The Money Mustache Community
Around the Internet => Antimustachian Wall of Shame and Comedy => Topic started by: LalsConstant on April 02, 2014, 07:21:49 AM
-
I shouldn't have to make such a ridiculous disclaimer, but this is the internet, land of a lack of body language, inflection and tone, where everyone is just constantly looking to be offended (or so it seems).
It shocks a lot of people to learn I used to be a child. In fact, I even had parents. I'm not inherently opposed to parents or children. Other than the Universal Forced Infertility Society and Child Defamation League, I'm not sure who is.
But this is ludicrous.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/03/tax_credits_and_children_parents_should_pay_lower_taxes_and_childless_people.html
Yet it is also true that we’ve stacked the deck against parents in all kinds of ways. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has found that raising a child born in 2012 will cost a middle-income family a cumulative total of $301,970 over 18 years. As high as this number sounds, it is actually a massive understatement, as it fails to take into account the cost of postsecondary education. It also fails to factor in the value of forgone earnings and career opportunities. While nonparents can focus on their jobs in laserlike fashion, parents are rarely in a position to do the same. Every time a sick child keeps a parent home from work, her earnings suffer, either directly, because she’s taking an unpaid leave of absence, or indirectly, because she’s missing out on opportunities to climb the corporate ladder.
Even when we compare a nonparent and a parent who are working exactly the same hours and earning exactly the same income, the nonparent has a clear leg up. Most obviously, the nonparent has far more disposable income to play with, which she can save, to become much richer than her parent counterpart over time, or spend, to travel to exotic locales, to eat out constantly, to wear awesome clothes, or to live as I do in a conveniently located shoebox in a great American metropolis. Raising taxes on nonparents could even the score a bit, tilting the balance ever so slightly in favor of those who toil on behalf of America’s future workforce by wiping their butts and painstakingly removing their head lice.
Well first of all, why is this Antimustachian? The idea that parents are a financially helpless victimized group just chaps my backside. I believe this is a prime example of the complainypants syndrome.
He even comes out and says it right there, people with children can't save! My parents would like a word with him.
I could pick apart specific statements and how he isn't consistent with his own beliefs and all that, but that's really what it boils down to, let's wring our hands and cry for others to save us rather than you know actually deal with a life challenge that millions of people deal with just fine every day without this clown's goofy proposals helping them.
People ought to bear the actual costs and consequences of their choices, it's transferring those consequences and costs onto others that leads to irrational, socially destructive behaviors. Has the author never considered the fact that it's the poorest, least advantaged people who have huge litters of children because our existing system creates perverse incentives to do so? And he wants to tilt the table even further?
Being a parent is strictly optional, it's no different than any other decision from a purely financial perspective. Look responsible parents reading this, I actually do have a lot of personal respect for responsible hard working parents. But as you so consistently point out (and correctly so) they're your children. Rights come with responsibilities.
I'm not saying you'll never get any help from me, it's just it's going to have to be something I personally agree with is all.
The financial nonsense here is pretty bad too, the $300k figure is highly questionable, as is the notion that transferring income from non parents to parents benefits children. I've known way too many divorced people paying child support to believe that it or anything roughly resembling it actually helps the kids.
-
Lals, I completely agree with what you said. This just makes my blood boil, especially the total disregard for giving people the wrong incentives.
Yes, raising children is expensive. Yes, you will probably not have the extra income to "spend, to travel to exotic locales, to eat out constantly, to wear awesome clothes, or to live as I do in a conveniently located shoebox in a great American metropolis." GUESS WHAT, you chose to spend that on (a) child(ren)! Just like if you chose to own a boat or a pet, you have to accept there will be less money for other things!
I love how the poster acknowledges that we still hold parents in high esteem, but claims that it's unfair that they have to sacrifice their career for their child. I suppose they've never had a boss decide that YOU, the childfree worker, can certainly work overtime because you 'have no family,' and how no, YOU don't need that vacation as much as little Johnny's parents need to take off to see their child's play. The unfairness goes both ways.
I'm not trying to be completely anti-child here, but seriously, childfree people already pay taxes that go directly to children's education, health, and environment. This type of tax would just encourage people to have children for the wrong reasons.
Also, gotta love the need to pay for "postsecondary education." I know quite a few mustachians do want to save up for this, but MMM himself has often pointed out that this shouldn't really be necessary when a child can help to save themselves, and choose their college based on affordability (hey, kind of like the parents should have when they thought about HAVING kids!)
/endrant
-
Yuck I couldn't even read the article, it's too horrifying. I totally agree with your points Lals. Everyone makes choices, and children are just another choice. I have no idea if I'll have any, but if I did I would be choosing to give up certain freedoms in order to have them.
Also, I don't think raising a child should cost $300k if you're a Mustachian. If you make responsible choices, this can be a much lower number. I hate the idea that nonparents who are making below median income should be taxed more to support parents making well above median income. It's not righting an injustice, it's creating one.
-
Wow.
Most obviously, the nonparent has far more disposable income to play with, which she can save, to become much richer than her parent counterpart over time, or spend, to travel to exotic locales, to eat out constantly, to wear awesome clothes,
There are these things called "choices" and "responsibilities". Whether you purposely or accidentally have children, you're not entitled to the same lifestyle non-parents are. You have an obligation. You don't get a handout so you can travel and eat out!
Existing tax policy already gives parents a break. Child care tax deduction, child tax credit (or deduction? I forget which), etc.
The career argument is nuts. I'm all in favor of more flexible working conditions for parents and non-parents alike, but if you want to climb the corporate ladder as high as you can, you need to be prepared to make some sacrifices. That may include not having kids or acknowledging that you won't be attending many PTA meetings.
The knife cuts both ways. When I worked a crappy retail job in high school, there was a woman who NEVER worked any Saturdays for around 3 months because her child's softball games were that day. This accommodation was never given a second thought. Anyone think a retail store would have been fine with me, an 18 year old childless guy, taking off every Saturday?
-
I didn't read the article but childess people already pay more taxes than parents. They get an extra $3900 deduction for each kid plus a $1000 child tax credit per kid for the first 16 years. And hell, if you're low enough income you can get EIC to the tune of a few thousand a year (also possible without kids but you have to be MUCH lower income to qualify)
THIS! Not to mention that many of us "childless" as the writer so aply puts it also pay property taxes which go, among many other things, towards public schools, school in which we have no children that we are attending. This writer has his head up his ass. I understand the notion that those without kid are indirectly subsizing the taxes for those that do have kids, but I hate how people like this writer think of parents are victims, seriously grow up.
-
Gross. I don't want to click the link and increase the page views of the article, but the idea is ridiculous. I plan to have kids, and I know what I'm giving up to do so. I have friends who plan to remain child-free and travel and play their whole lives - and good for them. I would never begrudge them that.
It makes me think that some people chose to become parents because "that's what you do" and are now jealous that child-free folks picked a different path. For DH and I, kids are a deliberate choice. We know we could stay DINKS forever, and we know what it will cost us to raise a family - both financially and in terms of career. I think because we have weighed the pros and cons, it is easier to accept the consequences of our choice. But for people who just went through their life by society's script, to suddenly realize that you didn't "have to" breed, and that others are "getting away with" living the carefree life, there may be a "but that's not fair!" feeling at play.
-
I think that there are a lot of people getting riled up about an article without reading it. Forming an opinion without bothering to look at the topic of discussion is a sad blow to reason.
Having a child is a choice, absolutely agree on this point.
The question in the article though is really about whether or not it is incentivized enough. Without children and constant population expansion, our society as it functions right now doesn't work. This isn't anti-mustachian, but really a question of societal values and your perception of our current population growth.
While it may be possible to raise a child on less than 300 grand, there do exist some pretty huge financial reasons not to have kids. The author didn't claim that "parents are a financially helpless victimized group", just pointed out some of the reasons that exist to not have kids.
FTR, I'm a parent and don't believe that additional tax support is necessary.
-
These articles are like trolls, breeding controversy in a hunger for clicks.
Let's starve them of oxygen (attention) and they'll stop paying writers to churn out such garbage.
-
Kids are expensive...even if you are frugal they are frighteningly expensive. By far the least mustachian thing I've ever done is have my three kids. But I knew that going in, and I'm extremely happy with the decisions I've made to have kids.
But I agree with the article to a point. Imagine two mustachian households both with a household income of $50,000. One is a single adult. The second is an adult and a child. With mustachian principals both are doing just fine, saving, etc. But even taking into account tax deductions, there is no doubt in my mind the first one is much richer and has much lower costs than the second
Maybe we are ok with that as a society. But we incentivize a lot of things with our tax code, and I don't think it is particularly unmustachian to increase the existing child incentives to counter the financial disincentives.
-
I was 95% sure that this was an April Fool's joke, since I recognized the author (Reihan Salam) to be a "conservative commentator". And the last thing conservatives want to do is hand out gifts to all those welfare queens popping out babies. So, wouldn't it be ha ha ha funny for a conservative to mockingly make the same proposal that those dirty liberals actually make sincerely? LOLOL, April Fools!
Except.
Wikipedia tells me that he wrote a book "Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream". It calls for the Republican Party to change by "vigorously serving the interests of the less affluent voters who had become the party's base. The platform would include 'an economic policy that places the two-parent family--the institution best capable of providing cultural stability and economic security--at the heart of the GOP agenda.'" (emphasis added)
In other words: "a large part of our Republican voting base is currently voting against their own interests for some reason. That's awesome, but to remove any risk of them ever wising up, let's just give those poor baby-makers even more handouts to ensure they remain on our team. Who cares if that's in total conflict with standard Republican/conservative economic rhetoric, all that matters is that our team wins!"
That's about the most shameful form of politics that there is, but on the bright side, at least I know never to waste time reading anything from Reihan Salam again.
-
The question in the article though is really about whether or not it is incentivized enough. Without children and constant population expansion, our society as it functions right now doesn't work. This isn't anti-mustachian, but really a question of societal values and your perception of our current population growth.
I read the article, and I didn't see a single fact in there discussing current population growth in the US, projections for future growth, or the projected economic effects of such demographic changes.
On the other hand, he spends the last two paragraphs carefully breaking down which voters such a tax change would piss off, and which it would win over to his team.
If he had laid out the case that demographic trends are going to cause economic catastrophe ahead, and then suggested this tax change as a solution to change the demographic trend, that would be totally cool. Instead, the idea is clearly proposed to solve the much more banal issue of "how can we get more people to vote for Republicans?"
-
Three comments:
1. The childless will not have, er, children to help in their care in old age. Therefore, they may need to plan for additional costs. Just looking at the "cost" side of the ledger does not necessarily tell the whole story.
2. If we think that many environmental problems are tied to high population, then you could say that children create negative externalities, and their production should not be further subsidized.
3. Putting higher taxes on the childless will lower their incentive to earn income...potentially resulting in less wealth overall. It is dicey to assume that the behavior of the childless would not change in response to the policy.
-
We need more smart kids but we don't really need more below average kids.
How can we keep people from having excess children that they cannot support or devote their parenting skills?
-
The child raising numbers are ludicrous.
18 years * median family income of $60,000 = $1,080,000 in income.
median 2.2 children * $310,000 per child = $682,000 spent on child care per median family over 18 years. (We'll ignore staggered births.)
That means that 63% of the family's income was consumed by those children.
That's ludicrous. No one needs to do that.
-
The child raising numbers are ludicrous.
18 years * median family income of $60,000 = $1,080,000 in income.
median 2.2 children * $310,000 per child = $682,000 spent on child care per median family over 18 years. (We'll ignore staggered births.)
That means that 63% of the family's income was consumed by those children.
That's ludicrous. No one needs to do that.
Do you even realize how much those two seat strollers with stereo system and dual latte cup holders cost? You know, the ones that take up the entire sidewalk?
-
Tax code? How about mandatory parental leave like the rest of the "civilized" world?
-
Tax code? How about mandatory parental leave like the rest of the "civilized" world?
Only if those without children get the same amount of "personal growth" time . . you choose to have a kid, maybe we want that same amount of time to choose to climb a mountain, etc. or tackle some other life goal outside the office. I'm all for expanded mandatory minimums on paid time off, but not if it is under the guise of "parental leave" where companies can discriminate the childless because it's not "for the kids".
-
Tax code? How about mandatory parental leave like the rest of the "civilized" world?
You mean ski/fishing vacation? That is what the guys at our office do when they get the 3 month paternity leave.
-
I was 95% sure that this was an April Fool's joke, since I recognized the author (Reihan Salam) to be a "conservative commentator".
Me too!!! I was so ready to mock the shit out of all of you for falling for it :) until I clicked through and saw it was posted Monday. WTF.
If he had laid out the case that demographic trends are going to cause economic catastrophe ahead, and then suggested this tax change as a solution to change the demographic trend, that would be totally cool. Instead, the idea is clearly proposed to solve the much more banal issue of "how can we get more people to vote for Republicans?"
agreed. I don't think the societal benefit is that obvious.
Personally, I think improved parental leave policies would be great, even if they are "unfair" to those who don't have kids. maybe I am biased because I do plan on having kids, but there you have it.
Tax code? How about mandatory parental leave like the rest of the "civilized" world?
You mean ski/fishing vacation? That is what the guys at our office do when they get the 3 month paternity leave.
So just because those guys are dicks, we shouldn't offer the benefit to anyone? By that logic let's just get rid of all social welfare programs because it's a fact that occasionally people scam the system. (yes I know some people do argue this, but I disagree vehemently)
-
We need more smart kids but we don't really need more below average kids.
lol, that was my thought on reading the article - it reminded me of idiocracy.
-
I'm going to take a different tack here. No, I do not support higher taxes for the childless beyond what already exists. (That child tax credit saved me a lot of $$ this year AND we got the EITC.)
I just want to say that many people who don't have children deride those of us who do as "breeders" and complain about the existence of children* and it is refreshing to see a childless person speaking up for us breeders. His heart's in the right place.
* even well-behaved ones. I will give people a pass for complaining about poorly supervised bratty ones.
-
The question in the article though is really about whether or not it is incentivized enough. Without children and constant population expansion, our society as it functions right now doesn't work. This isn't anti-mustachian, but really a question of societal values and your perception of our current population growth.
This may be a case of the author's politics blinding him to the real world. It ought to be pretty obvious that the population can't keep growing forever, and arguable that it's already too high to sustain for much longer. So if current society doesn't function without continual growth, then society must either change or die.
So just because those guys are dicks, we shouldn't offer the benefit to anyone?
Why does taking a 3 month ski/fishing vacation make one a dick? (FTM, wouldn't that make the whole ER community into dicks?) Now maybe you'd say that they ought to be sensitive New Age types and stay home with the kid, but that seems like something that should be decided between spouses.
-
Why does taking a 3 month ski/fishing vacation make one a dick? (FTM, wouldn't that make the whole ER community into dicks?) Now maybe you'd say that they ought to be sensitive New Age types and stay home with the kid, but that seems like something that should be decided between spouses.
THIS! Though I do feel that a guy should be there for a children it isn't my place to dictate that they do so. I think that using paternal leave for a personal vacation isn't right because it is a federal mandate that can cause a burden on workplaces designed to help families have a child, and not an opportunity to go golfing in the winter. The same goes for taking leave because your mother is fatally ill and then using it as an opportunity to backpack Europe. But so long as it is allowed I suppose people are free to do so.
-
Why does taking a 3 month ski/fishing vacation make one a dick? (FTM, wouldn't that make the whole ER community into dicks?) Now maybe you'd say that they ought to be sensitive New Age types and stay home with the kid, but that seems like something that should be decided between spouses.
THIS! Though I do feel that a guy should be there for a children it isn't my place to dictate that they do so. I think that using paternal leave for a personal vacation isn't right because it is a federal mandate that can cause a burden on workplaces designed to help families have a child, and not an opportunity to go golfing in the winter. The same goes for taking leave because your mother is fatally ill and then using it as an opportunity to backpack Europe. But so long as it is allowed I suppose people are free to do so.
basically, the sentences in bold. I think it is shitty to take leave that is designated for a certain purpose (that involves helping family members and/or being ill oneself) and use it for something else "fun". they're free to do so, but I am free to have the opinion that it's a dickish thing to do.
I also don't think that staying home with your wife and kid makes you a "sensitive New Age type"... in fact I'd say the whole point of paternity leave is so you can bond with your kid and/or help your wife with it. maybe there could be an option for the real "traditional manly men" to decline paternity leave? ;)
-
It might be dickish to use the as-currently-designed FMLA for "fun", but why limit "personal leave" requirements to having children?
-
It might be dickish to use the as-currently-designed FMLA for "fun", but why limit "personal leave" requirements to having children?
hmm. this is an interesting and very valid question... I will have to ponder why I feel the way I do about this if I'm so against the "taxing the childless" idea.
-
I was 95% sure that this was an April Fool's joke, since I recognized the author (Reihan Salam) to be a "conservative commentator". And the last thing conservatives want to do is hand out gifts to all those welfare queens popping out babies.
I suggest you read up on the whole welfare queen myth. Look up the Ronald Reagan story about it. Welfare cash benefits is limited in your lifetime no matter how many kids you have. And unless you are a big cheater, welfare moms are poor and have the kind of live few of us would even think,is remotely desirable.
Yes, there are plenty of ways the childless support those who have children. School taxes, no deductions, health insurance ( those with kids pay little more for way more insurance use) and as many have pointed out, the times in the workplace when those with children are accommodated at the expenses of the childless. But in a civilized society you have to suck it up sometimes. But the article goes too far. Limit your kids, stay off the consumer train, and save extra before and after the child rearing years.
-
I was 95% sure that this was an April Fool's joke, since I recognized the author (Reihan Salam) to be a "conservative commentator". And the last thing conservatives want to do is hand out gifts to all those welfare queens popping out babies.
I suggest you read up on the whole welfare queen myth.
I was speaking in the voice of a Republican political hack there, not my own voice. Sorry for not making that clearer.
-
A few points and maybe no answers, but observations all the same.
Someone has to have kids for society to go on and having raised two to adulthood, one can debate the costs to no end but be assured of this. It is really damned expensive in the First World to raise a couple of kids even with the elderly and childless pitching in (however grudgingly) for schools and/or paying higher taxes. So much so that people aren't having as many children in the First World as they once did and populations are going to start declining in the near future (with all the positives and negatives that go with that) as the birth rate is well below 2.1 (the break even level) in much of the developed world.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
The birth rate in Canada is 1.59 now, a full half point below the number needed to float the current population. A smaller population in the long run may be a very good thing, but if the dropoff is too dramatic there are a lot of consequences that come with that. Don't be surprised if those tax incentives become more, not less, pronounced if America (at 2.01 and falling) starts going down the same path.
Damn there is a lot of whineypants in this thread about how supposedly good the breeders have it. Walk a mile in our shoes (or better, change a few thousand diapers) and you may change your tune a bit. It's very true that the non-breeders (especially women) can throw themselves at their careers to a greater extent, which often more than offsets the tax disadvantages over time. Frankly, from my side of the fence non-breeders disadvantages seem trivial by comparison. Non-breeders higher taxes are laughable compared to the costs and sacrifices of raising kids.
Someone has to raise kids for society to endure, and if you chose not to, a little more compassion please for those of us that did (oh, and realize not every pregnancy is planned!). Because an easy path it ain't. Maybe we voluntarily chose that path, but understand we damn sure didn't choose it for the tax perks and eight weeks of maternity leave. All those do is ease the burden a bit.
-
people aren't having as many children in the First World as they once did and populations are going to start declining in the near future (with all the positives and negatives that go with that) as the birth rate is well below 2.1 (the break even level) in much of the developed world.
I just wanted to point out that this coincides with access to birth control and women having other options . . . parenting is certainly expensive, but I think there are bigger contributing factors to the decline in birth rate. Parenthood used to be the ONLY option, which certainly skews the data. This is completely separate from whether one thinks a declining birth rate is positive or negative.
-
I use to read Slate, have not in some time now. Was probably a good call.
Also did the writer use the feminine in the entire article? As in "she sacrifices" and not "parents sacrifice".
@hybird: wrt Canada, is immigration filling the birth rate gap? What about in the US?
-
I use to read Slate, have not in some time now. Was probably a good call.
Also did the writer use the feminine in the entire article? As in "she sacrifices" and not "parents sacrifice".
@hybird: wrt Canada, is immigration filling the birth rate gap? What about in the US?
I have read in a few places that were it not for immigration (as most immigrants are Latino, younger, and Catholic), the birth rate in the US would already be significantly lower. The younger Latino community is in fact helping keep the number where it is.
Compare and contrast to China (1.55), Japan (1.40), Germany (1.43) and Italy (1.42). The US and France are in fact outliers compared to most of the industrialized world.
-
Personally, I think improved parental leave policies would be great, even if they are "unfair" to those who don't have kids. maybe I am biased because I do plan on having kids, but there you have it.
I think parental leave is great, and I'm biased against it because I plan not to have kids. (Also, if that plan does change, it will be long enough in the future that I might not still be working.) There's just very good economic and social reasons to support parents to take time off work to look after a baby - and they don't apply to giving time off work for people to go fishing or climb mountains. Everyone benefits when children are raised well and cared for. That said, I think it should be paid for by the government, not employers, but then whether it's linked to the parents' income or not, there are problems either way.
Parents literally create the next generation of people who will work for you; and they put a lot of effort into doing so. Parents: I know you weren't thinking about me when you make the decision to raise the architects and engineers who might design and build my house, or the doctors who might look after me, for example, but I appreciate it nonetheless.
-
Someone has to raise kids for society to endure, and if you chose not to, a little more compassion please for those of us that did
Has any parent anywhere ever had "helping society to endure" or "mitigating the effects of demographic changes on the economy" in their top 100 list of reasons they had a kid?
If they have, then sure, I'll give 'em some sympathy for the unselfish sacrifice they made in order to help the rest of us out.
But I'm pretty sure that's never happened.
Devoting $65k of your resources to a new SUV isn't an easy path either, and while people doing so provides jobs and helps my stock portfolio grow, that's not why they bought one, so I ain't going to give 'em a pat on the back for doing a solid for the rest of society.
-
The way this conversation has headed seems awfully familiar:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/continue-the-blog-conversation/is-overpopulation-really-a-problem/
I like the idea of paid parental leave, even though I'm in the "wow overpopulation" camp (when the worldwide total fertility rate is <2, then maybe we can talk about more incentives...) What sucks is when career growth has to be sacrificed to have children at all, or when all the childcare is more or less forced on the woman (in the case of hetero unions).
-
Parents literally create the next generation of people who will work for you; and they put a lot of effort into doing so. Parents: I know you weren't thinking about me when you make the decision to raise the architects and engineers who might design and build my house, or the doctors who might look after me, for example, but I appreciate it nonetheless.
They also create the next generation of Adam Lanza. We need proper parents not just throw money at people. Perhaps along with giving parents more taxpayer money funded by childless taxpayers, we should do more to make sure the parents are fit to raise the kids properly. I am not ok with the attitude of "give me money but stay out of my parenting business"
-
The child raising numbers are ludicrous.
18 years * median family income of $60,000 = $1,080,000 in income.
median 2.2 children * $310,000 per child = $682,000 spent on child care per median family over 18 years. (We'll ignore staggered births.)
That means that 63% of the family's income was consumed by those children.
That's ludicrous. No one needs to do that.
My daughter, because of her daycare costs 35% of my budget which does not even account for housing costs which they normally do (we bought looking a duplexes that were 2 or 3 bedroom so really the 3rd bedroom is not really because of her so I don't count it). It is a choice I made, and don't expect anyone to help with it, but I am not surprised that you could add up to 63%.
-
The child raising numbers are ludicrous.
18 years * median family income of $60,000 = $1,080,000 in income.
median 2.2 children * $310,000 per child = $682,000 spent on child care per median family over 18 years. (We'll ignore staggered births.)
That means that 63% of the family's income was consumed by those children.
That's ludicrous. No one needs to do that.
My daughter, because of her daycare costs 35% of my budget which does not even account for housing costs which they normally do (we bought looking a duplexes that were 2 or 3 bedroom so really the 3rd bedroom is not really because of her so I don't count it). It is a choice I made, and don't expect anyone to help with it, but I am not surprised that you could add up to 63%.
No, ~60% of before-tax income is WAY too high for an average. The article is bogus.
I do plan on having kids.
-
Welfare cash benefits is limited in your lifetime no matter how many kids you have. And unless you are a big cheater, welfare moms are poor and have the kind of live few of us would even think,is remotely desirable.
This is not completely accurate. There's a 60 month lifetime limit for cash benefits (TANF), but some states only limit the adult portion. It's completely possible to collect welfare based on your kids but not yourself. Same thing with Medicaid. You might not personally qualify, but your child might. And AFAIK, there's no time limit on food stamps. You can collect as long as your income and resources are low enough.
-
Ahem, childfree please. Childless makes it sound like it's some sort of punishment or something we're missing. We're not missing anything. We're happily childfree by choice.
(with apologies to those for which having no children was not a choice)
-
FTR, I don't have any kids.
I pointed out parental leave because I find it ridiculous to hear conservatives screaming about 'family values' and 'supporting parents' when the US is the only non-developing country in the world without mandatory parental leave. It never even comes up as a topic of discussion, whether it's politicians or pundits.
-
Ahem, childfree please. Childless makes it sound like it's some sort of punishment or something we're missing. We're not missing anything. We're happily childfree by choice.
(with apologies to those for which having no children was not a choice)
My wife refers to it as parasite free but I think childfree sounds more, ahem, polite.
-
FTR, I don't have any kids.
I pointed out parental leave because I find it ridiculous to hear conservatives screaming about 'family values' and 'supporting parents' when the US is the only non-developing country in the world without mandatory parental leave. It never even comes up as a topic of discussion, whether it's politicians or pundits.
What!?!? Didn't you see the Cadillac commercial? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGJSI48gkFc Americans don't do French wussie things like take vacations, or take time off after having kids. You pop that kid out and get back to WORK.
Now, put a halt to that Commie talk and go buy a Cadillac.
-
Ahem, childfree please. Childless makes it sound like it's some sort of punishment or something we're missing. We're not missing anything. We're happily childfree by choice.
(with apologies to those for which having no children was not a choice)
My wife refers to it as parasite free but I think childfree sounds more, ahem, polite.
It is only a parasite when it is a fetus inside the mother, lol. Afterwards you could try ectoparasite.
-
Ahem, childfree please. Childless makes it sound like it's some sort of punishment or something we're missing. We're not missing anything. We're happily childfree by choice.
(with apologies to those for which having no children was not a choice)
My wife refers to it as parasite free but I think childfree sounds more, ahem, polite.
It is only a parasite when it is a fetus inside the mother, lol. Afterwards you could try ectoparasite.
Well according to this legislator, fetus is akin to a parasite.
http://www.salon.com/2014/02/24/virginia_republican_says_pregnant_women_are_hosts_even_if_some_people_refer_to_them_as_mothers/
And yes, I believe that childfree is a better descriptor, childless implies... well you get the message.
-
The deck is heavily stacked against parents in favor of the childless. Considering the large societal benefit provided by parents of furnishing the next generation, I am all for leveling the playing field and making it less punitive/onerous to have kids. I don't have a lot of patience for Sen. Warren, but she pretty convincingly demonstrated that having kids is a really good predictor for going bankrupt.
-
Yuck I couldn't even read the article, it's too horrifying.
I've felt that way about all but one article I've read on Slate in the past few weeks. The amount of garbage they publish is staggering. I have come to the conclusion that Dear Prudence is the only thing on Slate worth reading.
-
The child raising numbers are ludicrous.
18 years * median family income of $60,000 = $1,080,000 in income.
median 2.2 children * $310,000 per child = $682,000 spent on child care per median family over 18 years. (We'll ignore staggered births.)
That means that 63% of the family's income was consumed by those children.
That's ludicrous. No one needs to do that.
My daughter, because of her daycare costs 35% of my budget which does not even account for housing costs which they normally do (we bought looking a duplexes that were 2 or 3 bedroom so really the 3rd bedroom is not really because of her so I don't count it). It is a choice I made, and don't expect anyone to help with it, but I am not surprised that you could add up to 63%.
No, ~60% of before-tax income is WAY too high for an average. The article is bogus.
I do plan on having kids.
