Slate Magazine Says Tax the Childless, Parents Can't Save Money!

[waltworks]

Yeah, that's a whole different problem and even direct cash payments haven't been enough to make a dent in places like Russia, Singapore, parts of the EU, etc. It's not actually clear to me that tax incentives have any effect whatsoever on the procreation choices of folks in the middle class and up. So I guess you could say, with some justification, that any tax incentives you do provide are money better spent elsewhere.

I'm more of the opinion that offering people things like child care, maternity/paternity leave, flexible schedules, etc are more useful than cash. But that sort of thing has mostly failed too where it's been tried, AFAIK.

Idiocracy, here we come?

-W

How does providing general tax incentives cause the best and brightest to have more kids?  It doesn't, it's only very slightly related.  Likely what it will increase is the poor having kids, of which only a few are the "best and brightest."  (Again, see Idiocracy!)  Perhaps we ought to have an IQ test for everyone with tax incentives for those with high IQs procreating?  130 can keep the current tax breaks.  145 can get a 50% reduction of taxes and 160 can get a 100% reduction...

[brewer12345]

How does providing general tax incentives cause the best and brightest to have more kids?  It doesn't, it's only very slightly related.  Likely what it will increase is the poor having kids, of which only a few are the "best and brightest."  (Again, see Idiocracy!)  Perhaps we ought to have an IQ test for everyone with tax incentives for those with high IQs procreating?  130 can keep the current tax breaks.  145 can get a 50% reduction of taxes and 160 can get a 100% reduction...

Fab, where do I sign up for my free goodies?

[Gin1984]

How does providing general tax incentives cause the best and brightest to have more kids?  It doesn't, it's only very slightly related.  Likely what it will increase is the poor having kids, of which only a few are the "best and brightest."  (Again, see Idiocracy!)  Perhaps we ought to have an IQ test for everyone with tax incentives for those with high IQs procreating?  130 can keep the current tax breaks.  145 can get a 50% reduction of taxes and 160 can get a 100% reduction...

Fab, where do I sign up for my free goodies?

IQ is not genetic.  College education, however, is.

[brewer12345]

How does providing general tax incentives cause the best and brightest to have more kids?  It doesn't, it's only very slightly related.  Likely what it will increase is the poor having kids, of which only a few are the "best and brightest."  (Again, see Idiocracy!)  Perhaps we ought to have an IQ test for everyone with tax incentives for those with high IQs procreating?  130 can keep the current tax breaks.  145 can get a 50% reduction of taxes and 160 can get a 100% reduction...

Fab, where do I sign up for my free goodies?

IQ is not genetic.  College education, however, is.

Don't buy the "Bell Curve" arguments, eh?

More to the point, awarding tax goodies based on IQ scores is likely to benefit white males by and large.

[workathomedad]

This is a great idea, I would vote for it.

[fixer-upper]

The country was doing much better when there was NO income tax.  Educational standards were MUCH higher, there was more advancement opportunity, and the government had a surplus rather than a deficit.

Let's go back to 1812, everything was much better then?

Prior to the income tax, the feds didn't force their policies down the throats of your local school.  They didn't have the power to defund, nor a network in place to use school unions to spread propaganda.  They didn't have no child left behind to make sure all kids turned out equally mediocre.  Kids were held to higher standards, both educationally and socially.  If a kid had an aspirin or butter knife, it wasn't automatic expulsion.  Metal detectors were unheard of, and schools hadn't been turned into easy targets by making them gun-free zones.  Schools were much more efficient back then, and didn't give 60 years of pay/benefits for 20 years of work.

Everything better, no, but much was.

[brewer12345]

Wow, didn't realize we had trailer park republicans here.

There might be a few 'Merkins alive from pre income tax days, but they would probably be well over the senility horizon by now.  So I guess we are free to imagine whatever we like about those days.  I would suggest that we have a lot more schools and a lot fewer single room schools than back then.

[fixer-upper]

Wow, didn't realize we had trailer park republicans here.

There might be a few 'Merkins alive from pre income tax days, but they would probably be well over the senility horizon by now.  So I guess we are free to imagine whatever we like about those days.  I would suggest that we have a lot more schools and a lot fewer single room schools than back then.

Owning trailer parks can be quite lucrative.

Our schools are much bigger and fancier now (my local one just installed an LED billboard), and we spend MUCH more per pupil hour, but our results are worse than countries who spend much less.  We've proven that throwing money at education makes it cost more with very little ROI. 

[brewer12345]

Wow, didn't realize we had trailer park republicans here.

There might be a few 'Merkins alive from pre income tax days, but they would probably be well over the senility horizon by now.  So I guess we are free to imagine whatever we like about those days.  I would suggest that we have a lot more schools and a lot fewer single room schools than back then.

Owning trailer parks can be quite lucrative.

Our schools are much bigger and fancier now (my local one just installed an LED billboard), and we spend MUCH more per pupil hour, but our results are worse than countries who spend much less.  We've proven that throwing money at education makes it cost more with very little ROI.

