I Hate Paying School Taxes When I Have No Kids...

[grantmeaname]

Exactly which argument is a straw man?

[Crash87]

I don't mind paying school taxes. My parents were dirt poor when I was a child so I likely wouldn't have gotten an education if it wasn't for the public school system. IMO, the best thing about the USA is that everyone gets at least chance at a good life through the public education system.

If I had it my way schools would be funded solely based on the number of students, not with local tax support tipping the scales in favor of kids that live in nicer areas.


I have heard of a charity offers to pay low income people $1,000 to get fixed... maybe you could donate to that and consider it an investment.

[grantmeaname]

You said that home school students are stronger academically, and I demonstrated that that may not be so.

[Sofa King]

I I had to comment on this:

"Sounds like a great idea! We can start with those wonderful people who have been on welfare forever and have 9 kids with the 10th on the way!!! You know the ones....the ones with the smartphones and they just had their nails done."

Racist?  No wonder you are so full of hate.

Since no one mentioned anything about race at all, or even implied it -- even the OP -- the only person you've called on their racism is yourself. I guess the image of people who are on welfare with lots of kids + smartphones brings a particular race to your mind. It didn't to mine.

I concur.

[davo]

In regards to the OP and a few other posts describing irresponsible choices of low-income parents, like having 10 kids or a fancy phone and nails, I think these examples are outliers of a much larger population of those receiving public assistance.

These anecdotal examples of welfare queens and welfare recipients gaming the system do a disservice to thoughtful data and results driven policy making. I am not willing to spend the time looking up data to prove a point. I just want to contribute what I think about the subject of discussion.

The reality of public assistance and public services is there will be some abuse and fraud, but when taken as a percentage of the whole cost of the services it is very small.

Another point, I have no children and gladly pay taxes. In fact, I think the taxes we pay are too low for the services we as a public receive. I want the children of low-income parents who make poor choices to have a great public school to escape to, and a roof over their head, and food to eat.

-David

[Sofa King]

I
 I have no children and gladly pay taxes. In fact, I think the taxes we pay are too low.
-David

You know you can pay more school taxes than what your tax bill is. They will be happy to take it!!  I have a feeling tho that the chances of you doing so are about zero. LOL!!!   NEXT.

[destron]

By my reading, homeschooled kids are dramatically more likely to be white (92% of this sample) and have married parents (98%) than the average student. Their parents have much higher educational attainment - they're more than twice as likely to have a college degree; 98.3% have a computer in the home. While homeschooling parents have a similar median income to all parents, they are dramatically less likely to be very poor - only 1.5% of them made $30,000 or less, while the figure for the population on the whole is something like 30%. On top of that, students homeschooled for only part of their life and students homeschooled their entire career scored the same. With demographics like that, I'm really not convinced that it's love, independence, and Christianity that explain the students' outperformance.

Grant, I was responding to the criticism of 10 yr old homeschool kids that "can't read".  It is a much lower percentage of kids than you would find in public school. Nobody said anything about religion, so I'm not sure why you brought that into it. However, if PP was using a personal example of a kid he knows in this situation, it is probable that the kid has learning issues, so parents decided it was best for him to learn at home.

Nobody mentioned religion, but you mentioned that public school did not teach your values. We are all wondering what you meant by that.

I apologize if I missed it in another post.

[destron]

I'm still curious to hear what public schools are teaching is. You said you wished public schools would focus on reading, writing, arithmetic, history and science.

You're long on complaining and short on details. As such, I can only take you for a troll. I fully expect you to complain about this and neglect to answer any of the salient points in replies to your posts.

Okay, well you've already made up your mind, labeled me, and told me what you expect of me.

So whatever answer I give, I fully expect you to complain about it and automatically dismiss whatever I have to say.

Now that rhetorical exchage didn't move the conversation in any positive direction, did it?

I knew you had no answer to the question. Have a nice evening!

[renbutler]

IMO, the best thing about the USA is that everyone gets at least chance at a good life through the public education system.

Well, except for the millions of kids in mediocre school systems. (And, as pointed out, that isn't necessarily the same thing as an underfunded school system.)

There is a great disparity in public schools. Some taxpayers are not getting a good bang for their buck, even adjusting for socioeconomic variables.

[renbutler]

I knew you had no answer to the question. Have a nice evening!

