteed these rights, because they are [their] rights:
freedom of speech, freedom of expression, the freedom to tell people about your religion…or your opinions about-[religions, agnosticism, atheism, + all types of religious beliefs, and all types of not having a religion], the freedom to ask people if they want to join your religion…or to join another group, [and the freedom to be in any religion that you like, and…my words- to be a member of any group that you think is positive and harmless].
Also- you have the right to claim that your government is being authoritarian, or oppressive, and not be [jailed or silenced] for saying those things.
In my view, the freedoms of:
the freedom of speech, to have a religion or not, to have your [own] thoughts, + to tell people about your thoughts about religions, [and your thoughts about anything], + to talk about anyone’s thoughts, to have your own opinions, [and your rights to disagree with your government, and to defend yourself from it…when it is needed], are RIGHTS that all people have, and [no government] can take them away from you, and [no person or group] can take them away from you.
When these rights are defended by all people, and defended by your government, then we keep our complete freedoms, and [our rights we have as people, or the rights we have as humans, if you prefer to look at it in that way.]
Set in the 1600’s but not as dated as one might think. Damn good movie too, which is an even better reason to watch. I heard somewhere that Daniel Day Lewis was supposed to play the Liam Neeson role – that would have made it better still.
Pay breeders
The White House has been hearing out a chorus of ideas in recent weeks for persuading Americans to get married and have more children, an early sign that the Trump administration will embrace a new cultural agenda pushed by many of its allies on the right to reverse declining birthrates and push conservative family values. One proposal shared with aides would reserve 30 percent of scholarships for the Fulbright program, the prestigious, government-backed international fellowship, for applicants who are married or have children. Another would give a $5,000 cash “baby bonus” to every American mother after delivery.
One of the things Francis did which was very negative (in my opinion) was allowing the Communist Chinese Party to appoint Catholic bishops in China. Churches in China, including the Catholic Church, must conform to CCP propaganda rather than Christian faith.
It will be interesting to see what the Catholics do now.
What I came for today was to share this interesting video
I read the short story by Donald Barthelme this was based on via a recommendation from the Taibbi & Kirn weekly podcast, and then looked up the linked short film. It’s written/told completely in the voice of an unspecified interrogator, and only gradually does it come clear what must have happened. Salman Rushdie is the film’s “interrogator” and the production is really good.
I don’t think I’ve ever read or seen something like this before.
Video: https://www.badguygoodguy.com/concerning-the-bodyguard
I agree with huxley…I don’t see the College of Cardinals choosing another Liberation Theology proponent as Pope. Maybe not a hardline conservative, perhaps traditionalist on marriage and the ministry.
Oh…and Australia used to offer a “baby bonus.” (maybe still…?) Was meant to jumpstart a healthy childhood…Folks bought plasma TVs…my youngest is in what’s commonly called “the plasma generation.” We paid for a homebirth not covered by Medicare…so no TV for us. 😉
@artfldgr:Pay breeders
Considering that the children of today are providing the retirement of tomorrow*, maybe people without children should pay more taxes. Maybe something like families who’ve had no children pay $2X per year, families with only one pay $1X per year.
The differences between deaths and births, N, could be added up into a pot, and each of the M families in the next year having a third (or more) baby could be awarded (N/M) $X.
I can see a case for not having an exemption for people who can’t have children for some reason: it doesn’t matter why they are not producing a child, the children they aren’t having don’t exist to provide future retirement and the difference has to be made up somehow. But if we want to be softhearted and ignore math, maybe documented medical conditions can be exempt–but that just means more taxes for the others to make up for it.
At any rate, the people of today who are not having their share of the children will be the old people of tomorrow needing those children to exist and care for them. And there won’t be enough of those children to go around. Something must be done (and this is something!), and we’ve already tried nothing.
*Not to be confused with retirement savings. A pile of money cannot take care of you when you are sick and old; only living human beings can do that, and if you don’t bring your share of the next generations’ humans into the world, you are making the problem of your old age worse. Not trying to make anyone feel bad; math doesn’t care.
Your tax for people without children looks like punishment for my daughter who never found the right man to marry.