Which is why wealthy areas have so much worse schools than low income inner city areas.  Riiiight...

[waltworks]

So, I'm curious... when do you think the income tax started in the US, exactly? Feel free to go look it up.

-W

Prior to the income tax, the feds didn't force their policies down the throats of your local school.  They didn't have the power to defund, nor a network in place to use school unions to spread propaganda.  They didn't have no child left behind to make sure all kids turned out equally mediocre.  Kids were held to higher standards, both educationally and socially.  If a kid had an aspirin or butter knife, it wasn't automatic expulsion.  Metal detectors were unheard of, and schools hadn't been turned into easy targets by making them gun-free zones.  Schools were much more efficient back then, and didn't give 60 years of pay/benefits for 20 years of work.

Everything better, no, but much was.

[fixer-upper]

Wow, didn't realize we had trailer park republicans here.

There might be a few 'Merkins alive from pre income tax days, but they would probably be well over the senility horizon by now.  So I guess we are free to imagine whatever we like about those days.  I would suggest that we have a lot more schools and a lot fewer single room schools than back then.

Owning trailer parks can be quite lucrative.

Our schools are much bigger and fancier now (my local one just installed an LED billboard), and we spend MUCH more per pupil hour, but our results are worse than countries who spend much less.  We've proven that throwing money at education makes it cost more with very little ROI.

Which is why wealthy areas have so much worse schools than low income inner city areas.  Riiiight...

You're ignoring the effects of culture.  A slum school in the US with equal funding to a rich school will still be full of slum culture, and thus perform at a lower level.  Doubling the salaries of their teachers or spending twice as much on textbooks doesn't address the root of the problem.

Students in Russia perform as well or better than US students at less than 1/4 the cost.  Learning from their example seems preferable to crippling our economy with taxes.

[fixer-upper]

So, I'm curious... when do you think the income tax started in the US, exactly? Feel free to go look it up.

Which income tax?  The modern one (to which I refer) began in 1913, although there is documentation of colonial income taxes in the 1630s.  The first national income tax started during the civil war.  I'm too lazy to look it up, but 1862 sounds correct.

We've come a long way from the original idea of only taxing the rich to fund the war effort, to this topic of taxing the childless as a means of achieving social justice. 

[Jamesqf]

IQ is not genetic.  College education, however, is.

Thus showing, it would seem, that you understand neither intelligence nor genetics :-)

There might be a few 'Merkins alive from pre income tax days, but they would probably be well over the senility horizon by now.

Blatant ageism.  My neighbor will be 100 this year, and is still pretty darned sharp.  Senility is a disease, not an inevitable consequence of aging.

[CommonCents]

How does providing general tax incentives cause the best and brightest to have more kids?  It doesn't, it's only very slightly related.  Likely what it will increase is the poor having kids, of which only a few are the "best and brightest."  (Again, see Idiocracy!)  Perhaps we ought to have an IQ test for everyone with tax incentives for those with high IQs procreating?  130 can keep the current tax breaks.  145 can get a 50% reduction of taxes and 160 can get a 100% reduction...

Fab, where do I sign up for my free goodies?

IQ is not genetic.  College education, however, is.

Don't buy the "Bell Curve" arguments, eh?

More to the point, awarding tax goodies based on IQ scores is likely to benefit white males by and large.

Since it wasn't clear, that was "A Modest Proposal"
Or in other words, sarcasm.
I don't think IQ tests are the way to determine it.  My point was more that giving tax incentives to have kids wouldn't necessarily incentivize the "right" folks to have kids (smart, capable, hardworking, law abiding, etc) over others that would be a drain on society.  The votes for more immigration are more on target for achieving the desired results - at least that way you take another country's "best and brightest"!

[brewer12345]

How does providing general tax incentives cause the best and brightest to have more kids?  It doesn't, it's only very slightly related.  Likely what it will increase is the poor having kids, of which only a few are the "best and brightest."  (Again, see Idiocracy!)  Perhaps we ought to have an IQ test for everyone with tax incentives for those with high IQs procreating?  130 can keep the current tax breaks.  145 can get a 50% reduction of taxes and 160 can get a 100% reduction...

Fab, where do I sign up for my free goodies?

IQ is not genetic.  College education, however, is.

Don't buy the "Bell Curve" arguments, eh?

More to the point, awarding tax goodies based on IQ scores is likely to benefit white males by and large.

Since it wasn't clear, that was "A Modest Proposal"
Or in other words, sarcasm.
I don't think IQ tests are the way to determine it.  My point was more that giving tax incentives to have kids wouldn't necessarily incentivize the "right" folks to have kids (smart, capable, hardworking, law abiding, etc) over others that would be a drain on society.  The votes for more immigration are more on target for achieving the desired results - at least that way you take another country's "best and brightest"!

