souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,745
|
Post by souldoubt on Mar 10, 2019 19:24:07 GMT -5
Allowing deductions for some things and not others is having the people who don't get the deductions subsidize those that do. To me exemptions for kids was always weird because you're giving a tax break for having a child who uses more resources. Don't get me wrong I've never advocated for doing away with them and directly benefited as the child of a single parent but it just never really made sense aside from the government wanting future taxpayers.
I remember talking to a buddy of mine I used to work with after he had his first kid. He figured for a second kid where we live they'd need about 50K in income before taxes to pay for daycare and everything else in the early years. They ended up only having one kid and when we talked about it not that long ago he commented that his wife always said it wasn't a good time for a second child and she finally realized or said at one point that there's never a perfect or right time. My wife and I haven't started a family yet and while there's multiple reasons why two of the bigger ones are how do we handle it financially and how does that impact her work situation in the short and long term. I don't know what the answer is for us nor do I know what it is for the system as a whole when it comes to childcare but I know I don't want to pay any more in taxes than I currently do while the country is trillions in debt.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Mar 10, 2019 19:37:39 GMT -5
Our country, and others, have long used taxes as a way of social engineering. Whether it's effective vs a more direct way is debatable.
But the fact remains that until we get robots that can take over much of life, society depends on the next generation and if it's not large enough things start to fall apart. Japan is an example. Social security would not have the issues it has if the birth rate hasn't been decreasing for decades. Etc etc. So the need to entice people to procreate is there.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Mar 10, 2019 19:43:12 GMT -5
We were discussing hypothetical deductions. I mentioned the things I did because they are related to work clothes and commuting costs www.irs.gov/tax-professionals/standard-mileage-ratesso these types of deductions are not unprecedented. Although you're trying to argue against deducting daycare costs because of these other things, I think they should be included, too. So You said “I think some of that used to be deductible”. I was telling you that they weren’t. Business miles are deductible but that isn’t the miles from my house to work. Those miles have never been deductible. If I have to go to another site once I am at work, that was deductible if it wasn’t reimbursed by my employer. But you also had a floor you had to exceed before they were deductible. My point is that the costs to commute are just as much a necessary part of working as daycare. In fact, I would say more since every employed worker has commuting costs (well, not WAHM) but not everyone has daycare costs. And I’m not saying you aren’t agreeing that these should be deductible. I’m saying it wasn’t the tax changed that made these non-deductible Ok, thanks for the clarification. Like i said, I never thought about it too much, but knew some vague information. I also knew you were talking about business attire vs. uniforms, but sorry I wasn't very clear about the associations I was making with either item. So yes, I agree that commuting costs are just as necessary and would like to see those be deductible as well. Just like businesses are allowed to deduct expenses before paying income taxes on their net profits, I think individuals should be able to do the same--or just get rid of individual income taxes.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Mar 10, 2019 19:44:06 GMT -5
Since everyone benefits from having health insurance, not just some people, being able to deduct those premiums would benefit everyone. I agree.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Mar 10, 2019 19:50:16 GMT -5
Our country, and others, have long used taxes as a way of social engineering. Whether it's effective vs a more direct way is debatable. But the fact remains that until we get robots that can take over much of life, society depends on the next generation and if it's not large enough things start to fall apart. Japan is an example. Social security would not have the issues it has if the birth rate hasn't been decreasing for decades. Etc etc. So the need to entice people to procreate is there. Plus, population growth is still considered an important factor in economic growth.
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,745
|
Post by souldoubt on Mar 10, 2019 20:13:56 GMT -5
Our country, and others, have long used taxes as a way of social engineering. Whether it's effective vs a more direct way is debatable. But the fact remains that until we get robots that can take over much of life, society depends on the next generation and if it's not large enough things start to fall apart. Japan is an example. Social security would not have the issues it has if the birth rate hasn't been decreasing for decades. Etc etc. So the need to entice people to procreate is there. One reason birth rates have decreased particularly after the housing crash is because of the cost of raising a family. By 2020 and it's estimated that the world's population will have tripled since 2050. As the world's population grows particularly in a global economy it becomes more competitive whether we're talking about jobs or resources. People in developed countries want more time off and a better home/life balance while people in developing countries are willing to work 60+ hour weeks for a better life. It's a zero sum game whether we like it or not and someone else having a better life is going to come at the expense of someone else. As to robots, AI or anything else that will make our lives easier that will create higher level jobs but it will also do away with a lot of jobs that require less skill especially as there's a push for higher wages.
