Author Topic: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!  (Read 60596 times)

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #100 on: April 05, 2014, 11:18:03 PM »
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.

Quote
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.

fixer-upper

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
  • Location: Wisconsin
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #101 on: April 06, 2014, 12:41:08 AM »
Quote
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. 

smalllife

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 983
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #102 on: April 06, 2014, 01:40:38 PM »
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.

ScienceSexSavings

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 119
  • Location: Montréal
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #103 on: April 06, 2014, 05:15:21 PM »
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.

AlanStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1911
  • Age: 40
  • Location: South East Virginia
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #104 on: April 07, 2014, 05:27:52 AM »
Quote
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?

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1544
  • Location: MA
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #105 on: April 07, 2014, 07:26:15 AM »
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.

Quote
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.





CommonCents

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2386
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #106 on: April 07, 2014, 08:37:48 AM »
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.

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #107 on: April 07, 2014, 11:47:16 AM »
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.

warfreak2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1140
  • Location: UK
    • Music by me
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #108 on: April 07, 2014, 12:06:06 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2014, 12:09:17 PM by warfreak2 »

SisterX

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2797
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #109 on: April 07, 2014, 12:33:07 PM »
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.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4765
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #110 on: April 07, 2014, 12:46:14 PM »
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. 

smalllife

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 983
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #111 on: April 07, 2014, 12:52:47 PM »
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?

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4765
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #112 on: April 07, 2014, 01:00:37 PM »
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? 

Cpa Cat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1625
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #113 on: April 07, 2014, 01:11:39 PM »
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.

smalllife

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 983
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #114 on: April 07, 2014, 01:26:39 PM »
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 ;-)

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1372
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #115 on: April 07, 2014, 02:32:45 PM »
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.




Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1901
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #116 on: April 07, 2014, 04:27:26 PM »
+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.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2014, 07:07:49 AM by Roland of Gilead »

brewer12345

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #117 on: April 07, 2014, 07:32:13 PM »
+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.

CommonCents

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2386
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #118 on: April 07, 2014, 08:01:41 PM »
+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.

AlanStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1911
  • Age: 40
  • Location: South East Virginia
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #119 on: April 07, 2014, 08:39:28 PM »
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.

Rich M

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 191
  • Location: Boulder, CO
  • Fortune Kookie
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #120 on: April 07, 2014, 10:33:16 PM »

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #121 on: April 07, 2014, 10:37:29 PM »
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. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14192
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #122 on: April 08, 2014, 06:58:44 AM »
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.

CommonCents

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2386
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #123 on: April 08, 2014, 07:34:33 AM »
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).

smalllife

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 983
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #124 on: April 08, 2014, 07:42:02 AM »

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. 

avonlea

  • Guest
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #125 on: April 08, 2014, 07:45:07 AM »
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!

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14192
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #126 on: April 08, 2014, 08:38:04 AM »
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.

smalllife

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 983
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #127 on: April 08, 2014, 08:46:15 AM »
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?

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #128 on: April 08, 2014, 12:11:12 PM »
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.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14192
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #129 on: April 08, 2014, 12:20:20 PM »
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).

warfreak2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1140
  • Location: UK
    • Music by me
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #130 on: April 08, 2014, 01:00:41 PM »
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.

Quote
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.

LucyBIT

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 99
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #131 on: April 08, 2014, 01:14:53 PM »
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

wild wendella

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 82
  • Location: Stamford, CT
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #132 on: April 08, 2014, 01:40:10 PM »
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.  :)

rocksinmyhead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1491
  • Location: Oklahoma
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #133 on: April 08, 2014, 02:30:47 PM »
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!

SisterX

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2797
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #134 on: April 08, 2014, 03:48:32 PM »
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.

smalllife

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 983
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #135 on: April 08, 2014, 04:37:12 PM »
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.

LucyBIT

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 99
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #136 on: April 08, 2014, 04:44:34 PM »
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.

fixer-upper

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
  • Location: Wisconsin
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #137 on: April 08, 2014, 05:49:22 PM »
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.

SisterX

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2797
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #138 on: April 08, 2014, 09:22:27 PM »

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".

Insanity

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1026
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #139 on: April 08, 2014, 09:33:35 PM »
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.

warfreak2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1140
  • Location: UK
    • Music by me
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #140 on: April 09, 2014, 04:44:24 AM »
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.

warfreak2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1140
  • Location: UK
    • Music by me
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #141 on: April 09, 2014, 04:47:25 AM »
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).

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1372
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #142 on: April 10, 2014, 08:58:40 AM »
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1372
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #143 on: April 10, 2014, 09:02:31 AM »

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.


libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1372
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #144 on: April 10, 2014, 09:17:26 AM »
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).


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14192
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #145 on: April 10, 2014, 09:24:10 AM »
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.

seanc0x0

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 304
  • Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #146 on: April 10, 2014, 09:50:39 AM »
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.

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #147 on: April 10, 2014, 10:42:21 AM »
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 :-)

Insanity

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1026
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #148 on: April 10, 2014, 11:05:50 AM »
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.

SisterX

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2797
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!
« Reply #149 on: April 10, 2014, 11:24:01 AM »
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.