Post by: birdman2003 on June 29, 2018, 07:49:30 AM
Intern: Sounds good, thanks birdman2003
Coworker (overhearing us): You're able to max out your 401(k) because you don't have kids. Kids are expensive.
Me: It's true that we don't have kids. But I can easily max out my 401(k) because we don't have car or truck payments, and we have a modest mortgage.
My coworker has two kids, but he is also making payments on a brand new F150, expensive hobbies like bowhunting, has an expensive house, etc...
He didn't respond to my last statement.
Post by: alanB on June 29, 2018, 08:25:05 AM
Post by: DS on June 29, 2018, 08:47:51 AM
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/antimustachian-wall-of-shame-and-comedy/overheard-at-work/20450/
Post by: birdman2003 on June 29, 2018, 09:51:36 AM
Post by: Paul der Krake on June 29, 2018, 10:11:42 AM
Post by: OtherJen on June 29, 2018, 10:19:40 AM
How on earth is bowhunting expensive?
Bowhunting itself wouldn't be, but I'm guessing this particular version involves the latest and greatest gear every season, pricey weekend rentals with the guys, etc.
Post by: DreamFIRE on June 29, 2018, 03:47:33 PM
You're able to max out your 401(k) because you don't have kids. Kids are expensive.
Yet, single people with no kids have to pay far more taxes while married couples with kids get big tax breaks.
In an example I posted in a previous comment, the single woman making $70K/yr paid over 7 times as much tax as a family of four with the same household income. So kids are expensive to single people who never had them also.
Post by: yourusernamehere on June 29, 2018, 04:19:46 PM
Normally I would think this kind of reply internally and wish not to make anyone uncomfortable, but it was too near YET ANOTHER negative pregnancy test and I just let it out. For those who have seen my name on other threads, you may also know that I am finally expecting and it was essentially a giant surprise after we had given up. But I am still judgy as fuck at comments like that.
(Edited for rage-typos)
Post by: Duke03 on June 29, 2018, 05:36:34 PM
I have to max out my 401k because I can't afford the tax ;)
x2
Post by: FireHiker on June 29, 2018, 06:17:09 PM
@yourusernamehere Congratulations on finally expecting after so many trials to get to that point! People are so thoughtless sometimes, like that co-worker of yours. We just had the one miscarriage, but my husband's best friend and his wife have been trying for 8+ years, multiple failed IVFs, etc. They are finally expecting (due any day!) via surrogate. It sure isn't an easy road sometimes, as I have seen up close through their experience. Best wishes to you!
Post by: yourusernamehere on June 29, 2018, 06:51:17 PM
We have three kids (including one that is a teenage driver...OMG the cost of insurance...) and not only do we max out our 401ks, my husband gets catch-up contributions since he turned 50 last year. We also max out the flex spending for child care and our HSA. I can't imagine NOT maximizing our pre-tax deductions...can't afford not to with taxes!
@yourusernamehere Congratulations on finally expecting after so many trials to get to that point! People are so thoughtless sometimes, like that co-worker of yours. We just had the one miscarriage, but my husband's best friend and his wife have been trying for 8+ years, multiple failed IVFs, etc. They are finally expecting (due any day!) via surrogate. It sure isn't an easy road sometimes, as I have seen up close through their experience. Best wishes to you!
Thank you!
Post by: Michael in ABQ on June 29, 2018, 07:00:00 PM
Post by: gpyros85 on June 30, 2018, 07:04:47 AM
Post by: DreamFIRE on June 30, 2018, 08:38:31 AM
While our kids do essentially drop our income taxes to $0, we also require a much larger house, more food, clothes, etc. for those kids. I think it's pretty safe to say that people without kids have more disposable income.
Since taxes are less for a married couple with kids, they have MORE disable income. A single person with no kids has less disposable than a married with kids household with the same household income. You may be misunderstanding what disposable income refers to. Disposable income is after taxes, not after paying for your house, food, clothes, etc. I think you are thinking of discretionary income, which could be true, but having kids is a choice, so it shouldn't be a complete free ride on the backs of those who have no kids.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/the-'i-don't-get-it'-thread-rants-accepted/msg2040846/#msg2040846
Post by: Travis on June 30, 2018, 10:50:26 AM
Getting into the child/no child debate: besides the $1000/year child tax credit, is there another tax savings I'm missing?
The cost per year for my son appears to be about $10,000 which includes:
-difference between 3 bedroom rental house or 2 bedroom apartment
-utilities of house vs apartment
-food
-entertainment
-saving for college
Post by: Paul der Krake on June 30, 2018, 11:03:22 AM
OP got it right the first time. No outrageous debts to drag you down regardless of your disposable income. Having a high enough income to max it without thinking too much about it doesn't hurt either.Well there's that small $4,050 exemption per child.
Getting into the child/no child debate: besides the $1000/year child tax credit, is there another tax savings I'm missing?
The cost per year for my son appears to be about $10,000 which includes:
-difference between 3 bedroom rental house or 2 bedroom apartment
-utilities of house vs apartment
-food
-entertainment
-saving for college
Post by: Travis on June 30, 2018, 11:14:18 AM
OP got it right the first time. No outrageous debts to drag you down regardless of your disposable income. Having a high enough income to max it without thinking too much about it doesn't hurt either.Well there's that small $4,050 exemption per child.
Getting into the child/no child debate: besides the $1000/year child tax credit, is there another tax savings I'm missing?
The cost per year for my son appears to be about $10,000 which includes:
-difference between 3 bedroom rental house or 2 bedroom apartment
-utilities of house vs apartment
-food
-entertainment
-saving for college
Right. One of these days I'll do my taxes by hand and remember that. It doesn't seem quite a break-even point though. I could raise a second child within my current household for less than $4000/year, but that tax credit gets eaten up once they're a teenager. I also suck at math so I'm not seeing where the difference is between paying more taxes upfront is difference from a tax credit and increased cost of living.
Post by: DreamFIRE on June 30, 2018, 03:21:19 PM
OP got it right the first time. No outrageous debts to drag you down regardless of your disposable income. Having a high enough income to max it without thinking too much about it doesn't hurt either.Well there's that small $4,050 exemption per child.
Getting into the child/no child debate: besides the $1000/year child tax credit, is there another tax savings I'm missing?