I don't disagree with the fact that wages haven't kept pace and I think few would argue that fact but some of that is the reality of a growing world which is as competitive as ever. The US enjoyed a great quality of life after WW2 and a lot of that was due to the fact Europe and other parts of the world were in shambles so that quality of life was at the expense of others some of which have caught up to or surpassed the US in some ways. I also don't disagree with the fact that governments want more people to keep the system going but just having more people doesn't guarantee anything long term if too many people are net takers. Again I don't have any answers but I know the answer isn't more deductions, more government (taxpayer) funded ____ without massive cuts that I don't see happening. Either side can give tax cuts or tax the hell out of everyone and neither will address the long term issues and unfunded liabilities we're facing. This country has the ability to do a lot better than it does but neither side is going to make the cuts and choices that need to happen.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,464
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 10, 2019 20:32:34 GMT -5
... it just never really made sense aside from the government wanting future taxpayers. ... I want future taxpayers for when I retire, entry level workers, young body manual laborers, etc. Picture a world with an aging population without youthful replacements.
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,745
|
Post by souldoubt on Mar 10, 2019 20:38:59 GMT -5
... it just never really made sense aside from the government wanting future taxpayers. ... I want future taxpayers for when I retire, entry level workers, young body manual laborers, etc. Picture a world with an aging population without youthful replacements. Pretty sure there's been issues for some employers and job fields finding qualified workers. No way to say how prevalent it is but there's always articles talking about how companies are worried about boomers retiring because they don't see adequate replacements in the Gen X, Y or millennial generations in the workplace. I don't think that means those generations won't fill the gaps and it's probably a concern that's been echoed every generation just like when we hear about how the next generation is going to be the end of us. That said the answer isn't simply more workers if those workers aren't qualified to do the jobs or aren't willing to.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Mar 10, 2019 20:41:11 GMT -5
Our country, and others, have long used taxes as a way of social engineering. Whether it's effective vs a more direct way is debatable. But the fact remains that until we get robots that can take over much of life, society depends on the next generation and if it's not large enough things start to fall apart. Japan is an example. Social security would not have the issues it has if the birth rate hasn't been decreasing for decades. Etc etc. So the need to entice people to procreate is there. One reason birth rates have decreased particularly after the housing crash is because of the cost of raising a family. By 2020 and it's estimated that the world's population will have tripled since 2050. As the world's population grows particularly in a global economy it becomes more competitive whether we're talking about jobs or resources. People in developed countries want more time off and a better home/life balance while people in developing countries are willing to work 60+ hour weeks for a better life. It's a zero sum game whether we like it or not and someone else having a better life is going to come at the expense of someone else. As to robots, AI or anything else that will make our lives easier that will create higher level jobs but it will also do away with a lot of jobs that require less skill especially as there's a push for higher wages.
I don't disagree with the fact that wages haven't kept pace and I think few would argue that fact but some of that is the reality of a growing world which is as competitive as ever. The US enjoyed a great quality of life after WW2 and a lot of that was due to the fact Europe and other parts of the world were in shambles so that quality of life was at the expense of others some of which have caught up to or surpassed the US in some ways. I also don't disagree with the fact that governments want more people to keep the system going but just having more people doesn't guarantee anything long term if too many people are net takers. Again I don't have any answers but I know the answer isn't more deductions, more government (taxpayer) funded ____ without massive cuts that I don't see happening. Either side can give tax cuts or tax the hell out of everyone and neither will address the long term issues and unfunded liabilities we're facing. This country has the ability to do a lot better than it does but neither side is going to make the cuts and choices that need to happen. Other than daycare and education, the cost of raising a family really isn't that bad. Clothing that I buy today is often times cheaper than what I paid back in the mid-80's (I liked to shop when I was a teen). Plus, I would argue that, on average, their off-spring of people who are careful and size their families to what they can afford are less likely to be net takers than what we are getting with current tax policies.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Mar 10, 2019 20:43:12 GMT -5
I want future taxpayers for when I retire, entry level workers, young body manual laborers, etc. Picture a world with an aging population without youthful replacements. Pretty sure there's been issues for some employers and job fields finding qualified workers. No way to say how prevalent it is but there's always articles talking about how companies are worried about boomers retiring because they don't see adequate replacements in the Gen X, Y or millennial generations in the workplace. I don't think that means those generations won't fill the gaps and it's probably a concern that's been echoed every generation just like when we hear about how the next generation is going to be the end of us. That said the answer isn't simply more workers if those workers aren't qualified to do the jobs or aren't willing to. Those boomers were trained to the hilt by their employers, but now those employers want pre-trained people to replace them.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 10, 2019 20:43:20 GMT -5
Our country, and others, have long used taxes as a way of social engineering. Whether it's effective vs a more direct way is debatable. But the fact remains that until we get robots that can take over much of life, society depends on the next generation and if it's not large enough things start to fall apart. Japan is an example. Social security would not have the issues it has if the birth rate hasn't been decreasing for decades. Etc etc. So the need to entice people to procreate is there. Except that social engineering has done nothing to help Canada’s birthrate. Theirs is actually below ours.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,464
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 10, 2019 20:49:20 GMT -5
... That said the answer isn't simply more workers if those workers aren't qualified to do the jobs or aren't willing to. Spot on. And children raised at a survival level are less likely to become positive members of society than those raised in families with more financial resources. A lower tax obligation helps families.
