One use that sprung to my mind for this would be for power storage at home if one wanted to go renewable. You wouldn't need to figure out where to put the battery bank and when the capacity of the painted on batteries gets to low you just repaint your house.
I am more than willing to pay for quality. I gave up on made in china boots after my last pair of steel toed ones only lasted 6 months before completely falling apart. They started falling apart about a month after purchase and were priced in the mid range for boots and looked to be well made, unfortunately they put all the effort into making them look well made instead of actually making them well. The current pair is from a relatively local (50 miles away) company that actually gives a shit about quality and has a reputation for making some of the best boots. Granted there were over twice as expensive but are actually well made. I really care about quality as it is cheaper in the long run even if the up front cost is higher as I have been burned a few too many times by the it is cheaper than its competitors. Hand tools are like this and while I don't buy the absolute best (Snap-On or Mac) as they seem to be only marginally better I have no problem buying Stanley, Craftsman, Irwin, etc as they are all quality products, won't be going under, and carry a lifetime warranty. I stay away from the store brand and bargain bin stuff as even though some of it is made in the US it is still all crap (MiT and Grip I am looking at you)
I never said it didn't and I fear that exact thing happening, but don't kid your self that it will only be limited to health related activities or goods.
I'm floored that the Republicans, who originally championed this idea, were so quick to do an about face simply because it was pushed through by a Democrat. This is a good thing, and necessary to control costs. Anyone who runs a budget or does accounting would always prefer a controlled (known) costs to an unknown cost. it's common sense and makes planning easier, as well as smooths out any financial distress to the system.
It is called playing politics, one side proposes something and so long as the other side's proposition is less extreme it is better. This can also be done by the same party, propose one thing that is really crazy and is a wet dream come ture and when that gets shot down propose the legelislation you actually wanted to get through that is more moderate.
Actually a more factually correct argument would be they will place a tax on not [insert activity or item someone think you need or should do] that is based off of your income and is subject to some lower value and upper maximum value that is based off of the cost of [insert activity or item someone think you need or should do].
As a libertarian leaning individual I would agree with you. The affordable care act stinks as does this ruling (it is both a tax and not a tax and a penalty and not a penalty quantum law thing depending on how you wanted to rule on specific arguments) since congress does have the power to tax and spend as clearly outlined in the constitution. I am still undecided if the overall benefit of single payer would be better than what we have now but it seems like it might be.
The correct term would be excise tax and that only takes effect when you engage in some form of commerce not when you decide to not engage in it. My problem with this ruling is that it basically says that congress can tax someone not engaging in some specified form of commerce.
From my reading of the ruling they can actually compel you to engage in commerce if they levy a tax/penalty on not participating in said commerce so long as it is similar to existing taxes that have been found to be constitutional.
I would hardly call OBGYN services universally needed as approximately 50% of the US population will never need them for themselves. Also a they typical high deductible plans only cover the catastrophic illnesses or accidents so how would one having a plan like that leave me on the hook for his bills?
The problem is that when the individual mandate part takes effect the low cost high deductible major medical only plans will not be ones that get exempted from the tax/penalty (choose what term you like as both are used in the ruling). So unless sycodon is one of the lucky ones who doesn't have to file a tax return and can go without his insurance his plan will have to be expanded to cover things he doesn't need. This expanded coverage will incur additional costs that will need to be paid. Even if his plan remains unchanged he will end up paying the penalty/tax unless again he is one of the lucky few who doesn't have to file a tax return.
Wrong. The government lawyers argued it was a tax and Chief Justice Roberts agreed that there was a reading of the law, even if it wasn't the most natural on, that yes it could be interpreted as a tax. There has been precedent for this in the past when it comes to ruling if a law is constitutional or not.
If your state is a no fault state then you are stuck paying when an uninsured motorist hits your vehicle. If you are lucky and don't live in one of those states then the uninsured motorist is liable for all damages.
