So, then...rich people having kids.  If we put a stop to that, then we wouldn't have any use for a death-tax.  As much as many people hate the death-tax, really, we don't need a hereditary aristocracy in our country.  Does it seem wrong that person be taxed just for dying?  Too bad!  Suck it up and pay Uncle Sam for all the good things he's done for you.  

It's bad enough that the current two parties have been ensconced as nearly permanent fixtures in American politics.  We don't need he Hilton family furnishing all of our future leaders.  Stopping them from having kids would seem to kill two birds with one stone (both questions about the death tax and aristocracy invading our government).  

So, new question.  Is it necessary, or even helpful to prevent rich people from having children, in order to avoid this?  It sure is a seductive thought, but so is attacking the reproductive freedoms of the lower classes, the disabled, and people we don't really want to look at all day long (at least to some people).  It seems to me that a progressive model of taxation would limit upper-class power, so that middle and even lower class persons can still get a piece of the pie.  Look at what trickle-down economics has done to our economy.  Every tax cut has had a tiny bump, and when the bump is over, the economy is worse than before taxes were cut.  Every decrease in regulation slows technological breakthroughs and increases attacks by hazardous industries on the physical health of people living near their facilities.  We can certainly protect ourselves from the wealthy without impinging on their rights as human beings.  Use trickle-up economics instead of trickle down.

This post was last modified: 02-17-2012 11:18 AM by Lang.