The cost per year for my son appears to be about $10,000 which includes:
-difference between 3 bedroom rental house or 2 bedroom apartment
-utilities of house vs apartment
-food
-entertainment
-saving for college
Right. One of these days I'll do my taxes by hand and remember that. It doesn't seem quite a break-even point though. I could raise a second child within my current household for less than $4000/year, but that tax credit gets eaten up once they're a teenager. I also suck at math so I'm not seeing where the difference is between paying more taxes upfront is difference from a tax credit and increased cost of living.
So having your children's expenses "mostly" subsidized by other taxpayers isn't good enough, you think they should be "completely" subsidized???
Post by: Travis on June 30, 2018, 03:24:42 PM
OP got it right the first time. No outrageous debts to drag you down regardless of your disposable income. Having a high enough income to max it without thinking too much about it doesn't hurt either.Well there's that small $4,050 exemption per child.
Getting into the child/no child debate: besides the $1000/year child tax credit, is there another tax savings I'm missing?
The cost per year for my son appears to be about $10,000 which includes:
-difference between 3 bedroom rental house or 2 bedroom apartment
-utilities of house vs apartment
-food
-entertainment
-saving for college
Right. One of these days I'll do my taxes by hand and remember that. It doesn't seem quite a break-even point though. I could raise a second child within my current household for less than $4000/year, but that tax credit gets eaten up once they're a teenager. I also suck at math so I'm not seeing where the difference is between paying more taxes upfront is difference from a tax credit and increased cost of living.
So having your children's expenses "mostly" subsidized by other taxpayers isn't good enough, you think they should be "completely" subsidized???
I don't have an opinion on this. I was trying to understand the debate you and the others were having up-thread. You were making mathematical comparisons and I don't have a clear picture of the numbers.
Post by: DreamFIRE on June 30, 2018, 03:31:08 PM
OP got it right the first time. No outrageous debts to drag you down regardless of your disposable income. Having a high enough income to max it without thinking too much about it doesn't hurt either.Well there's that small $4,050 exemption per child.
Getting into the child/no child debate: besides the $1000/year child tax credit, is there another tax savings I'm missing?
The cost per year for my son appears to be about $10,000 which includes:
-difference between 3 bedroom rental house or 2 bedroom apartment
-utilities of house vs apartment
-food
-entertainment
-saving for college
Right. One of these days I'll do my taxes by hand and remember that. It doesn't seem quite a break-even point though. I could raise a second child within my current household for less than $4000/year, but that tax credit gets eaten up once they're a teenager. I also suck at math so I'm not seeing where the difference is between paying more taxes upfront is difference from a tax credit and increased cost of living.
So having your children's expenses "mostly" subsidized by other taxpayers isn't good enough, you think they should be "completely" subsidized???
I don't have an opinion on this. I was trying to understand the debate you and the others were having up-thread.
Oh ok. My point earlier is that it does free up some money for married people with kids to invest, particularly compared to a single person, not that it's break-even. I linked to math tax example a few posts back.
Post by: Michael in ABQ on June 30, 2018, 04:01:48 PM
While our kids do essentially drop our income taxes to $0, we also require a much larger house, more food, clothes, etc. for those kids. I think it's pretty safe to say that people without kids have more disposable income.
Since taxes are less for a married couple with kids, they have MORE disable income. A single person with no kids has less disposable than a married with kids household with the same household income. You may be misunderstanding what disposable income refers to. Disposable income is after taxes, not after paying for your house, food, clothes, etc. I think you are thinking of discretionary income, which could be true, but having kids is a choice, so it shouldn't be a complete free ride on the backs of those who have no kids.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/the-'i-don't-get-it'-thread-rants-accepted/msg2040846/#msg2040846
Yes, discretionary income is what I meant.
Post by: birdman2003 on July 02, 2018, 06:58:28 AM
I like the D.R. approach of no car payments, and a 15 year fixed mortgage that is no more than 25% of your take home pay.
It leaves a buffer so you can definitely max out a 401(k) and have income to spare.
Post by: talltexan on July 02, 2018, 10:01:04 AM
When my wife and I began serious conversations about whether a third child made sense for us, I assured her that I thought we could cover all additional expenses for about $100,000, which would produce a quality of life comparable to our current two. Sounds low compared to the headlines you read, but I think many MMM'ers would see this figure as high.
Post by: BTDretire on July 02, 2018, 10:30:42 AM
How on earth is bowhunting expensive?
Bowhunting itself wouldn't be, but I'm guessing this particular version involves the latest and greatest gear every season, pricey weekend rentals with the guys, etc.
I have nephew that is a bow hunter, has at least $6,000 worth of stuffed heads on the walls.
Looks stupid!
He also bought land out of state to hunt on.
Post by: fattest_foot on July 02, 2018, 10:56:49 AM
If we did have kids, it'd likely mean we saved less in our taxable account, but our 401k's and IRA's would still be maxed.
Post by: Zamboni on July 02, 2018, 11:09:32 AM
These kinds of thoughtless comments really irk me. A coworker said something similar to me late last year and I told her coldly that I would trade all the money in all my accounts to be able to have kids.
(Edited for rage-typos)
@yourusernamehere Congratulations! I am right there with you on sniping the thoughtless comments. After all the psychological stress and medical trauma I went through to have my kids (twins), I never assume whether or not people are childless by choice. What you have gone through is much harder than anyone who hasn't been there can imagine.
As for the co-worker in the OP's first post, besides being thoughtless, he is obviously also an idiot. I am a single parent with two kids who maxes both a 403b and a Roth. We manage to live what I think is a luxurious life on what is leftover . . . and we could live on even less if we had to.
And, yes, I can affirm from direct experience that bow hunting is expensive.
Post by: HPstache on July 02, 2018, 11:49:22 AM
Post by: Dragonswan on July 02, 2018, 02:13:19 PM
Post by: hudsoncat on July 02, 2018, 02:14:28 PM
I'm kinda torn on this one. Yes, it obviously is possible to max out pre-tax retirement funds with kids... this thread makes that abundantly clear. On the other hand, having kids is truly one of those things you cannot fully understand without actually having them. So from a father of two's perspective, I often feel the same way as the person in the anecdote when I hear about DINKs / SINKs (is that even a thing?) who don't understand how different life, and in particular saving money, can be once kids come into the equation.