The text of a statute can sometimes have more than one possible meaning. To take a familiar example, a law that reads “no vehicles in the park” might, or might not, ban bicycles in the park. And it is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so. Justice Story said that 180 years ago: “No court ought, unless the terms of an act rendered it unavoidable, to give a construction to it which should involve a violation, however unintentional, of the constitution.” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448–449 (1830). Justice Holmes made the same point a century later: “[T]he rule issettled that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that whichwill save the Act.” Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (1927) (concurring opinion).
The most straightforward reading of the mandate isthat it commands individuals to purchase insurance.After all, it states that individuals “shall” maintain health insurance. 26 U. S. C. 5000A(a). Congress thought itcould enact such a command under the Commerce Clause, and the Government primarily defended the law on thatbasis. But, for the reasons explained above, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. Under our precedent, it is therefore necessary to ask whether theGovernment’s alternative reading of the statute—that itonly imposes a tax on those without insurance—is a reasonable one.
Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See 5000A(b). That, according to the Government,means the mandate can be regarded as establishing acondition—not owning health insurance—that triggers atax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance.Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, itmay be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.
The question is not whether that is the most naturalinterpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a “fairly possible” one. Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932). As we have explained, “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657 (1895). The Government asks us to interpret the mandate as imposing a tax, if it would otherwise violate the Constitution. Granting the Act the full measure of deference owed to federal statutes, it can be so read, for the reasons set forth below.
The exaction the Affordable Care Act imposes on those without health insurance looks like a tax in many respects. The “[s]hared responsibility payment,” as thestatute entitles it, is paid into the Treasury by “taxpayer[s]” when they file their tax returns. 26 U. S. C. 5000A(b). It does not apply to individuals who do not pay federal income taxes because their household income is less than the filing threshold in the Internal Revenue Code. 5000A(e)(2). For taxpayers who do owe the payment, its amount is determined by such familiar factors astaxable income, number of dependents, and joint filing status. 5000A(b)(3), (c)(2), (c)(4). The requirement topay is found in the Internal Revenue Code and enforced by the IRS, which—as we previously explained—must assessand collect it “in the same manner as taxes.” Supra, at 13–14. This process yields the essential feature of any tax:it produces at least some revenue for the Government. United States v. Kahriger, 345 U. S. 22, 28, n.
If you actually read the whole ruling the supreme court ruled that it was a not a tax. This was the very first part of the total ruling where they were deciding whether they could decide on the individual mandate now or would have to wait until 2014 when that part takes effect. As the law was written it was a penalty not a tax for not having health insurance. Now where things get muddy is that there are precedents or rules which require the court to rule in favor of a law if there is a reading that would be constitutional even if it isn't the most obvious one. See below for the exact convoluted reasoning. The fact that congress asked for it to be treated as such required that the court examine the law in that light so in essence the Dems did want it examined as a tax for that part of the decision even if it isn't the most natural reading of the ruling. There is more but the basic gist is what I put in below. Like it or not this opens up a lot of new ways for government to control you through taxation.
From the Ruling. starting on page 37 of the pdf (page 31 of the opinion)
The text of a statute can sometimes have more than one possible meaning. To take a familiar example, a law that reads “no vehicles in the park” might, or might not, ban bicycles in the park. And it is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so. Justice Story said that 180 years ago: “No court ought, unless the terms of an act rendered it unavoidable, to give a construction to it which should involve a violation, however unintentional, of the constitution.” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448–449 (1830). Justice Holmes made the same point a century later: “[T]he rule issettled that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that whichwill save the Act.” Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (1927) (concurring opinion).
The most straightforward reading of the mandate isthat it commands individuals to purchase insurance.After all, it states that individuals “shall” maintain health insurance. 26 U. S. C. 5000A(a). Congress thought itcould enact such a command under the Commerce Clause, and the Government primarily defended the law on thatbasis. But, for the reasons explained above, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. Under our precedent, it is therefore necessary to ask whether theGovernment’s alternative reading of the statute—that itonly imposes a tax on those without insurance—is a reasonable one.
Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See 5000A(b). That, according to the Government,means the mandate can be regarded as establishing acondition—not owning health insurance—that triggers atax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance.Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, itmay be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.
The question is not whether that is the most naturalinterpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a “fairly possible” one. Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932). As we have explained, “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657 (1895). The Government asks us to interpret the mandate as imposing a tax, if it would otherwise violate the Constitution. Granting the Act th
Why waste you time with a squirrel unless that is all there is, especially those worthless red ones at least the grey ones have some meat on them. For small game that isn't birds I prefer rabbits, more meat, more tender, and less gamey than squirrels.
I never said it made sense but that was the reason used. Also a law is only struck down if it is challenged so there is now a reasonable argument that if you are charged with a state law that is identical to a federal one but not charged with the federal one you could get it dismissed as the Supreme Court has set the precedent. Of course this would require that the law be logical and not congruent. Strangely that is also the reason that certain municipalities feel they don't need to enforce other federal laws, sanctuary cities, as that is the feds job, but yet they will enforce other federal laws like interstate kidnapping, various "terrorist" laws.
That sounds similar to a CD I had of Carl Orff's Carmina Burana. The CD I had was based off of one of the older recordings and wasn't messed with and that had some great range especially when the bass drum hit in O Fortuna as it actually had impact and stood out even during the loud part. My only complaint about that recording was that it was based off of an old reel-to-reel recording and had a bit of hiss. Unfortunately that CD was stolen and later versions I got were ones that were mucked with and lacked the impact and range. The live performance I saw of it, after purchasing the crappy copies, still had the range and impact of that old CD so I doubt it was related to the performance. I really wish that CD wasn't stolen as I can't remember the finer details that would allow me to purchase a new unmucked with copy.
From what I have read about the decision is that the part about requiring legal immigrants to carry their papers was struck down as unconstitutional because of preemption where that was an area that the fed had authority and thus the state couldn't make a law about it. For clarity on what takes precedence in us law:
US Constitution
Federal law and treaties that have been signed and ratified by congress
Individual state constitutions
State law
Local law
At least this is my understanding although there probably a lot of grey area around state constitutions, state laws, and federal laws with the regards to the interstate commerce clause and 10th amendment.
When I see these stats I often wonder if the obesity rate is the driving factor instead of something within the healthcare industry. It would seem that being a sedentary land whale would have a major impact on the various other stats. Also I wonder how the smoking rates compare as that is also known to have an impact on the others as well.
I didn't mean to come off like that. I was not trying to indite you but was seriously wondering if you were one of my co workers as he raises a few cattle and a bunch hogs on his farm and has similar expectations of his kids to deal with the hogs. My co worker who shot his old mail box off the post did it as a fun way of getting rid of it as he was going to put up a new one that wasn't rusted out and falling apart. I actually have similar beliefs to your self and am teaching my children to be self sufficient individuals. My oldest's favorite tool is my drill press and he knows how to use it although he is getting fascinated by the wire-feed welder, and last weekend he learned how to operate the chain saw although he needs my help to control it. He even know how to properly handle a firearm as I have been teaching him how to handle them safely, even if he doesn't know how to shoot one yet. Also my oldest child is almost 4 now. He understands where food come from and that you need to deal with certain pests like rabbits even if they are cute.
As this isn't the first time the police have come to pay me a visit for similar frivolous calls they just show up state that the received a call about what ever ask if I was doing it, look over the fence to confirm that I am telling the truth and leave. As this has happened a number of times all without incident they show up because they have to and then leave the only time I ever had to play 20 questions was the first time they were called out. It happens probably once a year and I figure eventually they will arrest my dickhead neighbor for wasting their time. My other neighbor is on the other hand is great he lets me borrow the his big expensive tools or brings them home from work and doesn't really care what I do in my backyard as I don't throw wild parties like the previous owner did that start at 2am and go until dawn. A couple of years ago he was worried that I wouldn't sign off on letting him put in a bigger shed, as the city requires that you neighbors approved your building plans if you want to put in one that is greater than 121 square feet, but I don't really care what he does, it is his property. I helped him with the construction of that one and am helping him build the retaining wall for the foundation for his new larger garage. I try to take a live and let live approach and even though I could turn dickhead in to code enforcement because he has 2 sheds in his backyard I won't because I just don't care enough.
