How I can use the law to my advantage

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 20
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
Texas law states that if you have 10 kids, you don't have to pay property tax.

They also banned abortion because the Texas government claimed a zygote is a kid.

So what am I going to do?  I want to move to Texas, and If I'm able to own multiple houses, I want to freeze 10 zygotes in a freezer, pay at most $7000 for freezer fees, and (if I own dozens of properties), save $tens of thousands on property taxes.  And I'm able to do all of this because the Texas government believes that a zygote is a human being that should be treated exactly like a baby.

Now lets say your pro choice, but you never want to be the parent of an aborted baby.  Well, if you move to Texas, you have a vested interest in Texas keeping abortion banned so you can freeze zygotes in a freezer to avoid paying property tax.  If Texas decides to legalize abortion, you may feel good about it since your pro choice, but you also are going to have to pay a lot of property tax money to Texas, so you may want abortion banned in the state just so Texas classifies a zygote as a human being so you can keep your property tax savings.  I mean, if your pro choice but never want to be the parent of an aborted baby, then the abortion laws don't effect you.  Now, if you get a girl pregnant accidentally and you want to abort, then that's a different story; you go to a state that will legalize abortion, you abort, and you come back.  But you still live in Texas (and you would vote for pro life republicans so you can keep you can avoid paying property tax,keeping abortion banned in Texas).  You can pay for the travelling fees with the money you saved from property tax.

Now, if everyone in Texas took advantage of this, your going to have a lot of embryos stored in freezers and no property tax coming into the Texas'es state treasury.  So then Texas might do at least one of the 2 things that they don't want to do:

1) Don't classify a zygote as a human, so legalize abortion so they can collect property tax money.  This is going to lead to potentially hundreds of millions of zygotes being killed, but if they aren't people, this is legal.
2) Impose an income tax on it's residents (because property tax no longer generates any revenue if every person took advantage of this).

They might increase the sales tax, but the sales tax only raises so much revenue.  But they need to raise taxes to generate revenue instead of the property tax, or they could not count zygotes as human beings so they can have no income and sales tax and rely on the property tax.

Not only this, but ANY state where abortion is banned because of the belief that it kills a human being, the residents there can use a similar hack and avoid paying federal taxes (and maybe state taxes as well because the state may have child tax beneftis) because the federal government provides an average of about $5000 per child that is a dependent of the family as a tax cut and if zygotes are human beings, no matter how pro choice you are, you have a vested interest in your state banning abortion so you can freeze a zygote and collect the tax savings that resulted from that zygote being dependent on you.  If you ever decide to get an abortion, you can head over to a blue state for one.  The federal government is going to have to do something similar to Texas, where they either legalize abortion nationwide or eliminate the child tax credit, but if they eliminate the child tax credit, then all the families that have zygotes stored in freezers are going to kill their zygotes illegally (unless the federal government legalizes abortion nationwide) if they live in red states.
#2
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
I doubt the statute says "since zygotes are kids" it probably says "abortion is defined thus and is subject to these penalties", laws don't explain themselves. They just punish. They probably should be tied to an argument, but they aren't.

You also overlooked the possibility that you would be arrested for child abuse even given the humorous premise. Can't very well freeze kids legally can you?

Just like the argument would be that you must feed and educate your kids, you would have to incubate them. It's (in theory) a duty.
#3
DavidAZ
DavidAZ's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 345
1
2
8
DavidAZ's avatar
DavidAZ
1
2
8
-->
@TheUnderdog
I would have to hand it to you Underdog, that is really creative! :) , but I would have to agree with adreamofliberty that since a Zygote would be considered a child, freezing them would create more problems than you hoped to solve.
Topic's author
#4
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
@DavidAZ
A parents has to give their kid what they need to survive.  If that’s food, you feed them.  If it’s shelter, you house them.  If it’s freezing them, you freeze them.