Except that is not how we do immigration in the US.  Instead, the best and the brightest wait in line for years trying to get a legitimate spot in the US, while anyone willing to break the law and stagger over the border goes largely unmolested ad simply waits for the next amnesty.

[CommonCents]

How does providing general tax incentives cause the best and brightest to have more kids?  It doesn't, it's only very slightly related.  Likely what it will increase is the poor having kids, of which only a few are the "best and brightest."  (Again, see Idiocracy!)  Perhaps we ought to have an IQ test for everyone with tax incentives for those with high IQs procreating?  130 can keep the current tax breaks.  145 can get a 50% reduction of taxes and 160 can get a 100% reduction...

Fab, where do I sign up for my free goodies?

IQ is not genetic.  College education, however, is.

Don't buy the "Bell Curve" arguments, eh?

More to the point, awarding tax goodies based on IQ scores is likely to benefit white males by and large.

Since it wasn't clear, that was "A Modest Proposal"
Or in other words, sarcasm.
I don't think IQ tests are the way to determine it.  My point was more that giving tax incentives to have kids wouldn't necessarily incentivize the "right" folks to have kids (smart, capable, hardworking, law abiding, etc) over others that would be a drain on society.  The votes for more immigration are more on target for achieving the desired results - at least that way you take another country's "best and brightest"!

Except that is not how we do immigration in the US.  Instead, the best and the brightest wait in line for years trying to get a legitimate spot in the US, while anyone willing to break the law and stagger over the border goes largely unmolested ad simply waits for the next amnesty.

Yeah it's pretty unfortunate and ridiculous we don't let more of them in line in. 

I have a friend whose's fiance couldn't visit the US because he wasn't granted a visa.  We met at Dartmouth.  She was Indian, and here on visa (JD from Northwestern with joint degree MBA from Kellogg).  Got engaged to an Indian guy in London, but US officials rejected his application, despite the fact that he was a UK doctor (thus illegally staying would be a painful process for him, giving up those licensures...not to mention why would we want to keep someone with his skills out).  They live in the UK now.

[SisterX]

The country was doing much better when there was NO income tax.  Educational standards were MUCH higher, there was more advancement opportunity, and the government had a surplus rather than a deficit.

Let's go back to 1812, everything was much better then?

Prior to the income tax, the feds didn't force their policies down the throats of your local school.  They didn't have the power to defund, nor a network in place to use school unions to spread propaganda.  They didn't have no child left behind to make sure all kids turned out equally mediocre.  Kids were held to higher standards, both educationally and socially.  If a kid had an aspirin or butter knife, it wasn't automatic expulsion.  Metal detectors were unheard of, and schools hadn't been turned into easy targets by making them gun-free zones.  Schools were much more efficient back then, and didn't give 60 years of pay/benefits for 20 years of work.

Everything better, no, but much was.

You're romanticizing the past.  There were also polio outbreaks in schools that could cripple and decimate the children, kids could be beaten by their parents with impunity (and wives could be beaten or raped by husbands; can you imagine the impact on children who had to see/hear that?) and child labor that essentially made them into slaves was totally ok.  But no, let's just focus on the kids who were lucky enough to go to school, who likely realized that they were lucky to be able to go to school, and ignore all the rest and claim that school was so much better in those days!  Good job.

[AlanStache]

You're romanticizing the past.

Yep.

Not withstanding all SisterX said.  There is nothing to say that what "worked" in the past would "work" today or that today we dont need more out of our public schools and that more costs more.  Not to say there are not waste and inefficiencies.

Also I am not sure I like the Fed Govt involved but I dislike more the idea that a slim majority on a local school board can vote to replace all of modern Biology for an entire towns children.  Having grown up in a small town with a large church that was border line cult this is not so hypothetical to me.  But lets PLEASE-PLEASE not devolve into some clichéd Catholic Church/Galileo internet debate.

[SisterX]

www.historyliteracy.org/download/Sears2.pdf‎

So you can be sure I'm not just talking out of my ass, "A Short History of United States Education, 1900 to 2006".  TL;DR: Between 1900-1919, enrollment in kindergarten was 7%.  Only half of the school aged population was enrolled in school.  Half of the student population didn't achieve graduation from 8th grade.  In 1910, only 37% of 17 yr.-olds were enrolled in high school.  8% of students graduated from high school.
Tell me again how much better education was in the past?

[Edit: moderators, if you think this should be a different thread, separate from the taxation thread, go ahead and move it.]

[infogoon]

The country was doing much better when there was NO income tax.  Educational standards were MUCH higher, there was more advancement opportunity, and the government had a surplus rather than a deficit.

This wins the stupidest comment I have ever read on any message board.

Sure, for white, rich landowning men, it was great.  For everyone else, not so much.

There are always people that think that, were this the original Gilded Age, they would have been Cornelius Vanderbilt and not one of the micks shoveling coal in his locomotives.