Slashdot Mirror
One use that sprung to my mind for this would be for power storage at home if one wanted to go renewable. You wouldn't need to figure out where to put the battery bank and when the capacity of the painted on batteries gets to low you just repaint your house.
That would be awesome.
I am more than willing to pay for quality. I gave up on made in china boots after my last pair of steel toed ones only lasted 6 months before completely falling apart. They started falling apart about a month after purchase and were priced in the mid range for boots and looked to be well made, unfortunately they put all the effort into making them look well made instead of actually making them well. The current pair is from a relatively local (50 miles away) company that actually gives a shit about quality and has a reputation for making some of the best boots. Granted there were over twice as expensive but are actually well made. I really care about quality as it is cheaper in the long run even if the up front cost is higher as I have been burned a few too many times by the it is cheaper than its competitors. Hand tools are like this and while I don't buy the absolute best (Snap-On or Mac) as they seem to be only marginally better I have no problem buying Stanley, Craftsman, Irwin, etc as they are all quality products, won't be going under, and carry a lifetime warranty. I stay away from the store brand and bargain bin stuff as even though some of it is made in the US it is still all crap (MiT and Grip I am looking at you)
I never said it didn't and I fear that exact thing happening, but don't kid your self that it will only be limited to health related activities or goods.
Apparently my ability for format things correctly sucks today.
I'm floored that the Republicans, who originally championed this idea, were so quick to do an about face simply because it was pushed through by a Democrat. This is a good thing, and necessary to control costs. Anyone who runs a budget or does accounting would always prefer a controlled (known) costs to an unknown cost. it's common sense and makes planning easier, as well as smooths out any financial distress to the system.
It is called playing politics, one side proposes something and so long as the other side's proposition is less extreme it is better. This can also be done by the same party, propose one thing that is really crazy and is a wet dream come ture and when that gets shot down propose the legelislation you actually wanted to get through that is more moderate.
Actually a more factually correct argument would be they will place a tax on not [insert activity or item someone think you need or should do] that is based off of your income and is subject to some lower value and upper maximum value that is based off of the cost of [insert activity or item someone think you need or should do].
Best line ever.
As a libertarian leaning individual I would agree with you. The affordable care act stinks as does this ruling (it is both a tax and not a tax and a penalty and not a penalty quantum law thing depending on how you wanted to rule on specific arguments) since congress does have the power to tax and spend as clearly outlined in the constitution. I am still undecided if the overall benefit of single payer would be better than what we have now but it seems like it might be.
The correct term would be excise tax and that only takes effect when you engage in some form of commerce not when you decide to not engage in it. My problem with this ruling is that it basically says that congress can tax someone not engaging in some specified form of commerce.
From my reading of the ruling they can actually compel you to engage in commerce if they levy a tax/penalty on not participating in said commerce so long as it is similar to existing taxes that have been found to be constitutional.
I would hardly call OBGYN services universally needed as approximately 50% of the US population will never need them for themselves. Also a they typical high deductible plans only cover the catastrophic illnesses or accidents so how would one having a plan like that leave me on the hook for his bills?
The problem is that when the individual mandate part takes effect the low cost high deductible major medical only plans will not be ones that get exempted from the tax/penalty (choose what term you like as both are used in the ruling). So unless sycodon is one of the lucky ones who doesn't have to file a tax return and can go without his insurance his plan will have to be expanded to cover things he doesn't need. This expanded coverage will incur additional costs that will need to be paid. Even if his plan remains unchanged he will end up paying the penalty/tax unless again he is one of the lucky few who doesn't have to file a tax return.