Scotus is getting out of line. We are seeing a coup by Article 3. In my dreams, the Republicans in the Senate start rattling their sabers and talk about nuking the filibuster and packing the court. You can be assured that the left will do the same if they get back into power.
@ Kate – I have a bachelor son – let’s talk! 😉
@ Bob Wilson > “You can be assured that the left will do the same if they get back into power.”
Indeed.
The Democrats were threatening both before the Republicans were in power; they will do it if it helps them, and won’t if it doesn’t, regardless of the GOP actions.
They will blame what they do on Republicans either way as well.
I literally just put up a post about that: see this.
Dubious about baby bonuses and about higher rates for the childless.
==
IMO, one’s personal income tax liability (federal), should be calculated thus:
==
(0.4 x T) – (P) – (m x c), where ‘T’ is a broad definition of taxable income (with all sectoral preferences shorn from it, so no deductions or exemptions), P is one’s payroll tax withholdings through the year, “m” is the membership of one’s household defined for tax purposes, and ‘c’ is a dollar-value credit. The dollar value would be a function of nominal personal income per capita and adjusted each year. If the result of the formula was positive, that would be your liability for the year. You subtract what was withheld during the year and that’s what you are due to pay or due for a refund. If the formula result is negative, you’re due a net rebate. The maximum value you might be due is the absolute value of the formula result. You have to compare that to the caps applicable to your household to determine your actual net rebate. If none of the signatories on the return qualify as elderly or disabled, the cap is a linear function of your earned income. If all of the signatories are elderly or disabled, the cap is a function of nominal personal income per capita in your region. If one signatory is and one is not, the cap is an average of these two values. Your actual net rebate is added to what was withheld from you during the year and your total remittance is sent to you in quarterly installments.
==
The foregoing replaces EITC. At the same time, you could eliminate a scrum of federal welfare programs, among them all the housing subsidies (accounting for 99% of the budget of HUD), all the subsidies for groceries and meals (currently 72% of the USDA budget), TANF, LIHEAP, &c. You could also limit federal financing of education to veterans and a menu of niche clientele like reservation Indians. You collect for the federal treasury somewhat north of 3.6% of GDP in revenue from income and capital gains taxes and you place that in a loosely dedicated fund to be devoted to overseas development and relief, domestic disaster relief, veterans benefits, the federal contribution to Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, and a menu of subsidies for certain niche clientele. The net rebates would amount to a similar share of GDP and would function as matching funds for earned income or supplementary income for the elderly and disabled.
==
General revenues for the federal government could be got from a value-added tax and a reformed corporation tax.
==
At the same time, you could recalculate payroll tax levies, with Social Security and Medicare being entirely financed out of a flat levy on your total compensation with a maximal value adjusted each year and unemployment compensation financed in part by such a levy and in part by an actuarially-rated charge on employers. Worker’s payroll tax liability increases, but that offsets their income tax liability.
==
At the state level, you could make use of value-added taxes. corporation taxes, and gift-and-inheritance for general revenues. You could use specialty income taxes whose proceeds flowed to dedicated funds to finance higher education and Medicaid. You could have actuarially-rated charges on businesses to finance workman’s compensation. Your general income tax liability might be calculated thus: (0.065 x T) – S – (m x c) as above, with ‘S’ however being equal to your liability for specialty income tax payments applicable to your first dollar of income (I.e which did not include a per person exemption). You’d collect little for the state treasury from the general income tax except some funds for internal disaster relief; the bulk would be remitted to the public. At the same time, the state could eschew any spending on subsidies for mundane expenditures or for cash doles apart from disaster relief. Your welfare state would consist of Medicaid, providing direct services to certain clients (people on the spectrum between normal and insane, people with severe intellectual deficits, physically disabled and infirm people), financing foster care and orphanages, ancillary features of the prison system (e.g. medical and l/t care for convicts); administration of unemployment compensation (with referral services), workman’s compensation, and the Job Corps; and providing subsidized education at the primary, secondary, and (more selectively) the tertiary level.
==
I think we encourage fertility through these tax credits and through the issuance of vouchers and partial rebates on property taxes to allow parents more choice in primary and secondary schooling, replacing tuition and room-and-board charges at state colleges and universities with financing via voucher redemptions. You have a global budget for the state’s higher education, you vend the vouchers to parents at discounted rates which are a function of the parents’ history of filing tax returns in the state, and the dedicated funds to finance the voucher redemptions are financed by an income tax which consists of a flat levy on any income you have over a per person exemption, so impecunious people and people with large families have slight liability.