If a zygote is a human being, if a zygote is a child, then I get to freeze 100 embryos and claim 100 dependents on my taxes.  Why ban abortion if you don’t believe a zygote is a human being?
#5
DavidAZ
DavidAZ's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 345
1
2
8
DavidAZ's avatar
DavidAZ
1
2
8
-->
@TheUnderdog
Hmmm. . .  I figure this plan would fail anyways.  You can barely get 2 or 3 women who would be willing to do this, much less sleep with you. Ha!
#6
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
If a zygote is a human being, if a zygote is a child, then I get to freeze 100 embryos and claim 100 dependents on my taxes.
As I said, you're already beyond legality because the law can simultaneously ban abortion and not consider a zygote a child. You're appealing to abstract principle, which is good; that is how we should think but it's got little to do with the law.

In the abstract then, taxes are theft. So let's assume that "claiming a dependent" meant that some significant portion of the economy were willing to support people with large families. Whether this is a fee offset or a simple gift is semantics.

They know what they're trying to do: it's to help families. If you try to cheat their intentions they'll just close any loophole they may have missed.

You aren't supporting a hundred growing kids, you are running a 50 watts of cooling, and there probably aren't many who thought it was a responsible thing to do in the first place. People who do think there is a duty to zygotes will probably consider your behavior immoral and try to make it illegal.

So we've looked at this two ways:
Legally - You have no case, judge would just say abortion statutes have nothing to do with tax policy; maybe you could get a symbolic victory by getting him/her to admit that a zygote is not a legal dependent but they would almost certainly just say you aren't supporting the child and call protective services
Morally - You have no case, you aren't entitled to money because you have kids be they ten years old or eternal zygotes


#7
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@DavidAZ
Hmmm. . .  I figure this plan would fail anyways.  You can barely get 2 or 3 women who would be willing to do this, much less sleep with you. Ha!
Yet one could easily imagine that he wouldn't need much help in the not too distant future.

Gametes could be sold, they are sold now.

Male gametes are very cheap, and with some slight hormone or genetic modification eggs could be cheap as dirt too.

By the time we can grow artificial meat we will also have access to replacement organs or even organs that can just float and provide resources. For example a man could simply replace the Y with another copy of his X (his mother's) in a stem cell and grow a working ovary from that. Then he could have an egg generator using entirely his own DNA.

We had best start working out the morality now....
Topic's author
#8
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@DavidAZ
They might do it if it means no property taxes for the rest of their life.
#9
DavidAZ
DavidAZ's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 345
1
2
8
DavidAZ's avatar
DavidAZ
1
2
8
-->
@TheUnderdog
Lol.  Go for it.
Topic's author
#10
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
As I said, you're already beyond legality because the law can simultaneously ban abortion and not consider a zygote a child.
Why would you ban abortion if you don’t believe a zygote is a child?

They know what they're trying to do: it's to help families. If you try to cheat their intentions they'll just close any loophole they may have missed.
The only way they can close the loophole is by not calling a zygote a child.  Why provide a tax credit for some children and not others?  It’s an inconsistent application of the law.

People who do think there is a duty to zygotes will probably consider your behavior immoral and try to make it illegal.
This would require banning IVF.  But only a few states do that, and most of them voted for Biden.  In Texas, IVF is legal and no politician there has advocated banning IVF.

Legally - You have no case, judge would just say abortion statutes have nothing to do with tax policy; maybe you could get a symbolic victory by getting him/her to admit that a zygote is not a legal dependent but they would almost certainly just say you aren't supporting the child and call protective services
Legally, I have a case.  I would have dependents in the freezer and I can collect a tax credit because of that.  I’m supporting the child by paying the smaller fee for them being in the freezer than property tax.

If they ban IVF, I don’t know what you’re going to do with the zygotes already created.  If they kill them, in their view, that is genocide.  They would have to find women willing to be pregnant with tens of millions of zygotes (and I don’t think you will find too many willing to do that).
#11
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
As I said, you're already beyond legality because the law can simultaneously ban abortion and not consider a zygote a child.
Why would you ban abortion if you don’t believe a zygote is a child?
The law doesn't answer questions.