I sure will have a nice evening not labeling people I've never met. Thanks.

:D:D:D

[davo]

I
 I have no children and gladly pay taxes. In fact, I think the taxes we pay are too low.
-David

You know you can pay more school taxes than what your tax bill is. They will be happy to take it!!  I have a feeling tho that the chances of you doing so are about zero. LOL!!!   NEXT.

I am unlikely to voluntarily pay more taxes than I am required too. That is different than thinking effective tax rates should be higher in my state, and at the federal level. To be clear, I support raising the effective tax rate in my tax bracket and higher. My opinion is in no way negated by my not voluntarily paying more tax than I am legally required.

[grantmeaname]

Nobody mentioned religion

Except that you are putting words in my mouth.  Another poster said that, not me.

The linked survey did, that's why I brought it up. I wasn't supposing anything about your values.

[bUU]

Indeed. It is important to not mistake correlation for causation. Homeschooling doesn't cause superior academic performance. Rather, specific, often costly attributes that are independently correlated to homeschooling (superior teacher-to-student ratio, for example) are the causes. Don't ever forget that a homeschooled child's education costs at least as much as the parent administering the homeschooling could get in additional income, by doing some other/additional work instead of spending the time they're spending on the home-schooling.

Of course it's a result of a better student-teacher ratio! I don't necessarily think it is accurate to assume that the homeschooling is as expensive as the parent's potential income if the parent would be staying home anyway. That has been the case for me so far, and so the homeschooling expenses are simply any curricula purchased and outsourced classes. It runs about $500/child most of the time for us at this point.

You missed the point: Homeschooling costs at least as much as the parent administering the homeschooling could get in additional income, by doing some other/additional work instead of spending the time they're spending on the home-schooling, because if that parent wasn't home-schooling they could be out working. So what you're really pointed out is that homeschooling costs at least as much as the parent administering the homeschooling could get in additional income, by doing some other/additional work instead of spending the time they're spending on the home-schooling, PLUS $500/child.

[Crash87]

IMO, the best thing about the USA is that everyone gets at least chance at a good life through the public education system.

Well, except for the millions of kids in mediocre school systems. (And, as pointed out, that isn't necessarily the same thing as an underfunded school system.)

There is a great disparity in public schools. Some taxpayers are not getting a good bang for their buck, even adjusting for socioeconomic variables.

I said a chance, which I firmly believe everyone does get. I came out of one of those crappy public schools. We ran out of white paper one year, cut about 45 min off the school day to save money, cut certain after school activities, and eventually had funding reduced further for failing no child left behind. My school sucked but we still got at least a mediocre education.

[renbutler]

Fair enough. A mediocre education is at least better than no education.

I just wish (not directing this to you) that we as a country would aim higher than mediocre, with cost spent per student lower on the list behind more important factors (many of which have already been discussed).

[mpbaker22]

The real reason homeschoolers perform so much better is that they have a stronger family unit.  Particularly in the very poor areas, the parents just don't care, and usually only one of them is around.  The result is the general failure to educate the child.
Home schooling families are almost always 2 parent, and both parents care very much about their children's education - enough to do it themselves.

[Villanelle]

Warning - I only read the original post then skipped to my thoughts.

I don't have a problem with paying for education despite not having children.  However, I have a problem paying for a shitty school system that costs more per child than the private schools when I wouldn't send kids I do have to it.  And I think that's a perfectly legitimate reason to despise schools taxes.

When I was in college in Urbana, IL, the Urbana school district spent ~$12K/year/student for K-12.  The local private high school spent ~$8K/year/student and was more prestigious.

 Chances are great it costs more than $8k to educate each child. You are comparing apples to oranges. Tuition and cost to educate are not the same thing.  Often, tuition is offset by donations or funds from a religious institution.  Many students attend Harvard for free, but that doesn't mean it costs nothing to educate them. 

[bUU]

The real reason homeschoolers perform so much better is that they have a stronger family unit. 

Proof that this is why homeschoolers perform so much better, instead of teacher-to-student ratio (for which there is proof of efficacy)?

[mpbaker22]

Warning - I only read the original post then skipped to my thoughts.

I don't have a problem with paying for education despite not having children.  However, I have a problem paying for a shitty school system that costs more per child than the private schools when I wouldn't send kids I do have to it.  And I think that's a perfectly legitimate reason to despise schools taxes.