[Jamesqf]

So you can be sure I'm not just talking out of my ass, "A Short History of United States Education, 1900 to 2006".  TL;DR: Between 1900-1919, enrollment in kindergarten was 7%.  Only half of the school aged population was enrolled in school.  Half of the student population didn't achieve graduation from 8th grade.  In 1910, only 37% of 17 yr.-olds were enrolled in high school.  8% of students graduated from high school.
Tell me again how much better education was in the past?

I think it could be that you're doing more than a bit of apples to oranges there.  For instance, kindergarten is a fairly recent concept: is there actual evidence that it improves education outcomes, or does it just act as a babysitter for working parents?  (Same could be said of Head Start programs, the evidence for which seems, at least to a casual observer like me, decidedly mixed.)

Likewise, when comparing high school graduation rates, we need to adjust by what the graduates actually know.  I'm sure we've all seen the (possibly apocryphal) high school exams from the 1800s that most college grads today would fail.

[SisterX]

So you can be sure I'm not just talking out of my ass, "A Short History of United States Education, 1900 to 2006".  TL;DR: Between 1900-1919, enrollment in kindergarten was 7%.  Only half of the school aged population was enrolled in school.  Half of the student population didn't achieve graduation from 8th grade.  In 1910, only 37% of 17 yr.-olds were enrolled in high school.  8% of students graduated from high school.
Tell me again how much better education was in the past?

I think it could be that you're doing more than a bit of apples to oranges there.  For instance, kindergarten is a fairly recent concept: is there actual evidence that it improves education outcomes, or does it just act as a babysitter for working parents?  (Same could be said of Head Start programs, the evidence for which seems, at least to a casual observer like me, decidedly mixed.)

Likewise, when comparing high school graduation rates, we need to adjust by what the graduates actually know.  I'm sure we've all seen the (possibly apocryphal) high school exams from the 1800s that most college grads today would fail.

Sorry, I realized after I posted and walked away that I didn't make myself clear.  I did sorta mean that it was an apples and oranges comparison, but also that a romantic, rosy view of the past is ludicrous.  We can't compare schools now with schooling then because only the privileged children went to school, and most of them knew that it was a privilege to do so.
Also, if you know you've got to cram as much knowledge into a kid's head as possible because they're not going to go past 8th grade, wouldn't you try your best?  However, the numbers show that most kids didn't even graduate from that grade, so how do we know they actually passed those tests?
Finally, they might have known more in those categories at the time, but think of how much human knowledge has expanded since then.  Think of science, especially biology but also chemistry and physics!  Holy crap, we've got so much more to learn now.  It's a beautiful, glorious thing, but again trying to compare to the past is apples and oranges.
As for kindergarten, the article I linked to (did you read it?) says that at the time, it was a 30-year-old concept.  I was just grabbing a lot of the pertinent facts from the article, which is why I included the kindergarten concept.  I also think kindergarten is (or should be) more about learning group dynamics than it is about learning any testable skills.  Just MO however.

[golden1]

In many schools, Kindergarten has become quite academic (which is another argument entirely....) so it is not just babysitting for working parents.  Even if your local schools kindy is not academic, kids are learning how to work in a group environment, basic reading and learning readiness, and exposure to different ideas and cultures than they would get otherwise. 

As far as school being easier than it was in the early 1900s....you can't compare them at all because the skills needed are very different.   Yes, my kids barely learned cursive, because it is not necessary these days, but they are learning basic algebraic and computer programming basics starting in 3rd and 4th grade - not sure if that is typical - but different times require different skills.  I love seeing the goals of education shift - memorization is pretty useless after a certain set of key facts with the internet being widely available. 

Personally , as a female who enjoys using her brain occasionally, if I went back in time to before income tax, I know that I would be so personally worse off education-wise it is laughable to think otherwise.  Engineering school?  I don't think so....

[fixer-upper]

The country was doing much better when there was NO income tax.  Educational standards were MUCH higher, there was more advancement opportunity, and the government had a surplus rather than a deficit.

This wins the stupidest comment I have ever read on any message board.

Sure, for white, rich landowning men, it was great.  For everyone else, not so much.

When you can't debate with facts, attack the poster instead?  Or was your little racist jab supposed to be a fact of some sort?

I'm betting most of the people on this forum wouldn't be able to pass an 1800's college entrance exam.
http://www.geekinheels.com/2011/04/11/harvard-entrance-exam-from-1869.html

[HoneyBadger]

When you can't debate with facts, attack the poster instead?  Or was your little racist jab supposed to be a fact of some sort?

I'm betting most of the people on this forum wouldn't be able to pass an 1800's college entrance exam.
http://www.geekinheels.com/2011/04/11/harvard-entrance-exam-from-1869.html

Said the pot to the kettle. . .

[hybrid]

I'm betting most of the people on this forum wouldn't be able to pass an 1800's college entrance exam.
http://www.geekinheels.com/2011/04/11/harvard-entrance-exam-from-1869.html

I'm betting most people on this forum could not get into Harvard in any century.