@Kate:Your tax for people without children looks like punishment for my daughter who never found the right man to marry.
I’m afraid the math does not care why anyone didn’t contribute their share of children. The children your daughter did not have will not exist to help care for her when she is old and sick, and there’s an end on it. The tax may feel like a “punishment”, but how will the lack of care at the end of life feel? The extra money can go for a tax, or it can go to pay for much more expensive care due to lack of young working people, but go it will, regardless of anyone’s feelings or intentions or good faith efforts…
None of this will matter. Humanoid robots will massively change the calculus. There will be whole populations of useless, unwanted people.
The donkeys are already warning about revenge. Carthago delenda est. Do what ever it takes.
I don’t care for monkeying with the tax system to incentivize having children. Doesn’t Welfare do this already, and how is that working out? I support a return to traditional values, including not having children outside of marriage.
There will be no one to care for old people? What about bringing in guest workers or immigrants for that purpose?
Back to the topic opener:
Here’s another fun video by the author of the Black Hole speculations, sf writer John Michael Godier. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4-Sgf6c1kU
10 Unpleasant Alien Civilization Scenarios
Open thread notional (national) defense stuff (don’t worry Russia wants to be your friend)
Timestamps:
00:00:00 — Opening Words
00:01:19 — What Am I Talking About?
00:03:37 — the Cost Problem
00:12:18 — Nuances
00:15:13 — Meeting Demand?
00:22:17 — Conversion
00:37:58 — Scaling Down
00:47:22 — Technology Substitution
00:50:04 — Industry
00:55:10 — the Risk
00:56:58 — Teaming
01:00:34 — Channel Update
Regarding care for the elderly (with or without children) for a progressive view go back to J. M. Keynes , when asked about a long term problem he replied
“In the long run we are all dead.”
The maths don’t care, that’s where religious community (some types) make a difference, or are supposed to.
Future war will require drones in numbers like artillery shells. Tens of millions or more.
I don’t care for monkeying with the tax system to incentivize having children. Doesn’t Welfare do this already, and how is that working out? I
==
The tax system is a mess and would benefit from a menu of adjustments anyway. No, ‘welfare’ does not do this. While we’re at it, AFDC was replaced with TANF in 1996. AFDC rolls in 1992 encompassed 12 million people. The population has increased by 30% since then. Current TANF rolls encompass 2 million people.
Like the Excalibur artillery shell?
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Pope Francis has died.
They say don’t say anything bad about those who have died. I won’t
Just hope next Pope is a Catholic. (OK, I am not religious, but recognize that the Pope has a lot of influence)
Well put Shirehome.
There is bear scat in the forest. Just sayin’ …
Morning rant at Ace of Spades suggests republicans can use RCV to game elections in blue states and that we shouldn’t summarily reject it as a weapon.
Rod Dreher on the possibility that Francis’s passing is the end of liberal Catholicism and a new beginning. I’m not convinced this will be so, given the composition of the College of Cardinals, but here’s his take:
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/pope-francis-death-jd-vance-new-catholicism/
I watched “The Conclave” and I wouldn’t put it past Francis to put something in place like the film: Manipulate things such that the one who is eventually selected to succeed him is someone unknown but checks of the woke boxes.
I’m not a Roman Catholic, but still interested in what direction the new Pope will go on a number of issues – both internally and externally to the church.
J.J. Sefton at the Ace of Spades HQ site in an article says he would like to see a Cardinal from Nigeria elected Pope who has seen what the Muslims are doing to the Christians.
I agree with JJ Sefton. I recall about twenty years ago or so, the former Primate of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Church) expressed his, uh, frustration with the Anglican Church in England — they had NO idea what he had to face in Nigeria.
expressed his, uh, frustration with the Anglican Church in England — they had NO idea what he had to face in Nigeria.
==
Nothing prevented them from having an idea. They didn’t want an idea.
I apologize if any of the following comment is offensive.
