They should lose in this case because they've overstepped their bounds.

That's why it's time for revolution, I'm afraid. Which would make us actually be what they're afraid of, but it's the only appropriate recourse left.

"Guideline"? Near as I can tell, it's already been downgraded to "toilet paper".

Never mind my previous response, I looked at some of your other comments and see you're just a troll (e.g. a selection from your other comments: "You missed the point, genius. Your rant is off topic and excessively rant-y. Nobody here wants to debate with you because you're bat-shit crazy. You should seek professional help or at least a hobby where you don't interact with strangers.")

Huh?? How does "simplify the tax code" automatically imply "double your tax burden"? And how is it off-topic to talk about complex tax rules in a topic that is specifically about people getting caught up in overly-complex tax rules that nobody understands and everyone is misinterpreting? Third, why is it 'dreaming' to simplify an over 8000 page tax code, and by far the most complex tax code in the entire world - WTF? No offense but is there something wrong with you? I've never seen such a bizarre, non-sequitir response to anything in my life.

Yeah, I've wondered about this, I'm not completely convinced, but then again haven't studied the 'real research' ... if that's the case, then it may be that the feminist movement in the West has been the largest contributor to declining fertility rates. Likely it's a combination of the various factors (education / contraception availability / cultural), with some factors contributing more. Of course the downside to all this is that uneducated people are experiencing a population explosion - and of course, with lots of kids, it's even harder to educate them - while populations of educated people are in some places even in decline. Whether or not this is a "problem" depends on a number of things; if education is the answer, then it's only truly a "problem" if education levels do not "catch up" with population growth fast enough. Technology allows us (so far) to 'feed more people with less', so masses can survive, but if the ratio of uneducated to educated becomes too large, social problems may create downward spirals that undermine and destabilise the entire system. The worst case scenario is the collapse of industrialised economies and large-scale reversion of the entire world to third-world conditions (with a steep decline in population following that soon thereafter as e.g. dams break down and drinking water becomes polluted etc.). So-called "overpopulation" is not a problem though if most of those people are productive, hard-working and by and large obey the rule of law - technology will solve the resource problems while education could rein in exponential population growth. It's difficult to predict exactly which way it'll go, but I fall slightly on the side of pessimism these days - I don't see modernisation and its requisite work ethic growing fast enough amongst the uneducated, instead I see an increase in destructive ethics like entitlement and socialism (i.e. growing masses of lazy poor 'demanding' or stealing from the wealthier and unwilling to work).