When I was in college in Urbana, IL, the Urbana school district spent ~$12K/year/student for K-12.  The local private high school spent ~$8K/year/student and was more prestigious.

 Chances are great it costs more than $8k to educate each child. You are comparing apples to oranges. Tuition and cost to educate are not the same thing.  Often, tuition is offset by donations or funds from a religious institution.  Many students attend Harvard for free, but that doesn't mean it costs nothing to educate them.

That's my point and why I've re-stated it about 15 times now.  Tuition was something like $4K.  Cost to educated was $8K.  Have people lost the ability to read around here?

[mpbaker22]

The real reason homeschoolers perform so much better is that they have a stronger family unit. 

Proof that this is why homeschoolers perform so much better?

Yea, I should specificy this is at the lower quartile, not overall.

[bUU]

And the proof of that comes from where? If true, it'll be useful information I suspect for future discussions.

[bUU]

I actually did understand your point. However, that is assuming the parent would go to work if she were not homeschooling.

I apologize for making what I believes is a mustachian assumption - one saves more income if one earns more income.

There are plenty of mothers, and some fathers, that would be the stay at home parent whether the child is in school or not. I will stay home for at least four more years for the sake of my youngest child, so any kids I choose to homeschool does not take away my assumed salary.

That's a special case. I'm sorry I didn't explicitly include it. Revising my earlier comment: Homeschooling costs at least as much as the parent administering the homeschooling could get in additional income, by doing some other/additional work instead of spending the time they're spending on the home-schooling, assuming that they weren't home-bound for some other, unrelated reason. Note that there are many other situations which fall into that exclusion.

To attempt to bring this back on topic, my first post on this thread was saying that I would love to be able to use some of our tax $$$$ that goes to our school and use it to help purchase curricula for my kids.

I suppose most folks would love to get some of their tax money back that goes for things they don't care about to direct toward things that benefit them.

And the proof of that comes from where? If true, it'll be useful information I suspect for future discussions.

bUU, I'm not clear on why you have an issue with homeschooling.

Uh, I meant what I wrote: Proof of what you asserted would be useful information to have handy. It has nothing to do with whether homeschooling is good or bad.

You can't tell me that it does not benefit my own kids, though.

No one has suggested that. Rather, the most compelling comment I've made in this regard is that it does benefit your children, because of the teacher-student ratio.

If you want evidence, feel free to google this.

I did. I found no evidence that there was a causal link between living in a two parent home and educational performance. That's why I asked you.

Parental involvement is the primary component in private schools doing above average as well, as many have alluded to.

Parental involvement is different from "living in a two parent home". As someone who spent most of my formative years in a two parent home, I can attest to how that doesn't imply parental involvement in a child's education.

[mpbaker22]

And the proof of that comes from where? If true, it'll be useful information I suspect for future discussions.

I believe someone posted it above?

To your other comment about opportunity costs, it also presumes the family only has one or two kids (or maybe even 3/4).  If you take it to extremes, it's relatively clearly financially beneficial as a whole for one mother to teach 10 kids than to get $30K in income.

[TheDude]

What a crazy ass topic.

I think the debate of good schools being good for society is pretty solid. I think one of things that made Merica great is its public education. Of course I am liberal bastard so I am an easy sell.

I also happen to own property. For that reason I think we should fund better schools. Better schools = higher property value.  Better schools also attract companies.  Companies tend to attract educated people. These people tend to be more involved with kids educations. Its a vicious cycle but ultimately its makes better schools which makes for more valuable property.  Even me the liberal bastard can appreciate when my property value goes up.

[BlueMR2]

What a crazy ass topic.

I think the debate of good schools being good for society is pretty solid. I think one of things that made Merica great is its public education. Of course I am liberal bastard so I am an easy sell.

I also happen to own property. For that reason I think we should fund better schools. Better schools = higher property value.  Better schools also attract companies.  Companies tend to attract educated people. These people tend to be more involved with kids educations. Its a vicious cycle but ultimately its makes better schools which makes for more valuable property.  Even me the liberal bastard can appreciate when my property value goes up.

I dislike it when my property value goes up because the amount of taxes I have to pay goes up.  My income is not going up and we don't ever intend on moving again, so I gain no benefit.  My property value can stay right where it is thankyouverymuch.  :-)

[bUU]

I believe someone posted it above?