I apologize, I’m ranting, so this might be an unpleasant comment to read, but:
China’s Government has just outlawed foreigners, aka people who aren’t from China- from doing missionary works (inside China).
That includes missionaries of: the Christian religion, the Muslim religion, and the Hindu religion, + all other religions.
The Chinese government doesn’t trust [any religion], or [any group], that is not approved by, or controlled by, the Chinese govt..
If you aren’t a Chinese citizen, + maybe even if you are one, you CAN’T talk to people about: your religious beliefs, your church, your religious group, your religion, or how people can join a religion.
If you do any of those things, China’s govt. might arrest you for, in its mind, [being a danger to China, + the Chinese govt..]
I don’t use this term often, but- these are 100%: Nazi party tactics, [Nazi police tactics], Third Reich tactics, totally oppressive tactics, and bad tactics, that are being used by China’s government.
China’s government doesn’t trust anyone that it can’t control.
In my opinion, these things are human rights, and all people should be given + guaranteed these rights, because they are [their] rights:
freedom of speech, freedom of expression, the freedom to tell people about your religion…or your opinions about-[religions, agnosticism, atheism, + all types of religious beliefs, and all types of not having a religion], the freedom to ask people if they want to join your religion…or to join another group, [and the freedom to be in any religion that you like, and…my words- to be a member of any group that you think is positive and harmless].
Also- you have the right to claim that your government is being authoritarian, or oppressive, and not be [jailed or silenced] for saying those things.
In my view, the freedoms of:
the freedom of speech, to have a religion or not, to have your [own] thoughts, + to tell people about your thoughts about religions, [and your thoughts about anything], + to talk about anyone’s thoughts, to have your own opinions, [and your rights to disagree with your government, and to defend yourself from it…when it is needed], are RIGHTS that all people have, and [no government] can take them away from you, and [no person or group] can take them away from you.
When these rights are defended by all people, and defended by your government, then we keep our complete freedoms, and [our rights we have as people, or the rights we have as humans, if you prefer to look at it in that way.]
No one can take these rights from you.
[No one].
[Here is a news article about this topic, below]-
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/04/08/china-moves-to-formally-end-christian-missionary-activity/
I’m ex-Catholic for many years. I try to keep up.
My hunch is that the Church will backtrack from Francis’s leftism to a centrist pope. Regression to the mean.
TR,
Watch the movie Silence by Scorsese sometime.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAc4XaRFVq8
Set in the 1600’s but not as dated as one might think. Damn good movie too, which is an even better reason to watch. I heard somewhere that Daniel Day Lewis was supposed to play the Liam Neeson role – that would have made it better still.
Pay breeders
The White House has been hearing out a chorus of ideas in recent weeks for persuading Americans to get married and have more children, an early sign that the Trump administration will embrace a new cultural agenda pushed by many of its allies on the right to reverse declining birthrates and push conservative family values. One proposal shared with aides would reserve 30 percent of scholarships for the Fulbright program, the prestigious, government-backed international fellowship, for applicants who are married or have children. Another would give a $5,000 cash “baby bonus” to every American mother after delivery.
One of the things Francis did which was very negative (in my opinion) was allowing the Communist Chinese Party to appoint Catholic bishops in China. Churches in China, including the Catholic Church, must conform to CCP propaganda rather than Christian faith.
It will be interesting to see what the Catholics do now.
What I came for today was to share this interesting video
I read the short story by Donald Barthelme this was based on via a recommendation from the Taibbi & Kirn weekly podcast, and then looked up the linked short film. It’s written/told completely in the voice of an unspecified interrogator, and only gradually does it come clear what must have happened. Salman Rushdie is the film’s “interrogator” and the production is really good.
I don’t think I’ve ever read or seen something like this before.
Video:
https://www.badguygoodguy.com/concerning-the-bodyguard
Text: (originally published in the New Yorker, October 16, 1978)
https://biblioklept.org/2013/09/20/concerning-the-bodyguard-donald-barthelme/
I agree with huxley…I don’t see the College of Cardinals choosing another Liberation Theology proponent as Pope. Maybe not a hardline conservative, perhaps traditionalist on marriage and the ministry.