They know what they're trying to do: it's to help families. If you try to cheat their intentions they'll just close any loophole they may have missed.
The only way they can close the loophole is by not calling a zygote a child.
No that is not the only way. They can define a fetus as zygote -> no longer needs incubation and a child as no longer need incubation -> 18 year old.

Then they can say a fetus is a person so murder is illegal but only children you are actually raising entitle you to a tax credit. Any rule you can write in English can be a law; even (especially) the rules that don't make sense.

 Why provide a tax credit for some children and not others?  It’s an inconsistent application of the law.
Why provide some people food stamps but not others? Inconsistency is built into laws.

People who do think there is a duty to zygotes will probably consider your behavior immoral and try to make it illegal.
This would require banning IVF.
No it wouldn't, it would only require that you cannot make more zygotes until you incubated the others and that you can never make more than 1-2 zygotes at a time.

Legally, I have a case.
I find it unlikely, but I would have to look at the particular laws in question. That's not even taking into account the fact that governments, including cops and judges, barely feel the need to follow the law to the letter. They have laws so vague and abstract that they can use them on anyone, and they will if you annoy them.
Topic's author
#12
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The law doesn't answer questions.
The people making the laws would have too.

Then they can say a fetus is a person so murder is illegal but only children you are actually raising entitle you to a tax credit.
But what does it mean to raise a child?  I define raising a kid as paying for the kid's living expenses.

Why provide some people food stamps but not others? Inconsistency is built into laws.
Because they are poor.  Unless your saying the only people that get tax credits for kids are poor families, but I'm not sure if this is true.

No it wouldn't, it would only require that you cannot make more zygotes until you incubated the others and that you can never make more than 1-2 zygotes at a time.
They might be able to do that.


#13
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
The law doesn't answer questions.
The people making the laws would have too.
What rock have you been hiding under? They didn't even answer questions forty years ago. Now they'll say your racist or fake news just for asking.

Why provide some people food stamps but not others? Inconsistency is built into laws.
Because they are poor.
and if that's a good enough excuse for the law to treat people differently, why wouldn't the fact that your kids living expenses are $5/year in cooling mean your tax write off is $5/year?

Topic's author
#14
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
What rock have you been hiding under? They didn't even answer questions forty years ago. Now they'll say your racist or fake news just for asking.
If politicians don't answer questions like how people can use frozen embryos to avoid taxes, then they end up losing a lot of independent voters next election.  The job of journalists is to ask questions from leaders and to hold them accountable.

and if that's a good enough excuse for the law to treat people differently, why wouldn't the fact that your kids living expenses are $5/year in cooling mean your tax write off is $5/year?
Currently, the tax write off from kids is not equal to how much it costs to raise kids; it costs way more to raise kids than what the tax write off provides.  It costs $15,000 a year to raise kids and it saves you about $5000 a year on taxes per kid.  It's not worth the money to raise a kid.  But it costs about $500 a year to put a zygote in a freezer.  So if the tax benefit is worth it, it makes sense to do it.
#15
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
What rock have you been hiding under? They didn't even answer questions forty years ago. Now they'll say your racist or fake news just for asking.
If politicians don't answer questions like how people can use frozen embryos to avoid taxes, then they end up losing a lot of independent voters next election.  The job of journalists is to ask questions from leaders and to hold them accountable.
No, they wouldn't let you write off your taxes. If you went to court they would say the zygotes aren't dependents (after all I'm sure they don't let you write off kids you had in Gambia and left there), and no politician loses because of independents or independent journalists.

The system is rigged. Information is controlled. Ballots are harvested and probably forged.

Topic's author
#16
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If you went to court they would say the zygotes aren't dependents (after all I'm sure they don't let you write off kids you had in Gambia and left there)
This is because you are not paying for your kids in Africa if you do that.  If you do that, your a deadbeat and should get a mandatory vasectomy, but I digress.