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Mar 10, 2019 20:50:17 GMT -5
not presumptuous at all. I'm not saying your wrong or not good parents. It works for you i was just saying we went more old traditional route. Did we have a babysitter at times- sure, did aunts and uncles watch the girls at times -sure. When it came to work and having the kids with someone for long periods for days at a time for "US" we sacrificed so we could do it ourselves. The thread was about high cost of daycare this was our way of dealing with that. My husband and I flip/flop hours around and use vacation as well so that we can avoid daycare costs. I even go so traditional as to really push for my husband to stay working part time so he can transition to elder care.
I would never presume that daycare workers, preschool teachers, or 4k-12 teachers raise any of our kids. Do you? Not mine but I have seen families so busy that the teachers were like a second parent....mostly from my time living in NY
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,745
|
Post by souldoubt on Mar 10, 2019 20:55:51 GMT -5
One reason birth rates have decreased particularly after the housing crash is because of the cost of raising a family. By 2020 and it's estimated that the world's population will have tripled since 2050. As the world's population grows particularly in a global economy it becomes more competitive whether we're talking about jobs or resources. People in developed countries want more time off and a better home/life balance while people in developing countries are willing to work 60+ hour weeks for a better life. It's a zero sum game whether we like it or not and someone else having a better life is going to come at the expense of someone else. As to robots, AI or anything else that will make our lives easier that will create higher level jobs but it will also do away with a lot of jobs that require less skill especially as there's a push for higher wages.
I don't disagree with the fact that wages haven't kept pace and I think few would argue that fact but some of that is the reality of a growing world which is as competitive as ever. The US enjoyed a great quality of life after WW2 and a lot of that was due to the fact Europe and other parts of the world were in shambles so that quality of life was at the expense of others some of which have caught up to or surpassed the US in some ways. I also don't disagree with the fact that governments want more people to keep the system going but just having more people doesn't guarantee anything long term if too many people are net takers. Again I don't have any answers but I know the answer isn't more deductions, more government (taxpayer) funded ____ without massive cuts that I don't see happening. Either side can give tax cuts or tax the hell out of everyone and neither will address the long term issues and unfunded liabilities we're facing. This country has the ability to do a lot better than it does but neither side is going to make the cuts and choices that need to happen. Other than daycare and education, the cost of raising a family really isn't that bad. Clothing that I buy today is often times cheaper than what I paid back in the mid-80's (I liked to shop when I was a teen). Plus, I would argue that, on average, their off-spring of people who are careful and size their families to what they can afford are less likely to be net takers than what we are getting with current tax policies. A lot of things are cheaper because they're made in foreign countries which are easier on our wallet but contribute to the decrease jobs in the US and generally those jobs require less training and fewer skills. I wouldn't disagree that people who think more about having a family, supporting it and so on are less likely to be net takers and so are their kids. That's not the issue the issue is people who start having kids young when they can't afford them, continue to have more kids and then their kids are more likely to go down that same path. That's not specific to any one group but it's a hard cycle to break and it's one I've seen people on here talk about getting out of.