Even daycare alone would be almost 50% of my before tax budget, again, if we had two kids and they were going to daycare at the same time. The number does not surprise me at all. You may plan to have kids, but I know what the cost is now.
-
Ahem, childfree please. Childless makes it sound like it's some sort of punishment or something we're missing. We're not missing anything. We're happily childfree by choice.
(with apologies to those for which having no children was not a choice)
My wife refers to it as parasite free but I think childfree sounds more, ahem, polite.
It is only a parasite when it is a fetus inside the mother, lol. Afterwards you could try ectoparasite.
Well according to this legislator, fetus is akin to a parasite.
http://www.salon.com/2014/02/24/virginia_republican_says_pregnant_women_are_hosts_even_if_some_people_refer_to_them_as_mothers/
And yes, I believe that childfree is a better descriptor, childless implies... well you get the message.
Not just that legislator, but biologists too. My professor at my university used to tease me about my little parasite when I was pregnant.
-
The deck is heavily stacked against parents in favor of the childless. Considering the large societal benefit provided by parents of furnishing the next generation, I am all for leveling the playing field and making it less punitive/onerous to have kids.
I have to disagree on both counts. First, as others have pointed out, parents get all sorts of benefits that childfree people do not. It is ultimately their choice to have kids: why shouldn't I (and everyone else) likewise get society's help with our expensive lifestyle choices?
Second, how are we to know that your particular contribution(s) to the next generation are actually going to be a societal benefit? You might well be raising the next generation of louts and layabouts. Even if they are benefits rather than liabilities, shouldn't you then expect them to repay you directly, with support in your 'golden years'?
-
I thought the article Was satirical at first.
-
The child raising numbers are ludicrous.
18 years * median family income of $60,000 = $1,080,000 in income.
median 2.2 children * $310,000 per child = $682,000 spent on child care per median family over 18 years. (We'll ignore staggered births.)
That means that 63% of the family's income was consumed by those children.
That's ludicrous. No one needs to do that.
My daughter, because of her daycare costs 35% of my budget which does not even account for housing costs which they normally do (we bought looking a duplexes that were 2 or 3 bedroom so really the 3rd bedroom is not really because of her so I don't count it). It is a choice I made, and don't expect anyone to help with it, but I am not surprised that you could add up to 63%.
No, ~60% of before-tax income is WAY too high for an average. The article is bogus.
I do plan on having kids.
Even daycare alone would be almost 50% of my before tax budget, again, if we had two kids and they were going to daycare at the same time. The number does not surprise me at all. You may plan to have kids, but I know what the cost is now.
This is about what daycare costs would be for two kids around here as well.
-
I was 95% sure that this was an April Fool's joke, since I recognized the author (Reihan Salam) to be a "conservative commentator". And the last thing conservatives want to do is hand out gifts to all those welfare queens popping out babies.
I suggest you read up on the whole welfare queen myth.
I was speaking in the voice of a Republican political hack there, not my own voice. Sorry for not making that clearer.
. Sorry to be so picky but many people believe that. I understand now where you were coming from.
I can understand if you make a low wage, or two low wages how hard it is to save. But our government is going to implode if people don't work towards personal responsibility. If they tax the wealthy or childless more in my opinion it will just give them more money to waste or funnel to their cronies and contributors corporations.
-
The deck is heavily stacked against parents in favor of the childless. Considering the large societal benefit provided by parents of furnishing the next generation, I am all for leveling the playing field and making it less punitive/onerous to have kids.
I have to disagree on both counts. First, as others have pointed out, parents get all sorts of benefits that childfree people do not. It is ultimately their choice to have kids: why shouldn't I (and everyone else) likewise get society's help with our expensive lifestyle choices?
Second, how are we to know that your particular contribution(s) to the next generation are actually going to be a societal benefit? You might well be raising the next generation of louts and layabouts. Even if they are benefits rather than liabilities, shouldn't you then expect them to repay you directly, with support in your 'golden years'?
Um, yeah. +1
And let's not forget the social cost to a childfree woman. If you're not one, you might not understand, and I have no economic/financial side to this point; but childfree-by-choice women are branded as selfish and biologically broken for not wanting to reproduce. I have personally experienced this, and every so often we get another article complaining about women who refuse to reproduce before 30 and how it's ruining society, and maybe just google it if it comes to that, but this is a thing.
I'm not even self-branded childfree; I almost never discuss it. I just lack children, so I get heat. It's a terrific state of affairs for infertile women, I'm sure.
-
The deck is heavily stacked against parents in favor of the childless. Considering the large societal benefit provided by parents of furnishing the next generation, I am all for leveling the playing field and making it less punitive/onerous to have kids.
I have to disagree on both counts. First, as others have pointed out, parents get all sorts of benefits that childfree people do not. It is ultimately their choice to have kids: why shouldn't I (and everyone else) likewise get society's help with our expensive lifestyle choices?
Second, how are we to know that your particular contribution(s) to the next generation are actually going to be a societal benefit? You might well be raising the next generation of louts and layabouts. Even if they are benefits rather than liabilities, shouldn't you then expect them to repay you directly, with support in your 'golden years'?
Um, yeah. +1
And let's not forget the social cost to a childfree woman. If you're not one, you might not understand, and I have no economic/financial side to this point; but childfree-by-choice women are branded as selfish and biologically broken for not wanting to reproduce. I have personally experienced this, and every so often we get another article complaining about women who refuse to reproduce before 30 and how it's ruining society, and maybe just google it if it comes to that, but this is a thing.
I'm not even self-branded childfree; I almost never discuss it. I just lack children, so I get heat. It's a terrific state of affairs for infertile women, I'm sure.
So, you feel that the choice to not have children is a financial burden that you've had to work around?
-
The deck is heavily stacked against parents in favor of the childless. Considering the large societal benefit provided by parents of furnishing the next generation, I am all for leveling the playing field and making it less punitive/onerous to have kids.
I have to disagree on both counts. First, as others have pointed out, parents get all sorts of benefits that childfree people do not. It is ultimately their choice to have kids: why shouldn't I (and everyone else) likewise get society's help with our expensive lifestyle choices?
Second, how are we to know that your particular contribution(s) to the next generation are actually going to be a societal benefit? You might well be raising the next generation of louts and layabouts. Even if they are benefits rather than liabilities, shouldn't you then expect them to repay you directly, with support in your 'golden years'?
Um, yeah. +1
And let's not forget the social cost to a childfree woman. If you're not one, you might not understand, and I have no economic/financial side to this point; but childfree-by-choice women are branded as selfish and biologically broken for not wanting to reproduce. I have personally experienced this, and every so often we get another article complaining about women who refuse to reproduce before 30 and how it's ruining society, and maybe just google it if it comes to that, but this is a thing.
I'm not even self-branded childfree; I almost never discuss it. I just lack children, so I get heat. It's a terrific state of affairs for infertile women, I'm sure.
Yup, I totally agree. I just turned 38 yesterday and I am childfree by choice. The heat I've gotten since I married has been pretty intense - it's amazing what people say and think about you for making such a horrible choice!
Not to mention that any financial achievements are immediately brushed off by the parental set b/c I don't have kids. I agree that kids are expensive and it will take longer to achieve certain financial goals, but certainly not impossible.
I take it all in stride now - I find the comments more amusing, and I change the subject. Some things are just not worth the effort!
-
The deck is heavily stacked against parents in favor of the childless. Considering the large societal benefit provided by parents of furnishing the next generation, I am all for leveling the playing field and making it less punitive/onerous to have kids.
I have to disagree on both counts. First, as others have pointed out, parents get all sorts of benefits that childfree people do not. It is ultimately their choice to have kids: why shouldn't I (and everyone else) likewise get society's help with our expensive lifestyle choices?
Second, how are we to know that your particular contribution(s) to the next generation are actually going to be a societal benefit? You might well be raising the next generation of louts and layabouts. Even if they are benefits rather than liabilities, shouldn't you then expect them to repay you directly, with support in your 'golden years'?
Yes, this.
I know precisely zero parents who chose to become so out of an obligation they felt toward society. People have kids because they want kids. Until humans become an endangered species, kids are a luxury good. Unless you are adopting special needs children, you* are not "helping society" by raising kids. Is parenting hard and expensive? Yes. But you knew that going in. If I wanted to become a hobby pilot and own my own plane that would probably be expensive too, but I wouldn't expect tax breaks to help subsidize my own choice to take on an expensive hobby.
*and when I say "you" I mean me as well, since we also plan to reproduce, hopefully soon :)
-
Just don't point out to the eco Nazi, Nissan Leaf driving crowd that the carbon footprint of having just one child far outweighs anything you can do to limit your carbon footprint as an adult. Having four kids is like setting up a small coal fired power plant in your backyard.
-
The deck is heavily stacked against parents in favor of the childless. Considering the large societal benefit provided by parents of furnishing the next generation, I am all for leveling the playing field and making it less punitive/onerous to have kids.
I have to disagree on both counts. First, as others have pointed out, parents get all sorts of benefits that childfree people do not. It is ultimately their choice to have kids: why shouldn't I (and everyone else) likewise get society's help with our expensive lifestyle choices?
Second, how are we to know that your particular contribution(s) to the next generation are actually going to be a societal benefit? You might well be raising the next generation of louts and layabouts. Even if they are benefits rather than liabilities, shouldn't you then expect them to repay you directly, with support in your 'golden years'?
We can quibble over whether the 300 large estimate of raising a kid is accurate, but it is easily 6 figures, not including college tuition. You think the penny candy help of an extra personal allowance on income taxes makes a real dent in that?
How do we know one of my kids will not cure cancer? This is a straw man argument. We are talking about societal choices/policy, not an individual case. Does the next generation benefit society as a whole? Sure does.
But I will not belabor this further. You have a chorus of childless haters which I will not try to convert. Have fun.
-
Devoting $65k of your resources to a new SUV isn't an easy path either, and while people doing so provides jobs and helps my stock portfolio grow, that's not why they bought one, so I ain't going to give 'em a pat on the back for doing a solid for the rest of society.
Yeah no worries, I don't think we're looking for one. The bigger point was do you begrudge us the tax break all the same?
As smallife has pointed out, many women are looking at the personal and financial sacrifices that go with raising kids and are saying "Screw that!", or one and one only, thank you very much.
If various societies answer is no, and women are in control of their reproductive destiny, I think the rather obvious answer is society as a whole will have less and less children over time. In the long run that could be a very good thing for the planet. In the short term there could be quite a bit of pain that comes with that.
I read an article in The Economist arguing that China's boom stemming from cheap labor is rapidly drawing to a close. The reason? Chinese society is getting old. There simply aren't as many young workers as there used to be, and many of them have better options than working in a sweatshop.
-
We can quibble over whether the 300 large estimate of raising a kid is accurate, but it is easily 6 figures, not including college tuition. You think the penny candy help of an extra personal allowance on income taxes makes a real dent in that?
It's a start :-) Then there's 13 years (or more) of K-12 education that parents get for free. Private, non-sectarian schooling runs a bit over $16K/year (per http://www.capenet.org/facts.html ), or about $200K per child. Since about 20% of Americans remain child-free throughout life, that means they're subsidizing each child to the tune of about $40K.
For college, if you care to look at it as parents paying, rather than the person going to college, the states & federal government provide lots of subsidies: low(er) cost tuition at state universities, grants & scholarships, low-cost subsidized loans, etc...
How do we know one of my kids will not cure cancer? This is a straw man argument.
How do we know that one of your kids will not shoot up a school, or kill people by driving daddy's pickup while blind drunk? Just as much of a straw man as your cancer-curing argument, isn't it?
-
Then there's 13 years (or more) of K-12 education that parents get for free. Private, non-sectarian schooling runs a bit over $16K/year (per http://www.capenet.org/facts.html ), or about $200K per child. Since about 20% of Americans remain child-free throughout life, that means they're subsidizing each child to the tune of about $40K.
It's just as much a benefit to the childless that we don't have huge swaths of the country unemployable and uneducated as it is to the parents of children. I pay a lot of money to fund fire departments that I've never used, a military that has little effect on my or my life, and a police force that I have rarely had to contact. I don't mind this because it's part of living in a society, and everyone benefits from the presence of these institutions.
-
Ok then Brewer, back it up. How is the deck heavily against parents?
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/05/26/what-is-the-real-cost-of-raising-children/ (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/05/26/what-is-the-real-cost-of-raising-children/)
Given the cost listed there I'll say: Yes an extra personal exemption, child tax credit, child and dependent care credit, and EITC make a big difference. Do they pay for it all? No. Do they make a difference? Most definitely.
Who are these haters? I've seen many different opinions in this thread by parents and childfree. Many people look at having children a blessing for a choice they willingly made or intend to make in the future. And yes, we all know it's expensive, but what in particular makes it such a punitive or onerous experience?
If you're just trying to pick a fight then fine, but you're not winning any points for well-reasoned productive discussion.
-
The bigger point was do you begrudge us the tax break all the same?
No, I don't exactly begrudge you. Were I in your shoes, I'd be happy to take the tax break too, just as I'll be happy to take ACA credits or any other thing that our dumb tax code throws in my favor.
But I'm certainly not happy with the government for setting up the tax code that way. If the Child Tax Credit had been implemented as a solution to smoothly navigate our way through upcoming demographic changes (and if its effects at achieving such were being carefully studied and tweaked over time), that would be one thing. But there's utterly no evidence (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/encyclopedia/child-tax-credit.cfm) that demographic trends were the reason for the law. Rather, it's pretty clear that it was created as a short-term cynical ploy to attract a particular block of voters to the political party in power.
Maybe actual research would show that that cynical ploy just happened to be the "right" move to make for the future economy, but that would have to be some truly fantastic dumb luck.
-
Then there's 13 years (or more) of K-12 education that parents get for free. Private, non-sectarian schooling runs a bit over $16K/year (per http://www.capenet.org/facts.html ), or about $200K per child. Since about 20% of Americans remain child-free throughout life, that means they're subsidizing each child to the tune of about $40K.
It's just as much a benefit to the childless that we don't have huge swaths of the country unemployable and uneducated as it is to the parents of children. I pay a lot of money to fund fire departments that I've never used, a military that has little effect on my or my life, and a police force that I have rarely had to contact. I don't mind this because it's part of living in a society, and everyone benefits from the presence of these institutions.
Right, but when that turns from funding societal institutions to writing checks to those with children (EITC, Child Tax Credit, FSA Dep Care, etc.), the dynamic becomes a little bit different. I am grateful and happy to help fund the civic institutions that make the world safe, functional, and peaceful. That however is completely different than the direct and indirect incentives to have children (which, much like the mortgage deduction as hybrid mentioned as well, is something that are law writers/voters/powers that be have decided is important to subsidize and encourage as a society for better and for worse).
-
Then there's 13 years (or more) of K-12 education that parents get for free. Private, non-sectarian schooling runs a bit over $16K/year (per http://www.capenet.org/facts.html ), or about $200K per child.
You're right, state education is a massive subsidy... to employers, for example, who would otherwise have to provide most of this training themselves. To workers, for example, who would otherwise be trapped in contracts which prevent them from leaving, because otherwise their employers won't be able to offer them that training. To consumers, for example, because if all businesses had to train their staff starting from the skill-level of four-year-olds, there wouldn't be many profitable businesses to provide us with goods and services.
State education is a massive subsidy to everyone. Everyone benefits from an educated populace. For example, I am pretty happy that the people processing my paychecks and handling my finances had 12 years of basic maths education before they started. It's also an inconceivable improvement to my life that almost every book, news article, blog and forum post that I ever read was written by someone who learned basic literacy for 12 years. And I find it very comforting to know that the doctors and nurses who treat me when I need it, got a 12-year grounding in the human body, how living things work, and how different materials and substances can interact. Plus, I doubt I'd have anywhere safe to live if the people who built my home didn't know basic things about, you know, gravity, how humans need to breathe air, and how electricity can be dangerous. Perhaps more appropriate on this site: anyone investing in stock indexes that depend on the entire country's economy growing, be glad that that economy is powered by people who have had at least 12 years of knowing-their-arse-from-their-elbow classes.
Everyone benefits, everyone pays. No problem. Considering how much of a contribution parents make to those children's educations that we all benefit from, I even think it's perfectly reasonable to add on a few tax breaks for parents.
But... you're arguing that the primary benefit of education is to the parents, so it's a subsidy to them? At least admit that the child themselves gets most of the benefit. Whether or not you have children, if you went to school, then it's not unreasonable that you pay taxes towards schools.
-
The child raising numbers are ludicrous.
18 years * median family income of $60,000 = $1,080,000 in income.
median 2.2 children * $310,000 per child = $682,000 spent on child care per median family over 18 years. (We'll ignore staggered births.)
That means that 63% of the family's income was consumed by those children.
That's ludicrous. No one needs to do that.
My daughter, because of her daycare costs 35% of my budget which does not even account for housing costs which they normally do (we bought looking a duplexes that were 2 or 3 bedroom so really the 3rd bedroom is not really because of her so I don't count it). It is a choice I made, and don't expect anyone to help with it, but I am not surprised that you could add up to 63%.
No, ~60% of before-tax income is WAY too high for an average. The article is bogus.
I do plan on having kids.
Even daycare alone would be almost 50% of my before tax budget, again, if we had two kids and they were going to daycare at the same time. The number does not surprise me at all. You may plan to have kids, but I know what the cost is now.
This is about what daycare costs would be for two kids around here as well.
Daycare doesn't last 18 years. It lasts 3-5 years tops, so the proportion of your income spent on your child should go way down once they reach school age. Why would parents need to continue spending at that rate for the entire 18 years that Slate's article posits?
-
The child raising numbers are ludicrous.
18 years * median family income of $60,000 = $1,080,000 in income.
median 2.2 children * $310,000 per child = $682,000 spent on child care per median family over 18 years. (We'll ignore staggered births.)
That means that 63% of the family's income was consumed by those children.
That's ludicrous. No one needs to do that.
My daughter, because of her daycare costs 35% of my budget which does not even account for housing costs which they normally do (we bought looking a duplexes that were 2 or 3 bedroom so really the 3rd bedroom is not really because of her so I don't count it). It is a choice I made, and don't expect anyone to help with it, but I am not surprised that you could add up to 63%.
No, ~60% of before-tax income is WAY too high for an average. The article is bogus.
I do plan on having kids.
Even daycare alone would be almost 50% of my before tax budget, again, if we had two kids and they were going to daycare at the same time. The number does not surprise me at all. You may plan to have kids, but I know what the cost is now.
This is about what daycare costs would be for two kids around here as well.
Daycare doesn't last 18 years. It lasts 3-5 years tops, so the proportion of your income spent on your child should go way down once they reach school age. Why would parents need to continue spending at that rate for the entire 18 years that Slate's article posits?
Then you have afterschool care and summer care for the next 8-10 years which can be quite a bit too. But my point is, not even considering a ton that they consider the "child's expenses", I can see how that amount is reached. If you go over that amount for 5 of 18 years, I think that does matter.
-
How do we know one of my kids will not cure cancer? This is a straw man argument.
How do we know that one of your kids will not shoot up a school, or kill people by driving daddy's pickup while blind drunk? Just as much of a straw man as your cancer-curing argument, isn't it?
Indeed both the happy and sad cases are straw men (kids?). That was my point. The question is whether society as a whole benefits from the next generation as a whole. Since there shortly would be no society without the next generation, it isn't hard to figure that one out.
-
Indeed both the happy and sad cases are straw men (kids?). That was my point. The question is whether society as a whole benefits from the next generation as a whole. Since there shortly would be no society without the next generation, it isn't hard to figure that one out.
I for one welcome our new robotic overlords, and happy relinquish my owner ship shares in the companies that own the hardware they run on.
-
Ok then Brewer, back it up. How is the deck heavily against parents?
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/05/26/what-is-the-real-cost-of-raising-children/ (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/05/26/what-is-the-real-cost-of-raising-children/)
Given the cost listed there I'll say: Yes an extra personal exemption, child tax credit, child and dependent care credit, and EITC make a big difference. Do they pay for it all? No. Do they make a difference? Most definitely.
With all due respect to our gracious host, I would say that his views on the subject are rather, um, fanciful and his cost estimates are very unrealistic. There are many costs of raising children and some of the biggest ones are not direct. In addition to a bigger house and car, daycare, food, medical coverage, clothing, educational costs, etc., there are many things about having kids that make things more challenging for parents vs. a childless couple.
Want to switch jobs? Will the new employer accommodate whatever schedule peculiarities you have due to having kids? Want to move to a new area? Will it mess up the school year? Oh, and you will have to pay up for a home in an acceptable school district. Want to take a few years off to be with one or more small children? Hello, mommy track. And so on.
Most parents only get the extra personal exemption and child tax credit, and they pale in comparison to the very large (six figures, easy) costs of raising a child. Should childless taxpayers subsidize these costs? Open to debate, obviously. I'd rather subsidize that than farmers, the defense industry, the film industry, etc.
-
It's just as much a benefit to the childless that we don't have huge swaths of the country unemployable and uneducated as it is to the parents of children.
Did I say that it's not? No, what I said is that the child-free are helping to pay the cost of educating your kids, which is a subsidy to parents, regardless of any incidental benefit to the child-free.
-
It's just as much a benefit to the childless that we don't have huge swaths of the country unemployable and uneducated as it is to the parents of children.
Did I say that it's not? No, what I said is that the child-free are helping to pay the cost of educating your kids, which is a subsidy to parents, regardless of any incidental benefit to the child-free.
I disagree. I thought warfreak said it very well: it's a benefit to the children. And all of us were once children, and either attended free public school or had the opportunity to do so.
-
It's just as much a benefit to the childless that we don't have huge swaths of the country unemployable and uneducated as it is to the parents of children.
Did I say that it's not? No, what I said is that the child-free are helping to pay the cost of educating your kids, which is a subsidy to parents, regardless of any incidental benefit to the child-free.
If it provides more than ancillary value (which it does) to someone then it doesn't become a subsidy. A well run school will increase the value of your home providing you a return on that investment.
-
It's just as much a benefit to the childless that we don't have huge swaths of the country unemployable and uneducated as it is to the parents of children.
Did I say that it's not? No, what I said is that the child-free are helping to pay the cost of educating your kids, which is a subsidy to parents, regardless of any incidental benefit to the child-free.
This line of thinking can be applied to just about anything and would be equally ridiculous. I don't own a car- so I suppose that us 'car-free' folks are helping to pay the costs of the roads, which is a subsidy to people who own cars.
Oh, i suppose there is a benefit to having roads that make it easier for goods to get delivered to my local grocery store, but these are 'incidental' to us car-free people.
-
This is just silly. There is zero question that children benefit everyone economically. You can argue about the precise numbers of children you want as compared to adults for an optimal output, but just consider your precious Vanguard funds, for example. All those companies rely on at least a continued base of consumers/customers to exist 10 or 20 or 40 years from now. A stable base would be good. A growing base will be good in some ways (financially) and bad in others (arguably environmentally.) A quickly shrinking base will mean you don't get your precious dividends after a few years, and a few years after that your FIRE comes to a screeching halt as your entire portfolio is worth zero with nobody buying/selling anything.
So if you want society and industry and commerce to continue, you need kids. If you want it to continue optimally, you probably need to provide some incentives and help for those who have them. The kids you are subsidizing through public education and tax breaks and all that other stuff are the reason you can become FI at all.
Society and the economy are not zero sum games. Taking money from you to pay for my kids might seem unfair on it's face, but it's arguably beneficial to BOTH of us in actuality.
-W
-
This is just silly. There is zero question that children benefit everyone economically. You can argue about the precise numbers of children you want as compared to adults for an optimal output, but just consider your precious Vanguard funds, for example. All those companies rely on at least a continued base of consumers/customers to exist 10 or 20 or 40 years from now. A stable base would be good. A growing base will be good in some ways (financially) and bad in others (arguably environmentally.) A quickly shrinking base will mean you don't get your precious dividends after a few years, and a few years after that your FIRE comes to a screeching halt as your entire portfolio is worth zero with nobody buying/selling anything.
So if you want society and industry and commerce to continue, you need kids. If you want it to continue optimally, you probably need to provide some incentives and help for those who have them. The kids you are subsidizing through public education and tax breaks and all that other stuff are the reason you can become FI at all.
Society and the economy are not zero sum games. Taking money from you to pay for my kids might seem unfair on it's face, but it's arguably beneficial to BOTH of us in actuality.
-W
+1. Could not have phrased bettter or more politely on my best day.
-
Probably going to regret diving into this thread, but:
If I had my kids at the exact same age (starting at age 21 and no, not planned at all), but changed one thing (made myself Mustachian at age 18) I would already be FI - or very, very close - despite never grossing more than $65K a year.
Parents can sure as fuck save money.
-
"Want to move to a new area? Will it mess up the school year?"
Is this being considered a serious holdback?? I was an Army brat, moved every 3-4 years and not necessarily between school years. I can assure you I wasn't harmed by it and the world did not end.
-
Subsidizing low-income children creates an incentive for the welfare crowd to breed. From an evolutionary standpoint, it be better to subsidize the lost wages of higher earners.
-
MMM raises kids on what, $25K a year? I don't think parents need more than the really nice tax credits they already get. Kids also do not have to go to a $100,000 ivy when state schools are quite inexpensive and spending the first two years getting core subjects done at a community college is cheaper still.
-
MMM raises kids on what, $25K a year? I don't think parents need more than the really nice tax credits they already get. Kids also do not have to go to a $100,000 ivy when state schools are quite inexpensive and spending the first two years getting core subjects done at a community college is cheaper still.
As I said, MMM's numbers do not have more than a distant relationship with the real world experience of most parents.
-
"Want to move to a new area? Will it mess up the school year?"
Is this being considered a serious holdback?? I was an Army brat, moved every 3-4 years and not necessarily between school years. I can assure you I wasn't harmed by it and the world did not end.
Aside from making you a brat? :)
-
If it provides more than ancillary value (which it does) to someone then it doesn't become a subsidy. A well run school will increase the value of your home providing you a return on that investment.
Not so. First, looking at a the house as an investment, I would have had to pay a higher cost to buy the house in the first place because of the well-run* school, so I would have no net gain.
*Assuming the school stays the same over the time between purchase and sale. Of course it could also go downhill, meaning I'd lose.
Second point is that a higher resale value doesn't benefit me personally, or anyone else who looks at a house as a place to live, rather than an investment. It's quite likely that I will never sell my current house. So all that higher home value does for me is increase my assessed property valuation, and hence my real estate tax. So again, negative benefit.
This is just silly. There is zero question that children benefit everyone economically.
Sorry. You can claim that there's zero question, but that doesn't make it so. Indeed, even making the claim would seem to demonstrate that you're out of touch with reality, or at least haven't bothered to read the whole thread. Several people have posed questions, meaning the number is greater than zero.
Society and the economy are not zero sum games. Taking money from you to pay for my kids might seem unfair on it's face, but it's arguably beneficial to BOTH of us in actuality.
Only if you get to define what constitutes a benefit :-)
Certainly it's true that society & the economy are not zero-sum games. Sometimes they're negative sum games. For instance, suppose we have a nice park, and our taxes pay for a maintenance staff that cleans up trash & repairs vandalism. You carelessly toss your trash around, spray-paint graffiti on the rocks, &c. I do none of these things. Now even though the park is a benefit to both of us, am I not subsidizing your use of it?
-
While not in the military I too moved mid-school year across the country. This is not a road block. If your point is that parents have to plain with there kids in mind then yes I concede the point, parents have to think about there kids.
Don't think it has been mentioned but us childfree also help subsidize employer provided helth insurance. Where I worked we looked at switching plains few years back and it was an open joke about there being three interest blocks-childfree-married with out children and married with children.
I think we would all agree that the cost of raising a child can very wildly, mmm did not make up his numbers. But he was able to structure his life to not need outside paid childcare, this may not be practical or bottom line optimal for a large number of parents.
-
The child raising numbers are ludicrous.
18 years * median family income of $60,000 = $1,080,000 in income.
median 2.2 children * $310,000 per child = $682,000 spent on child care per median family over 18 years. (We'll ignore staggered births.)
That means that 63% of the family's income was consumed by those children.
That's ludicrous. No one needs to do that.
My daughter, because of her daycare costs 35% of my budget which does not even account for housing costs which they normally do (we bought looking a duplexes that were 2 or 3 bedroom so really the 3rd bedroom is not really because of her so I don't count it). It is a choice I made, and don't expect anyone to help with it, but I am not surprised that you could add up to 63%.