The system is rigged. Information is controlled. Ballots are harvested and probably forged.
If you REALLY believe the election is rigged, don't vote in it.  Why vote in an election where they will take some of your votes and turn them into democrat votes?  You would be helping the democrat party if that happens.
#17
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog

The system is rigged. Information is controlled. Ballots are harvested and probably forged.
If you REALLY believe the election is rigged, don't vote in it.  Why vote in an election where they will take some of your votes and turn them into democrat votes?  You would be helping the democrat party if that happens.
That's not the most probable significant mechanism of cheating. They don't turn my ballot into a democrat ballot. It's basically identity fraud, they pretend to be someone who died, doesn't live there anymore, or is extremely unlikely to vote and thus discover the fraud.

A). They use the information of a real person (or at least a real record in the voter registry) to request a mail in ballot, fill it out, send it back in. In every case I've investigated having access to someone's driver's licence number, address, and full name is sufficient information. Such information is stored by county governments, if it wasn't it wouldn't be possible to verify information. In my county (I can't say which for anonymity) the database is unencrypted and present on every SD card used by every poll book.

If a single one was copied it would provide anyone everything they needed to know to request a ballot for anyone in the county.

When considering that mechanism continuing to vote is vital, if they attempt to request a mail in ballot in my name it would be flagged in the system when I went to vote in person (or asked for a ballot myself). Enough of that would force your so called "independents" to admit something was up. At the very least I can turn in a provisional ballot which has a chance of causing my true intentions to be counted.

When I worked as an election official in the midterms a significant number of people were flagged as having requested a mail in ballot and said either they didn't request a ballot or it didn't arrive in time. One did this on purpose, seeing if we would detect an attempted double vote. This is the only pattern of evidence that could be expected with (A).

(A) has a minimum conspiracy size of 1; that is only 1 person at a time is needed to move the process forward, no plans need to be discussed and no identity leaking coordination is necessary.

B.) Another mechanism which is possible with a small conspiracy sizes (perhaps as little as 2) is ballot swapping after separation yet before the official counting. The conspirators identify undesirable ballots and remove X of them, throwing them out or destroying them. They then replace them with an equal number of ballots with the preferred choices.

This method requires access to authentic blank ballots, this is not difficult; especially given the enormous excess that are printed to be mailed, much greater than the number returned.

The main inhibitor to this method would be surveillance in the counting room, so long as there is constant video of the ballot envelopes of high enough quality it would be very risky to try and bring in or remove ballots from the room much less presort.

However, in many instances there is plenty of reason to believe that no such cameras exist, or that they are not constantly recording.

Another variant of this method is the opening of ballot envelopes before the arrive at the counting center. Unwanted ballots are discarded but the accompanying form is retained. If the conspiracy is large enough they can be smuggled into the post separation storage areas. Otherwise they can be repacked and brought in as normal mail in ballots.

In this case I would indeed be providing a form which they can use to steal my vote, however if I vote in person there is no form to steal.

-------

Even excluding either of those methods, not voting is the one way to assure defeat even if they don't cheat. Thus it would be important to continue voting regardless for no other purpose than to force them to continue cheating.

So long as they are cheating, it's possible that they fail. They could chicken out, not have enough ground support, be caught (best case scenario).

Also it is possible that the cheaters become weary of the constant doomsaying, say if Ron DeSantis is the next great satan, they may realize that the media is just doing this to anyone who opposes the deep state and it's nothing unique with Trump. If they loose motivation to cheat, obviously the good guys would still lose if they just stopped voting.

Finally, if there isn't much cheating it's important to keep voting.

In conclusion, the game theory is straightforward and clear: Keep voting, no matter what is going on in what degree it is critical.
Topic's author
#18
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's basically identity fraud, they pretend to be someone who died, doesn't live there anymore, or is extremely unlikely to vote and thus discover the fraud.
This didn't happen on a big scale, since when I vote, I have to state my name and if I'm dead, I can't put in someone else's name.