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,745
|
Post by souldoubt on Mar 10, 2019 21:06:23 GMT -5
... That said the answer isn't simply more workers if those workers aren't qualified to do the jobs or aren't willing to. Spot on. And children raised at a survival level are less likely to become positive members of society than those raised in families with more financial resources. A lower tax obligation helps families. Sure it does but is there anything to support the fact that a lower, 0 or even negative federal tax rate correlates to families breaking out of a lower socioeconomic status? What percentage break out and what percentage continue on the same path then watches their children do the same? I'm legitimately curious as I'm sure there's been some studies done. I remember when they were first talking about raising the minimum wage in CA which they're gradually doing and they were interviewing people on the news. One of the individuals was a woman who was 23 or 24 who had 2 kids and was saying how $15 an hour would make her life so much better because she could go back to school. I don't think she realized that making more money when it comes to federal tax liability could actually work against her when it came to tax credits available to her and it wasn't as big of an impact as she might have thought. I applaud her for wanting to make a better life but when you are in that situation it's a lot harder to get out of it. My wife works in a field that we as a society don't really value much but it helps people, it's necessary and I've got nothing but the utmost respect for those that work in that field. Anyone in that field who has a kid or two would be fighting an uphill battle financially and a lot of people she works with have multiple kids and they continue to have kids.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,464
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 10, 2019 21:18:58 GMT -5
Spot on. And children raised at a survival level are less likely to become positive members of society than those raised in families with more financial resources. A lower tax obligation helps families. Sure it does but is there anything to support the fact that a lower, 0 or even negative federal tax rate correlates to families breaking out of a lower socioeconomic status? What percentage break out and what percentage continue on the same path then watches their children do the same? If your research shows it is a low percentage, I guess we should just fuck it and not give them a break on taxes.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Mar 10, 2019 21:33:48 GMT -5
Our country, and others, have long used taxes as a way of social engineering. Whether it's effective vs a more direct way is debatable. But the fact remains that until we get robots that can take over much of life, society depends on the next generation and if it's not large enough things start to fall apart. Japan is an example. Social security would not have the issues it has if the birth rate hasn't been decreasing for decades. Etc etc. So the need to entice people to procreate is there. Except that social engineering has done nothing to help Canada’s birthrate. Theirs is actually below ours. Nothing as complex as birth rates can be traced back to one thing - I even alluded to that in my post. But even with their social engineering and slow birth rate their debt to GDP ratio is in the 70s while ours is almost 120. Which, again, is more complex than one thing but for all their socialism they sure seem to manage their debt better.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 21,316
|
Post by giramomma on Mar 10, 2019 21:54:19 GMT -5
My husband and I flip/flop hours around and use vacation as well so that we can avoid daycare costs. I even go so traditional as to really push for my husband to stay working part time so he can transition to elder care.
I would never presume that daycare workers, preschool teachers, or 4k-12 teachers raise any of our kids. Do you? Not mine but I have seen families so busy that the teachers were like a second parent....mostly from my time living in NY But why didn't teachers raise your kids? Are you telling me you went to school with your kids, so you could actively parent them during the day? How could you do that, if one of you was working during the day and the other was working at night?
Or are you going to tell me that kids only need parents from 0-5, and that after that, parenting isn't as important...because BAAAABBBBBY and the baby years are the most important years of a kid's life?
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 21,316
|
Post by giramomma on Mar 10, 2019 21:56:13 GMT -5
Sure it does but is there anything to support the fact that a lower, 0 or even negative federal tax rate correlates to families breaking out of a lower socioeconomic status? What percentage break out and what percentage continue on the same path then watches their children do the same? If your research shows it is a low percentage, I guess we should just fuck it and not give them a break on taxes. Well, that would be one way to get the federal budget under control.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 21,316
|
Post by giramomma on Mar 10, 2019 22:11:46 GMT -5
Our country, and others, have long used taxes as a way of social engineering. Whether it's effective vs a more direct way is debatable. But the fact remains that until we get robots that can take over much of life, society depends on the next generation and if it's not large enough things start to fall apart. Japan is an example. Social security would not have the issues it has if the birth rate hasn't been decreasing for decades. Etc etc. So the need to entice people to procreate is there. One reason birth rates have decreased particularly after the housing crash is because of the cost of raising a family.