[thepokercab]

I'm betting most of the people on this forum wouldn't be able to pass an 1800's college entrance exam.
http://www.geekinheels.com/2011/04/11/harvard-entrance-exam-from-1869.html

I'm betting most people on this forum could not get into Harvard in any century.

Have you not read some of the various forum topics here around intelligence?  Apparently, three digit IQs, and gifted programs were the norm for most of us  :)   

[Otsog]

I'm betting most of the people on this forum wouldn't be able to pass an 1800's college entrance exam.
http://www.geekinheels.com/2011/04/11/harvard-entrance-exam-from-1869.html

1. I would do a hell of a lot worse on the SAT's today than if I was a high school senior again.

2. People study for exams.  I would fail all my University, Chartered Accountant and Chartered Financial Analyst exams if I had to re-take them cold. 

3. Tests from a different age are steeped in cultural biases.  Expecting to compare someone who took Latin all throughout elementary and secondary school and someone who didn't with a Latin test doesn't make much sense. 

4. The Math sections where there is far less cultural bias are actually pretty telling. The Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry are covered in late elementary early secondary school.

[AlanStache]

I'm betting most of the people on this forum wouldn't be able to pass an 1800's college entrance exam.
http://www.geekinheels.com/2011/04/11/harvard-entrance-exam-from-1869.html

Yeah it looks hard today but would the applicants have know what was coming and been able to study for the test?  I Aced the private pilot exam that has some f-ing hard looking questions but I did very similar questions for several months before hand and learned how to deal with them.  Smart people are not any dumbiner now than back then. 

Also replace the Latin and Greek sections with Windows and Unix command line questions and give us one week and I bet most here could make an ok showing of our self and totally trounce those old guys taking it cold on why running $ sudo mkfs.vfat -n 'Ubuntu' -I /dev/sdc1 might be a bad idea.

[Gin1984]

The country was doing much better when there was NO income tax.  Educational standards were MUCH higher, there was more advancement opportunity, and the government had a surplus rather than a deficit.

This wins the stupidest comment I have ever read on any message board.

Sure, for white, rich landowning men, it was great.  For everyone else, not so much.

When you can't debate with facts, attack the poster instead?  Or was your little racist jab supposed to be a fact of some sort?

I'm betting most of the people on this forum wouldn't be able to pass an 1800's college entrance exam.
http://www.geekinheels.com/2011/04/11/harvard-entrance-exam-from-1869.html

I'm white and don't see that as a jab, it is a fact. 

[Jamesqf]

I'm betting most people on this forum could not get into Harvard in any century.

Why would I want to get into Harvard?  MIT, now...

I've forgotten most of my Latin, and never did learn Greek, but otherwise I could probably pass it today.  (And might have done OK on the Latin if I'd taken it straight out of high school.)  Though a few questions would seem to need a little context.  For instance, when they ask about the basin of the St. Lawrence, is that including the whole Great Lakes drainage, or just downstream of Ontario?  Then there's the question of why they think there are only two principal rivers that rise in the Alps.  There are (at least) four: the Danube, Rhine, Rhone, and Po.

[libertarian4321]

The anger that you appear to harbour towards people with kids is unwarranted.  If you are upset that other people put out more garbage than you do without paying more for it, then you should be railing against the unfairness of the way your collection system works and trying to get it changed.  If you ever do find yourself being asked to work extra because you don't have kids, sue your employer and work to make a change . . . because that's unfair.  If you just want to hate on someone though, maybe set your sights on someone more deserving of it.

I'm not "hating" on anyone.

But I am vehemently opposed to forcing child free couples and singles to pay EVEN MORE in taxes (as the article suggested) when we already pay more than our fair share for other people's children.

I'm not even asking for a roll back in the benefits those with children already enjoy over child free couples and singles (those of us finishing up our income taxes today will be clearly aware of the current inequity- as the breeders enjoy huge tax advantages over those of us who choose not to have children).  I'm simply saying that it is wrong to place an even larger burden on already overtaxed singles and child free couples.

How many times and ways can I tell you, yet again, that no one in this thread has defended the original article's idea that childless* people should be taxed more.  You, and several others, have used that as a starting point for complaining about the favorable situation that parents get, however, due to the "unfairness" of taxes.  Since you're a self-identified libertarian, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you think pretty much the entire tax code is unfair.  My former suggestion still stands: if you truly think that, go into politics and try to change it.

I already have gone into politics many times, as a donor, a delegate, and a candidate.

BTW, whether they think we are overtaxed, undertaxed, or taxed about right, I don't know any rational person who thinks the current mess we call the US Tax Code is fair.  It's been used to dole out political favors for far too long to have any semblance to being either fair or rational.

Anyway, I guess it doesn't matter since this thread appears to have veered into immigration and education.