When considering that mechanism continuing to vote is vital, if they attempt to request a mail in ballot in my name it would be flagged in the system when I went to vote in person (or asked for a ballot myself). Enough of that would force your so called "independents" to admit something was up.
Independent =/= agreeing with you 100% of the time.  I have plenty of right wing views (vaccine mandates, to an extent abortion and transgenderism, affirmitive action, the death penalty, the 2nd amendment) and I did not vote for Biden.  But he won in 2020, just like Trump won in 2016, Obama won in 2012 and 2008.  Our election security is fine and if Trump never claimed the election was rigged, the right would accept the results.  But they don't because they are hacks.

When I worked as an election official in the midterms a significant number of people were flagged as having requested a mail in ballot and said either they didn't request a ballot or it didn't arrive in time. One did this on purpose, seeing if we would detect an attempted double vote.
So out of the thousands of people you saw vote, just one person did a double vote?  Yeah, that's some REAL evidence of widespread voter fraud.

If you want Trump to win in 2024, focus on the future, not 2020.


#19
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
It's basically identity fraud, they pretend to be someone who died, doesn't live there anymore, or is extremely unlikely to vote and thus discover the fraud.
This didn't happen on a big scale, since when I vote, I have to state my name and if I'm dead, I can't put in someone else's name.
Do you know what "pretend" means? Dead people don't write down their names. Living people who are falsely claiming to be dead people write down dead people's names.

But he won in 2020
You have no way of knowing that.

Our election security is fine
This is false, and ever I find that the only people who think this know almost nothing about the theory and practice of elections as they were done in 2020 and before.

if Trump never claimed the election was rigged, the right would accept the results.
What the right would or would not do is irrelevant to the truth of the matter.

When I worked as an election official in the midterms a significant number of people were flagged as having requested a mail in ballot and said either they didn't request a ballot or it didn't arrive in time. One did this on purpose, seeing if we would detect an attempted double vote.
So out of the thousands of people you saw vote, just one person did a double vote?
Not thousands, hundreds, and only in person voters. No one was knowingly allowed to double vote, someone merely tried as a "white hacker". Election cheaters put considerably more thought into it than you appear to be. They wouldn't send in a ballot and then try to vote in person under the same name. Anyone can predict that would fail.

Yeah, that's some REAL evidence of widespread voter fraud.
1.) The number of people who told us that they had never asked for a mail in ballot yet our system recorded them requesting one roughly 0.5%. The number predicted by fraud theory (A) would be only those individuals they mistakenly identified as "never voters". If the fraud was on the scale of 5% they could make that mistake in 10% of cases and that would result in a "detection" rate of 0.5%. 5% is enough to change the outcome in most battleground states and thus federally. Therefore YES it is real evidence of relevant voter fraud.

2.) Far stronger evidence is that the left-tribe made election integrity a partisan issue. This tells any rational observer that they believe at some level of leadership that they benefit from lesser election security. The only way to benefit form lowered security is fraud.

3.) It doesn't ultimately matter if there was actually fraud or not. There are situations where trust is owed and a breach of trust must be treated as no differently from a crime. If a bank claims to have invested your money but can provide no audit trail; they must be treated as if they stole your money. If a scientist claims to have made a discovery, but refuses to explain his experiments or share his data that conclusion must be treated as fraudulent. If a country claims to be democratic, but doesn't seem to care if anyone can prove the election was free and fair, that country must be treated like a banana republic (not a democracy).

If you want Trump to win in 2024, focus on the future, not 2020.
Some people define insanity as doing the same thing over again while expecting a different result. The way to avoid insanity is then to learn from what past. I will not forget about 2022, 2020, 2016, or any other election; or and other event from which truth may be inferred going back to the beginning of the universe.

There is no hope for a better future without learning from the past.




#20
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,159
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Lol stay in whatever state you’re in right now. We don’t need you to come to Texas and vote blue