Regrettably not for that specific assertion about a causal link between two parent families and academic performance. The links that are proven are ones that rely on parental interaction. A Brookings Institute review by Julia Isaacs and Katherine Magnuson published in 2011 actually demonstrated that a number of often-touted characteristics have insignificant positive impact on academic performance, including race, mother’s and father’s education, single parent or two-parent family, smoking during pregnancy. A disinterested parent seems no different than an absent parent in terms of academic performance, and a single parent, actively involved in their child's education, is as valuable as one of two parents, actively involved in their child's education.

[mpbaker22]

What a crazy ass topic.

I think the debate of good schools being good for society is pretty solid. I think one of things that made Merica great is its public education. Of course I am liberal bastard so I am an easy sell.

I also happen to own property. For that reason I think we should fund better schools. Better schools = higher property value.  Better schools also attract companies.  Companies tend to attract educated people. These people tend to be more involved with kids educations. Its a vicious cycle but ultimately its makes better schools which makes for more valuable property.  Even me the liberal bastard can appreciate when my property value goes up.

But at what point does $1 in increased spending not bring about $1 in increased value?

[bUU]

It is not really a special case because most families that choose to homeschool have more than one kid. I believe the average is 3-4 kids.

An interesting observation in itself given that the average family these days has only 1-2 children.

So, if your kids are two years apart, you are still home with the 3 year old when the oldest is eligible for K.

Even with four children two years apart, your youngest will still go through all twelve years of schooling without any younger siblings in the home. Just sayin'.

It is far more than teacher-student ratio.

And it would be useful to know that for sure by seeing the evidence, but like you said, it doesn't really matter for the purpose of this thread anyway.

[renbutler]

It is not really a special case because most families that choose to homeschool have more than one kid. I believe the average is 3-4 kids.

An interesting observation in itself given that the average family these days has only 1-2 children.

But if homeschool families skew Christian, and Christian families skew larger, there's the explanation.

[bUU]

It might be interesting to see the data. However, I think "Christians" is too broad of a classification for their families to skew significantly from the average. (In other words, the group is too large for there to be a big diff between how big their families are and how big families are in general, because the size of the group tends to skew most characteristics toward the large group's characteristics.)

Okay I just checked the data. [Source: Pew Research.] The percentage of families with more than two children is 9%. The percentage of Christian families with more than two children is 9%. No significant difference. Pull out the third of Christians who are Catholics, and now you start seeing a difference, albeit a very small one... 11%. If you want to see truly substantial numbers for large families, you have to focus specifically at Mormons and Muslims, but those groups, themselves, are only small percentages of the US population, 2% and 1% respectively.

[chicagomeg]

Yes, unfortunately the census doesn't have an option for "crazy fundamentalist who doesn't believe in birth control".

[renbutler]

Yes, unfortunately the census doesn't have an option for "crazy fundamentalist who doesn't believe in birth control".

Wait, what? LOL

When you say "believe," do you mean use birth control? And are you referring to artificial birth control?

I'm not a fundamentalist, but my wife and I use only natural family planning -- with 100% success (both getting pregnant when desired and avoiding pregnancy when not) over six years.

[Eric]

When you say "believe," do you mean use birth control? And are you referring to artificial birth control?

I'm not a fundamentalist, but my wife and I use only natural family planning -- with 100% success (both getting pregnant when desired and avoiding pregnancy when not) over six years.

I don't know what this means.  What's artificial birth control?  Is a condom artificial?  The Pill?  An IUD?

[EMP]

My mom was one of four.  They were good Catholics. 

My dad was one of 14.  They were careless Protestants.  :D

[renbutler]

I don't know what this means.  What's artificial birth control?  Is a condom artificial?  The Pill?  An IUD?

Chemicals and barriers are artificial. Manufactured in a factory.

Natural family planning would actually be very attractive to the typical Mustachian (assuming they wouldn't immediately dismiss something endorsed by the Catholic Church). More on that later.

NFP (such as the Sympto-thermal method) teaches a couple to understand their fertile cycle scientifically. Some people confuse it with the unreliable "rhythm method," but NPF is a scientifically proven method with 99%+ reliability. I won't go into details here because they are a.) complicated and b.) a little graphic.