Be that as it may, as a DINK when my BiL tells me I can't understand how expensive kids are and how impossible it is to save, I'm still going to side eye that comment. Because his household income is north of $275,000, more than double mine. DH and I are maxing out a 401K, 403b, two IRAs, and two HSAs while paying for a 3 bedroom/2 bathroom house. I don't think his one kid is costing him $150,000 additional per year over our household expenses. Pretty sure its the house that has twice the square footage of mine and is 3 times as expensive. And the brand new cars every two years. And the lake house and the boat at the lake house. And all of additional frivolous spending.
Post by: elysianfields on July 03, 2018, 06:58:28 AM
OP got it right the first time. No outrageous debts to drag you down regardless of your disposable income. Having a high enough income to max it without thinking too much about it doesn't hurt either.Well there's that small $4,050 exemption per child.
Getting into the child/no child debate: besides the $1000/year child tax credit, is there another tax savings I'm missing?
The cost per year for my son appears to be about $10,000 which includes:
-difference between 3 bedroom rental house or 2 bedroom apartment
-utilities of house vs apartment
-food
-entertainment
-saving for college
Not under the new tax law, as the child tax credit was increased to $2000 / child, of which $1400 is refundable. Also, the per-person exemption was eliminated in favor of a larger standard deduction ($12,000 for singles, $24,000 for MFJ in 2018).
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on July 03, 2018, 07:07:39 AM
How on earth is bowhunting expensive?
Hahaha. I'm assuming you don't know many bowhunters, or if you do, they're not the kind I know. Most spend thousands per year on local hunting leases to chase whitetail deer, or take excursions out West for $5,000 or more to hunt elk or mule deer. They spend ungodly sums of money on licenses, camo, trail cams, scent eliminators, calls, binoculars, etc., not to mention the taxidermy charges when they actually kill something that they want to put on the wall. I don't know a single serious hunter who doesn't spend thousands of dollars per year on their hobby. I know frugal hunters exist, but it is not the norm by any stretch of the imagination.
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on July 03, 2018, 09:08:37 AM
How on earth is bowhunting expensive?
Hahaha. I'm assuming you don't know many bowhunters, or if you do, they're not the kind I know. Most spend thousands per year on local hunting leases to chase whitetail deer, or take excursions out West for $5,000 or more to hunt elk or mule deer. They spend ungodly sums of money on licenses, camo, trail cams, scent eliminators, calls, binoculars, etc., not to mention the taxidermy charges when they actually kill something that they want to put on the wall. I don't know a single serious hunter who doesn't spend thousands of dollars per year on their hobby. I know frugal hunters exist, but it is not the norm by any stretch of the imagination.
Agreed, among urban and suburban dwellers. But frugality is more of a norm among rural hunters who tend to stock their freezer with game.
Post by: cats on July 03, 2018, 09:14:45 AM
I'm kinda torn on this one. Yes, it obviously is possible to max out pre-tax retirement funds with kids... this thread makes that abundantly clear. On the other hand, having kids is truly one of those things you cannot fully understand without actually having them. So from a father of two's perspective, I often feel the same way as the person in the anecdote when I hear about DINKs / SINKs (is that even a thing?) who don't understand how different life, and in particular saving money, can be once kids come into the equation.
Be that as it may, as a DINK when my BiL tells me I can't understand how expensive kids are and how impossible it is to save, I'm still going to side eye that comment. Because his household income is north of $275,000, more than double mine. DH and I are maxing out a 401K, 403b, two IRAs, and two HSAs while paying for a 3 bedroom/2 bathroom house. I don't think his one kid is costing him $150,000 additional per year over our household expenses. Pretty sure its the house that has twice the square footage of mine and is 3 times as expensive. And the brand new cars every two years. And the lake house and the boat at the lake house. And all of additional frivolous spending.
I agree, many people who complain that they can't save because they have kids are usually spending a ton of $$ on things that have nothing to do with the kids. Certainly if they have access to a 401(k) they are likely making enough money to max it out while still covering basic expenses for themselves and their kids. I say this as someone with a kid.
Post by: Maenad on July 03, 2018, 11:11:08 AM
I don't know a single serious hunter who doesn't spend thousands of dollars per year on their hobby.
[Raises hand] DH has been hunting since he was a teenager, and it's only been in the last decade that he's bought a new rifle and some new blaze (his old stuff from his teen years was wearing out). The only things we reliably buy every year are new handwarmers. :-D
Granted, we hunt on land owned by a friend, which takes considerable upkeep, so he's spending (likely) thousands a year and we're mooching.
Quote
I know frugal hunters exist, but it is not the norm by any stretch of the imagination.
That I'll grant you. :-)
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on July 03, 2018, 02:05:49 PM
...I know frugal hunters exist, but it is not the norm by any stretch of the imagination.
Agreed, among urban and suburban dwellers. But frugality is more of a norm among rural hunters who tend to stock their freezer with game.
I'm actually speaking from the perspective of someone who has lived the the rural South my whole life. I know lots of people who own a lot of land. Most of them are farmers who are too busy to hunt with any frequency. I also know a lot of people who spend a lot of time hunting. Most of them are too broke to own land. (These are generalizations based on the pool of people that I know personally; I'm aware that there are many exceptions)
I am one of those "frugal freezer-stockers" to whom you refer. I spend a couple of evenings a year in a deer stand until I shoot a good-sized deer. I get it processed and then I'm done. I wear hand-me-down camo and a deer rifle that I was gifted at 16. I have been using the same carton of ammo for more than a decade, because it only takes one bullet to take a deer. But I don't call myself a "hunter", because hunting is a hobby and it's not a hobby for me.
I don't know a single serious hunter who doesn't spend thousands of dollars per year on their hobby.
[Raises hand] DH has been hunting since he was a teenager, and it's only been in the last decade that he's bought a new rifle and some new blaze (his old stuff from his teen years was wearing out). The only things we reliably buy every year are new handwarmers. :-D
Granted, we hunt on land owned by a friend, which takes considerable upkeep, so he's spending (likely) thousands a year and we're mooching.QuoteI know frugal hunters exist, but it is not the norm by any stretch of the imagination.
That I'll grant you. :-)
Your husband does it the right way. Hunters tend to love company, so mooching off of somebody who owns and maintains the land is the way to do it. Same mindset is required for boats and pools :)
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on July 03, 2018, 02:38:51 PM
...I know frugal hunters exist, but it is not the norm by any stretch of the imagination.
Agreed, among urban and suburban dwellers. But frugality is more of a norm among rural hunters who tend to stock their freezer with game.