Oh…and Australia used to offer a “baby bonus.” (maybe still…?) Was meant to jumpstart a healthy childhood…Folks bought plasma TVs…my youngest is in what’s commonly called “the plasma generation.” We paid for a homebirth not covered by Medicare…so no TV for us. 😉
@artfldgr:Pay breeders
Considering that the children of today are providing the retirement of tomorrow*, maybe people without children should pay more taxes. Maybe something like families who’ve had no children pay $2X per year, families with only one pay $1X per year.
The differences between deaths and births, N, could be added up into a pot, and each of the M families in the next year having a third (or more) baby could be awarded (N/M) $X.
I can see a case for not having an exemption for people who can’t have children for some reason: it doesn’t matter why they are not producing a child, the children they aren’t having don’t exist to provide future retirement and the difference has to be made up somehow. But if we want to be softhearted and ignore math, maybe documented medical conditions can be exempt–but that just means more taxes for the others to make up for it.
At any rate, the people of today who are not having their share of the children will be the old people of tomorrow needing those children to exist and care for them. And there won’t be enough of those children to go around. Something must be done (and this is something!), and we’ve already tried nothing.
*Not to be confused with retirement savings. A pile of money cannot take care of you when you are sick and old; only living human beings can do that, and if you don’t bring your share of the next generations’ humans into the world, you are making the problem of your old age worse. Not trying to make anyone feel bad; math doesn’t care.
Your tax for people without children looks like punishment for my daughter who never found the right man to marry.
Scotus is getting out of line. We are seeing a coup by Article 3. In my dreams, the Republicans in the Senate start rattling their sabers and talk about nuking the filibuster and packing the court. You can be assured that the left will do the same if they get back into power.
@ Kate – I have a bachelor son – let’s talk! 😉
@ Bob Wilson > “You can be assured that the left will do the same if they get back into power.”
Indeed.
The Democrats were threatening both before the Republicans were in power; they will do it if it helps them, and won’t if it doesn’t, regardless of the GOP actions.
They will blame what they do on Republicans either way as well.
Narratives fly…narratives crash….
“The Truth About That American Citizen Detained by ICE Comes Out, and Narratives Burn to the Ground”—
https://redstate.com/bonchie/2025/04/21/the-truth-about-that-american-citizen-detained-by-ice-comes-out-and-narratives-are-burned-to-the-ground-n2188110
Barry Meislin:
I literally just put up a post about that: see this.
Dubious about baby bonuses and about higher rates for the childless.
==
IMO, one’s personal income tax liability (federal), should be calculated thus:
==
(0.4 x T) – (P) – (m x c), where ‘T’ is a broad definition of taxable income (with all sectoral preferences shorn from it, so no deductions or exemptions), P is one’s payroll tax withholdings through the year, “m” is the membership of one’s household defined for tax purposes, and ‘c’ is a dollar-value credit. The dollar value would be a function of nominal personal income per capita and adjusted each year. If the result of the formula was positive, that would be your liability for the year. You subtract what was withheld during the year and that’s what you are due to pay or due for a refund. If the formula result is negative, you’re due a net rebate. The maximum value you might be due is the absolute value of the formula result. You have to compare that to the caps applicable to your household to determine your actual net rebate. If none of the signatories on the return qualify as elderly or disabled, the cap is a linear function of your earned income. If all of the signatories are elderly or disabled, the cap is a function of nominal personal income per capita in your region. If one signatory is and one is not, the cap is an average of these two values. Your actual net rebate is added to what was withheld from you during the year and your total remittance is sent to you in quarterly installments.
==
The foregoing replaces EITC. At the same time, you could eliminate a scrum of federal welfare programs, among them all the housing subsidies (accounting for 99% of the budget of HUD), all the subsidies for groceries and meals (currently 72% of the USDA budget), TANF, LIHEAP, &c. You could also limit federal financing of education to veterans and a menu of niche clientele like reservation Indians. You collect for the federal treasury somewhat north of 3.6% of GDP in revenue from income and capital gains taxes and you place that in a loosely dedicated fund to be devoted to overseas development and relief, domestic disaster relief, veterans benefits, the federal contribution to Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, and a menu of subsidies for certain niche clientele. The net rebates would amount to a similar share of GDP and would function as matching funds for earned income or supplementary income for the elderly and disabled.