My wife and I are 100% in our natural efforts to avoid pregnancy even while having a pretty normal sex life. Additionally, we were 4 for 5 in our attempts to conceive children (two pregnancies unfortunately ending up in early miscarriage). The fifth attempt was awfully soon after one of the miscarriages, so my wife's body might not have been ready for pregnancy yet.

It does require a bit of self-control for a couple days per month, but self-control shouldn't be such a difficult concept for Mustachians. We're not animals after all.

Anyway, here is why NFP might be attractive to Mustachians:

• It's essentially free. After a couple classes and learning materials, you never have to pay anything for things like pills or contraceptives.
• No surgery.
• No side effects or bad reactions to drugs.
• No corporate involvement. That is, no pharmaceutical companies to give your money to.
• No worrying about forgetting to take a pill or buy a condom.
• It's simple (eventually). In the first couple months, you need to chart the woman's cycle. But we quickly adopted the advanced method, which allows my wife to check her fertility in literally seconds a day.
• It works both ways -- as a way to avoid pregnancy, or achieve pregnancy! That is, the same method is valid for both, and there is no costly reversal or waiting period between the opposing goals.

The negatives are limited and manageable. So there's a couple days a month when we need to avoid sex if we don't want to get pregnant. It's not really a big deal. And if somebody really "needs" to get, um, relief during those couple days, there are other ways other than intercourse -- assuming they don't have moral/religious hang-ups.

Speaking of which, even though NFP can be used to AVOID pregnancy, the Catholic Church fully supports NFP. It would be a complete misunderstanding to say that the Church limits sex to procreation -- a misunderstanding that I have heard many people repeat. The only stipulation is that the possibility of procreation must not be eliminated artificially.

[oldtoyota]

And the proof of that comes from where? If true, it'll be useful information I suspect for future discussions.

bUU, I'm not clear on why you have an issue with homeschooling. If you have kids and choose not to, it is fine. You can't tell me that it does not benefit my own kids, though. I can see firsthand that it does.

PP is correct in that the main reason that homeschooling is beneficial is because the families that choose to do so are making themselves available for their kids. Simply living in a two parent home helps provide the best environment for kids. If you want evidence, feel free to google this. It's all over the place.  Parental involvement is the primary component in private schools doing above average as well, as many have alluded to.

Homeschoolers are fortunate they can even choose to do that. In Germany, you can't take your kids out of school. I would not agree with homeschoolers taking back their money to pay for curricula just as I do not expect to get my taxes back because I choose to use a private school.

[chicagomeg]

No, I'm mocking Christian fundies like the Duggars who think their Christian duty is to fill the earth with their children and have 10 or 15 kids.

[oldtoyota]

These anecdotal examples of welfare queens and welfare recipients gaming the system do a disservice to thoughtful data and results driven policy making. I am not willing to spend the time looking up data to prove a point. I just want to contribute what I think about the subject of discussion.

The whole "welfare queen" idea was perpetuated by Reagan's administration to get people riled up and angry at poor people.

Reagan--or his speechwriters--found one woman who committed fraud and used her as an example to suggest fraud was a widespread problem.

[MrsPete]

IMO, the best thing about the USA is that everyone gets at least chance at a good life through the public education system.

Well, except for the millions of kids in mediocre school systems. (And, as pointed out, that isn't necessarily the same thing as an underfunded school system.)

There is a great disparity in public schools. Some taxpayers are not getting a good bang for their buck, even adjusting for socioeconomic variables.

Something I've heard repeatedly as far back as college in my Intro to Education classes:  The #1 predictor of academic success is parental involvement.  Whether you have access to a great school or a mediocre school, you -- the parent -- have the option to be very involved in your child's education (and life).  I'm not talking about being the PTA mom and running the Halloween carnival; rather, I'm talking about early enrichment, reading with your child, showing an interest in his schoolwork. 

Yes, class size, teacher qualification, access to textbooks and dozens of other details play into the quality of a child's education, but each and every one of those details is trumped by whether the parents care. 

[MrsPete]

These anecdotal examples of welfare queens and welfare recipients gaming the system do a disservice to thoughtful data and results driven policy making. I am not willing to spend the time looking up data to prove a point. I just want to contribute what I think about the subject of discussion.