No, ~60% of before-tax income is WAY too high for an average. The article is bogus.
I do plan on having kids.
Even daycare alone would be almost 50% of my before tax budget, again, if we had two kids and they were going to daycare at the same time. The number does not surprise me at all. You may plan to have kids, but I know what the cost is now.
This is about what daycare costs would be for two kids around here as well.
Daycare doesn't last 18 years. It lasts 3-5 years tops, so the proportion of your income spent on your child should go way down once they reach school age. Why would parents need to continue spending at that rate for the entire 18 years that Slate's article posits?
Then you have afterschool care and summer care for the next 8-10 years which can be quite a bit too. But my point is, not even considering a ton that they consider the "child's expenses", I can see how that amount is reached. If you go over that amount for 5 of 18 years, I think that does matter.
But Slate's estimate is that parents spend 63% of their income on children. It's totally ludicrous, not to mention impossible for most people, to spend that much. Even daycare doesn't cost 63% of household income, and afterschool/summer care costs less than daycare.
-
This is just silly. There is zero question that children benefit everyone economically.
Sorry. You can claim that there's zero question, but that doesn't make it so. Indeed, even making the claim would seem to demonstrate that you're out of touch with reality, or at least haven't bothered to read the whole thread. Several people have posed questions, meaning the number is greater than zero.
No. You're the only one trying to argue that children don't benefit everyone economically. Other people are posing questions about how much it costs to have kids, how much it may or may not effect your earnings potential, and how much the state should encourage, or give advantageous treatment to people who have kids (through tax breaks, etc..). Questions that are certainly up for debate.
But- there is indeed zero question that children benefit everyone economically, because, and i'm going out on a limb here, if we stopped having children the economy would collapse and society would end.
-
The child raising numbers are ludicrous.
18 years * median family income of $60,000 = $1,080,000 in income.
median 2.2 children * $310,000 per child = $682,000 spent on child care per median family over 18 years. (We'll ignore staggered births.)
That means that 63% of the family's income was consumed by those children.
That's ludicrous. No one needs to do that.
My daughter, because of her daycare costs 35% of my budget which does not even account for housing costs which they normally do (we bought looking a duplexes that were 2 or 3 bedroom so really the 3rd bedroom is not really because of her so I don't count it). It is a choice I made, and don't expect anyone to help with it, but I am not surprised that you could add up to 63%.
No, ~60% of before-tax income is WAY too high for an average. The article is bogus.
I do plan on having kids.
Even daycare alone would be almost 50% of my before tax budget, again, if we had two kids and they were going to daycare at the same time. The number does not surprise me at all. You may plan to have kids, but I know what the cost is now.
This is about what daycare costs would be for two kids around here as well.
Daycare doesn't last 18 years. It lasts 3-5 years tops, so the proportion of your income spent on your child should go way down once they reach school age. Why would parents need to continue spending at that rate for the entire 18 years that Slate's article posits?
Then you have afterschool care and summer care for the next 8-10 years which can be quite a bit too. But my point is, not even considering a ton that they consider the "child's expenses", I can see how that amount is reached. If you go over that amount for 5 of 18 years, I think that does matter.
But Slate's estimate is that parents spend 63% of their income on children. It's totally ludicrous, not to mention impossible for most people, to spend that much. Even daycare doesn't cost 63% of household income, and afterschool/summer care costs less than daycare.
Actually no, they estimated the cost of a child, which according to the US government includes their portion of the rent etc. My daughter's daycare costs 1/4 of our gross income, we play to have two children, if you account for both kids, plus food, housing, clothes and yes after school care, it does add up. We spend over $1000/month in daycare and we live in an extremely LCOLA. I would be surprised if they added up to over 50% of a parent's gross income.
-
But- there is indeed zero question that children benefit everyone economically, because, and i'm going out on a limb here, if we stopped having children the economy would collapse and society would end.
Technically, this shows that the average benefit to society per child is positive, but not that the marginal benefit to society of an additional child is positive. That means you can't point at a random parent and say "your child is a negative contribution to society" because the average child is a benefit to society (also, it would make you a dick!). But it's the marginal benefit or cost to society, per additional child, that determines whether it's beneficial to incentivise parents to have more, or fewer children.
I think the problem is that when we talk about "incentivising", people get the impression that it means making it profitable for parents to have children; of course, that's something the government shouldn't do. In practice, these incentives make it (financially) less of a negative, but (financially) still a big negative.
My point is that this isn't really an argument about whether it's right for somebody without children to subsidise somebody with children; that's a "microscopic" effect. (It's also about the average, rather than at the margin). Economic policies should be decided by their macroscopic effects: does this benefit or harm society overall? The macroscopic effects of reducing these tax breaks would be greater tax revenue, and fewer children. The IRS already has the data to calculate how much additional tax revenue that would be. But, how many fewer children? I don't really know, I suspect there are economists and sociologists who have an estimate.
So, to those who want to see these tax breaks cut: how many fewer children do you think there should be, and why?
-
My point is that this isn't really an argument about whether it's right for somebody without children to subsidise somebody with children; that's a "microscopic" effect. (It's also about the average, rather than at the margin). Economic policies should be decided by their macroscopic effects: does this benefit or harm society overall? The macroscopic effects of reducing these tax breaks would be greater tax revenue, and fewer children. The IRS already has the data to calculate how much additional tax revenue that would be. But, how many fewer children? I don't really know, I suspect there are economists and sociologists who have an estimate.
So, to those who want to see these tax breaks cut: how many fewer children do you think there should be, and why?
It isn't an either/or situation, and the whole proposition leads to the question of whether it would be better to change our economic model rather than provide subsidies to stack more consumers in crowded cities.
Our current economic system is built around the need for constant inflation, which leads politicians to encourage population growth to fuel that inflation. The need for monetary velocity is the primary reason why you won't see illegal aliens being deported, ever rising medical/education/housing/food costs, etc. It's a failing model, and propping it up through an increase in slavery/taxes isn't necessarily a good thing. Treating children as stock animals to harvest their future labor through taxes isn't the most moral thing either.
How much earlier could you retire if we lived in a hard currency economy where 5% of your purchasing power wasn't stolen via inflation each year? How many years do you work to pay the taxes which support population growth? Should we aim for a situation where raising children on 5 acres is an affordable alternative to a condo?
To answer your question; I believe we should aim for a slow population decline to roughly 150 million people in the US. At that level, our population should be sustainable on an organic level rather than relying on GMO crops, oil-based fertilizers, etc.
-
I think some people like to live in a fantasy world where utilitarian concerns don't matter and we can legislate entirely based on fairness/freedom for the individual. Concepts like, say, stop signs don't work in that world, of course.
It would be interesting to do a real analysis of the optimal level of fertility, but there is a lot going on there in terms of non-quantifiable preferences (how much do you like immigrants? Ok with birth control? etc) so it's probably a fool's errand. Suffice to say it's definitely not zero, and that you could spend a lot of time arguing about what the optimal level is, but that the minescule benefits given to support child rearing by the state are dwarfed by the contributions those children will make.
The desireability of *some* inflation is not related to population growth, just FYI. Without exchange, no more economy. Without economy, no more FI or fun times.
-W
But- there is indeed zero question that children benefit everyone economically, because, and i'm going out on a limb here, if we stopped having children the economy would collapse and society would end.
Technically, this shows that the average benefit to society per child is positive, but not that the marginal benefit to society of an additional child is positive. That means you can't point at a random parent and say "your child is a negative contribution to society" because the average child is a benefit to society (also, it would make you a dick!). But it's the marginal benefit or cost to society, per additional child, that determines whether it's beneficial to incentivise parents to have more, or fewer children.
I think the problem is that when we talk about "incentivising", people get the impression that it means making it profitable for parents to have children; of course, that's something the government shouldn't do. In practice, these incentives make it (financially) less of a negative, but (financially) still a big negative.
My point is that this isn't really an argument about whether it's right for somebody without children to subsidise somebody with children; that's a "microscopic" effect. (It's also about the average, rather than at the margin). Economic policies should be decided by their macroscopic effects: does this benefit or harm society overall? The macroscopic effects of reducing these tax breaks would be greater tax revenue, and fewer children. The IRS already has the data to calculate how much additional tax revenue that would be. But, how many fewer children? I don't really know, I suspect there are economists and sociologists who have an estimate.
So, to those who want to see these tax breaks cut: how many fewer children do you think there should be, and why?
-
It's hard to engage with an argument based on fundamentals I'm not going to agree with - all I can really say is I don't think "future tax income" is the reason children are beneficial to society, I don't agree with the conflation of tax and slavery, and I don't agree with the description of inflation as theft. Waltworks already noted that inflation doesn't have to be related to population growth so I won't labour that point.
That said, we might agree on the desirability of maintaining a lower population. I'm not really sold on it either way. There are some enormous benefits of having more people, because we have a productive society in which each person's work can potentially help everyone else, and more people means everyone is helped by more people. But as you suggest, there are also strong ecological and environmental reasons to prefer a smaller population. It might interest you that the current US fertility rate is actually slightly below the replacement rate.
-
To answer your question; I believe we should aim for a slow population decline to roughly 150 million people in the US. At that level, our population should be sustainable on an organic level rather than relying on GMO crops, oil-based fertilizers, etc.
Sweet! Every city will be Detroit! I figure a 12 gauge loaded with buckshot should take care of feral pitbulls.
-
It's hard to engage with an argument based on fundamentals I'm not going to agree with - all I can really say is I don't think "future tax income" is the reason children are beneficial to society, I don't agree with the conflation of tax and slavery, and I don't agree with the description of inflation as theft. Waltworks already noted that inflation doesn't have to be related to population growth so I won't labour that point.
I do view inflation as theft. We all know that cash sitting unused loses purchasing power, but if you invest to keep up with true inflation, the government taxes the "income". Either way, something is taken from us.
And while inflation doesn't have to be related to population growth, it is. Waltwork's hypothesis is valid, but still relies on changes to the economy.
That said, we might agree on the desirability of maintaining a lower population. I'm not really sold on it either way. There are some enormous benefits of having more people, because we have a productive society in which each person's work can potentially help everyone else, and more people means everyone is helped by more people. But as you suggest, there are also strong ecological and environmental reasons to prefer a smaller population. It might interest you that the current US fertility rate is actually slightly below the replacement rate.
The ultimate population is open to debate. As you point out, more can be better, but not always because quality tends to decrease with quantity and population density. Example: If you were looking for an employee and had the choice of a random kid from the streets of Chicago or someone who grew up on a farm, which would you pick?
-
To answer your question; I believe we should aim for a slow population decline to roughly 150 million people in the US. At that level, our population should be sustainable on an organic level rather than relying on GMO crops, oil-based fertilizers, etc.
Sweet! Every city will be Detroit! I figure a 12 gauge loaded with buckshot should take care of feral pitbulls.
Detroit is a perfect example of a place being kept as a slum due to forced redistribution of wealth. Without section 8 and EBT money, it would clear out before next winter, and be a prime candidate for redevelopment.
With the continued flow of welfare benefits, it will continue to stagnate as a place where most of us wouldn't dare to live.
-
Ok, this is just a libertarian (extreme libertarian, at that) vs. not argument, then. Which is not going to get resolved here or anywhere else, anytime soon. Once you start throwing around the "taxation is theft" thing it's hard to have a rational discussion (privatize all roads? disband the armed forces, fire departments, and police? The ends don't justify the means, and taxation is theft!) anymore.
So I think it's probably best to say we disagree on the fundamental principles of how society should function and leave it at that.
-W
-
To answer your question; I believe we should aim for a slow population decline to roughly 150 million people in the US. At that level, our population should be sustainable on an organic level rather than relying on GMO crops, oil-based fertilizers, etc.
Sweet! Every city will be Detroit! I figure a 12 gauge loaded with buckshot should take care of feral pitbulls.
Detroit is a perfect example of a place being kept as a slum due to forced redistribution of wealth. Without section 8 and EBT money, it would clear out before next winter, and be a prime candidate for redevelopment.
With the continued flow of welfare benefits, it will continue to stagnate as a place where most of us wouldn't dare to live.
Praying at the altar of St. Ayn Rand? Can Ayn Rand fit through the eye of the needle?
-
Ok, this is just a libertarian (extreme libertarian, at that) vs. not argument, then. Which is not going to get resolved here or anywhere else, anytime soon. Once you start throwing around the "taxation is theft" thing it's hard to have a rational discussion (privatize all roads? disband the armed forces, fire departments, and police? The ends don't justify the means, and taxation is theft!) anymore.
So I think it's probably best to say we disagree on the fundamental principles of how society should function and leave it at that.
-W
You're portraying me as an extreme libertarian, which isn't correct. I'm not anti-tax, but I am a hard currency advocate who hates paying capital gains taxes for simply breaking even. I'd welcome social credit over Keynesian (and possibly Austrian) economics, but I'm guessing most people here never learned of the social credit movement since it isn't taught in US schools.
If you read up on the theory, you'll find that it promotes exactly what this thread is asking for, but without discriminatory taxation. The method relies on stimulus going directly to the people rather than the banks, which promotes optimum velocity without the deflationary effects of interest and taxes.
Edit:
It also promotes the Mustachian ideal of FIRE, freeing people to work as they wish and encouraging entrepreneurs rather than the current status quo of people making more on welfare than they could through work.
Praying at the altar of St. Ayn Rand? Can Ayn Rand fit through the eye of the needle?
C.H. Douglas, actually...and he'd fit through the eye a good deal easier than Keynes.
-
Then there's 13 years (or more) of K-12 education that parents get for free.
Newsflash: public school isn't free. At least, not like it was when I was a kid back in the dark ages (70s and 80s).
Want to play a sport? No longer do you get to wear 20-year old uniforms, you have to buy new.
Want science, computers, art, music, or PE? Your parents better fork over some cash, because those aren't included in an elementary education anymore!
It doesn't matter if *you* have children. If *you* went to public school, then you benefit from public school.
And someone else mentioned how childcare does not last 18 years. Depends, do you work? If you do, then childcare costs do not end at kindergarten. There is after school care and summer camp.
-
Tax code? How about mandatory parental leave like the rest of the "civilized" world?
Only if those without children get the same amount of "personal growth" time . . you choose to have a kid, maybe we want that same amount of time to choose to climb a mountain, etc. or tackle some other life goal outside the office. I'm all for expanded mandatory minimums on paid time off, but not if it is under the guise of "parental leave" where companies can discriminate the childless because it's not "for the kids".
FMLA (and the reasons for taking it) is dictated by the government, not companies.
-
No. You're the only one trying to argue that children don't benefit everyone economically.
Suggest you work on your reading comprehension, then. Sorry, but just because you say it doesn't make it so.
But- there is indeed zero question that children benefit everyone economically, because, and i'm going out on a limb here, if we stopped having children the economy would collapse and society would end.
Now you're being ridiculous and irrelevant, and probably responsible for a spike in the price of straw to boot :-) But to see your ridiculousness, and raise it a notch or two, it should be obvious that (barring great improvements in anti-aging technology) the eventual collapse of society would have little effect on those of us who are already adults, as we will die long before the final collapse. Meanwhile, we will get to enjoy all the benefits of a less-crowded world.
-
But- there is indeed zero question that children benefit everyone economically, because, and i'm going out on a limb here, if we stopped having children the economy would collapse and society would end.
Now you're being ridiculous and irrelevant, and probably responsible for a spike in the price of straw to boot :-) But to see your ridiculousness, and raise it a notch or two, it should be obvious that (barring great improvements in anti-aging technology) the eventual collapse of society would have little effect on those of us who are already adults, as we will die long before the final collapse. Meanwhile, we will get to enjoy all the benefits of a less-crowded world.
I'll add that children *can* benefit everyone economically, but that isn't always the case. The ones who wind up on public assistance, in prison, dealing drugs, etc. aren't a benefit. More is not always better, especially when you consider that more kids equals more wealth dilution.
If we focus our efforts on raising better quality children, we'd likely see a better outcome.
-
Tax code? How about mandatory parental leave like the rest of the "civilized" world?
Only if those without children get the same amount of "personal growth" time . . you choose to have a kid, maybe we want that same amount of time to choose to climb a mountain, etc. or tackle some other life goal outside the office. I'm all for expanded mandatory minimums on paid time off, but not if it is under the guise of "parental leave" where companies can discriminate the childless because it's not "for the kids".
FMLA (and the reasons for taking it) is dictated by the government, not companies.
Exactly. We (were) talking about paid time off policies, which are only likely to be in place for the majority of American workers if the government mandates it. I don't see your point.
-
On an entirely different note, can you imagine how painful this would be for anyone struggling to concieve? On top of the hell they go through as it is, they would be taxed for their reproductive shortcomings. Yikes.
-
On an entirely different note, can you imagine how painful this would be for anyone struggling to concieve? On top of the hell they go through as it is, they would be taxed for their reproductive shortcomings. Yikes.
Yeah and what of people who had given up there right to a child, a woman that gave up a child for adoption or a father who signed his rights away. Is the tax on those without children or those who have not created children? And if a rapist impregnates a woman? Or the child dies does the tax come back in?
-
Meh...the current incentives, I believe, are just about right, maybe you can tweak them back and forth over time to adjust for rapidly declining birthrates if it becomes a problem.
I love the people in this thread who live in a bubble where only their existence matters and the future of human society doesn't concern them.
But to see your ridiculousness, and raise it a notch or two, it should be obvious that (barring great improvements in anti-aging technology) the eventual collapse of society would have little effect on those of us who are already adults, as we will die long before the final collapse. Meanwhile, we will get to enjoy all the benefits of a less-crowded world.
Statements like this make me ponder the long term implications of less first world people, the people who have high resource usage, having no children. On the one hand, they are reducing the amount of resource users, but on the other hand, because they can't empathize with parents, they are voting for policies that provide less support to parents. Instead of a society working together for the benefit of all of it's members, it becomes an "us vs. them" scenario with kids getting less support over time which means a further declining birthrate with it all spiraling down in a destructive way.
-
Instead of a society working together for the benefit of all of it's members, it becomes an "us vs. them" scenario with kids getting less support over time which means a further declining birthrate with it all spiraling down in a destructive way.
I've been reading this thread, but staying out of the discussion, and I think this leap here (and argued elsewhere) is what bothers me the most: the assumption that if support (taxes) is not kept or increased, the birthrate will "spiral[] down in a destructive way."
Yes, first world countries generally tend to have a lower birth rate as kids are no longer economic advantages working on the farm. The birthrate gradually decreases over time - but not to zero. But it's unclear to me:
1) that changing tax slightly would have much of an impact, and the desired impact (of getting smart/hardworking etc people to reproduce and cure cancer, as opposed to getting the criminal to reproduce, or the person with many kids on welfare already to do so),
2) that changing it substantially would be feasible (in terms of a successful budget for the government) and also have the desired impact (of getting smart/hardworking etc people to reproduce versus people just becoming baby factories for the $).
It's fairly common for successful and smart people to consider costs of things like college before having children so they are unlikely to go from more than choosing to 1 more kid, while others you may not want to reproduce may go from say, 3 to 8). You'd need to change the tax exemptions substantially for my husband to think it makes sense economically to reproduce (as opposed to reproducing for other reasons). He's the type of person I would think you'd want to reproduce, smart and working in a needed field (Harvard Phd in cancer research), but I admit I may be biased. :)
3) that absent changes the birthrate will dramatically decrease.
People reproduce for many reasons: accidents, religion, obligation, wanting a family, heck even for donor organs for a family member, etc. Many probably can't even articulate why they want to reproduce - it's probably partially an evolutionary drive. I highly doubt the birthrate will spiral down dramatically absent some strong outside force like China's one child policy. Humans have managed to keep reproducing for generations and I posit will continue to do so, even absent incentives.
-
Meh...the current incentives, I believe, are just about right, maybe you can tweak them back and forth over time to adjust for rapidly declining birthrates if it becomes a problem.
I love the people in this thread who live in a bubble where only their existence matters and the future of human society doesn't concern them.
Except there seem to be two entirely different bubbles here: the ones who think their future, and that of human society, depends on an ever-increasing population, and those of us (the rational ones :-)) who see that the Earth can't even continue to support current pouplation levels, let alone increasing ones.
-
ever-increasing population
It might interest you that the current US fertility rate is actually slightly below the replacement rate.
Making it easier for parents to raise children is quite consistent with not wanting the population to grow. Whatever you think the population should be (other than zero), there need to be some people having children.
-
Tax code? How about mandatory parental leave like the rest of the "civilized" world?
Only if those without children get the same amount of "personal growth" time . . you choose to have a kid, maybe we want that same amount of time to choose to climb a mountain, etc. or tackle some other life goal outside the office. I'm all for expanded mandatory minimums on paid time off, but not if it is under the guise of "parental leave" where companies can discriminate the childless because it's not "for the kids".
If by "personal growth time" you mean "time to recover from 9 months of giving your body over to completely supporting another human and possibly recovering from a nasty surgery which will most likely leave you anemic for months". Sorry, but you're trying to make it seem like parental leave is just time for people to take a vacation and it's not. Besides which, if we actually had sane parental leave policies which gave, at the very least, mothers 6 months off from work without having to worry about their job disappearing or earning money, it could prevent a whole shit TON of medical costs because they (we) could actually heal and focus on getting kids off to the healthiest start possible by doing things such as breastfeeding. (Yes, mothers are now allowed to pump at work but that's really just second best, since breastmilk loses a lot by being outside of the body that way. And, most mothers choose not to pump because it's such a pain in the ass.)
FTR, I couldn't even finish the article because it was so insanely stupid. I just didn't want someone else talking about parental leave as if it's a freaking vacation.
-
Tax code? How about mandatory parental leave like the rest of the "civilized" world?
Only if those without children get the same amount of "personal growth" time . . you choose to have a kid, maybe we want that same amount of time to choose to climb a mountain, etc. or tackle some other life goal outside the office. I'm all for expanded mandatory minimums on paid time off, but not if it is under the guise of "parental leave" where companies can discriminate the childless because it's not "for the kids".
If by "personal growth time" you mean "time to recover from 9 months of giving your body over to completely supporting another human and possibly recovering from a nasty surgery which will most likely leave you anemic for months". Sorry, but you're trying to make it seem like parental leave is just time for people to take a vacation and it's not. Besides which, if we actually had sane parental leave policies which gave, at the very least, mothers 6 months off from work without having to worry about their job disappearing or earning money, it could prevent a whole shit TON of medical costs because they (we) could actually heal and focus on getting kids off to the healthiest start possible by doing things such as breastfeeding. (Yes, mothers are now allowed to pump at work but that's really just second best, since breastmilk loses a lot by being outside of the body that way. And, most mothers choose not to pump because it's such a pain in the ass.)
FTR, I couldn't even finish the article because it was so insanely stupid. I just didn't want someone else talking about parental leave as if it's a freaking vacation.
And FMLA is not just about medical leave, it is family medical leave act, not parental leave. My mom took time off to take care of her mother, yes people take it for having a kid but also for other medical issues like surgery etc.
-
Tax code? How about mandatory parental leave like the rest of the "civilized" world?
Only if those without children get the same amount of "personal growth" time . . you choose to have a kid, maybe we want that same amount of time to choose to climb a mountain, etc. or tackle some other life goal outside the office. I'm all for expanded mandatory minimums on paid time off, but not if it is under the guise of "parental leave" where companies can discriminate the childless because it's not "for the kids".
If by "personal growth time" you mean "time to recover from 9 months of giving your body over to completely supporting another human and possibly recovering from a nasty surgery which will most likely leave you anemic for months". Sorry, but you're trying to make it seem like parental leave is just time for people to take a vacation and it's not. Besides which, if we actually had sane parental leave policies which gave, at the very least, mothers 6 months off from work without having to worry about their job disappearing or earning money, it could prevent a whole shit TON of medical costs because they (we) could actually heal and focus on getting kids off to the healthiest start possible by doing things such as breastfeeding. (Yes, mothers are now allowed to pump at work but that's really just second best, since breastmilk loses a lot by being outside of the body that way. And, most mothers choose not to pump because it's such a pain in the ass.)
FTR, I couldn't even finish the article because it was so insanely stupid. I just didn't want someone else talking about parental leave as if it's a freaking vacation.
I have never said or insinuated that parental leave is a vacation. I did however, suggest that every employee should have the right to time off of work without risking losing their jobs, not limited to recovery from childbirth or family care. I don't care whether they use the six weeks to recover from child birth, help a sick friend with no relatives, do a six week volunteer stint overseas, or just lounge at home recovering from job/life stress. All are valid reasons to want to take off of work, which if a law to require paid time off is being proposed I think should be covered. Unpaid time off as covered in the FMLA does a shitty job for everyone - parents included. Do you disagree? Should parents be the only ones worth giving legally protected time off?
-
Tax code? How about mandatory parental leave like the rest of the "civilized" world?
Only if those without children get the same amount of "personal growth" time . . you choose to have a kid, maybe we want that same amount of time to choose to climb a mountain, etc. or tackle some other life goal outside the office. I'm all for expanded mandatory minimums on paid time off, but not if it is under the guise of "parental leave" where companies can discriminate the childless because it's not "for the kids".
If by "personal growth time" you mean "time to recover from 9 months of giving your body over to completely supporting another human and possibly recovering from a nasty surgery which will most likely leave you anemic for months". Sorry, but you're trying to make it seem like parental leave is just time for people to take a vacation and it's not. Besides which, if we actually had sane parental leave policies which gave, at the very least, mothers 6 months off from work without having to worry about their job disappearing or earning money, it could prevent a whole shit TON of medical costs because they (we) could actually heal and focus on getting kids off to the healthiest start possible by doing things such as breastfeeding. (Yes, mothers are now allowed to pump at work but that's really just second best, since breastmilk loses a lot by being outside of the body that way. And, most mothers choose not to pump because it's such a pain in the ass.)
FTR, I couldn't even finish the article because it was so insanely stupid. I just didn't want someone else talking about parental leave as if it's a freaking vacation.
I have never said or insinuated that parental leave is a vacation. I did however, suggest that every employee should have the right to time off of work without risking losing their jobs, not limited to recovery from childbirth or family care. I don't care whether they use the six weeks to recover from child birth, help a sick friend with no relatives, do a six week volunteer stint overseas, or just lounge at home recovering from job/life stress. All are valid reasons to want to take off of work, which if a law to require paid time off is being proposed I think should be covered. Unpaid time off as covered in the FMLA does a shitty job for everyone - parents included. Do you disagree? Should parents be the only ones worth giving legally protected time off?
Parents are not the only ones given time off, or did not you not realize that before FMLA you could be fired for taking time off for medical reasons?
-
Even daycare alone would be almost 50% of my before tax budget, again, if we had two kids and they were going to daycare at the same time. The number does not surprise me at all. You may plan to have kids, but I know what the cost is now.
Except that daycare doesn't last for 18 years, which you seem to be intentionally ignoring.
You are not factoring in the after-tax credits you receive that are specifically intended to alleviate this burden (child tax credit, child care credit). Since you mention "before tax," I wonder if you are also ignoring a pre-tax FSA.
Before long, you will place you children in a school system that is subsidized by the population as a whole. They will remain until they reach an age where they are eligible to enter a public university, which is also subsidized. Throughout this time, you will continue to utilize dependency exemptions to further lower your tax burden.
-
Parents are not the only ones given time off, or did not you not realize that before FMLA you could be fired for taking time off for medical reasons?
I'm pretty sure I said that FMLA doesn't go far enough (only unpaid, doesn't cover "loved ones" not legally related, general grief (best friend, aunt, grandma), etc), but as this was a thread about parental leave policies and potential subsidies I focused on that part of the law. Of course it also applies to personal medical needs, legal immediate family members' medical needs, adoption support, and military situations. And yes, I did know that you could be fired for taking time off for medical reasons. I never suggested taking that away. My comments were in response to suggested NEW policies or addendums to current policies, not wiping FMLA off the books. Forgive me for trying to keep the thread at least tangentially on topic ;-)
-
Childless couples, already, pay more and use less services. They are already carrying more than their fair share of the burden.
Take two neighbors, Joe and Bob, who both work at the same company making the same yearly wage.
Joe and his wife have no children. Bob and his wife have 6 kids.
Even though he uses far less government services Joe pays a higher income tax (he doesn't have those 6- deductions running around).