[mm1970]

I'm betting most of the people on this forum wouldn't be able to pass an 1800's college entrance exam.
http://www.geekinheels.com/2011/04/11/harvard-entrance-exam-from-1869.html

I'm betting most people on this forum could not get into Harvard in any century.

What makes you think that?

I mean, on average on the whole population, a small % of people could get into Harvard.
However, it seems to me that the average intelligence on this board is a bit higher than the general population.

I could have gotten into Harvard.  Easy.

[anisotropy]

lots of arguing in this thread.

growing up we had no "money". I mean we werent starving but we weren't rolling in money either, typical middle class.

I used to fantasize a more "equal" world, fair wage, fair distribution, (communist utopia) etc. Then I realized such dreams are not possible in a society if anyone had any sort of freewill.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

back to the original topic:

come tax me bro, i be sleeping with different woman everyday, and you get to keep the by-products.

[SisterX]

I'm betting most of the people on this forum wouldn't be able to pass an 1800's college entrance exam.
http://www.geekinheels.com/2011/04/11/harvard-entrance-exam-from-1869.html

I'm betting most people on this forum could not get into Harvard in any century.

What makes you think that?

I mean, on average on the whole population, a small % of people could get into Harvard.
However, it seems to me that the average intelligence on this board is a bit higher than the general population.

I could have gotten into Harvard.  Easy.

What I don't get is why getting into Harvard is the standard here.  Plenty of super smart people throughout history have been college dropouts, or never went to college.   This is true of the smartest person I know, who only made it (grudgingly) through 3 years of no-name college.  (And no, I'm not talking about myself or my spouse.)  Schooling only caters to a very narrow range of intelligence, and it's not right for everyone.  So why is getting into Harvard the gold standard on this thread for whether or not you're smart?

[warfreak2]

So why is getting into Harvard the gold standard on this thread for whether or not you're smart?

It isn't. It's just a ridiculous thing FU wrote, and that we laughed at.

[CommonCents]

I'm betting most of the people on this forum wouldn't be able to pass an 1800's college entrance exam.
http://www.geekinheels.com/2011/04/11/harvard-entrance-exam-from-1869.html

I'm betting most people on this forum could not get into Harvard in any century.

What makes you think that?

I mean, on average on the whole population, a small % of people could get into Harvard.
However, it seems to me that the average intelligence on this board is a bit higher than the general population.

I could have gotten into Harvard.  Easy.

What I don't get is why getting into Harvard is the standard here.  Plenty of super smart people throughout history have been college dropouts, or never went to college.   This is true of the smartest person I know, who only made it (grudgingly) through 3 years of no-name college.  (And no, I'm not talking about myself or my spouse.)  Schooling only caters to a very narrow range of intelligence, and it's not right for everyone.  So why is getting into Harvard the gold standard on this thread for whether or not you're smart?

Agreed.  I didn't even apply to Harvard because I wasn't interested in going there and wanted a place with stronger teaching reputation and well, warm fuzzies aka as that buzzword "collegial."  Some might argue that makes me smarter than the average Harvard grad.  :)  Ended up at Dartmouth, same as my husband (who turned down Harvard for undergrad, but went there for grad degree).  And consider all of the people intelligent in non-traditional ways, or ways Harvard doesn't value (I'm thinking a musical prodigy).  Or an admissions director on a bad day, someone who is crazy intelligent but doesn't tell well, etc.  The possibilities go on.  This is probably one of the more flawed suggestions for testing intelligence that I've heard of.

[Melody]

It all really depends on if our society "needs more births" or not.
This would depend on if a slow but stable decline in population is desirable (for environmental reasons) or a slow but stable growth rate (for economic reasons) or no growth (balance between the two.) If the agenda for example is "no growth" (as is probably should be) and birth rate is higher than the 2.2 required for population stability an extra tax should be levied on those who have more than two children. Vice versa, if birth rate is lower than 2.2 incentives should be given (tax breaks, free childcare etc). Tax polices and families are purely to do with desired level of population growth/decline not "fairness" because everyone will have different views on fair.

[Cinder]

And at work, it's pretty common for people with kids to cut out for (insert family emergency here), and the people who usually have to work late nights and weekends to make up for it?  Those with no kids, of course.

Well, this is blatantly unfair.  And it's not the way that any place I've worked has been setup.  Maybe you should be bitching about your shitty job rather than people with kids.

At my Wife's old job, there were always people who felt 'entitled' to better shifts etc to accommodate doing things for their family over people who had been there longer/were better qualified simply because they had a kid.  They also always scheduled kids Dr. Appointments during work hours and used their unlimited 'sick leave' for their kids Dr Appointments.

[Emilyngh]

  They also always scheduled kids Dr. Appointments during work hours and used their unlimited 'sick leave' for their kids Dr Appointments.

Huh?   It's generally difficult to schedule kids' appointments outside of work hours (if possible at all), so sometime 9-5 is the norm, and standard to use one's sick leave for sick kids or kids' appointments.  Children *need* their adult parent to care for them when sick and accompany them to their appointments, it's not some frivolous choice, so it's only humane for one's employer to accommodate this.    I'm really not getting what the issue is?   