The whole "welfare queen" idea was perpetuated by Reagan's administration to get people riled up and angry at poor people.

Reagan--or his speechwriters--found one woman who committed fraud and used her as an example to suggest fraud was a widespread problem.

Are you suggesting that they had to search high and low to find this one woman?  Or that she's the only person guilty of this type of fraud?  It's pretty widespread.  No, not everyone who uses these services is a liar, but it's also not a rare situation.  My cousin's wife, for example, is pretty open about her love of the welfare system, and she actively works to recruit her friends to share her wonderful lifestyle. 

[Eric]

I don't know what this means.  What's artificial birth control?  Is a condom artificial?  The Pill?  An IUD?

Chemicals and barriers are artificial. Manufactured in a factory.

So essentially, your birth control is no birth control?  No offense, but that sounds fucking insane to me.  Of course, my wife and I don't want kids ever, so that may explain my perspective.  Glad it works for you.  I'd never heard it called "artificial" before. 

[mpbaker22]

I don't know what this means.  What's artificial birth control?  Is a condom artificial?  The Pill?  An IUD?

Chemicals and barriers are artificial. Manufactured in a factory.

So essentially, your birth control is no birth control?  No offense, but that sounds fucking insane to me.  Of course, my wife and I don't want kids ever, so that may explain my perspective.  Glad it works for you.  I'd never heard it called "artificial" before.

Artificial is a pretty common term for it.
What's so insane about NFP?  There are some 'restrictions' as to when intercourse can occur.  I've never practiced it myself, but the science says it's about as effective as the pill, so what's so insane about it?

[renbutler]

I don't know what this means.  What's artificial birth control?  Is a condom artificial?  The Pill?  An IUD?

Chemicals and barriers are artificial. Manufactured in a factory.

So essentially, your birth control is no birth control?  No offense, but that sounds fucking insane to me.  Of course, my wife and I don't want kids ever, so that may explain my perspective.  Glad it works for you.  I'd never heard it called "artificial" before.

No, our birth control is 100% natural.

Science can seem insane at times, but this is one of those rare things that seems too good to be true and is true.

[bUU]

Natural family planning would actually be very attractive to the typical Mustachian (assuming they wouldn't immediately dismiss something endorsed by the Catholic Church).

And assuming they don't choose to factor in the typical 4-14% higher probability of incurring the cost of an unplanned child, as compared to the most effective artificial method.

My wife and I are 100% in our natural efforts to avoid pregnancy even while having a pretty normal sex life.

My spouse and I are 100% in our efforts to avoid running out of coffee during church group meetings in our home. That doesn't mean it won't ever happen. Everything is 100% until the first failure, then it is 0%. The numbers that matter are the numbers that report on representative and normalized samples of the population, as in the chart I provided a link to above.

Don't get me wrong: There's nothing wrong with using NFP - as long as you understand the risks and you aren't lying to yourself about your being "perfect". An important part of prudence is accounting for the likely failure modes of your plan in proportion to their likelihood, when failing to plan for them would result in an even worse impact on your finances and on your life, otherwise.

Incidentally, if you want to beat those odds, combine NFP and condoms, every time. Even the Pope says it is okay, now.

Yes, class size, teacher qualification, access to textbooks and dozens of other details play into the quality of a child's education, but each and every one of those details is trumped by whether the parents care.

And I suspect that "parent" is just a word of convenience - that they're talking about the person with whom the child lives. I bet that a (let's say, voluntary) move of a child from a home with neglectful or over-extended parents to a home with a dedicated and involved grandparent or uncle or legal guardian is also likely to garner the benefits of "parental" involvement.

[grantmeaname]

It's pretty widespread.

Less than one in 50. Would it kill you to look for a statistic to support your ridiculous opinions just once?

[Rickk]

Incidentally, if you want to beat those odds, combine NFP and condoms, every time. Even the Pope says it is okay, now.

I would like to see where you are getting that data, as far as I know the Catholic church has never approved of any artificial birth control.

As to as the effectiveness of NFP - as far as I have ever been able to tell it is just as effective as other standard methods when used consistently and correctly (yes - it does take more discipline than other methods, but on the MMM forums I am assuming people have some discipline).  Check out http://www.aafp.org/afp/2012/1115/od1.html for just one reference from a source that is not religious - obviously I can find plenty of articles from Catholic sources supporting NFP (and that use plenty of science).
NFP works by the simple fact that humans only ovulate once per cycle, and for most (not all) women the signs are clear and unequivocal when the data is properly recorded and analyzed.