Both pay the same in property taxes, but Joe uses very few city services, while Bob and his horde use tons of them. Joe pays big money for schools (the biggest chunk of property taxes) to educate Bob's kids, but gets no direct benefit from it. Bob uses the roads more, parks more, hospitals more, and produces more waste that those taxes pay to get rid of, etc.
And at work, it's pretty common for people with kids to cut out for (insert family emergency here), and the people who usually have to work late nights and weekends to make up for it? Those with no kids, of course.
So I think those without children are already doing more than enough to support Bob and his brood.
-
+1 to what libertarian4321 said, with the addition:
I have had to sit next to a mom who changed her baby's diaper in the airplane seat WHILE OUR LUNCH WAS BEING SERVED. If that doesn't mean I have paid my dues to society, I don't know what does.
-
+1 to what libertarian4321 said, with the addition:
I have had to sit next to a Moo who changed her baby's diaper in the airplane seat WHILE OUR LUNCH WAS BEING SERVED. If that doesn't mean I have paid my dues to society, I don't know what does.
I am sure all the parents reading this will shed a tear for you.
-
+1 to what libertarian4321 said, with the addition:
I have had to sit next to a Moo who changed her baby's diaper in the airplane seat WHILE OUR LUNCH WAS BEING SERVED. If that doesn't mean I have paid my dues to society, I don't know what does.
I am sure all the parents reading this will shed a tear for you.
I don't want to start a line of hate, but I'm genuinely curious. Do you really think this is ok? This isn't a debate about whether women ought to breastfeed in the bathroom or can do it in public (for the record, I have no problem with breastfeeding in front of me). This is unsanitary and pretty disgusting. The parent has options: wait until after the meal (if it must be changed at the seat - I am actually not even sure how there is any space to change a diaper, they must have taken over Roland's space) or use the bathroom.
That said, I wouldn't agree with calling a mother a Moo.
-
Every proper commercial airplanes bathroom I have seen has a fold down shelf over the toilet for baby changing. Flight attendants would be only to happy to move the carts to make way for a mother and baby. Parents may be accustomed to changings at the dinner table but many of us would find it totally revolting.
-
This article has even sunk to even CNN discovering it!
http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/07/pf/taxes/childless-parents-taxes/index.html?iid=Lead
-
ever-increasing population
It might interest you that the current US fertility rate is actually slightly below the replacement rate.
Making it easier for parents to raise children is quite consistent with not wanting the population to grow. Whatever you think the population should be (other than zero), there need to be some people having children.
Yet according to the US census, the population continues to grow at a rate (currently) of 0.75% per year. Which would seem to imply that there is no risk of complete depopulation, even if the US fertility rate was zero.
Of course I agree that some people are always going to want to have children: the question is why I should have to help them do so.
I have had to sit next to a Moo who changed her baby's diaper in the airplane seat WHILE OUR LUNCH WAS BEING SERVED.
Have had a similar experience, though the infant in question was in the row ahead of me.
-
Both pay the same in property taxes, but Joe uses very few city services, while Bob and his horde use tons of them. Joe pays big money for schools (the biggest chunk of property taxes) to educate Bob's kids, but gets no direct benefit from it.
Sounds like Joe should take more advantage of city services that he's paying for, and stop being a hermit simply to complain about others.
There is a direct public education impact on Joe. Namely, he was in public education as a kid. The education he has, and the job he has are a result of his using the system that you are now bitching about.
That doesn't even count the direct benefit Joe has of educating Bobs kids . . . which is increased country wide productivity. Uneducated people can't do most jobs. They can't become junior members of the company that Joe started. They can't fix Joe's car. They can't build Joe's house. They can't work in the electric company that Joe buys his power from.
Bob uses the roads more, parks more, hospitals more, and produces more waste that those taxes pay to get rid of, etc.
I don't think you can say that a family with a minivan is guaranteed to use the roads more . . . what about the many single guys who live an hour's drive from work? If that single guy drives a heavy pickup truck he may even be damaging the roads more than the family each time he uses his vehicle. The kids may have after school activities, but the single guy is likely going out and hitting up clubs/bars/friends a couple times a week.
If you want to use parks more, you should go do it. Bitching that other people are using parks that you can use yourself is just petty.
I dunno what it's like where you live, but here garbage pickup is household dependent. Every two weeks our city picks up a half a black plastic garbage bag worth of garbage from each household, kids or not. If more garbage is produced, then you have to pay more for additional garbage pickup.
And at work, it's pretty common for people with kids to cut out for (insert family emergency here), and the people who usually have to work late nights and weekends to make up for it? Those with no kids, of course.
Well, this is blatantly unfair. And it's not the way that any place I've worked has been setup. Maybe you should be bitching about your shitty job rather than people with kids.
-
I dunno what it's like where you live, but here garbage pickup is household dependent. Every two weeks our city picks up a half a black plastic garbage bag worth of garbage from each household, kids or not. If more garbage is produced, then you have to pay more for additional garbage pickup.
I think that's very unusual - and somewhat progressive & environmental idea. Here you pay one annual fee to use the dump, regardless of how much waste you produce (e.g. how many people are in your family, how good you are at composting/recycling). But my town is also charming in that even though it costs the city just as much to have a transfer station as pick up the trash, the politicians voted to keep it that way (so they can politic at the dump).
-
I dunno what it's like where you live, but here garbage pickup is household dependent. Every two weeks our city picks up a half a black plastic garbage bag worth of garbage from each household, kids or not. If more garbage is produced, then you have to pay more for additional garbage pickup.
And at work, it's pretty common for people with kids to cut out for (insert family emergency here), and the people who usually have to work late nights and weekends to make up for it? Those with no kids, of course.
Well, this is blatantly unfair. And it's not the way that any place I've worked has been setup. Maybe you should be bitching about your shitty job rather than people with kids.
Garbage here is a flat rate - no option to have a smaller trash can or a more infrequent service, nor are there options other than the public trash collection agency. On top of that, you have to pay extra and opt in for the recycling service. I wish our city would charge on a scale like that. And yes, I've written to my local representative and contacted the agencies directly looking for change.
Re: Work culture - you must have really lucked out. Either that or you are blind to the subtle ways this is manifested because you either benefit from it and assume childless people do as well (being able to say "I have to leave half an hour early for xyz" and no one blink because xyz is universally regarded as "important" is a lot easier when xyz is a child related excuse) or you expect to get back what you put in when you have kids. It's not uncommon and while it's possible to change the culture from within, it takes a while.
-
I dunno what it's like where you live, but here garbage pickup is household dependent. Every two weeks our city picks up a half a black plastic garbage bag worth of garbage from each household, kids or not. If more garbage is produced, then you have to pay more for additional garbage pickup.
Our garbage pickup system is household dependent, too, GuitarStv. I love it!
-
Re: Work culture - you must have really lucked out. Either that or you are blind to the subtle ways this is manifested because you either benefit from it and assume childless people do as well (being able to say "I have to leave half an hour early for xyz" and no one blink because xyz is universally regarded as "important" is a lot easier when xyz is a child related excuse) or you expect to get back what you put in when you have kids. It's not uncommon and while it's possible to change the culture from within, it takes a while.
I don't know. I'm 33 this year, have worked multiple jobs in different fields, and have been childless for the entire time up last December. Nearly my whole working life has been childless . . . and I haven't seen these huge concessions made for people with kids. I've certainly never been told to take up the slack so that parents can go home with their kids.
Now if we want to talk smokers . . . they get special concessions (at least 5 to 10 breaks a day averaging 10 - 15 minute periods) at every place I've ever worked.
-
Re: Work culture - you must have really lucked out. Either that or you are blind to the subtle ways this is manifested because you either benefit from it and assume childless people do as well (being able to say "I have to leave half an hour early for xyz" and no one blink because xyz is universally regarded as "important" is a lot easier when xyz is a child related excuse) or you expect to get back what you put in when you have kids. It's not uncommon and while it's possible to change the culture from within, it takes a while.
I don't know. I'm 33 this year, have worked multiple jobs in different fields, and have been childless for the entire time up last December. Nearly my whole working life has been childless . . . and I haven't seen these huge concessions made for people with kids. I've certainly never been told to take up the slack so that parents can go home with their kids.
Now if we want to talk smokers . . . they get special concessions (at least 5 to 10 breaks a day averaging 10 - 15 minute periods) at every place I've ever worked.
Parents don't get their last minute time off requests (or flat out leaving early) more frequently and with less judgement? Of course they can't flat out SAY "hey you without kids, take over Suzy's project because she has a PTA meeting to attend", but the leaving early, coming in late, work/life balance arrangements, etc. all contribute to the childless doing more hours overall in any place I've ever worked.
+100 to smokers getting mental breaks but not everyone else. I don't know how to phrase the question without a leading answer, but why do smoker's breaks bother you but not parental leave/accepted work cultures that use those without kids as the work mules?
-
Both pay the same in property taxes, but Joe uses very few city services, while Bob and his horde use tons of them. Joe pays big money for schools (the biggest chunk of property taxes) to educate Bob's kids, but gets no direct benefit from it.
Sounds like Joe should take more advantage of city services that he's paying for, and stop being a hermit simply to complain about others.
Seems like a pretty unMustachian attitude, doesn't it? Joe should (wastefully) use all those city 'services' that he doesn't want, just because they're available? Not to mention that perhaps he's being a hermit because that's the way he likes to live, not simply to give him a reason to complain.
Same with trash pickup: I might put out half a can once every couple of weeks, while the neighbors put out overflowing ones, often with extra bags stacked beside them, and pay the same flat rate.
-
Parents don't get their last minute time off requests (or flat out leaving early) more frequently and with less judgement? Of course they can't flat out SAY "hey you without kids, take over Suzy's project because she has a PTA meeting to attend", but the leaving early, coming in late, work/life balance arrangements, etc. all contribute to the childless doing more hours overall in any place I've ever worked.
+100 to smokers getting mental breaks but not everyone else. I don't know how to phrase the question without a leading answer, but why do smoker's breaks bother you but not parental leave/accepted work cultures that use those without kids as the work mules?
My boss specifically asks us not to mention why we want time off when asking for it. He doesn't care. He just checks the current workload for the team and tells you if you can take the time off or not. No favouratism towards parents or anyone else.
Smokers however, just leave their desks regularly to go and smoke and somehow never get people giving them crap for it.
Both pay the same in property taxes, but Joe uses very few city services, while Bob and his horde use tons of them. Joe pays big money for schools (the biggest chunk of property taxes) to educate Bob's kids, but gets no direct benefit from it.
Sounds like Joe should take more advantage of city services that he's paying for, and stop being a hermit simply to complain about others.
Seems like a pretty unMustachian attitude, doesn't it? Joe should (wastefully) use all those city 'services' that he doesn't want, just because they're available? Not to mention that perhaps he's being a hermit because that's the way he likes to live, not simply to give him a reason to complain.
Same with trash pickup: I might put out half a can once every couple of weeks, while the neighbors put out overflowing ones, often with extra bags stacked beside them, and pay the same flat rate.
Not really. Going to a public pool, checking out the library, or using a park more often isn't unMustachian in my books. If someone wants to live as a hermit that's cool . . . but the concept that nobody should have to pay for a societal benefit that they don't directly use is really just petty, mean, and short sighted.
You should petition for better trash collection in your neighbourhood. That would address the garbage problem (which has nothing to do with parents/children).
-
Yet according to the US census, the population continues to grow at a rate (currently) of 0.75% per year.
Yes, due to net immigration.
Which would seem to imply that there is no risk of complete depopulation, even if the US fertility rate was zero.
What? No, I give up, I'm not talking with you about maths any more.
-
The deck is heavily stacked against parents in favor of the childless. Considering the large societal benefit provided by parents of furnishing the next generation, I am all for leveling the playing field and making it less punitive/onerous to have kids.
I have to disagree on both counts. First, as others have pointed out, parents get all sorts of benefits that childfree people do not. It is ultimately their choice to have kids: why shouldn't I (and everyone else) likewise get society's help with our expensive lifestyle choices?
Second, how are we to know that your particular contribution(s) to the next generation are actually going to be a societal benefit? You might well be raising the next generation of louts and layabouts. Even if they are benefits rather than liabilities, shouldn't you then expect them to repay you directly, with support in your 'golden years'?
Um, yeah. +1
And let's not forget the social cost to a childfree woman. If you're not one, you might not understand, and I have no economic/financial side to this point; but childfree-by-choice women are branded as selfish and biologically broken for not wanting to reproduce. I have personally experienced this, and every so often we get another article complaining about women who refuse to reproduce before 30 and how it's ruining society, and maybe just google it if it comes to that, but this is a thing.
I'm not even self-branded childfree; I almost never discuss it. I just lack children, so I get heat. It's a terrific state of affairs for infertile women, I'm sure.
So, you feel that the choice to not have children is a financial burden that you've had to work around?
And let's not forget the social cost to a childfree woman. If you're not one, you might not understand, and I have no economic/financial side to this point
-
Childless couples, already, pay more and use less services. They are already carrying more than their fair share of the burden.
Why don't you look at this as paying for the services you yourself used in your youth.. sort of like social security in reverse. :)
-
I dunno what it's like where you live, but here garbage pickup is household dependent. Every two weeks our city picks up a half a black plastic garbage bag worth of garbage from each household, kids or not. If more garbage is produced, then you have to pay more for additional garbage pickup.
I think that's very unusual - and somewhat progressive & environmental idea. Here you pay one annual fee to use the dump, regardless of how much waste you produce (e.g. how many people are in your family, how good you are at composting/recycling). But my town is also charming in that even though it costs the city just as much to have a transfer station as pick up the trash, the politicians voted to keep it that way (so they can politic at the dump).
it can't be THAT unusual/progressive/environmental if we have it here in Oklahoma :) I actually wish ours went smaller though, we have the smallest bin and could get by with less and it's still $12/month. to be fair to your point though, they only started the program here within the last two years (along with single-sort "free" recycling, which is amazing). I hope it becomes more popular elsewhere!
-
Tax code? How about mandatory parental leave like the rest of the "civilized" world?
Only if those without children get the same amount of "personal growth" time . . you choose to have a kid, maybe we want that same amount of time to choose to climb a mountain, etc. or tackle some other life goal outside the office. I'm all for expanded mandatory minimums on paid time off, but not if it is under the guise of "parental leave" where companies can discriminate the childless because it's not "for the kids".
If by "personal growth time" you mean "time to recover from 9 months of giving your body over to completely supporting another human and possibly recovering from a nasty surgery which will most likely leave you anemic for months". Sorry, but you're trying to make it seem like parental leave is just time for people to take a vacation and it's not. Besides which, if we actually had sane parental leave policies which gave, at the very least, mothers 6 months off from work without having to worry about their job disappearing or earning money, it could prevent a whole shit TON of medical costs because they (we) could actually heal and focus on getting kids off to the healthiest start possible by doing things such as breastfeeding. (Yes, mothers are now allowed to pump at work but that's really just second best, since breastmilk loses a lot by being outside of the body that way. And, most mothers choose not to pump because it's such a pain in the ass.)
FTR, I couldn't even finish the article because it was so insanely stupid. I just didn't want someone else talking about parental leave as if it's a freaking vacation.
I have never said or insinuated that parental leave is a vacation. I did however, suggest that every employee should have the right to time off of work without risking losing their jobs, not limited to recovery from childbirth or family care. I don't care whether they use the six weeks to recover from child birth, help a sick friend with no relatives, do a six week volunteer stint overseas, or just lounge at home recovering from job/life stress. All are valid reasons to want to take off of work, which if a law to require paid time off is being proposed I think should be covered. Unpaid time off as covered in the FMLA does a shitty job for everyone - parents included. Do you disagree? Should parents be the only ones worth giving legally protected time off?
As a parent, if I wanted free time to travel the world, or navel gaze, or "discover myself", I would expect to not get paid to do so. Why should childless people be allowed to get paid time off for that? As others have pointed out, in aggregate, having children benefits society. And, it's completely unlike anything else in the history of ever. You're trying to compare apples to oranges when you compare the act of GIVING BIRTH TO ANOTHER HUMAN BEING to anything else. The physical impacts, financial, emotional, etc., are completely different than anything else you will encounter. Perhaps the "childfree" should just suck it up and admit that it's a special circumstance? You chose not to have kids. Good for you! I actually appreciate when other people choose not to have children because, A) I'm in the camp that thinks world population is too high and B) it means you've actually thought about your choice rather than just "oops"ing your way into a family you don't actually want. You're avoiding a hell of a lot that's good and probably just as much that's bad.
But the situation between childed and childless is never going to be "fair" in the way that you want and whining about it is just silly. If you want the damn paid time off, have your own little rugrats and get the paid time off. If you really don't want to have kids, fine, but don't begrudge parents getting a benefit or two that you don't. There are plenty of things you get that we don't and I don't begrudge you those benefits.
I sort of think that some of this argument is because some people can be rough with people who don't have kids by a certain age. I get that. Those people are assholes and you should remind yourself of that. The rest of us will support you no matter what reproductive decision you make. If you're truly at peace with your decision not to have kids, I don't think you should need to bring down the "breeders" to make yourself feel better, IMHO.
-
Tax code? How about mandatory parental leave like the rest of the "civilized" world?
Only if those without children get the same amount of "personal growth" time . . you choose to have a kid, maybe we want that same amount of time to choose to climb a mountain, etc. or tackle some other life goal outside the office. I'm all for expanded mandatory minimums on paid time off, but not if it is under the guise of "parental leave" where companies can discriminate the childless because it's not "for the kids".
. . . . .
I have never said or insinuated that parental leave is a vacation. I did however, suggest that every employee should have the right to time off of work without risking losing their jobs, not limited to recovery from childbirth or family care. I don't care whether they use the six weeks to recover from child birth, help a sick friend with no relatives, do a six week volunteer stint overseas, or just lounge at home recovering from job/life stress. All are valid reasons to want to take off of work, which if a law to require paid time off is being proposed I think should be covered. Unpaid time off as covered in the FMLA does a shitty job for everyone - parents included. Do you disagree? Should parents be the only ones worth giving legally protected time off?
As a parent, if I wanted free time to travel the world, or navel gaze, or "discover myself", I would expect to not get paid to do so. Why should childless people be allowed to get paid time off for that? (3) As others have pointed out, in aggregate, having children benefits society. And, it's completely unlike anything else in the history of ever. You're trying to compare apples to oranges when you compare the act of GIVING BIRTH TO ANOTHER HUMAN BEING to anything else. The physical impacts, financial, emotional, etc., are completely different than anything else you will encounter. Perhaps the "childfree" should just suck it up and admit that it's a special circumstance? You chose not to have kids. Good for you! I actually appreciate when other people choose not to have children because, A) I'm in the camp that thinks world population is too high and B) it means you've actually thought about your choice rather than just "oops"ing your way into a family you don't actually want. You're avoiding a hell of a lot that's good and probably just as much that's bad.
But the situation between childed and childless is never going to be "fair" in the way that you want and whining about it is just silly. If you want the damn paid time off, have your own little rugrats and get the paid time off. If you really don't want to have kids, fine, but don't begrudge parents getting a benefit or two that you don't. There are plenty of things you get that we don't and I don't begrudge you those benefits.
I sort of think that some of this argument is because some people can be rough with people who don't have kids by a certain age. I get that. Those people are assholes and you should remind yourself of that. The rest of us will support you no matter what reproductive decision you make. If you're truly at peace with your decision not to have kids, I don't think you should need to bring down the "breeders" to make yourself feel better, IMHO. (1)
Wow. A couple of things. (Numbering, italics, and bold edited for emphasis and clarity)
1 - I have not called anyone a breeder here and don't think I've put down parents in any way. All I've advocated for is a general right to paid time off, not limited to (and not excluding) parental leave. Where have I done so?
2. Please tell me where I have begrudged the 12 weeks of unpaid time granted to parents under the FMLA. (For the record, I fully support the option for an infrequent and unpaid sabbattical with the same job protections granted under FMLA.)
3. Please ask yourself, in a situation where general paid time off policies are being discussed, why you wouldn't want everyone to have access?
4. Not that it is any of your business, but I am perfectly at peace with my decision not to have children - even more so after getting my tubes tied. I don't expect the world to be fair, but I do expect to be treated with respect and as as a human being during my time as an employee. While I am fortunate to have a couple of weeks of PTO a year, I work with many companies who do not offer that benefit and can also see how generous leave policies advantageously affect the quality of life elsewhere. My only argument in all of this is that paid time off should be a general benefit, not limited to the same - currently unpaid - protections in FMLA. Parents would be even more secure in this arrangement so I'm not sure why you are getting all huffy and rude in response.
-
Funny how breeder is an INSULT BEYOND FATHOMING (that nobody has used in this thread), but it's totally cool to refer to self-identified childfree people however damn way you see fit, first with scare quotes, then with childless, even though the dropping of the term has been politely requested in this thread.
-
Childless couples, already, pay more and use less services. They are already carrying more than their fair share of the burden.
Why don't you look at this as paying for the services you yourself used in your youth.. sort of like social security in reverse. :)
It was already paid for by libertarian's parents. Asking the child to pay again is rather silly.
-
As a parent, if I wanted free time to travel the world, or navel gaze, or "discover myself", I would expect to not get paid to do so. Why should childless people be allowed to get paid time off for that? (3) As others have pointed out, in aggregate, having children benefits society. And, it's completely unlike anything else in the history of ever. You're trying to compare apples to oranges when you compare the act of GIVING BIRTH TO ANOTHER HUMAN BEING to anything else. The physical impacts, financial, emotional, etc., are completely different than anything else you will encounter. Perhaps the "childfree" should just suck it up and admit that it's a special circumstance? You chose not to have kids. Good for you! I actually appreciate when other people choose not to have children because, A) I'm in the camp that thinks world population is too high and B) it means you've actually thought about your choice rather than just "oops"ing your way into a family you don't actually want. You're avoiding a hell of a lot that's good and probably just as much that's bad.
But the situation between childed and childless is never going to be "fair" in the way that you want and whining about it is just silly. If you want the damn paid time off, have your own little rugrats and get the paid time off. If you really don't want to have kids, fine, but don't begrudge parents getting a benefit or two that you don't. There are plenty of things you get that we don't and I don't begrudge you those benefits.
I sort of think that some of this argument is because some people can be rough with people who don't have kids by a certain age. I get that. Those people are assholes and you should remind yourself of that. The rest of us will support you no matter what reproductive decision you make. If you're truly at peace with your decision not to have kids, I don't think you should need to bring down the "breeders" to make yourself feel better, IMHO. (1)
Wow. A couple of things. (Numbering, italics, and bold edited for emphasis and clarity)
1 - I have not called anyone a breeder here and don't think I've put down parents in any way. All I've advocated for is a general right to paid time off, not limited to (and not excluding) parental leave. Where have I done so?
2. Please tell me where I have begrudged the 12 weeks of unpaid time granted to parents under the FMLA. (For the record, I fully support the option for an infrequent and unpaid sabbattical with the same job protections granted under FMLA.)
3. Please ask yourself, in a situation where general paid time off policies are being discussed, why you wouldn't want everyone to have access?
4. Not that it is any of your business, but I am perfectly at peace with my decision not to have children - even more so after getting my tubes tied. I don't expect the world to be fair, but I do expect to be treated with respect and as as a human being during my time as an employee. While I am fortunate to have a couple of weeks of PTO a year, I work with many companies who do not offer that benefit and can also see how generous leave policies advantageously affect the quality of life elsewhere. My only argument in all of this is that paid time off should be a general benefit, not limited to the same - currently unpaid - protections in FMLA. Parents would be even more secure in this arrangement so I'm not sure why you are getting all huffy and rude in response.
Smalllife, I wasn't referring to you in particular with all of that, only in response to your conversation thread about parental leave. And I do believe that all employees have a right to paid time off. I was referring strictly to extended periods of time off, 6 months+, which is what I thought you were referring to by comparing parental leave with other types of time off. If we could institute a sabbatical policy for the whole country, that would be awesome but I wouldn't expect it to be paid. America does a really crappy job about realizing that people's non-working lives are the most important part about their lives, and we should have more paid time off. BUT, when people in this thread are comparing parental leave to vacation time, I don't think it's absurd to point out that they are very, very different things with differing purposes and representing different needs. Why even bring up vacation time when it's not at all the same thing? So you don't begrudge parents FMLA. Thanks for that. You (and others) seem to be saying that it would be totally unfair if it was paid time off, though, because the childfree don't have an equal amount of paid time off. My question is, why should that matter? We can debate endlessly (and already have) about who has more benefits in the eyes of society and government and taxes and whatnot, childed or childfree, but my point is that no one's ever going to think that it's "fair" and that's rather a silly concept to be striving for anyway.
Sorry if you think my tone was rude. Perhaps I should add more :) and :P ?
Lucybit, perhaps it's because "breeders" makes folks with kids sound like animals and "childfree" implies that children are a burden? I personally don't really care either way (see my use of the term "rugrats" to refer to children), and I believe that it was someone with kids who first brought up the term "breeders".
-
If you must know why parents SHOULD get more time off to be with their young kids it is because parents being involved in their child's life is one of the biggest keys to a raising a successful adult. That isn't to say it can't be done, but it is easier and when you remove the stress of having to worry about having a job you allow the parents to focus on the important thing - the child. Everyone in every society should be grateful when parents are actively involved as it benefits EVERYONE in that society.
Its the same thing with school taxes. Everyone benefits when the community has a solid educational system in it. And this isn't some tangential benefit. School districts matter to what people are willing to pay.
And yes, I was saying that before I had kids. I have no problem paying higher taxes for teachers, firefighters, police, rescue. I think teachers deserve more.
Hell, I think if you made health care the responsibility of the government and levied taxes on it and managed locally, I'd be for that as well.
EDIT: And just to clarify, this isn't a free gift. As it has been said - the lost time at work impacts promotions and bonuses and even potential raises.
-
Why don't you look at this as paying for the services you yourself used in your youth.. sort of like social security in reverse. :)
It was already paid for by libertarian's parents. Asking the child to pay again is rather silly.
By this logic, the people behind me in line already paid for my tickets, so I shouldn't have to pay again.
His parents paid for their own educations, and he pays for his. Everybody gets one education, and (later) pays one person's worth of tax.
-
If you must know why parents SHOULD get more time off to be with their young kids it is because parents being involved in their child's life is one of the biggest keys to a raising a successful adult. That isn't to say it can't be done, but it is easier and when you remove the stress of having to worry about having a job you allow the parents to focus on the important thing - the child. Everyone in every society should be grateful when parents are actively involved as it benefits EVERYONE in that society.
Amen. Also, even if you don't accept that it's an enormous benefit to society, at least admit that it's an enormous benefit to the child, and therefore one that everyone has personally benefitted from (assuming they were ever a child).
-
Sounds like Joe should take more advantage of city services that he's paying for, and stop being a hermit simply to complain about others.
There is a direct public education impact on Joe. Namely, he was in public education as a kid. The education he has, and the job he has are a result of his using the system that you are now bitching about.
Simple logic will tell you that, on average, a family of 8 (Bob, wife, and 6 kids) is going to use a heck of a lot more services than a family of two.
That doesn't mean "Joe is a hermit" or that Bob's brood use more than a normal amount of services. There are just MORE OF THEM, so they will use more services.
This concept should be neither controversial nor difficult to understand.
I don't think you can say that a family with a minivan is guaranteed to use the roads more . . . what about the many single guys who live an hour's drive from work? If that single guy drives a heavy pickup truck he may even be damaging the roads more than the family each time he uses his vehicle. The kids may have after school activities, but the single guy is likely going out and hitting up clubs/bars/friends a couple times a week.
If you want to use parks more, you should go do it. Bitching that other people are using parks that you can use yourself is just petty.
Again, a family of 8 is going to use a lot more services than a family of two, on average.
Yes, Joe uses the road to go to work. So does Bob. But Joe ain't going to be humping his kids off to ballet practice, doctor visits, baseball games, school plays, and out of town road trips to see Bob Jr, Sally, Jilly May, Tommy, Bubba, and cute little Susie Q play soccer (or whatever).
A family of 8, on average, is going to drive more than a family of 2.
BTW, the family of 8 is likely to not only drive more miles, but own more vehicles, and LARGER vehicles, than a child free couple. You won't see nearly as many child free couples driving mini-vans and SUVs.