Wrong. The government lawyers argued it was a tax and Chief Justice Roberts agreed that there was a reading of the law, even if it wasn't the most natural on, that yes it could be interpreted as a tax. There has been precedent for this in the past when it comes to ruling if a law is constitutional or not.
If your state is a no fault state then you are stuck paying when an uninsured motorist hits your vehicle. If you are lucky and don't live in one of those states then the uninsured motorist is liable for all damages.
The text of a statute can sometimes have more than one possible meaning. To take a familiar example, a law that reads “no vehicles in the park” might, or might not, ban bicycles in the park. And it is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so. Justice Story said that 180 years ago: “No court ought, unless the terms of an act rendered it unavoidable, to give a construction to it which should involve a violation, however unintentional, of the constitution.” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448–449 (1830). Justice Holmes made the same point a century later: “[T]he rule issettled that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that whichwill save the Act.” Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (1927) (concurring opinion).
The most straightforward reading of the mandate isthat it commands individuals to purchase insurance.After all, it states that individuals “shall” maintain health insurance. 26 U. S. C. 5000A(a). Congress thought itcould enact such a command under the Commerce Clause, and the Government primarily defended the law on thatbasis. But, for the reasons explained above, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. Under our precedent, it is therefore necessary to ask whether theGovernment’s alternative reading of the statute—that itonly imposes a tax on those without insurance—is a reasonable one.
Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See 5000A(b). That, according to the Government,means the mandate can be regarded as establishing acondition—not owning health insurance—that triggers atax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance.Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, itmay be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.
The question is not whether that is the most naturalinterpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a “fairly possible” one. Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932). As we have explained, “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657 (1895). The Government asks us to interpret the mandate as imposing a tax, if it would otherwise violate the Constitution. Granting the Act the full measure of deference owed to federal statutes, it can be so read, for the reasons set forth below.
The exaction the Affordable Care Act imposes on those without health insurance looks like a tax in many respects. The “[s]hared responsibility payment,” as thestatute entitles it, is paid into the Treasury by “taxpayer[s]” when they file their tax returns. 26 U. S. C. 5000A(b). It does not apply to individuals who do not pay federal income taxes because their household income is less than the filing threshold in the Internal Revenue Code. 5000A(e)(2). For taxpayers who do owe the payment, its amount is determined by such familiar factors astaxable income, number of dependents, and joint filing status. 5000A(b)(3), (c)(2), (c)(4). The requirement topay is found in the Internal Revenue Code and enforced by the IRS, which—as we previously explained—must assessand collect it “in the same manner as taxes.” Supra, at 13–14. This process yields the essential feature of any tax:it produces at least some revenue for the Government. United States v. Kahriger, 345 U. S. 22, 28, n.
The text of a statute can sometimes have more than one possible meaning. To take a familiar example, a law that reads “no vehicles in the park” might, or might not, ban bicycles in the park. And it is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so. Justice Story said that 180 years ago: “No court ought, unless the terms of an act rendered it unavoidable, to give a construction to it which should involve a violation, however unintentional, of the constitution.” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448–449 (1830). Justice Holmes made the same point a century later: “[T]he rule issettled that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that whichwill save the Act.” Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (1927) (concurring opinion).
The most straightforward reading of the mandate isthat it commands individuals to purchase insurance.After all, it states that individuals “shall” maintain health insurance. 26 U. S. C. 5000A(a). Congress thought itcould enact such a command under the Commerce Clause, and the Government primarily defended the law on thatbasis. But, for the reasons explained above, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. Under our precedent, it is therefore necessary to ask whether theGovernment’s alternative reading of the statute—that itonly imposes a tax on those without insurance—is a reasonable one.
Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See 5000A(b). That, according to the Government,means the mandate can be regarded as establishing acondition—not owning health insurance—that triggers atax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance.Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, itmay be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.
The question is not whether that is the most naturalinterpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a “fairly possible” one. Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932). As we have explained, “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657 (1895). The Government asks us to interpret the mandate as imposing a tax, if it would otherwise violate the Constitution. Granting the Act th
Why waste you time with a squirrel unless that is all there is, especially those worthless red ones at least the grey ones have some meat on them. For small game that isn't birds I prefer rabbits, more meat, more tender, and less gamey than squirrels.