[thepokercab]

And at work, it's pretty common for people with kids to cut out for (insert family emergency here), and the people who usually have to work late nights and weekends to make up for it?  Those with no kids, of course.

Well, this is blatantly unfair.  And it's not the way that any place I've worked has been setup.  Maybe you should be bitching about your shitty job rather than people with kids.

At my Wife's old job, there were always people who felt 'entitled' to better shifts etc to accommodate doing things for their family over people who had been there longer/were better qualified simply because they had a kid.  They also always scheduled kids Dr. Appointments during work hours and used their unlimited 'sick leave' for their kids Dr Appointments.

So, your doctor, dentist etc.. sees you after hours?  Just curious.  For whatever reason, my doctor insists on seeing me between the hours of 9:00 to 5:00 but maybe there are 24 hour doctors' appointments out there? 

[BlueHouse]

  They also always scheduled kids Dr. Appointments during work hours and used their unlimited 'sick leave' for their kids Dr Appointments.

Huh?   It's generally difficult to schedule kids' appointments outside of work hours (if possible at all), so sometime 9-5 is the norm, and standard to use one's sick leave for sick kids or kids' appointments.  Children *need* their adult parent to care for them when sick and accompany them to their appointments, it's not some frivolous choice, so it's only humane for one's employer to accommodate this.    I'm really not getting what the issue is?

emphasis is mine.  I've always understood sick time to cover YOUR sick time, not a relative or a child.   That is what personal time or PTO is for.  I think people who use sick time for anything other than being physically ill are cheating the system. 

[Insanity]

  They also always scheduled kids Dr. Appointments during work hours and used their unlimited 'sick leave' for their kids Dr Appointments.

Huh?   It's generally difficult to schedule kids' appointments outside of work hours (if possible at all), so sometime 9-5 is the norm, and standard to use one's sick leave for sick kids or kids' appointments.  Children *need* their adult parent to care for them when sick and accompany them to their appointments, it's not some frivolous choice, so it's only humane for one's employer to accommodate this.    I'm really not getting what the issue is?

emphasis is mine.  I've always understood sick time to cover YOUR sick time, not a relative or a child.   That is what personal time or PTO is for.  I think people who use sick time for anything other than being physically ill are cheating the system.

Depends on the policy and the manager's discretion.  Most of the managers I worked for had no problem with us using sick time for sick family members.

[Emilyngh]

  They also always scheduled kids Dr. Appointments during work hours and used their unlimited 'sick leave' for their kids Dr Appointments.

Huh?   It's generally difficult to schedule kids' appointments outside of work hours (if possible at all), so sometime 9-5 is the norm, and standard to use one's sick leave for sick kids or kids' appointments.  Children *need* their adult parent to care for them when sick and accompany them to their appointments, it's not some frivolous choice, so it's only humane for one's employer to accommodate this.    I'm really not getting what the issue is?

emphasis is mine.  I've always understood sick time to cover YOUR sick time, not a relative or a child.   That is what personal time or PTO is for.  I think people who use sick time for anything other than being physically ill are cheating the system.

Every place that I've worked outlines what is allowed to be used for "sick time" and taking care of your sick minor children, your appointments, and taking them to their appointments has always been included.   One certainly isn't cheating the system by using sick time for things specifically mentioned as allowed under the system...

Frankly, I can't imagine continuing to work somewhere that required me to use vacation time, when I had available sick time, to care for my sick minor.   

Although, frankly, I currently work somewhere where I can just come and go as I please without reporting in any type of "time" ( I can leave at 1pm on a Monday for "I want to go home and take a nap time"), so the idea that one would have to even pause to consider if their time with their family over christmas will have to be shortened because their kid gets strep throat the month before makes me want to barf.

[cakie]

I haven't read the whole thread, but this reminded me of a pet hate of mine here in Australia.

A couple of years ago, in response to the declining birth rate, the govt thought it'd be a good idea to bring in the "baby bonus" - they literally give you a lump sum (about $5k i think) for giving birth to a child!

Anyone who thinks this through for more than a second would realise that this does not target the right demographic at all...any incentives should encourage people who are already productive members of society, to whom $5k would seem like a very small sum compared to the cost of raising a child. Instead, it encourages people to whom $5k is a lot of money - which invariably puts more of the financial burden of raising a child onto public systems when said parents can't cope (welfare, education, health).

They are finally changing it now i think, but boy has it annoyed me!!

[CestMoi]

I suppose they've never had a boss decide that YOU, the childfree worker, can certainly work overtime because you 'have no family,' and how no, YOU don't need that vacation as much as little Johnny's parents need to take off to see their child's play.

-Oh, I so hear this.

[CommonCents]

  They also always scheduled kids Dr. Appointments during work hours and used their unlimited 'sick leave' for their kids Dr Appointments.