I'm actually speaking from the perspective of someone who has lived the the rural South my whole life. I know lots of people who own a lot of land. Most of them are farmers who are too busy to hunt with any frequency. I also know a lot of people who spend a lot of time hunting. Most of them are too broke to own land. (These are generalizations based on the pool of people that I know personally; I'm aware that there are many exceptions)
I am one of those "frugal freezer-stockers" to whom you refer. I spend a couple of evenings a year in a deer stand until I shoot a good-sized deer. I get it processed and then I'm done. I wear hand-me-down camo and a deer rifle that I was gifted at 16. I have been using the same carton of ammo for more than a decade, because it only takes one bullet to take a deer. But I don't call myself a "hunter", because hunting is a hobby and it's not a hobby for me.I don't know a single serious hunter who doesn't spend thousands of dollars per year on their hobby.
[Raises hand] DH has been hunting since he was a teenager, and it's only been in the last decade that he's bought a new rifle and some new blaze (his old stuff from his teen years was wearing out). The only things we reliably buy every year are new handwarmers. :-D
Granted, we hunt on land owned by a friend, which takes considerable upkeep, so he's spending (likely) thousands a year and we're mooching.QuoteI know frugal hunters exist, but it is not the norm by any stretch of the imagination.
That I'll grant you. :-)
Your husband does it the right way. Hunters tend to love company, so mooching off of somebody who owns and maintains the land is the way to do it. Same mindset is required for boats and pools :)
Hmm, you may not identify as a hunter, you just occasionally do hunter things. Like hunting. You hang out in deer stands from time to time (not a normal activity for non-hunters), and you have a freezer full of game you shot yourself. You may not march in hunter pride parades, and it's OK that you don't. We'll label you as "hunter-curious".
Post by: Jrr85 on July 03, 2018, 02:53:29 PM
You're able to max out your 401(k) because you don't have kids. Kids are expensive.
Yet, single people with no kids have to pay far more taxes while married couples with kids get big tax breaks.
In an example I posted in a previous comment, the single woman making $70K/yr paid over 7 times as much tax as a family of four with the same household income. So kids are expensive to single people who never had them also.
You are really letting your bitterness regarding taxes get to you, and posting this in just about every thread. Wouldn't you feel better if you stopped ignoring the fact that you are comparing the income for one person to the income for four people, and ignoring that the parent(s) in the family of four are bearing wayyyyyyy more costs than you to ensure there is funding for social security for the next 50-70 years?
Post by: fredbear on July 03, 2018, 09:06:54 PM
Hmm, you may not identify as a hunter, you just occasionally do hunter things. Like hunting. You hang out in deer stands from time to time (not a normal activity for non-hunters), and you have a freezer full of game you shot yourself. You may not march in hunter pride parades, and it's OK that you don't. We'll label you as "hunter-curious".
Are you thinking he'll come out of the blind one of these days?
When I outed myself as a hunter, I did it at the yoga school. Than which there is no whicher. It went like this:
I killed a moose last weekend and ...
OH. I suppose you're one of those people who just takes the horns and leaves the rest to rot.
Antlers. They don't have horns. And no. I carried the moose out on my back. It took 6 loads. Then I went back to bring out the hide, because a woman like you wants to tan it and have it to sleep under. Then I went back for the head, because a woman like you wants to clean it up with dermestid beetles and make the skull a mosaic. Then I went back to bring out the femurs for a woman like you who wants to make native American flutes out of them.
Oh. Well, I....
As a matter of fact, my -06 is providing the meat for two college houses of young men as well as for me.
Well, I suppose....
You supppose. You are so far off base I'm not even going to be offended. Leave the meat to rot! Leaving the meat is a felony in this state. If you actually know someone who did that, let's step over to the phone. I'll call the Division of Wildlife. The poaching hotline. Right now. You give the name and the circumstances. We'll send them up. They'll lose the right to hunt forever. Because by God, they deserve it.
Well, I don't exactly....
No. Let's go. There's the phone, right in there. Shakti will let us use it. (Shakti, our God-Empress Instructor, who is amused, suppresses her smile and indicates the phone is available.) Let's get those game-wasting assholes in the slammer. I'm dead serious. Let's make the call. Right now.
Well, I don't exactly know of anybody. I've sort of heard that....
I see. Sort of heard that.... How about you find the person you sort of heard that from and set them straight? Those people that leave the meat are felons and we hunters want them upstate, maybe even more than you do.
Shakti intervenes: We'll do Pincha Mayurasana now. If you need to space your elbows, grab a block. Find a place along the wall....
Post by: Laura33 on July 04, 2018, 09:40:11 AM
Post by: markbike528CBX on July 04, 2018, 12:14:48 PM
I'm with Laura33 on the inertia/habits part. I intentionally saved a lot when I was single, as I knew a wife would drive up yearly costs ( it has). The habits were so strong, I paid off the wife's student loan, and the house almost automatically, and without reducing 401(k) savings.
edit to undo whaling vs waiting, as I'm not Captain Ahab
Post by: Gin1984 on July 04, 2018, 01:50:01 PM
That no longer exists....OP got it right the first time. No outrageous debts to drag you down regardless of your disposable income. Having a high enough income to max it without thinking too much about it doesn't hurt either.Well there's that small $4,050 exemption per child.
Getting into the child/no child debate: besides the $1000/year child tax credit, is there another tax savings I'm missing?
The cost per year for my son appears to be about $10,000 which includes:
-difference between 3 bedroom rental house or 2 bedroom apartment
-utilities of house vs apartment
-food
-entertainment
-saving for college
Post by: DreamFIRE on July 04, 2018, 09:59:02 PM
You're able to max out your 401(k) because you don't have kids. Kids are expensive.
Yet, single people with no kids have to pay far more taxes while married couples with kids get big tax breaks.
In an example I posted in a previous comment, the single woman making $70K/yr paid over 7 times as much tax as a family of four with the same household income. So kids are expensive to single people who never had them also.
You are really letting your bitterness regarding taxes get to you, and posting this in just about every thread.
I call double BS. I've never said once that I was "bitter" about it, and I'm simply pointing out the facts. In fact, I specifically stated that I wasn't bitter in this thread days ago, prior to your post here, and you had posted to that thread afterwards before you post here, so you clearly aren't understanding, which is why I have to repeat myself:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/social-security-will-not-be-bankrupt/msg2056201/#msg2056201
And to help drive this home for you, I'll point you again to where I stated that I didn't have a problem with the current tax situation of families with kids getting a tax break:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/i-wonder-why-healthcare-is-so-expensive-in-the-us/msg2055618/#msg2055618
Hmmm.... that sure doesn't sound like something a bitter person would say.