Do you really think that the cost of raising a family has gotten THAT much more expensive? Since you can still procreate without needing ART, I'm assuming you are still young enough that you don't remember hearing your parents say they were lucky to get 13% interest rates on their mortgages. Shit was still expensive back then. And incomes were not what they are today. Sure, I think my mom paid someone like 75 cents an hour for daycare..But when you are making 7K a year, total...
As for expenses, I'm in my mid-40s. I could have got into 80K in college debt. I had friends that had 50K worth of student loans to pay back, each..or about 100K as a couple.
I don't really think the cost of raising a family is it, maybe for some. I think parenting, and raising kids, is considered much more of an inconvenience now than it was way back. I think more and more, people are getting put out by the needs of kids. I mean. Look at your reasons you are waiting. Because of how it affects your wife in the long and short term.
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,745
|
Post by souldoubt on Mar 10, 2019 23:12:47 GMT -5
One reason birth rates have decreased particularly after the housing crash is because of the cost of raising a family.
Do you really think that the cost of raising a family has gotten THAT much more expensive? Since you can still procreate without needing ART, I'm assuming you are still young enough that you don't remember hearing your parents say they were lucky to get 13% interest rates on their mortgages. Shit was still expensive back then. And incomes were not what they are today. Sure, I think my mom paid someone like 75 cents an hour for daycare..But when you are making 7K a year, total...
As for expenses, I'm in my mid-40s. I could have got into 80K in college debt. I had friends that had 50K worth of student loans to pay back, each..or about 100K as a couple.
I don't really think the cost of raising a family is it, maybe for some. I think parenting, and raising kids, is considered much more of an inconvenience now than it was way back. I think more and more, people are getting put out by the needs of kids. I mean. Look at your reasons you are waiting. Because of how it affects your wife in the long and short term.
According to this article from 2000-2010 the cost of raising a child increased 40%: According to this article adjusted for inflation the cost of raising a kid born in 2015 was 17.5% higher than it was in 1982 and almost 11% higher than having a child in the 90's: I was born in the early 80's and don't remember the high mortgage rates since I was a child but I do remember growing up in a great area thanks to the sacrifices my mom made. That's a life a single mother or father couldn't provide today on the same income adjusted for inflation because of how much housing alone has gone up in our area. My wife and I both got out of college debt free by going to a JC, transferring to a state school and working the entire time. As to your comment that you don't think young people not having families has to do with the cost of having a family: 64% of young adults said childcare being too expensive is the biggest reason they aren't having kids yet:
9 different reasons some involving costs and others you would put under the inconvenient designation: I'm one of the oldest millennials, relate more to Gen X than I do my own "generation" and am fairly critical of millennials for some of their well deserved criticisms. That said whether it's for selfish reasons, because it's inconvenient, because some younger adults have too much debt (often due to poor choices) and so on I'm at least glad some people think about the long term impact of having children.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 12:25:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2019 23:22:00 GMT -5
As for expenses, I'm in my mid-40s. I could have got into 80K in college debt. I had friends that had 50K worth of student loans to pay back, each..or about 100K as a couple.
Was that a private school? I started college in the late 80's and it was 3K/year for tuition. Figure double that for room and board and books added on, so 24K for 4 years.
|
|
TheHaitian
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 27, 2014 19:39:10 GMT -5
Posts: 10,144
|
Post by TheHaitian on Mar 11, 2019 7:28:43 GMT -5
One reason birth rates have decreased particularly after the housing crash is because of the cost of raising a family.
Do you really think that the cost of raising a family has gotten THAT much more expensive? Since you can still procreate without needing ART, I'm assuming you are still young enough that you don't remember hearing your parents say they were lucky to get 13% interest rates on their mortgages. Shit was still expensive back then. And incomes were not what they are today. Sure, I think my mom paid someone like 75 cents an hour for daycare..But when you are making 7K a year, total...
As for expenses, I'm in my mid-40s. I could have got into 80K in college debt. I had friends that had 50K worth of student loans to pay back, each..or about 100K as a couple.
I don't really think the cost of raising a family is it, maybe for some. I think parenting, and raising kids, is considered much more of an inconvenience now than it was way back. I think more and more, people are getting put out by the needs of kids. I mean. Look at your reasons you are waiting. Because of how it affects your wife in the long and short term.