Huh?   It's generally difficult to schedule kids' appointments outside of work hours (if possible at all), so sometime 9-5 is the norm, and standard to use one's sick leave for sick kids or kids' appointments.  Children *need* their adult parent to care for them when sick and accompany them to their appointments, it's not some frivolous choice, so it's only humane for one's employer to accommodate this.    I'm really not getting what the issue is?

emphasis is mine.  I've always understood sick time to cover YOUR sick time, not a relative or a child.   That is what personal time or PTO is for.  I think people who use sick time for anything other than being physically ill are cheating the system.

My work has two options to code sick time: Sick or Sick Other (i.e. your family).

I get that they get "more time off" from work and some might see that as unfair.  That's possibly why some businesses have moved to one pool for sick days and vacation time.  Generally it's my experience that in my line of work you pretty much end up paying for sick time off by needing to make it up later though.  It's different in other jobs such as a receptionist, but I generally feel that except for those that abuse it (I had a coworker taking off every other Friday in the summer because she was sick), being sick is no fun and also, if you don't allow people the time off, they'll infect the office and make overall productivity even worse.

[Cinder]

  They also always scheduled kids Dr. Appointments during work hours and used their unlimited 'sick leave' for their kids Dr Appointments.

Huh?   It's generally difficult to schedule kids' appointments outside of work hours (if possible at all), so sometime 9-5 is the norm, and standard to use one's sick leave for sick kids or kids' appointments.  Children *need* their adult parent to care for them when sick and accompany them to their appointments, it's not some frivolous choice, so it's only humane for one's employer to accommodate this.    I'm really not getting what the issue is?

emphasis is mine.  I've always understood sick time to cover YOUR sick time, not a relative or a child.   That is what personal time or PTO is for.  I think people who use sick time for anything other than being physically ill are cheating the system.

Depends on the policy and the manager's discretion.  Most of the managers I worked for had no problem with us using sick time for sick family members.

I forgot to mention that at location, they were all working customer service, and the person in question had one or two days during the standard work week in which they didn't work (and worked weekend shifts to cover the rest of the hours).    They also had shift work which earlier shifts ended and had time at the end of the day to make it to appointments, etc...

[lisahi]

  They also always scheduled kids Dr. Appointments during work hours and used their unlimited 'sick leave' for their kids Dr Appointments.

Huh?   It's generally difficult to schedule kids' appointments outside of work hours (if possible at all), so sometime 9-5 is the norm, and standard to use one's sick leave for sick kids or kids' appointments.  Children *need* their adult parent to care for them when sick and accompany them to their appointments, it's not some frivolous choice, so it's only humane for one's employer to accommodate this.    I'm really not getting what the issue is?

emphasis is mine.  I've always understood sick time to cover YOUR sick time, not a relative or a child.   That is what personal time or PTO is for.  I think people who use sick time for anything other than being physically ill are cheating the system.

My work has two options to code sick time: Sick or Sick Other (i.e. your family).

I get that they get "more time off" from work and some might see that as unfair.  That's possibly why some businesses have moved to one pool for sick days and vacation time.  Generally it's my experience that in my line of work you pretty much end up paying for sick time off by needing to make it up later though.  It's different in other jobs such as a receptionist, but I generally feel that except for those that abuse it (I had a coworker taking off every other Friday in the summer because she was sick), being sick is no fun and also, if you don't allow people the time off, they'll infect the office and make overall productivity even worse.

In the U.S., using sick leave to care for a sick child is pretty common in both the public and private sectors.  For those that work for the U.S. government, you can use your accrued sick leave for your own needs, to provide general care for a family member (like a sick child), provide care to a family member with a serious health condition (for example, taking care of your elderly mother who is dying), make funeral arrangements, and for adoption-related purposes (this is not maternity leave; it's leave to consult attorneys, pick up the child, appointments with adoption agencies, etc.).

[RetiredAt63]

I got $500 (big money in the 80's) for my first child.  I figured I could fritter it away on a small things I would have bought anyway, until it was gone, or I could be sensible.  That $500 (and my Family allowance), invested in a mutual fund ever since, is now covering a major portion of that child's university education.

We may not always to be able to influence what our society does, but we can always make our own choices.

I haven't read the whole thread, but this reminded me of a pet hate of mine here in Australia.

A couple of years ago, in response to the declining birth rate, the govt thought it'd be a good idea to bring in the "baby bonus" - they literally give you a lump sum (about $5k i think) for giving birth to a child!

Anyone who thinks this through for more than a second would realise that this does not target the right demographic at all...any incentives should encourage people who are already productive members of society, to whom $5k would seem like a very small sum compared to the cost of raising a child. Instead, it encourages people to whom $5k is a lot of money - which invariably puts more of the financial burden of raising a child onto public systems when said parents can't cope (welfare, education, health).

They are finally changing it now i think, but boy has it annoyed me!!