I dunno what it's like where you live, but here garbage pickup is household dependent. Every two weeks our city picks up a half a black plastic garbage bag worth of garbage from each household, kids or not. If more garbage is produced, then you have to pay more for additional garbage pickup.
Here, every household gets one big garbage bin (one of the ones that an automated garbage truck arm can pick up), that gets picked up once a week.
It takes my wife and myself weeks to fill the thing, so we probably put out the bin, only partially full, every 3 weeks or so. A large family 3 doors down (2 parents, 5 kids) seems to fill theirs to the bursting point every week.
Again, more people means more waste produced.
Well, this is blatantly unfair. And it's not the way that any place I've worked has been setup. Maybe you should be bitching about your shitty job rather than people with kids.
You've either lived a charmed life and had the most fair minded bosses ever, or you just didn't notice or care that you were sticking your child free co-workers with extra work. However, most of us don't live in that world- and those of us who are left behind working late while parents cut out early for their children's doctor's appointments, problems at school, ballet recitals, etc, DO notice, because we are the ones left picking up the slack.
BTW, for what it's worth. I early retired years ago, then went back to work only on condition that I could work from home and set my own hours. Should the company ever try to make me work any extra hours, I will resign on the spot.
So this isn't a problem for me, and hasn't been for many years.
But there are plenty of single people and child free couples, who are getting shafted all the time. So I bring it up for their benefit. Next time you cut out early for (insert child's activity/problem here), think about who may be stuck doing extra work because of it.
And back to the original point, which you seem to have completely overlooked: Child free parents and single folks are already paying more, and working harder, than their fair share, to support those with children. We aren't asking for a roll back, but we sure as Heck don't need an additional burden tossed on us, as the article suggested.
-
Garbage here is a flat rate - no option to have a smaller trash can or a more infrequent service, nor are there options other than the public trash collection agency. On top of that, you have to pay extra and opt in for the recycling service. I wish our city would charge on a scale like that. And yes, I've written to my local representative and contacted the agencies directly looking for change.
Re: Work culture - you must have really lucked out. Either that or you are blind to the subtle ways this is manifested because you either benefit from it and assume childless people do as well (being able to say "I have to leave half an hour early for xyz" and no one blink because xyz is universally regarded as "important" is a lot easier when xyz is a child related excuse) or you expect to get back what you put in when you have kids. It's not uncommon and while it's possible to change the culture from within, it takes a while.
I think I just basically repeated what you said. I guess I should have read the entire thread first.
-
I don't think anyone else has said it directly, but there is a lesson to be learned from the article.
If you want to achieve financial independence and/or retire early, CHILDREN ARE A MAJOR OBSTACLE.
Contrary to what the title of the article implies, parents can and do save money, but children are a huge drag on their ability to do so.
If my wife and I had chose to squeeze out 4 kids rather than remaining child free, I'm pretty sure we would not be multi-millionaires at this point. Because we have decent incomes, and because we are frugal, we'd be doing pretty well, but not nearly as well as we are doing now.
Not that I'm saying "don't have kids," but think about the cost before you do. While the costs quoted in the article are likely dramatically inflated for maximum shock effect journalistic value, even the most frugal parents will spend huge amounts of money on their kids. You not only lose $100 when you take Junior to the store for a new pair of Winnie the Pooh Jammies with matching lunch box, you also lose out on all the money that $100 could have generated over the next 40 years if invested (opportunity cost).
-
Simple logic will tell you that, on average, a family of 8 (Bob, wife, and 6 kids) is going to use a heck of a lot more services than a family of two.
That doesn't mean "Joe is a hermit" or that Bob's brood use more than a normal amount of services. There are just MORE OF THEM, so they will use more services.
This concept should be neither controversial nor difficult to understand.
The difficult to understand part is where you make the leap to this being unfair. Those children will grow up, and eventually pay much more in taxes to fund the services that they once used. This concept should be neither controversial, nor difficult to understand.
Yes, Joe uses the road to go to work. So does Bob. But Joe ain't going to be humping his kids off to ballet practice, doctor visits, baseball games, school plays, and out of town road trips to see Bob Jr, Sally, Jilly May, Tommy, Bubba, and cute little Susie Q play soccer (or whatever).
A family of 8, on average, is going to drive more than a family of 2.
BTW, the family of 8 is likely to not only drive more miles, but own more vehicles, and LARGER vehicles, than a child free couple. You won't see nearly as many child free couples driving mini-vans and SUVs.
I don't accept your claim that having a child makes you drive more than being single. Can you provide and data supporting your claim that amount of driving and vehicle size is a direct result of being a parent? I know plenty of single people who drive full sized pickup trucks or large SUVs. There are many families who drive very little.
Here, every household gets one big garbage bin (one of the ones that an automated garbage truck arm can pick up), that gets picked up once a week.
It takes my wife and myself weeks to fill the thing, so we probably put out the bin, only partially full, every 3 weeks or so. A large family 3 doors down (2 parents, 5 kids) seems to fill theirs to the bursting point every week.
Again, more people means more waste produced.
Again, I don't accept your claim that having a child makes you produce more garbage. There are wasteful people, and people who aren't wasteful. A wasteful parent will produce a ton of garbage. So will a wasteful single person. It sucks that the place you live has a poor waste management system, but misplacing your anger over that on parents is unfounded.
You've either lived a charmed life and had the most fair minded bosses ever, or you just didn't notice or care that you were sticking your child free co-workers with extra work. However, most of us don't live in that world- and those of us who are left behind working late while parents cut out early for their children's doctor's appointments, problems at school, ballet recitals, etc, DO notice, because we are the ones left picking up the slack.
I've had a child for four months so far. Having never been asked to pick up the slack during the 30+ years of my childless life before that, it is difficult for me to fathom what you're on about here. If this actually is a problem where you live, why not put a picture of a baby in a frame . . . bring it to work, and tell everyone that it's your kid so you get the very same preferential treatment?
Also, being new to this parenting thing I must have missed a memo or something. Where do I get to sign up to the 'we get to stick all of our work on single people club'?
But there are plenty of single people and child free couples, who are getting shafted all the time. So I bring it up for their benefit. Next time you cut out early for (insert child's activity/problem here), think about who may be stuck doing extra work because of it.
Oh. I see. This isn't actually a problem where you live. Cool.
-
The child raising numbers are ludicrous.
18 years * median family income of $60,000 = $1,080,000 in income.
median 2.2 children * $310,000 per child = $682,000 spent on child care per median family over 18 years. (We'll ignore staggered births.)
That means that 63% of the family's income was consumed by those children.
That's ludicrous. No one needs to do that.
Do you even realize how much those two seat strollers with stereo system and dual latte cup holders cost? You know, the ones that take up the entire sidewalk?
Oh man, those things are ridiculous! We recently took our 3 year old to the Calgary Zoo, where they have a penguin exhibit that's a relatively narrow walkway between two sides of a huge tank. It's really neat to see the penguins swimming in the water, but you can barely move in there for the SUV-sized strollers.
We took a folding (umbrella) stroller for when our kid inevitably got tired. Then again, we took the train down to the zoo whereas most of those with giant strollers probably came in cars.
-
The difficult to understand part is where you make the leap to this being unfair. Those children will grow up, and eventually pay much more in taxes to fund the services that they once used. This concept should be neither controversial, nor difficult to understand.
No. Those children, IF they grow up to be productive adults, will be paying for the services they use as adults, PLUS (if they choose to remain child-free) an additional amount that subsidizes their contemporaries who will choose to have children. Simple math, which shouldn't be difficult to understand, IF you want to understand it :-)
-
The difficult to understand part is where you make the leap to this being unfair. Those children will grow up, and eventually pay much more in taxes to fund the services that they once used. This concept should be neither controversial, nor difficult to understand.
No. Those children, IF they grow up to be productive adults, will be paying for the services they use as adults, PLUS (if they choose to remain child-free) an additional amount that subsidizes their contemporaries who will choose to have children. Simple math, which shouldn't be difficult to understand, IF you want to understand it :-)
Regardless, it is all the cost of being part of a society. It is impossible to be equal. It is the value that society places as a majority that will dictate what the rules are - or in some cases that the rules will not change.
-
Yes, Joe uses the road to go to work. So does Bob. But Joe ain't going to be humping his kids off to ballet practice, doctor visits, baseball games, school plays, and out of town road trips to see Bob Jr, Sally, Jilly May, Tommy, Bubba, and cute little Susie Q play soccer (or whatever).
A family of 8, on average, is going to drive more than a family of 2.
BTW, the family of 8 is likely to not only drive more miles, but own more vehicles, and LARGER vehicles, than a child free couple. You won't see nearly as many child free couples driving mini-vans and SUVs.
I don't accept your claim that having a child makes you drive more than being single. Can you provide and data supporting your claim that amount of driving and vehicle size is a direct result of being a parent? I know plenty of single people who drive full sized pickup trucks or large SUVs. There are many families who drive very little.
Here, every household gets one big garbage bin (one of the ones that an automated garbage truck arm can pick up), that gets picked up once a week.
It takes my wife and myself weeks to fill the thing, so we probably put out the bin, only partially full, every 3 weeks or so. A large family 3 doors down (2 parents, 5 kids) seems to fill theirs to the bursting point every week.
Again, more people means more waste produced.
Again, I don't accept your claim that having a child makes you produce more garbage. There are wasteful people, and people who aren't wasteful. A wasteful parent will produce a ton of garbage. So will a wasteful single person. It sucks that the place you live has a poor waste management system, but misplacing your anger over that on parents is unfounded.
You've either lived a charmed life and had the most fair minded bosses ever, or you just didn't notice or care that you were sticking your child free co-workers with extra work. However, most of us don't live in that world- and those of us who are left behind working late while parents cut out early for their children's doctor's appointments, problems at school, ballet recitals, etc, DO notice, because we are the ones left picking up the slack.
I've had a child for four months so far. Having never been asked to pick up the slack during the 30+ years of my childless life before that, it is difficult for me to fathom what you're on about here. If this actually is a problem where you live, why not put a picture of a baby in a frame . . . bring it to work, and tell everyone that it's your kid so you get the very same preferential treatment?
Also, being new to this parenting thing I must have missed a memo or something. Where do I get to sign up to the 'we get to stick all of our work on single people club'?
Agree with GuitarStv. I drive less, and have a smaller car, than most single people I know, let alone the childfree couples. We also (with our own 4 month old, plus a cat and a dog) produce less than one full bag of garbage each week, in an area where plastics can't be recycled. (I say that only because what we have to buy in plastic, like milk, bulks up the garbage. And it pisses me off that it can't get recycled.) If you're a wasteful person who likes to drive and drive big cars, you'll justify doing all of that whether or not you're a parent.
I also don't get preferential treatment at work, which is a service job (a library). Someone has to be there for the patrons, and I could claim that my childfree coworker actually gets preferential treatment because she drives from another town, and sometimes when it's super cold her car won't start, and sometimes she's late because there was an accident blocking the road. Or because she got stuck behind a train. Or, or, or. But because I walk or bike, I can't claim any of that (my legs start perfectly well when it's -60F, thank you) so I make accommodations for her circumstances. If I complained about all of that, plenty of people in this thread and on this forum would tell me to suck it up, that's part of working. Why is it different if someone is a parent? I also don't just get to take off if my kid is sick, I'd have to use either my sick leave or my vacation leave for that, or make up the hours another time. It could be argued, then, that childfree people should actually get a bit less sick leave because you use yours only for you, whereas I have several people I need to use mine for. I don't actually see anyone making that argument, though, because it's accepted that when you have kids you'll give up certain luxuries for them, like having a sick day to just lie in bed and do nothing.
Libertarian, what fantasyland are you living in that parents have life so easy? This is not a complaint that life is super hard as a parent (and even if it was, you could rightfully point out that I chose it); I'm just baffled by the fact that you seem to have a lot of animosity toward people with children and a lot of it seems misplaced. You also said that if you and your wife had kids, you wouldn't be multimillionaires. There are a few other people on this forum who would like to disagree with that assessment (who are themselves millionaires with children) and plenty of people who would argue that the point is not to become a multimillionaire. I don't need millions to become FI, so my child won't be what's keeping me back from that.
-
No. Those children, IF they grow up to be productive adults, will be paying for the services they use as adults, PLUS (if they choose to remain child-free) an additional amount that subsidizes their contemporaries who will choose to have children. Simple math, which shouldn't be difficult to understand, IF you want to understand it :-)
So, by that logic, when you were a child, you were subsidized by your parents' contemporaries. So those subsidies you're paying now are just paying back society for the freebies your parents got. As a parent, my contribution to society is to raise productive adults, at least some of whom (if not in the next generation, then the ones following it) will likely be childless, and who will hence pay back any subsidies I received.
Or you can just think of it as paying for the services you consumed as a child, because it makes a lot more sense.
-
Regardless, it is all the cost of being part of a society. It is impossible to be equal. It is the value that society places as a majority that will dictate what the rules are - or in some cases that the rules will not change.
True, to a degree. But if the people who're forced to sit in the back of the bus just keep on meekly accepting their situation, the rules won't change.
So, by that logic, when you were a child, you were subsidized by your parents' contemporaries. So those subsidies you're paying now are just paying back society for the freebies your parents got.
So because the childfree of the sixties had to sit in the back of the metaphorical bus, the childfree of today should feel happy when people suggest we should move even further back?
As a parent, my contribution to society is to raise productive adults...
Sorry, but I find it hard to believe that you set out on the road to parenthood with the goal of contributing to society. Even if you did, if you give someone a gift that they don't want, and which will cost them a lot of money to maintain, should you really expect them to feel gratitude?
-
Tax code? How about mandatory parental leave like the rest of the "civilized" world?
Only if those without children get the same amount of "personal growth" time . . you choose to have a kid, maybe we want that same amount of time to choose to climb a mountain, etc. or tackle some other life goal outside the office. I'm all for expanded mandatory minimums on paid time off, but not if it is under the guise of "parental leave" where companies can discriminate the childless because it's not "for the kids".
If by "personal growth time" you mean "time to recover from 9 months of giving your body over to completely supporting another human and possibly recovering from a nasty surgery which will most likely leave you anemic for months". Sorry, but you're trying to make it seem like parental leave is just time for people to take a vacation and it's not. Besides which, if we actually had sane parental leave policies which gave, at the very least, mothers 6 months off from work without having to worry about their job disappearing or earning money, it could prevent a whole shit TON of medical costs because they (we) could actually heal and focus on getting kids off to the healthiest start possible by doing things such as breastfeeding. (Yes, mothers are now allowed to pump at work but that's really just second best, since breastmilk loses a lot by being outside of the body that way. And, most mothers choose not to pump because it's such a pain in the ass.)
FTR, I couldn't even finish the article because it was so insanely stupid. I just didn't want someone else talking about parental leave as if it's a freaking vacation.
I have never said or insinuated that parental leave is a vacation. I did however, suggest that every employee should have the right to time off of work without risking losing their jobs, not limited to recovery from childbirth or family care. I don't care whether they use the six weeks to recover from child birth, help a sick friend with no relatives, do a six week volunteer stint overseas, or just lounge at home recovering from job/life stress. All are valid reasons to want to take off of work, which if a law to require paid time off is being proposed I think should be covered. Unpaid time off as covered in the FMLA does a shitty job for everyone - parents included. Do you disagree? Should parents be the only ones worth giving legally protected time off?
As a parent, if I wanted free time to travel the world, or navel gaze, or "discover myself", I would expect to not get paid to do so. Why should childless people be allowed to get paid time off for that? As others have pointed out, in aggregate, having children benefits society. And, it's completely unlike anything else in the history of ever. You're trying to compare apples to oranges when you compare the act of GIVING BIRTH TO ANOTHER HUMAN BEING to anything else. The physical impacts, financial, emotional, etc., are completely different than anything else you will encounter. Perhaps the "childfree" should just suck it up and admit that it's a special circumstance? You chose not to have kids. Good for you! I actually appreciate when other people choose not to have children because, A) I'm in the camp that thinks world population is too high and B) it means you've actually thought about your choice rather than just "oops"ing your way into a family you don't actually want. You're avoiding a hell of a lot that's good and probably just as much that's bad.
But the situation between childed and childless is never going to be "fair" in the way that you want and whining about it is just silly. If you want the damn paid time off, have your own little rugrats and get the paid time off. If you really don't want to have kids, fine, but don't begrudge parents getting a benefit or two that you don't. There are plenty of things you get that we don't and I don't begrudge you those benefits.
I sort of think that some of this argument is because some people can be rough with people who don't have kids by a certain age. I get that. Those people are assholes and you should remind yourself of that. The rest of us will support you no matter what reproductive decision you make. If you're truly at peace with your decision not to have kids, I don't think you should need to bring down the "breeders" to make yourself feel better, IMHO.
Sorry for quoting everything when I'm really only asking about one bit, "If you really don't want to have kids, fine, but don't begrudge parents getting a benefit or two that you don't. There are plenty of things you get that we don't and I don't begrudge you those benefits."
Would you mind expanding on the things child-free individuals (whether by choice or circumstance) get that parents don't? I am not trying to start an argument, rather I am genuinely curious because I am having trouble thinking of any examples and wish to be more informed. Thanks!
-
Sorry for quoting everything when I'm really only asking about one bit, "If you really don't want to have kids, fine, but don't begrudge parents getting a benefit or two that you don't. There are plenty of things you get that we don't and I don't begrudge you those benefits."
Would you mind expanding on the things child-free individuals (whether by choice or circumstance) get that parents don't? I am not trying to start an argument, rather I am genuinely curious because I am having trouble thinking of any examples and wish to be more informed. Thanks!
Um, freedom to go out without planning ahead. A quiet house. Cheaper travel since there are less people traveling. More flexibility in just about everything since you don't have to worry about what to do with this little human you are completely responsible for. More money since even at the most frugal parenting kids cost money. More sleep. I could keep going...there's a lot of reason I choose to be child free :)
Um, yes, these are all nice but I am referring to things like tax breaks and the like. Presumably when one chooses to have children they recognize trips may cost more, the house may not always be quiet, etc...
-
Regardless, it is all the cost of being part of a society. It is impossible to be equal. It is the value that society places as a majority that will dictate what the rules are - or in some cases that the rules will not change.
True, to a degree. But if the people who're forced to sit in the back of the bus just keep on meekly accepting their situation, the rules won't change.
I sincerely hate when that argument is made. Not because it is accurate but because it takes things way to the extreme. This isn't a civil rights case. No one is preventing you from doing anything.
-
No. Those children, IF they grow up to be productive adults, will be paying for the services they use as adults, PLUS (if they choose to remain child-free) an additional amount that subsidizes their contemporaries who will choose to have children. Simple math, which shouldn't be difficult to understand, IF you want to understand it :-)
There's a concert in town, and Alice and Bob go together, Charlie goes alone, and Denise & Elaine and Fred & George go on a double-date. (It's my story, so they're gay.)
The group of four arrive first, they pay $40, and go in to stand as close to the stage as possible.
Charlie is next in line, he pays $10, and heads to the bar.
Alice and Bob arrive last, they pay $20.
Now, Charlie is thinking to himself, "hey, that was cheap, I only paid $2.50 each for the four tickets of the people in front of me!". And Alice and Bob are thinking, "woah, what a rip-off, it cost us $20 for just one guy in front of us!".
-- fin --
Obviously, everything is going to look stupid and unfair if, according to your accounting practices, every group pays for the group in front of them, instead of for themselves. You will pay one lifetime of taxes, and you will use one lifetime of public services; that is fair.
-
Sorry for quoting everything when I'm really only asking about one bit, "If you really don't want to have kids, fine, but don't begrudge parents getting a benefit or two that you don't. There are plenty of things you get that we don't and I don't begrudge you those benefits."
Would you mind expanding on the things child-free individuals (whether by choice or circumstance) get that parents don't? I am not trying to start an argument, rather I am genuinely curious because I am having trouble thinking of any examples and wish to be more informed. Thanks!
Um, freedom to go out without planning ahead. A quiet house. Cheaper travel since there are less people traveling. More flexibility in just about everything since you don't have to worry about what to do with this little human you are completely responsible for. More money since even at the most frugal parenting kids cost money. More sleep. I could keep going...there's a lot of reason I choose to be child free :)
Um, yes, these are all nice but I am referring to things like tax breaks and the like. Presumably when one choses to have children they recognize trips may cost more, the house may not always be quiet, etc...
I don't think they were talking about tax breaks and the like. There aren't any for child free people. It's all the other benefits of not having kids that the tax breaks for kids are trying to help offset
Yes, I am aware that no such tax breaks exist which is why I am especially curious. Hopefully the original poster will reply as I try not to make assumptions.
Just reading through the posts on this thread it's easy to see how much variation could exist in what any one person might describe as a *benefit* (different strokes and all that). Looking forward to the response.
-
Sorry for quoting everything when I'm really only asking about one bit, "If you really don't want to have kids, fine, but don't begrudge parents getting a benefit or two that you don't. There are plenty of things you get that we don't and I don't begrudge you those benefits."
Would you mind expanding on the things child-free individuals (whether by choice or circumstance) get that parents don't? I am not trying to start an argument, rather I am genuinely curious because I am having trouble thinking of any examples and wish to be more informed. Thanks!
Um, freedom to go out without planning ahead. A quiet house. Cheaper travel since there are less people traveling. More flexibility in just about everything since you don't have to worry about what to do with this little human you are completely responsible for. More money since even at the most frugal parenting kids cost money. More sleep. I could keep going...there's a lot of reason I choose to be child free :)
Um, yes, these are all nice but I am referring to things like tax breaks and the like. Presumably when one choses to have children they recognize trips may cost more, the house may not always be quiet, etc...
I don't think they were talking about tax breaks and the like. There aren't any for child free people. It's all the other benefits of not having kids that the tax breaks for kids are trying to help offset
Yes, I am aware that no such tax breaks exist which is why I am especially curious. Hopefully the original poster will reply as I try not to make assumptions.
Just reading through the posts on this thread it's easy to see how much variation could exist in what any one person might describe as a *benefit* (different strokes and all that). Looking forward to the response.
I'm curious too, because I too, took your question to be "what societal benefits" you get for being childfree. Again, it's a choice to be childfree or kids, but the quieter house, travel, going out - that's all individual based. (It's also totally avoidable. Teach your kids to be quiet. Bike to a camp rather than fly to a hotel for vacation. Trade off going out with your husband. Heck, trade off with friends.)
While raising kids may be in society's best interest, I know of no one that had kids because it's in society's best interests. They always choose because they wanted kids. At the time we are looking at a realistic potential crisis due to lack of sufficient children, I would support increased tax benefits to parents. Until then - why? It's not needed to change behavior.
-
I don't think they were talking about tax breaks and the like. There aren't any for child free people. It's all the other benefits of not having kids that the tax breaks for kids are trying to help offset
Say what? There is plenty of things that can be used for deductions on your taxes; student loans, mortgage interest, medical bills, donations/charity mileage, etc. Most of this is covered by the standard deduction (or in addtion to) for the average person and itemized for those with higher amounts. Hence anyone under the standard deduction is subsidized by those closer to it then them since they both get the same benefit while one has less actual deductible expenses. Do the people arguing against a dependant deduction have an issue with this, which is most likely for a simpler tax code?
Let's just change what we call the items currently in the tax code:
Single Standard Deduction: $6,200
Joint Standard Deduction: $12,400
Child Standard Deduction: $3,000
Without EITC, the standard deduction for a child is half an adult. I think this is a pretty good approximation of what "deductible" items would fall under. Hell I would imagine more than 1/5 of a couple with one child's "deductible" items ($3,000 out of $15,400) would fall under the child, particularly in the healthcare department.
Disclaimer: I have no children. I just find the past few pages of arguments pretty bad overall. When you can take your tax/public works arguements and can substitute "childed" and "childfree" with "poor" and "wealthy" without changing the message maybe your arguement isn't about child deductions its about the tax code in general.
-
[Hence anyone under the standard deduction is subsidized by those closer to it then them since they both get the same benefit while one has less actual deductible expenses. Do the people arguing against a dependant deduction have an issue with this, which is most likely for a simpler tax code?
I think most aren't arguing against a dependent deduction, but rather an increase to the dependent deduction, particularly under the substantial terms suggested by the article.
Also, I agree with you the tax code sucks.
-
Sorry for quoting everything when I'm really only asking about one bit, "If you really don't want to have kids, fine, but don't begrudge parents getting a benefit or two that you don't. There are plenty of things you get that we don't and I don't begrudge you those benefits."
Would you mind expanding on the things child-free individuals (whether by choice or circumstance) get that parents don't? I am not trying to start an argument, rather I am genuinely curious because I am having trouble thinking of any examples and wish to be more informed. Thanks!
Um, freedom to go out without planning ahead. A quiet house. Cheaper travel since there are less people traveling. More flexibility in just about everything since you don't have to worry about what to do with this little human you are completely responsible for. More money since even at the most frugal parenting kids cost money. More sleep. I could keep going...there's a lot of reason I choose to be child free :)
Um, yes, these are all nice but I am referring to things like tax breaks and the like. Presumably when one choses to have children they recognize trips may cost more, the house may not always be quiet, etc...
I don't think they were talking about tax breaks and the like. There aren't any for child free people. It's all the other benefits of not having kids that the tax breaks for kids are trying to help offset
Yes, I am aware that no such tax breaks exist which is why I am especially curious. Hopefully the original poster will reply as I try not to make assumptions.
Just reading through the posts on this thread it's easy to see how much variation could exist in what any one person might describe as a *benefit* (different strokes and all that). Looking forward to the response.
I'm curious too, because I too, took your question to be "what societal benefits" you get for being childfree. Again, it's a choice to be childfree or kids, but the quieter house, travel, going out - that's all individual based. (It's also totally avoidable. Teach your kids to be quiet. Bike to a camp rather than fly to a hotel for vacation. Trade off going out with your husband. Heck, trade off with friends.)
While raising kids may be in society's best interest, I know of no one that had kids because it's in society's best interests. They always choose because they wanted kids. At the time we are looking at a realistic potential crisis due to lack of sufficient children, I would support increased tax benefits to parents. Until then - why? It's not needed to change behavior.
Um, the "mommy track"? A lot of people here seem to think that people with kids have a really easy time just taking off work and dumping our workload on the poor childfree people. ??? I don't get it. If nothing else, if you do that you'll be labeled as a certain kind of employee in your boss's mind and it'll come around to bite you in the ass come promotion and bonus time. Mothers don't get promoted as much and don't earn as much. From wikipedia: "Across different pay levels and socioeconomic groups, women’s earnings tend to plateau after giving birth.[6] Even when controlling for variables, on average mothers in all groups earn lower wages than non-mothers.[7] Beyond this general drop in earnings, though, there are significant differences in mothers’ wage gaps between high-earning women and low-earning women." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mommy_track)
Oddly enough, the only reports for "daddy track" that I could find were about men who choose to be SAHD, not about any economic losses for those with jobs.
I won't bring up social benefits because I do understand that there's also a social cost for childfree people. I don't think it's a small thing to be sort of left out of certain social activities because you don't have kids, or to have people pressuring you to have kids, etc. Neither is it a small thing to have childfree people judging your parenting if your kid throws a tantrum in a crowded area, or whining because your filthy little devil's spawn is going to get its grubby little mitts all over THEIR tax dollars! (Sorry, I'm kinda laughing about the second one, not really poking fun.) A little more compassion for both sides, please?
And you say that no one ever thinks of society's best interests when choosing to have kids. Sure, I had a kid because I think kids are hilarious and awesome. But, that's not to say that the social costs/benefits has never been part of my reproductive decisions. I'm limiting the number of children I have not even for economic or social reasons but ecological ones. Am I just a crazy outlier in that?
-
Simple logic will tell you that, on average, a family of 8 (Bob, wife, and 6 kids) is going to use a heck of a lot more services than a family of two.
That doesn't mean "Joe is a hermit" or that Bob's brood use more than a normal amount of services. There are just MORE OF THEM, so they will use more services.
This concept should be neither controversial nor difficult to understand.
The difficult to understand part is where you make the leap to this being unfair. Those children will grow up, and eventually pay much more in taxes to fund the services that they once used. This concept should be neither controversial, nor difficult to understand.