Quote
Wouldn't you feel better if you stopped ignoring the fact that you are comparing the income for one person to the income for four people
I'm comparing household income. It's couples filing jointly with kids as a household using current tax law that gives them the big tax breaks. But, if you think it would make me feel better if I break down the tax paid "per person" in the comparison, the difference is even more stark. As I've posted before:
Quote
Exactly. I was surprised to see some of the other responses that missed the point that it wasn't about paying taxes in general, but unfair share of the tax burden for those that use the most resources compared to those who use less.
I posted this in a previous thread as an example, and it applies here and should clarify what my original comment was referring to when I stated I was subsidizing families with kids.
Here are some figures I calculated with the Dinkytown 2018 tax calculator using a simple comparison:
Household income of single woman with no kids $70,000
Total federal income tax $8700
Total federal income tax per person $8700
Household income of married couple with 2 kids $70,000
Total federal income tax $1139
Federal income tax per person $284.75
The single woman household pays over 7 1/2 times as much tax in this example. She is subsidizing the family with kids by paying many more times in federal income taxes despite the family utilizing far more $ in public resources. If you divide the tax by each person in the household, the difference in tax burden per household member is even more stark at over 30X!
And the part about posting that in almost every thread. I've posted it in maybe 3 or 4 threads out of the dozens I've posted to and the thousands of threads. How about sticking to the facts?
Post by: DreamFIRE on July 04, 2018, 10:33:20 PM
Post by: elysianfields on July 05, 2018, 05:37:42 AM
What the coworker misses is the power of inertia and habit. When I started my first “real” job, the advice we were given was to start saving as much as we can now, because even with loans and such, we were never going to have as much discretionary income again once the kids came and we started buying houses and such. But the nice thing is that by the time I did get married and have kids, I had already built my lifestyle around net-income-minus-savings - and with inertia being such a powerful force, my natural inclination was to figure out how to fit my expenses within the money that I saw in the account every month (i.e., post-savings), rather that decreasing my savings to pay for more stuff.
Indeed, if you don't see it in your account, you're less likely to spend it.
I have two kids, one in college and another headed there next fall. I still max my TSP, his & hers Roth IRAs, 529s (his, hers, kid #1, & kid #2 - this is all about avoiding state income tax), and HSA. Going on the car-free diet for four years (we just bought a used car, but that's another story) and maximizing bicycling & public transit have been key to our savings.
Post by: Jrr85 on July 05, 2018, 07:16:51 AM
You're able to max out your 401(k) because you don't have kids. Kids are expensive.
Yet, single people with no kids have to pay far more taxes while married couples with kids get big tax breaks.
In an example I posted in a previous comment, the single woman making $70K/yr paid over 7 times as much tax as a family of four with the same household income. So kids are expensive to single people who never had them also.
You are really letting your bitterness regarding taxes get to you, and posting this in just about every thread.
I call double BS. I've never said once that I was "bitter" about it, and I'm simply pointing out the facts. In fact, I specifically stated that I wasn't bitter in this thread days ago, prior to your post here, and you had posted to that thread afterwards before you post here, so you clearly aren't understanding, which is why I have to repeat myself:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/social-security-will-not-be-bankrupt/msg2056201/#msg2056201
And to help drive this home for you, I'll point you again to where I stated that I didn't have a problem with the current tax situation of families with kids getting a tax break:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/i-wonder-why-healthcare-is-so-expensive-in-the-us/msg2055618/#msg2055618
Hmmm.... that sure doesn't sound like something a bitter person would say.QuoteWouldn't you feel better if you stopped ignoring the fact that you are comparing the income for one person to the income for four people
I'm comparing household income. It's couples filing jointly with kids as a household using current tax law that gives them the big tax breaks. But, if you think it would make me feel better if I break down the tax paid "per person" in the comparison, the difference is even more stark. As I've posted before:QuoteExactly. I was surprised to see some of the other responses that missed the point that it wasn't about paying taxes in general, but unfair share of the tax burden for those that use the most resources compared to those who use less.
I posted this in a previous thread as an example, and it applies here and should clarify what my original comment was referring to when I stated I was subsidizing families with kids.
Here are some figures I calculated with the Dinkytown 2018 tax calculator using a simple comparison:
Household income of single woman with no kids $70,000
Total federal income tax $8700
Total federal income tax per person $8700
Household income of married couple with 2 kids $70,000
Total federal income tax $1139
Federal income tax per person $284.75
The single woman household pays over 7 1/2 times as much tax in this example. She is subsidizing the family with kids by paying many more times in federal income taxes despite the family utilizing far more $ in public resources. If you divide the tax by each person in the household, the difference in tax burden per household member is even more stark at over 30X!
And the part about posting that in almost every thread. I've posted it in maybe 3 or 4 threads out of the dozens I've posted to and the thousands of threads. How about sticking to the facts?
Or you could look at it as a person with $70k pays an effective tax rate of 12.42% on their income (or really, I'm guessing more like 25.76% since it looks like your example is ignores the ~14.2% FICA taxes). While the person with $17,500 pays an effective tax rate of 1.62% on income (or really, 15.7%). I'm all for making the tax code flatter, but I'm not sure politically how you are going to get much more than that out of a household with about $18,838.75 of income per person.
Post by: Jrr85 on July 05, 2018, 07:24:26 AM
Jrr85, regarding your SS comment above, you sound very bitter about having to pay payroll taxes. The rest of us pay them throughout our careers. In fact, I wouldn't mind paying much higher payroll taxes to help shore up SS and Medicare for deserving seniors who paid into those programs all of their careers as well.
I'm not bitter about having to pay payroll taxes. I am somewhat disheartened that so many people openly advocate redistribution from poorer workers to richer retirees. Realistically, I am going to have the screws put to me to pay money to boomers. Whether they raise payroll taxes, increase the cap on SS, or just raise non-fica taxes, I don't think my tax burden will be materially different.
I am a little bitter that the only group of people who could have realistically prevented the problem are likely going to be the ones that are most shielded from the pain. Not a real problem for me and I think I'll be able to basically make my kids whole so that I can shield them from the ill effects, but it really sucks for those people who are less fortunate.