==
General revenues for the federal government could be got from a value-added tax and a reformed corporation tax.
==
At the same time, you could recalculate payroll tax levies, with Social Security and Medicare being entirely financed out of a flat levy on your total compensation with a maximal value adjusted each year and unemployment compensation financed in part by such a levy and in part by an actuarially-rated charge on employers. Worker’s payroll tax liability increases, but that offsets their income tax liability.
==
At the state level, you could make use of value-added taxes. corporation taxes, and gift-and-inheritance for general revenues. You could use specialty income taxes whose proceeds flowed to dedicated funds to finance higher education and Medicaid. You could have actuarially-rated charges on businesses to finance workman’s compensation. Your general income tax liability might be calculated thus: (0.065 x T) – S – (m x c) as above, with ‘S’ however being equal to your liability for specialty income tax payments applicable to your first dollar of income (I.e which did not include a per person exemption). You’d collect little for the state treasury from the general income tax except some funds for internal disaster relief; the bulk would be remitted to the public. At the same time, the state could eschew any spending on subsidies for mundane expenditures or for cash doles apart from disaster relief. Your welfare state would consist of Medicaid, providing direct services to certain clients (people on the spectrum between normal and insane, people with severe intellectual deficits, physically disabled and infirm people), financing foster care and orphanages, ancillary features of the prison system (e.g. medical and l/t care for convicts); administration of unemployment compensation (with referral services), workman’s compensation, and the Job Corps; and providing subsidized education at the primary, secondary, and (more selectively) the tertiary level.
==
I think we encourage fertility through these tax credits and through the issuance of vouchers and partial rebates on property taxes to allow parents more choice in primary and secondary schooling, replacing tuition and room-and-board charges at state colleges and universities with financing via voucher redemptions. You have a global budget for the state’s higher education, you vend the vouchers to parents at discounted rates which are a function of the parents’ history of filing tax returns in the state, and the dedicated funds to finance the voucher redemptions are financed by an income tax which consists of a flat levy on any income you have over a per person exemption, so impecunious people and people with large families have slight liability.
@Kate:Your tax for people without children looks like punishment for my daughter who never found the right man to marry.
I’m afraid the math does not care why anyone didn’t contribute their share of children. The children your daughter did not have will not exist to help care for her when she is old and sick, and there’s an end on it. The tax may feel like a “punishment”, but how will the lack of care at the end of life feel? The extra money can go for a tax, or it can go to pay for much more expensive care due to lack of young working people, but go it will, regardless of anyone’s feelings or intentions or good faith efforts…
None of this will matter. Humanoid robots will massively change the calculus. There will be whole populations of useless, unwanted people.
The donkeys are already warning about revenge. Carthago delenda est. Do what ever it takes.
I don’t care for monkeying with the tax system to incentivize having children. Doesn’t Welfare do this already, and how is that working out? I support a return to traditional values, including not having children outside of marriage.
There will be no one to care for old people? What about bringing in guest workers or immigrants for that purpose?
Back to the topic opener:
Here’s another fun video by the author of the Black Hole speculations, sf writer John Michael Godier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4-Sgf6c1kU
10 Unpleasant Alien Civilization Scenarios
Open thread notional (national) defense stuff (don’t worry Russia wants to be your friend)
NATO’s Munition Challenge – Costs, Recent Lessons & Rebuilding Magazine Depth – Perun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfmZ_rajdrs&t=57s
Regarding care for the elderly (with or without children) for a progressive view go back to J. M. Keynes , when asked about a long term problem he replied
“In the long run we are all dead.”
The maths don’t care, that’s where religious community (some types) make a difference, or are supposed to.
Future war will require drones in numbers like artillery shells. Tens of millions or more.
I don’t care for monkeying with the tax system to incentivize having children. Doesn’t Welfare do this already, and how is that working out? I
==
The tax system is a mess and would benefit from a menu of adjustments anyway. No, ‘welfare’ does not do this. While we’re at it, AFDC was replaced with TANF in 1996. AFDC rolls in 1992 encompassed 12 million people. The population has increased by 30% since then. Current TANF rolls encompass 2 million people.
Like the Excalibur artillery shell?