Yes, Joe uses the road to go to work. So does Bob. But Joe ain't going to be humping his kids off to ballet practice, doctor visits, baseball games, school plays, and out of town road trips to see Bob Jr, Sally, Jilly May, Tommy, Bubba, and cute little Susie Q play soccer (or whatever).
A family of 8, on average, is going to drive more than a family of 2.
BTW, the family of 8 is likely to not only drive more miles, but own more vehicles, and LARGER vehicles, than a child free couple. You won't see nearly as many child free couples driving mini-vans and SUVs.
I don't accept your claim that having a child makes you drive more than being single. Can you provide and data supporting your claim that amount of driving and vehicle size is a direct result of being a parent? I know plenty of single people who drive full sized pickup trucks or large SUVs. There are many families who drive very little.
Here, every household gets one big garbage bin (one of the ones that an automated garbage truck arm can pick up), that gets picked up once a week.
It takes my wife and myself weeks to fill the thing, so we probably put out the bin, only partially full, every 3 weeks or so. A large family 3 doors down (2 parents, 5 kids) seems to fill theirs to the bursting point every week.
Again, more people means more waste produced.
Again, I don't accept your claim that having a child makes you produce more garbage. There are wasteful people, and people who aren't wasteful. A wasteful parent will produce a ton of garbage. So will a wasteful single person. It sucks that the place you live has a poor waste management system, but misplacing your anger over that on parents is unfounded.
Okay, so you have chosen to simply deny what should be obvious to any reasonably intelligent human being- that a group of 8 human beings, ON AVERAGE is going to use more city services than a family of 2.
I'm not sure if you are being intentionally obtuse (trolling) or are just a bit slow.
On the off chance that you are just a bit slow, I'll try to give a few examples that will, hopefully, smack you upside the head with what, to most people, would be a blindingly obvious fact.
A group of 8 people, ON AVERAGE, consume more than 2 people. More food, more clothes, more toys, more paper, more electricity, more Christmas presents, more water, and yes, more gas.
That does not mean that you can't find one anecdotal example of a really low usage group of 8 that consumes less than a high consumption group of 2, but ON AVERAGE (notice how I typed that in caps, because it matters), a group of 2 people will consume less of everything than a group of 8.
Still dazed and confused by this concept? Lets try this. NY City has more garbage men, more police, more firefighters, more road construction crews, more sewage system employees, more government bureaucrats, more teachers, more everything than Scarsdale, NY, despite the fact that Scarsdale folks are a lot wealthier.
Why do you think that is? Could it be a large group of people is going to use a lot more services than a small group of people?
Mull these points over for a while. See if a light flashes in your brain.
If not, there is no point in continuing this discussion, because I can't think for you.
-
True, to a degree. But if the people who're forced to sit in the back of the bus just keep on meekly accepting their situation, the rules won't change.
I sincerely hate when that argument is made. Not because it is accurate but because it takes things way to the extreme. This isn't a civil rights case. No one is preventing you from doing anything.
Yes, they are: they are preventing me from spending money I earn on things that I value.
By your logic, having to sit in the back of the bus really isn't preventing you from doing anything. You still ride the bus.
I think most aren't arguing against a dependent deduction, but rather an increase to the dependent deduction, particularly under the substantial terms suggested by the article.
Some of us aren't even arguing against the deduction, or school taxes &c. We're just trying to get the people who have children to admit that 1) They did it for themselves, not for society; and 2) The extra money the child-free pay damned well IS a subsidy to parents.
Also, I agree with you the tax code sucks.
No argument there.
-
The milk of human kindness sure flows freely around here.
-
The milk of human kindness sure flows freely around here.
For a community of people looking to live cheap and retire early, it's amazing how many want increase their tax bill (forever) to support the chidren (expenses) they want today.
-
It is absolute nonsense that parents can't save money. The constant stream of articles asserting that life is too expensive so people can't save money, the economy is too terrible so people can't save money, etc. are getting really old, and this is just one more iteration.
Using myself as anecdotal evidence...we have four children. I have been at home with three of them since day one (two decades ago), so we've always lived on one income, and it's never been a "high earner" income, either. One of our children required residential treatment that wasn't covered by insurance and cost $100,000 out of pocket over two years. The same child was the subject of a custody battle with DH's ex to the tune of $80,000 over seven years. As homeschoolers, our children haven't taken back out of the education system the tax dollars we've put into it, so we're akin to childfree people in that regard. We also qualified for WIC for a few years but didn't take it, so our tax dollars "subsidized" those who were on it, while not receiving benefits - just like if we'd been a child-free couple, who of course pay for WIC and can't use it. And we've STILL managed to get to a networth closing in on $300K, so far. It's not anything like what DINKs would have stashed away by now, but it's nothing to sneeze at, either. It just took a whole lot of separating wants from needs and being halfway intelligent with the money that passed through our hands.
And I do mean HALFWAY intelligent, because we've made some really boneheaded financial mistakes along the way. And still...not poverty stricken here!
-
Okay, so you have chosen to simply deny what should be obvious to any reasonably intelligent human being- that a group of 8 human beings, ON AVERAGE is going to use more city services than a family of 2.
A group of 8 people is 8 people. Of course they use more in total. They don't use more per person. They will together use 8 lifetimes of public services, and also pay 8 lifetimes of tax. The family of 2 will use 2 lifetimes of public services and pay 2 lifetimes of tax. None of them gets more or less than their fair share simply by living in a house with more or fewer people in it.
-
The milk of human kindness sure flows freely around here.
For a community of people looking to live cheap and retire early, it's amazing how many want increase their tax bill (forever) to support the chidren (expenses) they want today.
First, most people are not saying that the child tax credit should be increased however I think a majority do not have an issue with the current one.
Second, as I explained in my post why shouldn't children be counted like adults in the deduction category of taxes? The standard deduction is just there as a simplified version of itemizing it.
Third, my wife and I make over $100K yet payed only 12% in combined federal and state taxes. The current tax code barely makes it harder to retire early.
Fouth, some people in this thread need to accept that if you want to live in a modern society you don't get to spend every last penny that goes to the government on what YOU want.
Fifth, I like lists.
-
Wow, I just checked back, ya'll took this thing from mocking an article that makes some ridiculous financial and social assumptions to all sorts of places. XD
I will just reiterate:
1. Again, I used to be a child myself. I realize in a society that has children that isn't some weird hateful anti child regime, there have to be some accomadations made for them that are going to affect the general public. What those are and how far they go is a matter of considerable debate, and this reasoning can lead to some very silly initiatives ("It's for the children!"), but the point is, kids exist. Even if you don't have any of your own you have to deal with that fact. I certainly think there's a need for people without children to be socially conscious and voluntarily contribute to the welfare of kids in ways they agree with.
2. I for one support the idea that parents should be the ones who have legal rights over their children (while acknowledging children are not property). But it's quid pro quo: if you have power over something, you must also have responsibility over that thing in any sane society. Look, if I were to have a child, I'd want certain guaranteed rights over how that child was raised/schooled/etc. But that means I don't get to ask other people to contribute to my choice to have the child. Now if they want to contribute voluntarily, that's different.
You get what I'm saying? There's not a perfect analogy for this, but it's like if we don't tax your church in the interest of freedom of religion, we also can't use tax dollars to donate to that church. That's not a direct comparison but it's the best one I can rattle off.
Maybe it's more like if you have the right to say any thing you want and you say something stupid and people roundly mock you for it, that's the price of being able to speak freely. Not quite the right analogy either.
3. I don't think it's good to use the tax code to pick winners and losers and subsidize certain life choices over others. The thing is cutting parents a break on taxes and not treating people preferentially for federal income tax purposes are not mutually exclusive. If I were king and I chose to keep income tax, I wouldn't have child related deductions or credits, however I'd also institute much, much lower base tax rates so you'd still be better off even without them. That's my solution, it's not one that will ever come to pass but there you go.
4. I do agree generally that the status quo is people without children do subsidize people with children overall, unless you're just openly hostile to children you're bound to have special laws, etc. covering them). I personally am not against that as a general notion, it's the form it currently takes that I don't like.
I'm not saying there needs to be no government spending concerning children specifically either, I'm generally for smaller government and privatization of the education system but even I acknowledge we're still going to have to have special agencies, incarceration facilities, etc. for juveniles for various reasons. I hate to focus on the bad eggs like that but if someone else's kids are damaging the property of myself and others, we're going to have to do something about that. But that in my view isn't subsidizing parents, that's just keeping public order. The point being we can have reasonable government spending on child related services that isn't a backdoor wealth transfer.
5. Someone made the very good point that no society of any size is going to spend all your tax money as you wish it would. I agree with that, but I also want to point out when the vast majority of money is going to things an individual does not support or think are reasonable, you disenfrachise that person. That's not good; people who have absolutely no voice for their ideas in government, who also aren't allowed to "opt out" of the systems that government creates, have no incentive to be civic minded and the more you marginalize them the more problems you are creating for yourself no matter how much you disagree with that person's desires, ideas, etc.
It's my opinion that no good can come of telling people "you don't like it, tough". I'm not saying this was anyone's attitude here in the forum, it's just something I see in real life sometimes that bugs me; it seems anyone who isn't a SWPL or something close to it is being more and more marginalized sometimes. I wish we were moving toward a more voluntary society overall rather than one that insists that using the government to force everyone to pay for things a plurality wants is the only legitimate means of accomplishing things, that's all I am saying.
As far as what childless or child free or whatever you care to call it people can do for children, I'll list some examples of things I've done:
1. Support the organizations that do activities you think are appropriate or good for kids.
2. Think about local solutions that benefit all parties. For example, my apartment complex wanted to demolish the playground. I actually joined the protest because without the playground there isn't a designated safe area for the kids in the complex to play in, and that's not beneficial to anyone. Also while it's true I'm paying for the playground with my rent checks, I've also got to think about the community I live in, do I really want it to be a place that's not accomadating to children at all?
I could go on but those are all the points I wanted to throw in to this interesting discussion about... a lot. XD
-
And you say that no one ever thinks of society's best interests when choosing to have kids. Sure, I had a kid because I think kids are hilarious and awesome. But, that's not to say that the social costs/benefits has never been part of my reproductive decisions. I'm limiting the number of children I have not even for economic or social reasons but ecological ones. Am I just a crazy outlier in that?
You're talking about thinking about society (environment at least) when choosing NOT to have kids. That's not uncommon, particularly in more educated/wealthier couple to consider not just their personal resources to properly raise a child, but also the greater impact on the world. However, that's different from thinking about society and making society's best interests the reason TO have kids, which was my point.
-
True, to a degree. But if the people who're forced to sit in the back of the bus just keep on meekly accepting their situation, the rules won't change.
I sincerely hate when that argument is made. Not because it is accurate but because it takes things way to the extreme. This isn't a civil rights case. No one is preventing you from doing anything.
Yes, they are: they are preventing me from spending money I earn on things that I value.
By your logic, having to sit in the back of the bus really isn't preventing you from doing anything. You still ride the bus.
Buy that logic, there shouldn't be a cost to anything because if I don't make enough then I can't buy the things that I value.
What necessities are you being prevented form buying that are affecting your right to life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness? That is why the back of the bus thing was illegal. It was discrimination. Not even remotely the same.
-
Okay, so you have chosen to simply deny what should be obvious to any reasonably intelligent human being- that a group of 8 human beings, ON AVERAGE is going to use more city services than a family of 2.
I'm not sure if you are being intentionally obtuse (trolling) or are just a bit slow.
On the off chance that you are just a bit slow, I'll try to give a few examples that will, hopefully, smack you upside the head with what, to most people, would be a blindingly obvious fact.
A group of 8 people, ON AVERAGE, consume more than 2 people. More food, more clothes, more toys, more paper, more electricity, more Christmas presents, more water, and yes, more gas.
That does not mean that you can't find one anecdotal example of a really low usage group of 8 that consumes less than a high consumption group of 2, but ON AVERAGE (notice how I typed that in caps, because it matters), a group of 2 people will consume less of everything than a group of 8.
Still dazed and confused by this concept? Lets try this. NY City has more garbage men, more police, more firefighters, more road construction crews, more sewage system employees, more government bureaucrats, more teachers, more everything than Scarsdale, NY, despite the fact that Scarsdale folks are a lot wealthier.
Why do you think that is? Could it be a large group of people is going to use a lot more services than a small group of people?
Mull these points over for a while. See if a light flashes in your brain.
If not, there is no point in continuing this discussion, because I can't think for you.
Sure, if you take two identical people they will tend to use more resources on average than one person. If you take a thousand people, they'll probably use more resources than a single person. (For your given example, I'd say that it's more likely that NY City has fewer garbage men/police/firefighters per capita than a smaller city as they're likely more efficient at running them, but that's neither here nor there.) That was never under debate, but kudos for figuring that out.
Your theory that there is a significant negative net effect of children using the services provided for them still doesn't really make any sense though. Any children enjoying a park today, will be working and paying taxes to support the park tomorrow. When you look at the system as a whole, single people aren't actually losing out on money paying for children to use services . . . since they themselves made use of these services. What they're actually doing is paying back society in a very small way. Some of them seem to grow up to be quite ungrateful for the many benefits that they took advantage of as children though . . .
I can only speak for my own scenario here . . . We are a one car family. We were before the birth of my son, and we are afterwards. My wife is taking a year off of work to look after our son so our net income has been significantly cut. We don't drive more because of the baby. Actually, we're driving less as I'm figuring out other ways to commute several days a week. About 95% of the stuff that we use with our kid has been picked up used . . . because we don't have huge amounts of money to drop on new crap. We produce less garbage that we did before having the kid because we're buying less now as money is a little tighter. When the three of us go to a park we don't take up significantly more space, or deprive anyone of enjoyment of the park more than we would have as two people without kids. When the three of us drive somewhere to visit family we take the same car that we would have if it was just two people without kids vising family and do the same damage to the road.
Adding a kid to a couple doesn't necessarily increase consumption because of the behaviour and financial changes that usually come along with parenting. I'm sure that if you were to have ten kids consumption would increase, but large families like that are not really the norm.
The anger that you appear to harbour towards people with kids is unwarranted. If you are upset that other people put out more garbage than you do without paying more for it, then you should be railing against the unfairness of the way your collection system works and trying to get it changed. If you ever do find yourself being asked to work extra because you don't have kids, sue your employer and work to make a change . . . because that's unfair. If you just want to hate on someone though, maybe set your sights on someone more deserving of it.
-
This is just silly. There is zero question that children benefit everyone economically. You can argue about the precise numbers of children you want as compared to adults for an optimal output, but just consider your precious Vanguard funds, for example. All those companies rely on at least a continued base of consumers/customers to exist 10 or 20 or 40 years from now. A stable base would be good. A growing base will be good in some ways (financially) and bad in others (arguably environmentally.) A quickly shrinking base will mean you don't get your precious dividends after a few years, and a few years after that your FIRE comes to a screeching halt as your entire portfolio is worth zero with nobody buying/selling anything.
So if you want society and industry and commerce to continue, you need kids. If you want it to continue optimally, you probably need to provide some incentives and help for those who have them. The kids you are subsidizing through public education and tax breaks and all that other stuff are the reason you can become FI at all.
Society and the economy are not zero sum games. Taking money from you to pay for my kids might seem unfair on it's face, but it's arguably beneficial to BOTH of us in actuality.
-W
The fallacy here is that it would be cheaper for everyone if we just imported full-grown immigrants for the purpose of continuing our commerce and society. Why is it so important that our population growth is fuelled by our own children? There's nothing special about the North American gene pool that necessitates we breed for the benefit of human kind.
One day, when overall world population starts declining, maybe then future generations need to talk about extra tax incentives for people who grace us with their spawn. But for now, the policy of educating the current output of children and importing acceptable immigrants satisfies all economic and social requirements of continued civilization.
-
What necessities are you being prevented form buying that are affecting your right to life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness? That is why the back of the bus thing was illegal. It was discrimination. Not even remotely the same.
I just can't see this. If you have to ride in the back of the bus, you still get to ride the bus, getting the same benefit of transportation, for the same price. (And you may well be safer doing so: see news reports of that bus crash in California.) And the point is that the back of the bus thing wasn't illegal, back then. Just the opposite: it was the law in those places, until people started resisting, changed a bunch of minds (or at least made people aware that it was an issue), and eventually changed the laws.
Not much different, really, from gay marriage. Even 20 years ago, only about a quarter of the public would accept the idea - for many, it wasn't even on the radar - while today over half either support or are neutral. Opinions change.
And why should it matter whether I would otherwise spend the money that goes to subsidizing parenthood on necessities, or on wine, women, and song? (At least one of which might increase my happiness.) Or even, conceiveably, that I might want to spend some of my money on e.g. childhood education. That's not even at issue. The issue is that child-free people are subsidizing parenthood, but the parents refuse to admit that fact.
-
The issue is that child-free people are subsidizing parenthood, but the parents refuse to admit that fact.
Hmm.. I wonder how many of those "child free" are going to state or community colleges that are funded by taxes by those who will not use that system? I wonder how many of those child free are going to work using interstate highways funded by parents who don't use those interstate highways. I wonder how many use public transportation that are funded by taxes by those who don't use public transportation. Or if you want to be really serious about it - Why do I have to subsidize the military when I don't agree with it? (I do agree with it, but there are plenty who don't).
If you want to remove all taxes and go to a use tax, I'm all for that, I don't have a problem with it. But at some point all of us are paying for services that we may or may not use. It's called being part of society - like I said.
That is extremely different then having laws or discriminatory practices.
-
I don't think they were talking about tax breaks and the like. There aren't any for child free people that parent's don't get. It's all the other benefits of not having kids that the tax breaks for kids are trying to help offset
Say what? There is plenty of things that can be used for deductions on your taxes; student loans, mortgage interest, medical bills, donations/charity mileage, etc.
There, fixed it. Whitewaterchica seemed to be asking what benefits child free people get that parents don't and didn't like my answer of "no hassles of kids :)"
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply I disliked your response. Rather, I was just thinking of a different type of benefits (e.g. specific tax breaks for those without children, which we've already touched upon).
-
This is just silly. There is zero question that children benefit everyone economically. You can argue about the precise numbers of children you want as compared to adults for an optimal output, but just consider your precious Vanguard funds, for example. All those companies rely on at least a continued base of consumers/customers to exist 10 or 20 or 40 years from now. A stable base would be good. A growing base will be good in some ways (financially) and bad in others (arguably environmentally.) A quickly shrinking base will mean you don't get your precious dividends after a few years, and a few years after that your FIRE comes to a screeching halt as your entire portfolio is worth zero with nobody buying/selling anything.
So if you want society and industry and commerce to continue, you need kids. If you want it to continue optimally, you probably need to provide some incentives and help for those who have them. The kids you are subsidizing through public education and tax breaks and all that other stuff are the reason you can become FI at all.
Society and the economy are not zero sum games. Taking money from you to pay for my kids might seem unfair on it's face, but it's arguably beneficial to BOTH of us in actuality.
-W
The fallacy here is that it would be cheaper for everyone if we just imported full-grown immigrants for the purpose of continuing our commerce and society. Why is it so important that our population growth is fuelled by our own children? There's nothing special about the North American gene pool that necessitates we breed for the benefit of human kind.
One day, when overall world population starts declining, maybe then future generations need to talk about extra tax incentives for people who grace us with their spawn. But for now, the policy of educating the current output of children and importing acceptable immigrants satisfies all economic and social requirements of continued civilization.
As other people in this thread have pointed out, our population IS only growing due to immigration.
From Wikipedia: "The total fertility rate in the United States estimated for 2012 is 1.88 children per woman,[8] which is below the replacement fertility rate of approximately 2.1. Compared to other Western countries, in 2011, U.S. fertility rate was lower than that of France (2.02) and the United Kingdom (1.97).[9] However, U.S. population growth is among the highest in industrialized countries,[10] because the differences in fertility rates are less than the differences in immigration levels, which are higher in the U.S."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
Are you actually arguing anything here? (See bolded section.) If I'm reading it correctly, that's what most people on this thread are saying....
-
This is just silly. There is zero question that children benefit everyone economically. You can argue about the precise numbers of children you want as compared to adults for an optimal output, but just consider your precious Vanguard funds, for example. All those companies rely on at least a continued base of consumers/customers to exist 10 or 20 or 40 years from now. A stable base would be good. A growing base will be good in some ways (financially) and bad in others (arguably environmentally.) A quickly shrinking base will mean you don't get your precious dividends after a few years, and a few years after that your FIRE comes to a screeching halt as your entire portfolio is worth zero with nobody buying/selling anything.
So if you want society and industry and commerce to continue, you need kids. If you want it to continue optimally, you probably need to provide some incentives and help for those who have them. The kids you are subsidizing through public education and tax breaks and all that other stuff are the reason you can become FI at all.
Society and the economy are not zero sum games. Taking money from you to pay for my kids might seem unfair on it's face, but it's arguably beneficial to BOTH of us in actuality.
-W
The fallacy here is that it would be cheaper for everyone if we just imported full-grown immigrants for the purpose of continuing our commerce and society. Why is it so important that our population growth is fuelled by our own children? There's nothing special about the North American gene pool that necessitates we breed for the benefit of human kind.
One day, when overall world population starts declining, maybe then future generations need to talk about extra tax incentives for people who grace us with their spawn. But for now, the policy of educating the current output of children and importing acceptable immigrants satisfies all economic and social requirements of continued civilization.
As other people in this thread have pointed out, our population IS only growing due to immigration.
From Wikipedia: "The total fertility rate in the United States estimated for 2012 is 1.88 children per woman,[8] which is below the replacement fertility rate of approximately 2.1. Compared to other Western countries, in 2011, U.S. fertility rate was lower than that of France (2.02) and the United Kingdom (1.97).[9] However, U.S. population growth is among the highest in industrialized countries,[10] because the differences in fertility rates are less than the differences in immigration levels, which are higher in the U.S."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
They're talking about the world population, not the US population (or any other country in particular).
-
If you want to remove all taxes and go to a use tax, I'm all for that, I don't have a problem with it. But at some point all of us are paying for services that we may or may not use. It's called being part of society - like I said.
That's a good example of the point I'm trying to make. If I drive a lot on highways, I AM receiving a subsidy from those who don't drive (or take the bus &c). If I attend a (state funded) college, I AM receiving a tuition subsidy from those who'll never attend. This is exactly the same as parents receiving a child-bearing subsidy from the rest of us: the problem all along has been that the great majority of parents either don't recognize or won't admit that they ARE being subsidized.
-
If you want to remove all taxes and go to a use tax, I'm all for that, I don't have a problem with it. But at some point all of us are paying for services that we may or may not use. It's called being part of society - like I said.
That's a good example of the point I'm trying to make. If I drive a lot on highways, I AM receiving a subsidy from those who don't drive (or take the bus &c). If I attend a (state funded) college, I AM receiving a tuition subsidy from those who'll never attend. This is exactly the same as parents receiving a child-bearing subsidy from the rest of us: the problem all along has been that the great majority of parents either don't recognize or won't admit that they ARE being subsidized.
So your real beef is that parents aren't realizing public schooling is a "subsidy"?
Okay, then I misunderstood. I thought you were complaining that they are getting the subsidy.
Hell, yes. Everyone gets one of some kind or another.
-
They're talking about the world population, not the US population (or any other country in particular).
"The fallacy here is that it would be cheaper for everyone if we just imported full-grown immigrants for the purpose of continuing our commerce and society." - I was referring to that statement. As pretty much everyone in this thread (to my knowledge) is in the U.S., the parents here aren't really contributing to a rise in U.S. population, which seems to be the gist of that to me. It seemed like what was being complained about is actually already happening, as in the complaint is that too many people are having too many kids so the U.S. is subsidizing a growing population. That's not happening at all. We're subsidizing fewer and fewer people to have kids.
Now, if you want to complain about people who have 18 kids and get subsidized for all of them, go for it. I could also complain about the people who bought ridiculous McMansions at the height of the mortgage bubble and get a subsidy for it, while I rent a reasonable place and don't get the subsidy. But, there would be plenty of people who would (in effect) tell me to pipe down and save up for my own house if I wanted that subsidy. We all make choices, to not have kids can be one of yours. It does mean that you won't get the (slight) tax break, but I assume that if you're not having kids for economic reasons then you factored that into your calculations. If you did, then you realized that no one has kids for a tax break because it's not enough to offset all the money you'll be putting into the economy (and therefore, money which will get taxed) on behalf of that child.
If I can reiterate, not one of the parents on this thread has said that the original article's author was making a good or worthy point. (That I can remember.) If you don't like the current tax structure, go into politics and try to change it. Don't whinge on the internet and, essentially, call parents social freeloaders. Yep, I took the tax deduction. I've also set an economic rollercoaster in motion by producing a child. I could whine that the money I had to spend on my child (just in healthcare costs) is subsidizing at least one or two mortgage deductions.
-
So your real beef is that parents aren't realizing public schooling is a "subsidy"?
Okay, then I misunderstood. I thought you were complaining that they are getting the subsidy.
Hell, yes. Everyone gets one of some kind or another.
Either aren't realizing it, or aren't admitting it, and are then going on about how hard/expensive parenthood is. Which is like - to use your highway analogy - the folks who chose to purchase gargantuan (& expensive) SUVs complaining about how they can't afford to drive them. (While I have no problems, driving my 70 mpg hybrid :-))
-
But for now, the policy of educating the current output of children and importing acceptable immigrants satisfies all economic and social requirements of continued civilization.
As other people in this thread have pointed out, our population IS only growing due to immigration.
...
Are you actually arguing anything here? (See bolded section.) If I'm reading it correctly, that's what most people on this thread are saying....
My point is that there is no ONLY. Growing due to immigration is perfectly satisfactory. There is no reason to subsidize baby-making. Plenty of people have argued that we should subsidize baby-making because our population is ONLY growing due to immigration.
As though immigration is a deficient way to sustain society.
It seems like a better way to me. Maybe we should take subsidies away from parents and use the money to recruit educated immigrants with the skills that are in demand in our society.
-
So your real beef is that parents aren't realizing public schooling is a "subsidy"?
Okay, then I misunderstood. I thought you were complaining that they are getting the subsidy.
Hell, yes. Everyone gets one of some kind or another.
Either aren't realizing it, or aren't admitting it, and are then going on about how hard/expensive parenthood is. Which is like - to use your highway analogy - the folks who chose to purchase gargantuan (& expensive) SUVs complaining about how they can't afford to drive them. (While I have no problems, driving my 70 mpg hybrid :-))
Given that most people are not paying enough in taxes to support themselves, much less subsidized ANYONE, I don't think that is accurate. I do agree that some people are subsidizing me, but it is not the majority of people and it is not just because I have a kid. They have subsidized my education in public undergrad, public grad school, a nice federal research grant, and yes all the tax breaks from kids, rental property, etc. I personally think we ALL need to pay more in taxes and don't think we should be adding ANY tax breaks.
-
I personally think we ALL need to pay more in taxes and don't think we should be adding ANY tax breaks.
The country was doing much better when there was NO income tax. Educational standards were MUCH higher, there was more advancement opportunity, and the government had a surplus rather than a deficit.
More taxes just equals more socialism, and I have no desire to follow in Russia's footsteps.
-
So your real beef is that parents aren't realizing public schooling is a "subsidy"?
Okay, then I misunderstood. I thought you were complaining that they are getting the subsidy.
Hell, yes. Everyone gets one of some kind or another.
Either aren't realizing it, or aren't admitting it, and are then going on about how hard/expensive parenthood is. Which is like - to use your highway analogy - the folks who chose to purchase gargantuan (& expensive) SUVs complaining about how they can't afford to drive them. (While I have no problems, driving my 70 mpg hybrid :-))
Given that most people are not paying enough in taxes to support themselves, much less subsidized ANYONE, I don't think that is accurate. I do agree that some people are subsidizing me, but it is not the majority of people and it is not just because I have a kid. They have subsidized my education in public undergrad, public grad school, a nice federal research grant, and yes all the tax breaks from kids, rental property, etc. I personally think we ALL need to pay more in taxes and don't think we should be adding ANY tax breaks.
So don't touch your tax preferences, but take away everyone else's. Sweet! Now we have the real story.
-
The anger that you appear to harbour towards people with kids is unwarranted. If you are upset that other people put out more garbage than you do without paying more for it, then you should be railing against the unfairness of the way your collection system works and trying to get it changed. If you ever do find yourself being asked to work extra because you don't have kids, sue your employer and work to make a change . . . because that's unfair. If you just want to hate on someone though, maybe set your sights on someone more deserving of it.