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on July 06, 2018, 11:29:47 AM
Hmm, you may not identify as a hunter, you just occasionally do hunter things. Like hunting. You hang out in deer stands from time to time (not a normal activity for non-hunters), and you have a freezer full of game you shot yourself. You may not march in hunter pride parades, and it's OK that you don't. We'll label you as "hunter-curious".
Hehe. I can go with that :)
Seriously, though, I just really don't find hunting to be interesting. I avoid tagging myself as a "hunter" so people won't assume that I'm interested in their annoying stories about killing four subspecies of North American turkey or shooting doves by the thousands at some ranch in South America. Don't care, never will. Killing a deer is as interesting, difficult, and enjoyable as killing a cow from my neighbor's pasture.
Post by: talltexan on July 09, 2018, 07:12:13 AM
Post by: swampwiz on July 09, 2018, 09:18:14 PM
How on earth is bowhunting expensive?
Bowhunting itself wouldn't be, but I'm guessing this particular version involves the latest and greatest gear every season, pricey weekend rentals with the guys, etc.
I probably know more about the design of a bow than just about any bow hunters. My team for the senior project in mechanical engineering had the task of designing a computer-aided system to design the compound bow cam (i.e., the pulley for the cord) to match a desired input of points of pulling force vs. pulled distance. I ended up personally designing an optimal cam design just by carefully tweaking a current design by hand, keeping in mind all the parameters that go into it that blew away what the computer program generated.
Post by: Bayou Dweller on July 10, 2018, 06:19:55 AM
I've got a kid, but I'm a single father-ish. I pay child support and I don't get the child tax credit or exemption on my return (thanks, State of Texas!).
Through witchcraft and sorcery I've managed to max out my 401k, Family HSA, and Roth IRA.
Funny enough, as you all know, I've managed to save thousands on my tax bill. I can't afford NOT to max out the pre-tax ones.
Post by: 10dollarsatatime on July 14, 2018, 09:12:22 PM
Me, "My thermostat in the winter is set at 65. Keeps the bill down and I'm better acclimated to the cold."
Boss, "You can only do that because you don't have kids."
Me, "I'm maxing my 457, and thinking about upping my 401k contribution as well."
Boss, "You can only do that because you don't have kids."
Me, "I went with the high deductible health plan so I can have access to the HSA."
Boss, "You can only do that because you don't have kids."
I don't discuss life with him anymore. It ticks me off that everything I accomplish is discounted because I don't have kids.
Post by: DS on July 16, 2018, 09:35:33 AM
Quote
Most of my friends who have kids are cool, but I got a couple of those who think now that they have a kid, that I don’t understand anything anymore. You know those people? The most basic shit. “Hey, man, it’s kind of cold out today.” “Dude, you don’t understand. You don’t understand cold till you got a two-year-old with a mitten up his ass and you’re trying to get chocolate off the other one’s face.” “All right, all right, I get it, you have a more complex life, but I still understand being cold, teeth chattering. Kind of lets me know. Right?”
“Mine just turned six.” “Mine just turned seven.” I just feel hopelessly behind. So what I’m actually thinking of doing, I’m thinking about adopting. Yeah. Absolutely, recycle. You know? Think globally, act locally. Everything doesn’t have to be brand-new. You know? It’s like when you redo your kitchen. You got custom up top, you got IKEA down the bottom, right? I’d love to adopt. It’s a great thing to do.
But if I do it, I’m not telling any of my friends. I’m just gonna show up with the kid one day, just to piss ’em off. “Mine just turned six.” “Mine just turned seven.” I’d love to just show up with an eight-year-old, like, “Dominoes! Yeah, now I get to tell you what you don’t understand. Seven-year-old? Wait till they turn eight, eight is such a funny age. Terrible twos? Try the instant eights! Bam!
From Bill Burr "I'm Sorry You Feel That Way"
Post by: jinga nation on July 16, 2018, 10:06:27 AM
Post by: jlcnuke on August 08, 2018, 12:04:19 PM
You're able to max out your 401(k) because you don't have kids. Kids are expensive.
Yet, single people with no kids have to pay far more taxes while married couples with kids get big tax breaks.
In an example I posted in a previous comment, the single woman making $70K/yr paid over 7 times as much tax as a family of four with the same household income. So kids are expensive to single people who never had them also.
You are really letting your bitterness regarding taxes get to you, and posting this in just about every thread.
I call double BS. I've never said once that I was "bitter" about it, and I'm simply pointing out the facts. In fact, I specifically stated that I wasn't bitter in this thread days ago, prior to your post here, and you had posted to that thread afterwards before you post here, so you clearly aren't understanding, which is why I have to repeat myself:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/social-security-will-not-be-bankrupt/msg2056201/#msg2056201
And to help drive this home for you, I'll point you again to where I stated that I didn't have a problem with the current tax situation of families with kids getting a tax break:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/i-wonder-why-healthcare-is-so-expensive-in-the-us/msg2055618/#msg2055618
Hmmm.... that sure doesn't sound like something a bitter person would say.QuoteWouldn't you feel better if you stopped ignoring the fact that you are comparing the income for one person to the income for four people
I'm comparing household income. It's couples filing jointly with kids as a household using current tax law that gives them the big tax breaks. But, if you think it would make me feel better if I break down the tax paid "per person" in the comparison, the difference is even more stark. As I've posted before:QuoteExactly. I was surprised to see some of the other responses that missed the point that it wasn't about paying taxes in general, but unfair share of the tax burden for those that use the most resources compared to those who use less.
I posted this in a previous thread as an example, and it applies here and should clarify what my original comment was referring to when I stated I was subsidizing families with kids.
Here are some figures I calculated with the Dinkytown 2018 tax calculator using a simple comparison:
Household income of single woman with no kids $70,000
Total federal income tax $8700
Total federal income tax per person $8700
Household income of married couple with 2 kids $70,000
Total federal income tax $1139
Federal income tax per person $284.75
The single woman household pays over 7 1/2 times as much tax in this example. She is subsidizing the family with kids by paying many more times in federal income taxes despite the family utilizing far more $ in public resources. If you divide the tax by each person in the household, the difference in tax burden per household member is even more stark at over 30X!
And the part about posting that in almost every thread. I've posted it in maybe 3 or 4 threads out of the dozens I've posted to and the thousands of threads. How about sticking to the facts?
The problem with facts is that people are selective about which facts they wish to use.