[renbutler]

And assuming they don't choose to factor in the typical 4-14% higher probability of incurring the cost of an unplanned child, as compared to the most effective artificial method.

Your link doesn't work.

This one does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symptothermal_method

There's a 1-3% failure rate -- right on par with artificial birth control.

EDIT: Is this the chart you wanted? http://www.cyclebeads.com/uploads/cke_images/Birth-Control-Effectiveness-Comparison-Adapted-from-Contraceptive-Technology-20th-Edition.jpg

It looks like the Sympto-thermal method is right on par with other methods. Plus, as I pointed out, it has a slew of advantages that the others don't.

When used correctly and consistently (i.e., perfect use) with ongoing coaching, under study conditions some studies have found some forms of FA to be 99% effective.[37][41][42][43]

From Contraceptive Technology:

Post-ovulation methods (i.e. abstaining from intercourse from menstruation until after ovulation) have a method failure rate of 1% per year.
The symptothermo method has a method failure rate of 2% per year.
The cervical mucus-only methods have a method failure rate of 3% per year.

My spouse and I are 100% in our efforts to avoid running out of coffee during church group meetings in our home. That doesn't mean it won't ever happen. Everything is 100% until the first failure, then it is 0%.

Okay, but that's just like artificial birth control.

Don't get me wrong: There's nothing wrong with using NFP - as long as you understand the risks and you aren't lying to yourself about your being "perfect". An important part of prudence is accounting for the likely failure modes of your plan in proportion to their likelihood, when failing to plan for them would result in an even worse impact on your finances and on your life, otherwise.

Of course we understand the risks, nor do we consider that the method (or our practice of it) is "perfect." I still reject your numbers though.

Incidentally, if you want to beat those odds, combine NFP and condoms, every time. Even the Pope says it is okay, now.

No, I don't think so.

Condom use has been endorsed for the prevent of disease in disease-torn areas, but only as a backup plan for those who won't save sex for the safety of monogamy.

[renbutler]

As to as the effectiveness of NFP - as far as I have ever been able to tell it is just as effective as other standard methods when used consistently and correctly (yes - it does take more discipline than other methods, but on the MMM forums I am assuming people have some discipline).  Check out http://www.aafp.org/afp/2012/1115/od1.html for just one reference from a source that is not religious - obviously I can find plenty of articles from Catholic sources supporting NFP (and that use plenty of science).

NFP works by the simple fact that humans only ovulate once per cycle, and for most (not all) women the signs are clear and unequivocal when the data is properly recorded and analyzed.

I wouldn't say NFP requires MORE discipline. Taking a pill every day, inserting objects, buying and wearing a sensory-reducing condom, saving for a surgery -- all of those things take a different kind of discipline.

Thanks for the link to the real numbers, though!

[ace1224]

As to as the effectiveness of NFP - as far as I have ever been able to tell it is just as effective as other standard methods when used consistently and correctly (yes - it does take more discipline than other methods, but on the MMM forums I am assuming people have some discipline).  Check out http://www.aafp.org/afp/2012/1115/od1.html for just one reference from a source that is not religious - obviously I can find plenty of articles from Catholic sources supporting NFP (and that use plenty of science).

NFP works by the simple fact that humans only ovulate once per cycle, and for most (not all) women the signs are clear and unequivocal when the data is properly recorded and analyzed.

I wouldn't say NFP requires MORE discipline. Taking a pill every day, inserting objects, buying and wearing a sensory-reducing condom, saving for a surgery -- all of those things take a different kind of discipline.

Thanks for the link to the real numbers, though!

i think NFP requires more effort.  it involves basal body temps, cervical mucous, and cervical position if i'm correct.  thats like something you have to do every day! i'm way too lazy for that.  i have a friend that NFP's and shes awesome at it, she charts and does all this stuff, i'm actually pretty impressed.
i took the lazy man's way out..... 10 year IUD for the win!

[smalllife]

Personally, a non-hormonal copper IUD that lasts for ten years at a 99.8% effective rate is just right :-)   And then I'll be the magical age where a woman can be taken seriously about getting her tubes tied and get a true permanent fix.