'What is your name?' 'Bryan Moss.' 'IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOUR NAME IS!!!':
> Sorry, I thought I had made this clear. The child would pay (in the sense
> that a company 'pays' it's shareholders).
This assumedly requires the state to force the child to pay? How does that fail to distort incentives in the way I described a few e-mails back?
-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-