You seem to have missed the point of the original article.
They are asking that single people and child free couples pay even more than they already do, which I stated was unfair, because single folks and child free couples already pay more than their fair share. They pay higher taxes, which is not in dispute, and use less services (which no rational person could dispute- though you, for some bizarre reason, can't seem to accept the fact that large families, on average, use more services than small families). If anything, single people and child free couples should pay LESS than they currently do.
But we aren't asking for that. We simply don't think we need to accept ADDITIONAL burden.
-
The country was doing much better when there was NO income tax. Educational standards were MUCH higher, there was more advancement opportunity, and the government had a surplus rather than a deficit.
Let's go back to 1812, everything was much better then?
-
So your real beef is that parents aren't realizing public schooling is a "subsidy"?
Okay, then I misunderstood. I thought you were complaining that they are getting the subsidy.
Hell, yes. Everyone gets one of some kind or another.
Either aren't realizing it, or aren't admitting it, and are then going on about how hard/expensive parenthood is. Which is like - to use your highway analogy - the folks who chose to purchase gargantuan (& expensive) SUVs complaining about how they can't afford to drive them. (While I have no problems, driving my 70 mpg hybrid :-))
Given that most people are not paying enough in taxes to support themselves, much less subsidized ANYONE, I don't think that is accurate. I do agree that some people are subsidizing me, but it is not the majority of people and it is not just because I have a kid. They have subsidized my education in public undergrad, public grad school, a nice federal research grant, and yes all the tax breaks from kids, rental property, etc. I personally think we ALL need to pay more in taxes and don't think we should be adding ANY tax breaks.
So don't touch your tax preferences, but take away everyone else's. Sweet! Now we have the real story.
That is not what I said and you know it. I said that everyone needs to pay more in taxes. I personally want to get rid of the Bush tax credits even though they would get rid of the tuition credit I get, increase my tax bracket and lower the child tax credit. We, as a country, can't afford to have these debts. We need to start paying them back which requires us to increase income (increases taxes) and decreases expenses (make cuts). There are also easy ways to decreases expenses like moving the international debt over to Americans by offering debt payoff bonds. Internationally we pay 3-4% average vs 2-3% for Americans. We could move everything to Americans for 3% and save a lot, and give the interest to our own citizens (which also lets the government tax it, lol). It would take $20,000 for every American citizen for ten years the last I checked, but if the cap was higher we could not be dependent on other countries in ten years. However, that won't fix the deficit. We did not have one before the Bush credits and that needs to be considered. EVERYONE needs to be paying more, we can't afford to consider any more tax breaks.
-
I really, really hope that comment was said in jest... if not, it means you either have no idea when the income tax was implemented, or you are really, truly crazy and think that "more opportunity" existed when *people were still being held as slaves in the US*.
-W
The country was doing much better when there was NO income tax. Educational standards were MUCH higher, there was more advancement opportunity, and the government had a surplus rather than a deficit.
-
The anger that you appear to harbour towards people with kids is unwarranted. If you are upset that other people put out more garbage than you do without paying more for it, then you should be railing against the unfairness of the way your collection system works and trying to get it changed. If you ever do find yourself being asked to work extra because you don't have kids, sue your employer and work to make a change . . . because that's unfair. If you just want to hate on someone though, maybe set your sights on someone more deserving of it.
You seem to have missed the point of the original article.
They are asking that single people and child free couples pay even more than they already do, which I stated was unfair, because single folks and child free couples already pay more than their fair share. They pay higher taxes, which is not in dispute, and use less services (which no rational person could dispute- though you, for some bizarre reason, can't seem to accept the fact that large families, on average, use more services than small families). If anything, single people and child free couples should pay LESS than they currently do.
But we aren't asking for that. We simply don't think we need to accept ADDITIONAL burden.
So, in your version of a fair share single people and those without children right now should not have to pay for others to get the same benefit that they themselves enjoyed as a kid? Sounds more like rationalizing running out on your obligations than paying your fair share to me. . .
-
Short post but I do tell my coworkers with urchins in fun that I am sick of subsidizing their lifestyle as the tax man kicks us in the teeth routinely. That is just in fun I might add as we are very happy to be DINKs. That said there is something to the wisdom of "Can't feed em, don't breed em." :)
-
The anger that you appear to harbour towards people with kids is unwarranted. If you are upset that other people put out more garbage than you do without paying more for it, then you should be railing against the unfairness of the way your collection system works and trying to get it changed. If you ever do find yourself being asked to work extra because you don't have kids, sue your employer and work to make a change . . . because that's unfair. If you just want to hate on someone though, maybe set your sights on someone more deserving of it.
I'm not "hating" on anyone.
But I am vehemently opposed to forcing child free couples and singles to pay EVEN MORE in taxes (as the article suggested) when we already pay more than our fair share for other people's children.
I'm not even asking for a roll back in the benefits those with children already enjoy over child free couples and singles (those of us finishing up our income taxes today will be clearly aware of the current inequity- as the breeders enjoy huge tax advantages over those of us who choose not to have children). I'm simply saying that it is wrong to place an even larger burden on already overtaxed singles and child free couples.
-
This is just silly. There is zero question that children benefit everyone economically. You can argue about the precise numbers of children you want as compared to adults for an optimal output, but just consider your precious Vanguard funds, for example. All those companies rely on at least a continued base of consumers/customers to exist 10 or 20 or 40 years from now. A stable base would be good. A growing base will be good in some ways (financially) and bad in others (arguably environmentally.) A quickly shrinking base will mean you don't get your precious dividends after a few years, and a few years after that your FIRE comes to a screeching halt as your entire portfolio is worth zero with nobody buying/selling anything.
So if you want society and industry and commerce to continue, you need kids. If you want it to continue optimally, you probably need to provide some incentives and help for those who have them. The kids you are subsidizing through public education and tax breaks and all that other stuff are the reason you can become FI at all.
Society and the economy are not zero sum games. Taking money from you to pay for my kids might seem unfair on it's face, but it's arguably beneficial to BOTH of us in actuality.
-W
The fallacy here is that it would be cheaper for everyone if we just imported full-grown immigrants for the purpose of continuing our commerce and society. Why is it so important that our population growth is fuelled by our own children? There's nothing special about the North American gene pool that necessitates we breed for the benefit of human kind.
One day, when overall world population starts declining, maybe then future generations need to talk about extra tax incentives for people who grace us with their spawn. But for now, the policy of educating the current output of children and importing acceptable immigrants satisfies all economic and social requirements of continued civilization.
Exactly.
There are millions of intelligent and well educated immigrants, most of whom already speak English, who would kill to come to the USA. There is no "threat" to the US population. We don't need to encourage Americans to pump out more children to keep up the population of the USA. Especially when you consider that the Americans who have the largest broods tend to be the least well educated. Loosening up immigration restrictions to allow more Indian engineers, Russian doctors, German scientists, Chinese entrepreneurs, etc would help this country a lot more than messing with the tax system to encourage Americans to squeeze out that 5th, 6th, or 7th kid.
-
The country was doing much better when there was NO income tax. Educational standards were MUCH higher, there was more advancement opportunity, and the government had a surplus rather than a deficit.
This wins the stupidest comment I have ever read on any message board.
Sure, for white, rich landowning men, it was great. For everyone else, not so much.
-
The anger that you appear to harbour towards people with kids is unwarranted. If you are upset that other people put out more garbage than you do without paying more for it, then you should be railing against the unfairness of the way your collection system works and trying to get it changed. If you ever do find yourself being asked to work extra because you don't have kids, sue your employer and work to make a change . . . because that's unfair. If you just want to hate on someone though, maybe set your sights on someone more deserving of it.
I'm not "hating" on anyone.
But I am vehemently opposed to forcing child free couples and singles to pay EVEN MORE in taxes (as the article suggested) when we already pay more than our fair share for other people's children.
I'm not even asking for a roll back in the benefits those with children already enjoy over child free couples and singles (those of us finishing up our income taxes today will be clearly aware of the current inequity- as the breeders enjoy huge tax advantages over those of us who choose not to have children). I'm simply saying that it is wrong to place an even larger burden on already overtaxed singles and child free couples.
How many times and ways can I tell you, yet again, that no one in this thread has defended the original article's idea that childless* people should be taxed more. You, and several others, have used that as a starting point for complaining about the favorable situation that parents get, however, due to the "unfairness" of taxes. Since you're a self-identified libertarian, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you think pretty much the entire tax code is unfair. My former suggestion still stands: if you truly think that, go into politics and try to change it.
*I really don't care if you have a complaint about the term "childless". It refers to "a state of being without children", that is all.
-
I'd just like to clarify that my original comment was not intended to be specific to the US. It is in the interest of the entire world that people continue to have children, though we can argue about the exact rate that would be ideal.
Regarding the US: pretty much every country you mention as a source of immigrants has either a declining population outright, a population only growing because of immigration/increased longevity (ie, population will drop soon), or (in the case of India) a declining birthrate that will eventually lead to one of the former. There's a limited pool of talented people available globally, because modern careers have made many people decide not to have kids. IMO that will be a bad thing in the long run. Without going all Idiocracy on everyone or sounding like I'm for eugenics - if none of your best and brightest have children, what's the end result going to be?
-W
Exactly.
There are millions of intelligent and well educated immigrants, most of whom already speak English, who would kill to come to the USA. There is no "threat" to the US population. We don't need to encourage Americans to pump out more children to keep up the population of the USA. Especially when you consider that the Americans who have the largest broods tend to be the least well educated. Loosening up immigration restrictions to allow more Indian engineers, Russian doctors, German scientists, Chinese entrepreneurs, etc would help this country a lot more than messing with the tax system to encourage Americans to squeeze out that 5th, 6th, or 7th kid.
-
I genuinely don't understand the concern about overall population decrease - the current economic set up based on ever expanding growth is unsustainable and damaging to the environment. Why should we care about a decreasing population? It won't go to zero, but it will likely reach an equilibrium that is lower than the growth rates economists would prefer. However, there is already a thread for that conversation (Is Overpopulation a Problem?).
-
if none of your best and brightest have children, what's the end result going to be?
self-correcting?
-
How does providing general tax incentives cause the best and brightest to have more kids? It doesn't, it's only very slightly related. Likely what it will increase is the poor having kids, of which only a few are the "best and brightest." (Again, see Idiocracy!) Perhaps we ought to have an IQ test for everyone with tax incentives for those with high IQs procreating? 130 can keep the current tax breaks. 145 can get a 50% reduction of taxes and 160 can get a 100% reduction...
-
Yeah, that's a whole different problem and even direct cash payments haven't been enough to make a dent in places like Russia, Singapore, parts of the EU, etc. It's not actually clear to me that tax incentives have any effect whatsoever on the procreation choices of folks in the middle class and up. So I guess you could say, with some justification, that any tax incentives you do provide are money better spent elsewhere.
I'm more of the opinion that offering people things like child care, maternity/paternity leave, flexible schedules, etc are more useful than cash. But that sort of thing has mostly failed too where it's been tried, AFAIK.
Idiocracy, here we come?
-W
How does providing general tax incentives cause the best and brightest to have more kids? It doesn't, it's only very slightly related. Likely what it will increase is the poor having kids, of which only a few are the "best and brightest." (Again, see Idiocracy!) Perhaps we ought to have an IQ test for everyone with tax incentives for those with high IQs procreating? 130 can keep the current tax breaks. 145 can get a 50% reduction of taxes and 160 can get a 100% reduction...
-
How does providing general tax incentives cause the best and brightest to have more kids? It doesn't, it's only very slightly related. Likely what it will increase is the poor having kids, of which only a few are the "best and brightest." (Again, see Idiocracy!) Perhaps we ought to have an IQ test for everyone with tax incentives for those with high IQs procreating? 130 can keep the current tax breaks. 145 can get a 50% reduction of taxes and 160 can get a 100% reduction...
Fab, where do I sign up for my free goodies?
-
How does providing general tax incentives cause the best and brightest to have more kids? It doesn't, it's only very slightly related. Likely what it will increase is the poor having kids, of which only a few are the "best and brightest." (Again, see Idiocracy!) Perhaps we ought to have an IQ test for everyone with tax incentives for those with high IQs procreating? 130 can keep the current tax breaks. 145 can get a 50% reduction of taxes and 160 can get a 100% reduction...
Fab, where do I sign up for my free goodies?
IQ is not genetic. College education, however, is.
-
How does providing general tax incentives cause the best and brightest to have more kids? It doesn't, it's only very slightly related. Likely what it will increase is the poor having kids, of which only a few are the "best and brightest." (Again, see Idiocracy!) Perhaps we ought to have an IQ test for everyone with tax incentives for those with high IQs procreating? 130 can keep the current tax breaks. 145 can get a 50% reduction of taxes and 160 can get a 100% reduction...
Fab, where do I sign up for my free goodies?
IQ is not genetic. College education, however, is.
Don't buy the "Bell Curve" arguments, eh?
More to the point, awarding tax goodies based on IQ scores is likely to benefit white males by and large.
-
This is a great idea, I would vote for it.
-
The country was doing much better when there was NO income tax. Educational standards were MUCH higher, there was more advancement opportunity, and the government had a surplus rather than a deficit.
Let's go back to 1812, everything was much better then?
Prior to the income tax, the feds didn't force their policies down the throats of your local school. They didn't have the power to defund, nor a network in place to use school unions to spread propaganda. They didn't have no child left behind to make sure all kids turned out equally mediocre. Kids were held to higher standards, both educationally and socially. If a kid had an aspirin or butter knife, it wasn't automatic expulsion. Metal detectors were unheard of, and schools hadn't been turned into easy targets by making them gun-free zones. Schools were much more efficient back then, and didn't give 60 years of pay/benefits for 20 years of work.
Everything better, no, but much was.
-
Wow, didn't realize we had trailer park republicans here.
There might be a few 'Merkins alive from pre income tax days, but they would probably be well over the senility horizon by now. So I guess we are free to imagine whatever we like about those days. I would suggest that we have a lot more schools and a lot fewer single room schools than back then.
-
Wow, didn't realize we had trailer park republicans here.
There might be a few 'Merkins alive from pre income tax days, but they would probably be well over the senility horizon by now. So I guess we are free to imagine whatever we like about those days. I would suggest that we have a lot more schools and a lot fewer single room schools than back then.
Owning trailer parks can be quite lucrative.
Our schools are much bigger and fancier now (my local one just installed an LED billboard), and we spend MUCH more per pupil hour, but our results are worse than countries who spend much less. We've proven that throwing money at education makes it cost more with very little ROI.
-
Wow, didn't realize we had trailer park republicans here.
There might be a few 'Merkins alive from pre income tax days, but they would probably be well over the senility horizon by now. So I guess we are free to imagine whatever we like about those days. I would suggest that we have a lot more schools and a lot fewer single room schools than back then.
Owning trailer parks can be quite lucrative.
Our schools are much bigger and fancier now (my local one just installed an LED billboard), and we spend MUCH more per pupil hour, but our results are worse than countries who spend much less. We've proven that throwing money at education makes it cost more with very little ROI.
Which is why wealthy areas have so much worse schools than low income inner city areas. Riiiight...
-
So, I'm curious... when do you think the income tax started in the US, exactly? Feel free to go look it up.
-W
Prior to the income tax, the feds didn't force their policies down the throats of your local school. They didn't have the power to defund, nor a network in place to use school unions to spread propaganda. They didn't have no child left behind to make sure all kids turned out equally mediocre. Kids were held to higher standards, both educationally and socially. If a kid had an aspirin or butter knife, it wasn't automatic expulsion. Metal detectors were unheard of, and schools hadn't been turned into easy targets by making them gun-free zones. Schools were much more efficient back then, and didn't give 60 years of pay/benefits for 20 years of work.
Everything better, no, but much was.
-
Wow, didn't realize we had trailer park republicans here.
There might be a few 'Merkins alive from pre income tax days, but they would probably be well over the senility horizon by now. So I guess we are free to imagine whatever we like about those days. I would suggest that we have a lot more schools and a lot fewer single room schools than back then.
Owning trailer parks can be quite lucrative.
Our schools are much bigger and fancier now (my local one just installed an LED billboard), and we spend MUCH more per pupil hour, but our results are worse than countries who spend much less. We've proven that throwing money at education makes it cost more with very little ROI.
Which is why wealthy areas have so much worse schools than low income inner city areas. Riiiight...
You're ignoring the effects of culture. A slum school in the US with equal funding to a rich school will still be full of slum culture, and thus perform at a lower level. Doubling the salaries of their teachers or spending twice as much on textbooks doesn't address the root of the problem.
Students in Russia perform as well or better than US students at less than 1/4 the cost. Learning from their example seems preferable to crippling our economy with taxes.
-
So, I'm curious... when do you think the income tax started in the US, exactly? Feel free to go look it up.
Which income tax? The modern one (to which I refer) began in 1913, although there is documentation of colonial income taxes in the 1630s. The first national income tax started during the civil war. I'm too lazy to look it up, but 1862 sounds correct.
We've come a long way from the original idea of only taxing the rich to fund the war effort, to this topic of taxing the childless as a means of achieving social justice.
-
IQ is not genetic. College education, however, is.
Thus showing, it would seem, that you understand neither intelligence nor genetics :-)
There might be a few 'Merkins alive from pre income tax days, but they would probably be well over the senility horizon by now.
Blatant ageism. My neighbor will be 100 this year, and is still pretty darned sharp. Senility is a disease, not an inevitable consequence of aging.
-
How does providing general tax incentives cause the best and brightest to have more kids? It doesn't, it's only very slightly related. Likely what it will increase is the poor having kids, of which only a few are the "best and brightest." (Again, see Idiocracy!) Perhaps we ought to have an IQ test for everyone with tax incentives for those with high IQs procreating? 130 can keep the current tax breaks. 145 can get a 50% reduction of taxes and 160 can get a 100% reduction...
Fab, where do I sign up for my free goodies?
IQ is not genetic. College education, however, is.
Don't buy the "Bell Curve" arguments, eh?
More to the point, awarding tax goodies based on IQ scores is likely to benefit white males by and large.
Since it wasn't clear, that was "A Modest Proposal"
Or in other words, sarcasm.
I don't think IQ tests are the way to determine it. My point was more that giving tax incentives to have kids wouldn't necessarily incentivize the "right" folks to have kids (smart, capable, hardworking, law abiding, etc) over others that would be a drain on society. The votes for more immigration are more on target for achieving the desired results - at least that way you take another country's "best and brightest"!
-
How does providing general tax incentives cause the best and brightest to have more kids? It doesn't, it's only very slightly related. Likely what it will increase is the poor having kids, of which only a few are the "best and brightest." (Again, see Idiocracy!) Perhaps we ought to have an IQ test for everyone with tax incentives for those with high IQs procreating? 130 can keep the current tax breaks. 145 can get a 50% reduction of taxes and 160 can get a 100% reduction...
Fab, where do I sign up for my free goodies?
IQ is not genetic. College education, however, is.
Don't buy the "Bell Curve" arguments, eh?
More to the point, awarding tax goodies based on IQ scores is likely to benefit white males by and large.
Since it wasn't clear, that was "A Modest Proposal"
Or in other words, sarcasm.
I don't think IQ tests are the way to determine it. My point was more that giving tax incentives to have kids wouldn't necessarily incentivize the "right" folks to have kids (smart, capable, hardworking, law abiding, etc) over others that would be a drain on society. The votes for more immigration are more on target for achieving the desired results - at least that way you take another country's "best and brightest"!
Except that is not how we do immigration in the US. Instead, the best and the brightest wait in line for years trying to get a legitimate spot in the US, while anyone willing to break the law and stagger over the border goes largely unmolested ad simply waits for the next amnesty.
-
How does providing general tax incentives cause the best and brightest to have more kids? It doesn't, it's only very slightly related. Likely what it will increase is the poor having kids, of which only a few are the "best and brightest." (Again, see Idiocracy!) Perhaps we ought to have an IQ test for everyone with tax incentives for those with high IQs procreating? 130 can keep the current tax breaks. 145 can get a 50% reduction of taxes and 160 can get a 100% reduction...
Fab, where do I sign up for my free goodies?
IQ is not genetic. College education, however, is.
Don't buy the "Bell Curve" arguments, eh?
More to the point, awarding tax goodies based on IQ scores is likely to benefit white males by and large.
Since it wasn't clear, that was "A Modest Proposal"
Or in other words, sarcasm.
I don't think IQ tests are the way to determine it. My point was more that giving tax incentives to have kids wouldn't necessarily incentivize the "right" folks to have kids (smart, capable, hardworking, law abiding, etc) over others that would be a drain on society. The votes for more immigration are more on target for achieving the desired results - at least that way you take another country's "best and brightest"!
Except that is not how we do immigration in the US. Instead, the best and the brightest wait in line for years trying to get a legitimate spot in the US, while anyone willing to break the law and stagger over the border goes largely unmolested ad simply waits for the next amnesty.
Yeah it's pretty unfortunate and ridiculous we don't let more of them in line in.
I have a friend whose's fiance couldn't visit the US because he wasn't granted a visa. We met at Dartmouth. She was Indian, and here on visa (JD from Northwestern with joint degree MBA from Kellogg). Got engaged to an Indian guy in London, but US officials rejected his application, despite the fact that he was a UK doctor (thus illegally staying would be a painful process for him, giving up those licensures...not to mention why would we want to keep someone with his skills out). They live in the UK now.
-
The country was doing much better when there was NO income tax. Educational standards were MUCH higher, there was more advancement opportunity, and the government had a surplus rather than a deficit.
Let's go back to 1812, everything was much better then?
Prior to the income tax, the feds didn't force their policies down the throats of your local school. They didn't have the power to defund, nor a network in place to use school unions to spread propaganda. They didn't have no child left behind to make sure all kids turned out equally mediocre. Kids were held to higher standards, both educationally and socially. If a kid had an aspirin or butter knife, it wasn't automatic expulsion. Metal detectors were unheard of, and schools hadn't been turned into easy targets by making them gun-free zones. Schools were much more efficient back then, and didn't give 60 years of pay/benefits for 20 years of work.
Everything better, no, but much was.
You're romanticizing the past. There were also polio outbreaks in schools that could cripple and decimate the children, kids could be beaten by their parents with impunity (and wives could be beaten or raped by husbands; can you imagine the impact on children who had to see/hear that?) and child labor that essentially made them into slaves was totally ok. But no, let's just focus on the kids who were lucky enough to go to school, who likely realized that they were lucky to be able to go to school, and ignore all the rest and claim that school was so much better in those days! Good job.
-
You're romanticizing the past.
Yep.
Not withstanding all SisterX said. There is nothing to say that what "worked" in the past would "work" today or that today we dont need more out of our public schools and that more costs more. Not to say there are not waste and inefficiencies.
Also I am not sure I like the Fed Govt involved but I dislike more the idea that a slim majority on a local school board can vote to replace all of modern Biology for an entire towns children. Having grown up in a small town with a large church that was border line cult this is not so hypothetical to me. But lets PLEASE-PLEASE not devolve into some clichéd Catholic Church/Galileo internet debate.
-
www.historyliteracy.org/download/Sears2.pdf
So you can be sure I'm not just talking out of my ass, "A Short History of United States Education, 1900 to 2006". TL;DR: Between 1900-1919, enrollment in kindergarten was 7%. Only half of the school aged population was enrolled in school. Half of the student population didn't achieve graduation from 8th grade. In 1910, only 37% of 17 yr.-olds were enrolled in high school. 8% of students graduated from high school.
Tell me again how much better education was in the past?
[Edit: moderators, if you think this should be a different thread, separate from the taxation thread, go ahead and move it.]
-
The country was doing much better when there was NO income tax. Educational standards were MUCH higher, there was more advancement opportunity, and the government had a surplus rather than a deficit.
This wins the stupidest comment I have ever read on any message board.
Sure, for white, rich landowning men, it was great. For everyone else, not so much.
There are always people that think that, were this the original Gilded Age, they would have been Cornelius Vanderbilt and not one of the micks shoveling coal in his locomotives.
-
So you can be sure I'm not just talking out of my ass, "A Short History of United States Education, 1900 to 2006". TL;DR: Between 1900-1919, enrollment in kindergarten was 7%. Only half of the school aged population was enrolled in school. Half of the student population didn't achieve graduation from 8th grade. In 1910, only 37% of 17 yr.-olds were enrolled in high school. 8% of students graduated from high school.
Tell me again how much better education was in the past?
I think it could be that you're doing more than a bit of apples to oranges there. For instance, kindergarten is a fairly recent concept: is there actual evidence that it improves education outcomes, or does it just act as a babysitter for working parents? (Same could be said of Head Start programs, the evidence for which seems, at least to a casual observer like me, decidedly mixed.)
Likewise, when comparing high school graduation rates, we need to adjust by what the graduates actually know. I'm sure we've all seen the (possibly apocryphal) high school exams from the 1800s that most college grads today would fail.
-
So you can be sure I'm not just talking out of my ass, "A Short History of United States Education, 1900 to 2006". TL;DR: Between 1900-1919, enrollment in kindergarten was 7%. Only half of the school aged population was enrolled in school. Half of the student population didn't achieve graduation from 8th grade. In 1910, only 37% of 17 yr.-olds were enrolled in high school. 8% of students graduated from high school.
Tell me again how much better education was in the past?
I think it could be that you're doing more than a bit of apples to oranges there. For instance, kindergarten is a fairly recent concept: is there actual evidence that it improves education outcomes, or does it just act as a babysitter for working parents? (Same could be said of Head Start programs, the evidence for which seems, at least to a casual observer like me, decidedly mixed.)
Likewise, when comparing high school graduation rates, we need to adjust by what the graduates actually know. I'm sure we've all seen the (possibly apocryphal) high school exams from the 1800s that most college grads today would fail.
Sorry, I realized after I posted and walked away that I didn't make myself clear. I did sorta mean that it was an apples and oranges comparison, but also that a romantic, rosy view of the past is ludicrous. We can't compare schools now with schooling then because only the privileged children went to school, and most of them knew that it was a privilege to do so.
Also, if you know you've got to cram as much knowledge into a kid's head as possible because they're not going to go past 8th grade, wouldn't you try your best? However, the numbers show that most kids didn't even graduate from that grade, so how do we know they actually passed those tests?
Finally, they might have known more in those categories at the time, but think of how much human knowledge has expanded since then. Think of science, especially biology but also chemistry and physics! Holy crap, we've got so much more to learn now. It's a beautiful, glorious thing, but again trying to compare to the past is apples and oranges.
As for kindergarten, the article I linked to (did you read it?) says that at the time, it was a 30-year-old concept. I was just grabbing a lot of the pertinent facts from the article, which is why I included the kindergarten concept. I also think kindergarten is (or should be) more about learning group dynamics than it is about learning any testable skills. Just MO however.
-
In many schools, Kindergarten has become quite academic (which is another argument entirely....) so it is not just babysitting for working parents. Even if your local schools kindy is not academic, kids are learning how to work in a group environment, basic reading and learning readiness, and exposure to different ideas and cultures than they would get otherwise.
As far as school being easier than it was in the early 1900s....you can't compare them at all because the skills needed are very different. Yes, my kids barely learned cursive, because it is not necessary these days, but they are learning basic algebraic and computer programming basics starting in 3rd and 4th grade - not sure if that is typical - but different times require different skills. I love seeing the goals of education shift - memorization is pretty useless after a certain set of key facts with the internet being widely available.
Personally , as a female who enjoys using her brain occasionally, if I went back in time to before income tax, I know that I would be so personally worse off education-wise it is laughable to think otherwise. Engineering school? I don't think so....
-
The country was doing much better when there was NO income tax. Educational standards were MUCH higher, there was more advancement opportunity, and the government had a surplus rather than a deficit.
This wins the stupidest comment I have ever read on any message board.
Sure, for white, rich landowning men, it was great. For everyone else, not so much.
When you can't debate with facts, attack the poster instead? Or was your little racist jab supposed to be a fact of some sort?
I'm betting most of the people on this forum wouldn't be able to pass an 1800's college entrance exam.
http://www.geekinheels.com/2011/04/11/harvard-entrance-exam-from-1869.html (http://www.geekinheels.com/2011/04/11/harvard-entrance-exam-from-1869.html)
-
When you can't debate with facts, attack the poster instead? Or was your little racist jab supposed to be a fact of some sort?