If we analyze the same type of situation differently, a very different conclusion can be reached. For instance, instead of choosing to analyze the finances of 4 people with a matching income of 1 person, let's do the opposite. We'll analyze 5 people making the same amount, with 4 of them in a single household.
So, 4 people each making $70,000/year as part of a family vs 1 single person making $70,000/year. Now, the 4 people only get 2 standard deductions between them because they're one tax unit, and so the other two don't get as much. So they get fewer tax deductions and have overall effective tax rate with the same per capita income.
It's all how you want to perceive the situation. In any of the methods (yours or the one I just showed), it really doesn't matter because they're not apples-to-apples comparisons anyway. They're just arbitrary examples thrown together and fairly meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
Post by: DreamFIRE on August 09, 2018, 04:50:44 PM
You're able to max out your 401(k) because you don't have kids. Kids are expensive.
Yet, single people with no kids have to pay far more taxes while married couples with kids get big tax breaks.
In an example I posted in a previous comment, the single woman making $70K/yr paid over 7 times as much tax as a family of four with the same household income. So kids are expensive to single people who never had them also.
You are really letting your bitterness regarding taxes get to you, and posting this in just about every thread.
I call double BS. I've never said once that I was "bitter" about it, and I'm simply pointing out the facts. In fact, I specifically stated that I wasn't bitter in this thread days ago, prior to your post here, and you had posted to that thread afterwards before you post here, so you clearly aren't understanding, which is why I have to repeat myself:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/social-security-will-not-be-bankrupt/msg2056201/#msg2056201
And to help drive this home for you, I'll point you again to where I stated that I didn't have a problem with the current tax situation of families with kids getting a tax break:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/i-wonder-why-healthcare-is-so-expensive-in-the-us/msg2055618/#msg2055618
Hmmm.... that sure doesn't sound like something a bitter person would say.QuoteWouldn't you feel better if you stopped ignoring the fact that you are comparing the income for one person to the income for four people
I'm comparing household income. It's couples filing jointly with kids as a household using current tax law that gives them the big tax breaks. But, if you think it would make me feel better if I break down the tax paid "per person" in the comparison, the difference is even more stark. As I've posted before:QuoteExactly. I was surprised to see some of the other responses that missed the point that it wasn't about paying taxes in general, but unfair share of the tax burden for those that use the most resources compared to those who use less.
I posted this in a previous thread as an example, and it applies here and should clarify what my original comment was referring to when I stated I was subsidizing families with kids.
Here are some figures I calculated with the Dinkytown 2018 tax calculator using a simple comparison:
Household income of single woman with no kids $70,000
Total federal income tax $8700
Total federal income tax per person $8700
Household income of married couple with 2 kids $70,000
Total federal income tax $1139
Federal income tax per person $284.75
The single woman household pays over 7 1/2 times as much tax in this example. She is subsidizing the family with kids by paying many more times in federal income taxes despite the family utilizing far more $ in public resources. If you divide the tax by each person in the household, the difference in tax burden per household member is even more stark at over 30X!
And the part about posting that in almost every thread. I've posted it in maybe 3 or 4 threads out of the dozens I've posted to and the thousands of threads. How about sticking to the facts?
The problem with facts is that people are selective about which facts they wish to use.
If we analyze the same type of situation differently, a very different conclusion can be reached. For instance, instead of choosing to analyze the finances of 4 people with a matching income of 1 person, let's do the opposite. We'll analyze 5 people making the same amount, with 4 of them in a single household.
It's a very different situation if you are analyzing a household income of $70,000 vs a household income of $280,000. I never tried to make any claims regarding such a comparison. So yes, if you analyze a completely differently scenario from the one I laid out, you of course, get a different result. I could come up with many other examples with various results, but that's beside the point. The fact that different household incomes can exist in no way changes the example or the conclusion that I laid out based on identical household incomes, which is the original premise of my comparison.
Post by: ixtap on August 09, 2018, 06:48:15 PM
Post by: Undecided on August 09, 2018, 08:30:48 PM
OP got it right the first time. No outrageous debts to drag you down regardless of your disposable income. Having a high enough income to max it without thinking too much about it doesn't hurt either.Well there's that small $4,050 exemption per child.
Getting into the child/no child debate: besides the $1000/year child tax credit, is there another tax savings I'm missing?
The cost per year for my son appears to be about $10,000 which includes:
-difference between 3 bedroom rental house or 2 bedroom apartment
-utilities of house vs apartment
-food
-entertainment
-saving for college
Right. One of these days I'll do my taxes by hand and remember that. It doesn't seem quite a break-even point though. I could raise a second child within my current household for less than $4000/year, but that tax credit gets eaten up once they're a teenager. I also suck at math so I'm not seeing where the difference is between paying more taxes upfront is difference from a tax credit and increased cost of living.
So having your children's expenses "mostly" subsidized by other taxpayers isn't good enough, you think they should be "completely" subsidized???
As someone with kids, but who doesn’t get any tax break for them, I don’t have a problem with that particular “subsidy.” Somebody’s got to make and raise the future sources of social security payments. It’s easy to take a single issue and complain about it being unfair, but it often seems myopic.
Post by: Malloy on August 13, 2018, 02:55:41 PM
OP got it right the first time. No outrageous debts to drag you down regardless of your disposable income. Having a high enough income to max it without thinking too much about it doesn't hurt either.Well there's that small $4,050 exemption per child.
Getting into the child/no child debate: besides the $1000/year child tax credit, is there another tax savings I'm missing?
The cost per year for my son appears to be about $10,000 which includes:
-difference between 3 bedroom rental house or 2 bedroom apartment
-utilities of house vs apartment
-food
-entertainment
-saving for college
Right. One of these days I'll do my taxes by hand and remember that. It doesn't seem quite a break-even point though. I could raise a second child within my current household for less than $4000/year, but that tax credit gets eaten up once they're a teenager. I also suck at math so I'm not seeing where the difference is between paying more taxes upfront is difference from a tax credit and increased cost of living.
So having your children's expenses "mostly" subsidized by other taxpayers isn't good enough, you think they should be "completely" subsidized???
Just wanted to point out that personal exemptions are going away in the new tax law that is in effect for 2018 taxes. No more 4k child exemption. The increase in the standard deduction to 12k/24k joint and the increase in the tax credit is supposed to make up for it. And that increase is applied to filers with and without children. I haven't done the math in a while, but I think that a family of four who wasn't itemizing came out slightly behind. It all depend the number of kids and whether the filer was itemizing. People who do the best under the elimination of personal exemptions are joint filers, nonitemizers with no kids. So, all in all, this should make you happy, DreamFIRE.