I never said it made sense but that was the reason used. Also a law is only struck down if it is challenged so there is now a reasonable argument that if you are charged with a state law that is identical to a federal one but not charged with the federal one you could get it dismissed as the Supreme Court has set the precedent. Of course this would require that the law be logical and not congruent. Strangely that is also the reason that certain municipalities feel they don't need to enforce other federal laws, sanctuary cities, as that is the feds job, but yet they will enforce other federal laws like interstate kidnapping, various "terrorist" laws.
That sounds similar to a CD I had of Carl Orff's Carmina Burana. The CD I had was based off of one of the older recordings and wasn't messed with and that had some great range especially when the bass drum hit in O Fortuna as it actually had impact and stood out even during the loud part. My only complaint about that recording was that it was based off of an old reel-to-reel recording and had a bit of hiss. Unfortunately that CD was stolen and later versions I got were ones that were mucked with and lacked the impact and range. The live performance I saw of it, after purchasing the crappy copies, still had the range and impact of that old CD so I doubt it was related to the performance. I really wish that CD wasn't stolen as I can't remember the finer details that would allow me to purchase a new unmucked with copy.
From what I have read about the decision is that the part about requiring legal immigrants to carry their papers was struck down as unconstitutional because of preemption where that was an area that the fed had authority and thus the state couldn't make a law about it. For clarity on what takes precedence in us law:
US Constitution
Federal law and treaties that have been signed and ratified by congress
Individual state constitutions
State law
Local law
At least this is my understanding although there probably a lot of grey area around state constitutions, state laws, and federal laws with the regards to the interstate commerce clause and 10th amendment.
When I see these stats I often wonder if the obesity rate is the driving factor instead of something within the healthcare industry. It would seem that being a sedentary land whale would have a major impact on the various other stats. Also I wonder how the smoking rates compare as that is also known to have an impact on the others as well.
I didn't mean to come off like that. I was not trying to indite you but was seriously wondering if you were one of my co workers as he raises a few cattle and a bunch hogs on his farm and has similar expectations of his kids to deal with the hogs. My co worker who shot his old mail box off the post did it as a fun way of getting rid of it as he was going to put up a new one that wasn't rusted out and falling apart. I actually have similar beliefs to your self and am teaching my children to be self sufficient individuals. My oldest's favorite tool is my drill press and he knows how to use it although he is getting fascinated by the wire-feed welder, and last weekend he learned how to operate the chain saw although he needs my help to control it. He even know how to properly handle a firearm as I have been teaching him how to handle them safely, even if he doesn't know how to shoot one yet. Also my oldest child is almost 4 now. He understands where food come from and that you need to deal with certain pests like rabbits even if they are cute.
As this isn't the first time the police have come to pay me a visit for similar frivolous calls they just show up state that the received a call about what ever ask if I was doing it, look over the fence to confirm that I am telling the truth and leave. As this has happened a number of times all without incident they show up because they have to and then leave the only time I ever had to play 20 questions was the first time they were called out. It happens probably once a year and I figure eventually they will arrest my dickhead neighbor for wasting their time. My other neighbor is on the other hand is great he lets me borrow the his big expensive tools or brings them home from work and doesn't really care what I do in my backyard as I don't throw wild parties like the previous owner did that start at 2am and go until dawn. A couple of years ago he was worried that I wouldn't sign off on letting him put in a bigger shed, as the city requires that you neighbors approved your building plans if you want to put in one that is greater than 121 square feet, but I don't really care what he does, it is his property. I helped him with the construction of that one and am helping him build the retaining wall for the foundation for his new larger garage. I try to take a live and let live approach and even though I could turn dickhead in to code enforcement because he has 2 sheds in his backyard I won't because I just don't care enough.
How about this from a quick search of wikipedia.