I'm betting most of the people on this forum wouldn't be able to pass an 1800's college entrance exam.
http://www.geekinheels.com/2011/04/11/harvard-entrance-exam-from-1869.html (http://www.geekinheels.com/2011/04/11/harvard-entrance-exam-from-1869.html)
Said the pot to the kettle. . .
-
I'm betting most of the people on this forum wouldn't be able to pass an 1800's college entrance exam.
http://www.geekinheels.com/2011/04/11/harvard-entrance-exam-from-1869.html (http://www.geekinheels.com/2011/04/11/harvard-entrance-exam-from-1869.html)
I'm betting most people on this forum could not get into Harvard in any century.
-
I'm betting most of the people on this forum wouldn't be able to pass an 1800's college entrance exam.
http://www.geekinheels.com/2011/04/11/harvard-entrance-exam-from-1869.html (http://www.geekinheels.com/2011/04/11/harvard-entrance-exam-from-1869.html)
I'm betting most people on this forum could not get into Harvard in any century.
Have you not read some of the various forum topics here around intelligence? Apparently, three digit IQs, and gifted programs were the norm for most of us :)
-
I'm betting most of the people on this forum wouldn't be able to pass an 1800's college entrance exam.
http://www.geekinheels.com/2011/04/11/harvard-entrance-exam-from-1869.html (http://www.geekinheels.com/2011/04/11/harvard-entrance-exam-from-1869.html)
1. I would do a hell of a lot worse on the SAT's today than if I was a high school senior again.
2. People study for exams. I would fail all my University, Chartered Accountant and Chartered Financial Analyst exams if I had to re-take them cold.
3. Tests from a different age are steeped in cultural biases. Expecting to compare someone who took Latin all throughout elementary and secondary school and someone who didn't with a Latin test doesn't make much sense.
4. The Math sections where there is far less cultural bias are actually pretty telling. The Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry are covered in late elementary early secondary school.
-
I'm betting most of the people on this forum wouldn't be able to pass an 1800's college entrance exam.
http://www.geekinheels.com/2011/04/11/harvard-entrance-exam-from-1869.html
Yeah it looks hard today but would the applicants have know what was coming and been able to study for the test? I Aced the private pilot exam that has some f-ing hard looking questions but I did very similar questions for several months before hand and learned how to deal with them. Smart people are not any dumbiner now than back then.
Also replace the Latin and Greek sections with Windows and Unix command line questions and give us one week and I bet most here could make an ok showing of our self and totally trounce those old guys taking it cold on why running $ sudo mkfs.vfat -n 'Ubuntu' -I /dev/sdc1 might be a bad idea.
-
The country was doing much better when there was NO income tax. Educational standards were MUCH higher, there was more advancement opportunity, and the government had a surplus rather than a deficit.
This wins the stupidest comment I have ever read on any message board.
Sure, for white, rich landowning men, it was great. For everyone else, not so much.
When you can't debate with facts, attack the poster instead? Or was your little racist jab supposed to be a fact of some sort?
I'm betting most of the people on this forum wouldn't be able to pass an 1800's college entrance exam.
http://www.geekinheels.com/2011/04/11/harvard-entrance-exam-from-1869.html (http://www.geekinheels.com/2011/04/11/harvard-entrance-exam-from-1869.html)
I'm white and don't see that as a jab, it is a fact.
-
I'm betting most people on this forum could not get into Harvard in any century.
Why would I want to get into Harvard? MIT, now...
I've forgotten most of my Latin, and never did learn Greek, but otherwise I could probably pass it today. (And might have done OK on the Latin if I'd taken it straight out of high school.) Though a few questions would seem to need a little context. For instance, when they ask about the basin of the St. Lawrence, is that including the whole Great Lakes drainage, or just downstream of Ontario? Then there's the question of why they think there are only two principal rivers that rise in the Alps. There are (at least) four: the Danube, Rhine, Rhone, and Po.
-
The anger that you appear to harbour towards people with kids is unwarranted. If you are upset that other people put out more garbage than you do without paying more for it, then you should be railing against the unfairness of the way your collection system works and trying to get it changed. If you ever do find yourself being asked to work extra because you don't have kids, sue your employer and work to make a change . . . because that's unfair. If you just want to hate on someone though, maybe set your sights on someone more deserving of it.
I'm not "hating" on anyone.
But I am vehemently opposed to forcing child free couples and singles to pay EVEN MORE in taxes (as the article suggested) when we already pay more than our fair share for other people's children.
I'm not even asking for a roll back in the benefits those with children already enjoy over child free couples and singles (those of us finishing up our income taxes today will be clearly aware of the current inequity- as the breeders enjoy huge tax advantages over those of us who choose not to have children). I'm simply saying that it is wrong to place an even larger burden on already overtaxed singles and child free couples.
How many times and ways can I tell you, yet again, that no one in this thread has defended the original article's idea that childless* people should be taxed more. You, and several others, have used that as a starting point for complaining about the favorable situation that parents get, however, due to the "unfairness" of taxes. Since you're a self-identified libertarian, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you think pretty much the entire tax code is unfair. My former suggestion still stands: if you truly think that, go into politics and try to change it.
I already have gone into politics many times, as a donor, a delegate, and a candidate.
BTW, whether they think we are overtaxed, undertaxed, or taxed about right, I don't know any rational person who thinks the current mess we call the US Tax Code is fair. It's been used to dole out political favors for far too long to have any semblance to being either fair or rational.
Anyway, I guess it doesn't matter since this thread appears to have veered into immigration and education.
-
I'm betting most of the people on this forum wouldn't be able to pass an 1800's college entrance exam.
http://www.geekinheels.com/2011/04/11/harvard-entrance-exam-from-1869.html (http://www.geekinheels.com/2011/04/11/harvard-entrance-exam-from-1869.html)
I'm betting most people on this forum could not get into Harvard in any century.
What makes you think that?
I mean, on average on the whole population, a small % of people could get into Harvard.
However, it seems to me that the average intelligence on this board is a bit higher than the general population.
I could have gotten into Harvard. Easy.
-
lots of arguing in this thread.
growing up we had no "money". I mean we werent starving but we weren't rolling in money either, typical middle class.
I used to fantasize a more "equal" world, fair wage, fair distribution, (communist utopia) etc. Then I realized such dreams are not possible in a society if anyone had any sort of freewill.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
back to the original topic:
come tax me bro, i be sleeping with different woman everyday, and you get to keep the by-products.
-
I'm betting most of the people on this forum wouldn't be able to pass an 1800's college entrance exam.
http://www.geekinheels.com/2011/04/11/harvard-entrance-exam-from-1869.html (http://www.geekinheels.com/2011/04/11/harvard-entrance-exam-from-1869.html)
I'm betting most people on this forum could not get into Harvard in any century.
What makes you think that?
I mean, on average on the whole population, a small % of people could get into Harvard.
However, it seems to me that the average intelligence on this board is a bit higher than the general population.
I could have gotten into Harvard. Easy.
What I don't get is why getting into Harvard is the standard here. Plenty of super smart people throughout history have been college dropouts, or never went to college. This is true of the smartest person I know, who only made it (grudgingly) through 3 years of no-name college. (And no, I'm not talking about myself or my spouse.) Schooling only caters to a very narrow range of intelligence, and it's not right for everyone. So why is getting into Harvard the gold standard on this thread for whether or not you're smart?
-
So why is getting into Harvard the gold standard on this thread for whether or not you're smart?
It isn't. It's just a ridiculous thing FU wrote, and that we laughed at.
-
I'm betting most of the people on this forum wouldn't be able to pass an 1800's college entrance exam.
http://www.geekinheels.com/2011/04/11/harvard-entrance-exam-from-1869.html (http://www.geekinheels.com/2011/04/11/harvard-entrance-exam-from-1869.html)
I'm betting most people on this forum could not get into Harvard in any century.
What makes you think that?
I mean, on average on the whole population, a small % of people could get into Harvard.
However, it seems to me that the average intelligence on this board is a bit higher than the general population.
I could have gotten into Harvard. Easy.
What I don't get is why getting into Harvard is the standard here. Plenty of super smart people throughout history have been college dropouts, or never went to college. This is true of the smartest person I know, who only made it (grudgingly) through 3 years of no-name college. (And no, I'm not talking about myself or my spouse.) Schooling only caters to a very narrow range of intelligence, and it's not right for everyone. So why is getting into Harvard the gold standard on this thread for whether or not you're smart?
Agreed. I didn't even apply to Harvard because I wasn't interested in going there and wanted a place with stronger teaching reputation and well, warm fuzzies aka as that buzzword "collegial." Some might argue that makes me smarter than the average Harvard grad. :) Ended up at Dartmouth, same as my husband (who turned down Harvard for undergrad, but went there for grad degree). And consider all of the people intelligent in non-traditional ways, or ways Harvard doesn't value (I'm thinking a musical prodigy). Or an admissions director on a bad day, someone who is crazy intelligent but doesn't tell well, etc. The possibilities go on. This is probably one of the more flawed suggestions for testing intelligence that I've heard of.
-
It all really depends on if our society "needs more births" or not.
This would depend on if a slow but stable decline in population is desirable (for environmental reasons) or a slow but stable growth rate (for economic reasons) or no growth (balance between the two.) If the agenda for example is "no growth" (as is probably should be) and birth rate is higher than the 2.2 required for population stability an extra tax should be levied on those who have more than two children. Vice versa, if birth rate is lower than 2.2 incentives should be given (tax breaks, free childcare etc). Tax polices and families are purely to do with desired level of population growth/decline not "fairness" because everyone will have different views on fair.
-
And at work, it's pretty common for people with kids to cut out for (insert family emergency here), and the people who usually have to work late nights and weekends to make up for it? Those with no kids, of course.
Well, this is blatantly unfair. And it's not the way that any place I've worked has been setup. Maybe you should be bitching about your shitty job rather than people with kids.
At my Wife's old job, there were always people who felt 'entitled' to better shifts etc to accommodate doing things for their family over people who had been there longer/were better qualified simply because they had a kid. They also always scheduled kids Dr. Appointments during work hours and used their unlimited 'sick leave' for their kids Dr Appointments.
-
They also always scheduled kids Dr. Appointments during work hours and used their unlimited 'sick leave' for their kids Dr Appointments.
Huh? It's generally difficult to schedule kids' appointments outside of work hours (if possible at all), so sometime 9-5 is the norm, and standard to use one's sick leave for sick kids or kids' appointments. Children *need* their adult parent to care for them when sick and accompany them to their appointments, it's not some frivolous choice, so it's only humane for one's employer to accommodate this. I'm really not getting what the issue is?
-
And at work, it's pretty common for people with kids to cut out for (insert family emergency here), and the people who usually have to work late nights and weekends to make up for it? Those with no kids, of course.
Well, this is blatantly unfair. And it's not the way that any place I've worked has been setup. Maybe you should be bitching about your shitty job rather than people with kids.
At my Wife's old job, there were always people who felt 'entitled' to better shifts etc to accommodate doing things for their family over people who had been there longer/were better qualified simply because they had a kid. They also always scheduled kids Dr. Appointments during work hours and used their unlimited 'sick leave' for their kids Dr Appointments.
So, your doctor, dentist etc.. sees you after hours? Just curious. For whatever reason, my doctor insists on seeing me between the hours of 9:00 to 5:00 but maybe there are 24 hour doctors' appointments out there?
-
They also always scheduled kids Dr. Appointments during work hours and used their unlimited 'sick leave' for their kids Dr Appointments.
Huh? It's generally difficult to schedule kids' appointments outside of work hours (if possible at all), so sometime 9-5 is the norm, and standard to use one's sick leave for sick kids or kids' appointments. Children *need* their adult parent to care for them when sick and accompany them to their appointments, it's not some frivolous choice, so it's only humane for one's employer to accommodate this. I'm really not getting what the issue is?
emphasis is mine. I've always understood sick time to cover YOUR sick time, not a relative or a child. That is what personal time or PTO is for. I think people who use sick time for anything other than being physically ill are cheating the system.
-
They also always scheduled kids Dr. Appointments during work hours and used their unlimited 'sick leave' for their kids Dr Appointments.
Huh? It's generally difficult to schedule kids' appointments outside of work hours (if possible at all), so sometime 9-5 is the norm, and standard to use one's sick leave for sick kids or kids' appointments. Children *need* their adult parent to care for them when sick and accompany them to their appointments, it's not some frivolous choice, so it's only humane for one's employer to accommodate this. I'm really not getting what the issue is?
emphasis is mine. I've always understood sick time to cover YOUR sick time, not a relative or a child. That is what personal time or PTO is for. I think people who use sick time for anything other than being physically ill are cheating the system.
Depends on the policy and the manager's discretion. Most of the managers I worked for had no problem with us using sick time for sick family members.
-
They also always scheduled kids Dr. Appointments during work hours and used their unlimited 'sick leave' for their kids Dr Appointments.
Huh? It's generally difficult to schedule kids' appointments outside of work hours (if possible at all), so sometime 9-5 is the norm, and standard to use one's sick leave for sick kids or kids' appointments. Children *need* their adult parent to care for them when sick and accompany them to their appointments, it's not some frivolous choice, so it's only humane for one's employer to accommodate this. I'm really not getting what the issue is?
emphasis is mine. I've always understood sick time to cover YOUR sick time, not a relative or a child. That is what personal time or PTO is for. I think people who use sick time for anything other than being physically ill are cheating the system.
Every place that I've worked outlines what is allowed to be used for "sick time" and taking care of your sick minor children, your appointments, and taking them to their appointments has always been included. One certainly isn't cheating the system by using sick time for things specifically mentioned as allowed under the system...
Frankly, I can't imagine continuing to work somewhere that required me to use vacation time, when I had available sick time, to care for my sick minor.
Although, frankly, I currently work somewhere where I can just come and go as I please without reporting in any type of "time" ( I can leave at 1pm on a Monday for "I want to go home and take a nap time"), so the idea that one would have to even pause to consider if their time with their family over christmas will have to be shortened because their kid gets strep throat the month before makes me want to barf.
-
I haven't read the whole thread, but this reminded me of a pet hate of mine here in Australia.
A couple of years ago, in response to the declining birth rate, the govt thought it'd be a good idea to bring in the "baby bonus" - they literally give you a lump sum (about $5k i think) for giving birth to a child!
Anyone who thinks this through for more than a second would realise that this does not target the right demographic at all...any incentives should encourage people who are already productive members of society, to whom $5k would seem like a very small sum compared to the cost of raising a child. Instead, it encourages people to whom $5k is a lot of money - which invariably puts more of the financial burden of raising a child onto public systems when said parents can't cope (welfare, education, health).
They are finally changing it now i think, but boy has it annoyed me!!
-
I suppose they've never had a boss decide that YOU, the childfree worker, can certainly work overtime because you 'have no family,' and how no, YOU don't need that vacation as much as little Johnny's parents need to take off to see their child's play.
-Oh, I so hear this.
-
They also always scheduled kids Dr. Appointments during work hours and used their unlimited 'sick leave' for their kids Dr Appointments.
Huh? It's generally difficult to schedule kids' appointments outside of work hours (if possible at all), so sometime 9-5 is the norm, and standard to use one's sick leave for sick kids or kids' appointments. Children *need* their adult parent to care for them when sick and accompany them to their appointments, it's not some frivolous choice, so it's only humane for one's employer to accommodate this. I'm really not getting what the issue is?
emphasis is mine. I've always understood sick time to cover YOUR sick time, not a relative or a child. That is what personal time or PTO is for. I think people who use sick time for anything other than being physically ill are cheating the system.
My work has two options to code sick time: Sick or Sick Other (i.e. your family).
I get that they get "more time off" from work and some might see that as unfair. That's possibly why some businesses have moved to one pool for sick days and vacation time. Generally it's my experience that in my line of work you pretty much end up paying for sick time off by needing to make it up later though. It's different in other jobs such as a receptionist, but I generally feel that except for those that abuse it (I had a coworker taking off every other Friday in the summer because she was sick), being sick is no fun and also, if you don't allow people the time off, they'll infect the office and make overall productivity even worse.
-
They also always scheduled kids Dr. Appointments during work hours and used their unlimited 'sick leave' for their kids Dr Appointments.
Huh? It's generally difficult to schedule kids' appointments outside of work hours (if possible at all), so sometime 9-5 is the norm, and standard to use one's sick leave for sick kids or kids' appointments. Children *need* their adult parent to care for them when sick and accompany them to their appointments, it's not some frivolous choice, so it's only humane for one's employer to accommodate this. I'm really not getting what the issue is?
emphasis is mine. I've always understood sick time to cover YOUR sick time, not a relative or a child. That is what personal time or PTO is for. I think people who use sick time for anything other than being physically ill are cheating the system.
Depends on the policy and the manager's discretion. Most of the managers I worked for had no problem with us using sick time for sick family members.
I forgot to mention that at location, they were all working customer service, and the person in question had one or two days during the standard work week in which they didn't work (and worked weekend shifts to cover the rest of the hours). They also had shift work which earlier shifts ended and had time at the end of the day to make it to appointments, etc...
-
They also always scheduled kids Dr. Appointments during work hours and used their unlimited 'sick leave' for their kids Dr Appointments.
Huh? It's generally difficult to schedule kids' appointments outside of work hours (if possible at all), so sometime 9-5 is the norm, and standard to use one's sick leave for sick kids or kids' appointments. Children *need* their adult parent to care for them when sick and accompany them to their appointments, it's not some frivolous choice, so it's only humane for one's employer to accommodate this. I'm really not getting what the issue is?
emphasis is mine. I've always understood sick time to cover YOUR sick time, not a relative or a child. That is what personal time or PTO is for. I think people who use sick time for anything other than being physically ill are cheating the system.
My work has two options to code sick time: Sick or Sick Other (i.e. your family).
I get that they get "more time off" from work and some might see that as unfair. That's possibly why some businesses have moved to one pool for sick days and vacation time. Generally it's my experience that in my line of work you pretty much end up paying for sick time off by needing to make it up later though. It's different in other jobs such as a receptionist, but I generally feel that except for those that abuse it (I had a coworker taking off every other Friday in the summer because she was sick), being sick is no fun and also, if you don't allow people the time off, they'll infect the office and make overall productivity even worse.
In the U.S., using sick leave to care for a sick child is pretty common in both the public and private sectors. For those that work for the U.S. government, you can use your accrued sick leave for your own needs, to provide general care for a family member (like a sick child), provide care to a family member with a serious health condition (for example, taking care of your elderly mother who is dying), make funeral arrangements, and for adoption-related purposes (this is not maternity leave; it's leave to consult attorneys, pick up the child, appointments with adoption agencies, etc.).
-
I got $500 (big money in the 80's) for my first child. I figured I could fritter it away on a small things I would have bought anyway, until it was gone, or I could be sensible. That $500 (and my Family allowance), invested in a mutual fund ever since, is now covering a major portion of that child's university education.
We may not always to be able to influence what our society does, but we can always make our own choices.
I haven't read the whole thread, but this reminded me of a pet hate of mine here in Australia.
A couple of years ago, in response to the declining birth rate, the govt thought it'd be a good idea to bring in the "baby bonus" - they literally give you a lump sum (about $5k i think) for giving birth to a child!
Anyone who thinks this through for more than a second would realise that this does not target the right demographic at all...any incentives should encourage people who are already productive members of society, to whom $5k would seem like a very small sum compared to the cost of raising a child. Instead, it encourages people to whom $5k is a lot of money - which invariably puts more of the financial burden of raising a child onto public systems when said parents can't cope (welfare, education, health).
They are finally changing it now i think, but boy has it annoyed me!!
-
They also always scheduled kids Dr. Appointments during work hours and used their unlimited 'sick leave' for their kids Dr Appointments.
Huh? It's generally difficult to schedule kids' appointments outside of work hours (if possible at all), so sometime 9-5 is the norm, and standard to use one's sick leave for sick kids or kids' appointments. Children *need* their adult parent to care for them when sick and accompany them to their appointments, it's not some frivolous choice, so it's only humane for one's employer to accommodate this. I'm really not getting what the issue is?
emphasis is mine. I've always understood sick time to cover YOUR sick time, not a relative or a child. That is what personal time or PTO is for. I think people who use sick time for anything other than being physically ill are cheating the system.
Depends on the policy and the manager's discretion. Most of the managers I worked for had no problem with us using sick time for sick family members.
I forgot to mention that at location, they were all working customer service, and the person in question had one or two days during the standard work week in which they didn't work (and worked weekend shifts to cover the rest of the hours). They also had shift work which earlier shifts ended and had time at the end of the day to make it to appointments, etc...
Sure - but you don't know what's going on those other days. Might have a second job, might not have the kids those days, etc. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt unless they're clearly slacking, and then, well that's the manager's issue to deal with.
Also, the latest appointment I can get with my doctor is 3:30, which is a bit frustrating. Much easier to leave work an hour early to make a 4:30 apt than to leave in the middle of the day!
-
For those that work for the U.S. government, you can use your accrued sick leave for your own needs, to provide general care for a family member (like a sick child), provide care to a family member with a serious health condition (for example, taking care of your elderly mother who is dying), make funeral arrangements, and for adoption-related purposes (this is not maternity leave; it's leave to consult attorneys, pick up the child, appointments with adoption agencies, etc.).
But they have recently provided an incentive to not abuse sick leave: any hours you have remaining when you retire will be counted toward your years of service for calculating your retirement pension.
-
For those that work for the U.S. government, you can use your accrued sick leave for your own needs, to provide general care for a family member (like a sick child), provide care to a family member with a serious health condition (for example, taking care of your elderly mother who is dying), make funeral arrangements, and for adoption-related purposes (this is not maternity leave; it's leave to consult attorneys, pick up the child, appointments with adoption agencies, etc.).
But they have recently provided an incentive to not abuse sick leave: any hours you have remaining when you retire will be counted toward your years of service for calculating your retirement pension.
Oh, I know that. And it's not technically an incentive not to "abuse" sick leave. If you're using sick leave for a proper reason, you're not technically abusing it. The program incentivizes using the least amount of sick leave as you can. For example, if you have a cold but can work, they want to provide you a nice benefit if you come to work (that is, unless you're in close quarters and are liable to get everybody else sick). If you have a broken leg but can hobble to work and perform your duties, then come to work and you'll keep that sweet, sweet sick leave balance. It's an incentive not to call in sick when it really isn't necessary, even if it's technically okay to call in sick per policy.
-
Depends on the policy and the manager's discretion. Most of the managers I worked for had no problem with us using sick time for sick family members.
The trend I've seen over the past decade or so is for every worker to get the same exact benefit for number of days off. Might be a combined twenty days for vacation, sick, personal, etc. they just call it "Paid Time Off". To me, it always seemed the most fair because everyone got the same benefit. But if you use 10 of those days taking care of a sick family member, that means 10 fewer days of vacation time.
Now, I'm self employed and can also take off whenever I want - but I don't get paid for hours I don't work. Is the "PTO" concept still popular out there, or was that a regional thing?
Do any parents out there think that single parents should get more sick days because there is not a spouse to share the burden with? Do any singletons think they should get extra days because they have to do 100% of house related things ? I feel like I am taking advantage (and missing a lot of work) when I have to leave work for deliveries, house maintenance things, installations, etc that most 2-person households would split up. Even though I don't get paid for that time, I'm not at the office and that inconveniences my coworkers.
-
Depends on the policy and the manager's discretion. Most of the managers I worked for had no problem with us using sick time for sick family members.
The trend I've seen over the past decade or so is for every worker to get the same exact benefit for number of days off. Might be a combined twenty days for vacation, sick, personal, etc. they just call it "Paid Time Off". To me, it always seemed the most fair because everyone got the same benefit. But if you use 10 of those days taking care of a sick family member, that means 10 fewer days of vacation time.
Now, I'm self employed and can also take off whenever I want - but I don't get paid for hours I don't work. Is the "PTO" concept still popular out there, or was that a regional thing?
Do any parents out there think that single parents should get more sick days because there is not a spouse to share the burden with? Do any singletons think they should get extra days because they have to do 100% of house related things ? I feel like I am taking advantage (and missing a lot of work) when I have to leave work for deliveries, house maintenance things, installations, etc that most 2-person households would split up. Even though I don't get paid for that time, I'm not at the office and that inconveniences my coworkers.
I'd really like to see some studies out there to see how many people take advantage of the "we don't track time off" type of employment. I know of a few companies (smaller) that do that and they don't have a single problem with it. If it gets abused, they have dealt with it in the context of the person not getting their work done or the amount of work that is defined for the level of their position. If they are getting the work done, then the management hasn't cared if they take a little more time off.
-
They also always scheduled kids Dr. Appointments during work hours and used their unlimited 'sick leave' for their kids Dr Appointments.
Huh? It's generally difficult to schedule kids' appointments outside of work hours (if possible at all), so sometime 9-5 is the norm, and standard to use one's sick leave for sick kids or kids' appointments. Children *need* their adult parent to care for them when sick and accompany them to their appointments, it's not some frivolous choice, so it's only humane for one's employer to accommodate this. I'm really not getting what the issue is?
emphasis is mine. I've always understood sick time to cover YOUR sick time, not a relative or a child. That is what personal time or PTO is for. I think people who use sick time for anything other than being physically ill are cheating the system.
Depends on where you work. At my last company, with unlimited sick time, they specified that up to 3 days could be used for your sick children.
At my current company, with limited PTO, you use it for whatever you want.
But we've gone through a few different iterations. When we had "unlimited" sick time, you could use it for your kids.
When we had 5 days a year sick time (before we went to PTO), you could use it for your kid.
And now, it's the law, that if you get sick time awarded, companies HAVE to let you use at least half of it for your kid (or spouse, parent, etc.) I'm in California.
-
They also always scheduled kids Dr. Appointments during work hours and used their unlimited 'sick leave' for their kids Dr Appointments.
Huh? It's generally difficult to schedule kids' appointments outside of work hours (if possible at all), so sometime 9-5 is the norm, and standard to use one's sick leave for sick kids or kids' appointments. Children *need* their adult parent to care for them when sick and accompany them to their appointments, it's not some frivolous choice, so it's only humane for one's employer to accommodate this. I'm really not getting what the issue is?
emphasis is mine. I've always understood sick time to cover YOUR sick time, not a relative or a child. That is what personal time or PTO is for. I think people who use sick time for anything other than being physically ill are cheating the system.
Depends on where you work. At my last company, with unlimited sick time, they specified that up to 3 days could be used for your sick children.
At my current company, with limited PTO, you use it for whatever you want.
But we've gone through a few different iterations. When we had "unlimited" sick time, you could use it for your kids.
When we had 5 days a year sick time (before we went to PTO), you could use it for your kid.
And now, it's the law, that if you get sick time awarded, companies HAVE to let you use at least half of it for your kid (or spouse, parent, etc.) I'm in California.
When did THAT happen? I left Ca about five years back and it was not that way then. Very cool.
-
They also always scheduled kids Dr. Appointments during work hours and used their unlimited 'sick leave' for their kids Dr Appointments.
Huh? It's generally difficult to schedule kids' appointments outside of work hours (if possible at all), so sometime 9-5 is the norm, and standard to use one's sick leave for sick kids or kids' appointments. Children *need* their adult parent to care for them when sick and accompany them to their appointments, it's not some frivolous choice, so it's only humane for one's employer to accommodate this. I'm really not getting what the issue is?
emphasis is mine. I've always understood sick time to cover YOUR sick time, not a relative or a child. That is what personal time or PTO is for. I think people who use sick time for anything other than being physically ill are cheating the system.
Depends on where you work. At my last company, with unlimited sick time, they specified that up to 3 days could be used for your sick children.
At my current company, with limited PTO, you use it for whatever you want.
But we've gone through a few different iterations. When we had "unlimited" sick time, you could use it for your kids.
When we had 5 days a year sick time (before we went to PTO), you could use it for your kid.
And now, it's the law, that if you get sick time awarded, companies HAVE to let you use at least half of it for your kid (or spouse, parent, etc.) I'm in California.
When did THAT happen? I left Ca about five years back and it was not that way then. Very cool.
Pretty recently. Because I started noticing it mentioned in our employee handbook, and then I looked it up.