Post by: Methods of Escape on August 13, 2018, 08:19:50 PM
OP got it right the first time. No outrageous debts to drag you down regardless of your disposable income. Having a high enough income to max it without thinking too much about it doesn't hurt either.Well there's that small $4,050 exemption per child.
Getting into the child/no child debate: besides the $1000/year child tax credit, is there another tax savings I'm missing?
The cost per year for my son appears to be about $10,000 which includes:
-difference between 3 bedroom rental house or 2 bedroom apartment
-utilities of house vs apartment
-food
-entertainment
-saving for college
Right. One of these days I'll do my taxes by hand and remember that. It doesn't seem quite a break-even point though. I could raise a second child within my current household for less than $4000/year, but that tax credit gets eaten up once they're a teenager. I also suck at math so I'm not seeing where the difference is between paying more taxes upfront is difference from a tax credit and increased cost of living.
So having your children's expenses "mostly" subsidized by other taxpayers isn't good enough, you think they should be "completely" subsidized???
Just wanted to point out that personal exemptions are going away in the new tax law that is in effect for 2018 taxes. No more 4k child exemption. The increase in the standard deduction to 12k/24k joint and the increase in the tax credit is supposed to make up for it. And that increase is applied to filers with and without children. I haven't done the math in a while, but I think that a family of four who wasn't itemizing came out slightly behind. It all depend the number of kids and whether the filer was itemizing. People who do the best under the elimination of personal exemptions are joint filers, nonitemizers with no kids. So, all in all, this should make you happy, DreamFIRE.
Not quite... while there is no 4k child exemption there is:
"The Child Tax Credit under 2018 tax reform is worth up to $2,000 per qualifying child"
And while I made too much for the previous exemption under the new tax law we will be able to claim for both our children this year.
"It's also important to emphasize that this is a credit, not a tax deduction. While a deduction reduces the amount of your income that is subject to tax, a credit reduces your tax bill dollar-for-dollar. If you owe the IRS $5,000 for the year, and have a $2,000 tax credit, your tax bill drops to $3,000."
Post by: ShoulderThingThatGoesUp on August 14, 2018, 05:20:23 AM
Post by: clarkfan1979 on August 27, 2018, 02:37:57 AM
My kid flew 34,000 miles before his 1st birthday. Now we are told that this is only possible because we only have one kid. Once we have two kids we won't be able to save money or travel. Once we have a 2nd kid, I wonder what the next round of comments will be.
Post by: talltexan on August 27, 2018, 07:47:16 AM
Post by: ice_beard on August 27, 2018, 07:49:17 PM
How on earth is bowhunting expensive?
I bowhunted when I was a kid. If it was expensive, I wouldn't have been doing it. If you are getting new gear every year it could be really expensive, but I had a used bow and homemade treestands.
Post by: clarkfan1979 on August 28, 2018, 01:42:53 AM
As a non-itemized with three kids I come out ahead with the new tax bill.
Are you saying that the tax savings is more than the cost of the kids? I thought that might be the case for some. We are probably breaking even.
Post by: MishMash on August 28, 2018, 07:30:51 AM
How on earth is bowhunting expensive?
Hahaha. I'm assuming you don't know many bowhunters, or if you do, they're not the kind I know. Most spend thousands per year on local hunting leases to chase whitetail deer, or take excursions out West for $5,000 or more to hunt elk or mule deer. They spend ungodly sums of money on licenses, camo, trail cams, scent eliminators, calls, binoculars, etc., not to mention the taxidermy charges when they actually kill something that they want to put on the wall. I don't know a single serious hunter who doesn't spend thousands of dollars per year on their hobby. I know frugal hunters exist, but it is not the norm by any stretch of the imagination.
We are frugal hunters. We barter for land to hunt on. DH and I have a shitty boat, so we fish, a lot. We trade fish, and work, for the ability to hunt on others lands, we have the ability to hunt 6 properties across the US, 3 within a short drive, and one of which is a commercial farm with a year round hunting permit. When he gets a deer or boar we do all our own processing, make our own sausage, burgers, roasts, smoked meats etc and then give a hunk of it back to the land owners as well. Then we also barter fish and venison for other things like eggs, chickens, other fish etc. We are largely meat hunters, not trophy.
I also have a no taxidermy law, nothing dead will be looking at me from a wall....ever.
That said, yea, A LOT of the hunters we know spend a ton.
Post by: Rife on September 02, 2018, 02:45:55 PM
If you both make about the same income, your taxes can drop if she quits her job. So, less taxes and half the income. Otherwise, you don’t get the huge break if you both keep working. I would think in most cases the cost of supporting your unemployed wife isn’t worth it just for the tax break. In our case, we pay plenty in taxes. It is not universally true that married people pay far lower taxes though.
Post by: Gone_Hiking on September 08, 2018, 10:06:25 PM
THISOP got it right the first time. No outrageous debts to drag you down regardless of your disposable income. Having a high enough income to max it without thinking too much about it doesn't hurt either.Well there's that small $4,050 exemption per child.
Getting into the child/no child debate: besides the $1000/year child tax credit, is there another tax savings I'm missing?
The cost per year for my son appears to be about $10,000 which includes:
-difference between 3 bedroom rental house or 2 bedroom apartment
-utilities of house vs apartment
-food
-entertainment
-saving for college
Right. One of these days I'll do my taxes by hand and remember that. It doesn't seem quite a break-even point though. I could raise a second child within my current household for less than $4000/year, but that tax credit gets eaten up once they're a teenager. I also suck at math so I'm not seeing where the difference is between paying more taxes upfront is difference from a tax credit and increased cost of living.
So having your children's expenses "mostly" subsidized by other taxpayers isn't good enough, you think they should be "completely" subsidized???
As someone with kids, but who doesn’t get any tax break for them, I don’t have a problem with that particular “subsidy.” Somebody’s got to make and raise the future sources of social security payments. It’s easy to take a single issue and complain about it being unfair, but it often seems myopic.
A parent of one here. A childless colleague of mine insists on tax breaks for pets. The person has three cats that are treated like children and doesn't seem to comprehend why there are tax break for human kids but none for kittens. I refuse to engage on this topic: while my kid can meow at will, colleague's cats can't speak one word in English.
Post by: Fomerly known as something on September 09, 2018, 06:59:01 PM