I will respectfully disagree with that... I am 33 and I can tell you for a lot of folks within my age group (professionals) that I interact with they are either: - putting off having kids - having fewer kids - having a bigger gap between each kids to lessen the burden. More son in HCOLA where for many they don’t have family close, or parents are still young enough and working themselves or live far away. Housing cost and daycare cost can cripple one finances. I will be forever grateful for my mother in law even if sometimes the living situation gets tense. And if not daycare costs; it is before and after care costs, summer camp costs and it all adds up. Sorry but no one wants to give their kids the bare minimum of what is considered acceptable and that in itself becomes a competition. My daughter did not breastfeed (yes boobs is best but between a starving kid and a stressed out wife... I will take formula any day of the week thank you) so the cost of formula added quickly. The day she went to regular milk we celebrated! The cost of traveling is more expensive because I will not do “hostels” or “hole in the wall” hotel with my daughter in tow. It is not happening.... she is 2 now so need her own seat at events or traveling (an extra costs). We took her to her first “Disney on Ice” show and that was 4 tickets; of course next one grandma and I could skip it or not and DW can take her; but it was amazing watching her reaction. I spent more time watching her and how she reacted than the show; to me that was more entertaining... I am not complaining, we waited a long time to have my daughter (some involuntary) and I would not change it for a thing, spending time with her is literally the best part of my day! But I have to admit that having kids in some way for us, has made you change your standards or refine them: - not all places are ok to go - selective on the places and areas you frequent - selective of the things/food you buy. I buy my daughter organic product and I don’t think twice about it, yet I am famous for getting annoyed at my wife for buying organic product because as I would tell her : we don’t make organic product money. People on average are ok with staying in the cramped efficiency/studio apartment but once they have a kid they would like a 1 or 2 bedrooms. They are definitely not planning on bringing a second one into that place. A shitty school district may be fine single, but with a kid you are willing to pay extra to get into a better school district. But off course for us it was a matter of shifting priorities and shifting spending: we eat out less, we travel less, we in general spend less on “us” now and the spending has shifted to “our child”. And I believe that is natural and normal because our income did not increase by much in 2 years but our priorities in that time frame has changed.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Mar 11, 2019 7:43:46 GMT -5
Ditto for mortgage payments, car payments, food. The need for childcare is a direct result of earning income from a job (excluding date-night babysitters). These other things are not. How will I get to work without transportation? How can I work if I am not alive with food? At least EVERYONE may need those things, as opposed to needing childcare which is only the result of choosing to have children. There aren't a lot of jobs willing to hire homeless people, I'm not aware of a lot of places who won't hire you if you don't have kids.
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Mar 11, 2019 21:48:22 GMT -5
Not mine but I have seen families so busy that the teachers were like a second parent....mostly from my time living in NY But why didn't teachers raise your kids? Are you telling me you went to school with your kids, so you could actively parent them during the day? How could you do that, if one of you was working during the day and the other was working at night?
Or are you going to tell me that kids only need parents from 0-5, and that after that, parenting isn't as important...because BAAAABBBBBY and the baby years are the most important years of a kid's life? Just because try have a small part of influence in the child's life that doesn't mean they help raise them.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Mar 11, 2019 21:57:48 GMT -5
The need for childcare is a direct result of earning income from a job (excluding date-night babysitters). These other things are not. How will I get to work without transportation? How can I work if I am not alive with food? At least EVERYONE may need those things, as opposed to needing childcare which is only the result of choosing to have children. There aren't a lot of jobs willing to hire homeless people, I'm not aware of a lot of places who won't hire you if you don't have kids. I already said I'm cool with deducting commuting costs. Wouldn't need child care without the job, so it's an expense due to working. Everyone needs to eat, regardless of job status, so it is not related to working. In fact, I would reduce the extent to which businesses are able to expense good as well, by sticking to only cases in which workers are travelling away from home/home office. Lunch meetings are bullshit. Give your employees a regular break for lunch, and let them feed themselves. Entertainment expenses are mostly bullshit as well. Maybe always bullshit, I'm not sure. Legalized bribery.
|
|
finnime
Junior Associate
Be kind. Everyone you meet is fighting a great battle.
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 7:14:35 GMT -5
Posts: 7,422
|
Post by finnime on Mar 12, 2019 9:34:45 GMT -5
It looks like I'm way out there compared with most of you in thinking about daycare costs. I believe we should all pay to heavily subsidize daycare, for babies, children, the developmentally disabled and for elderly who need care. I also think this should be mostly a direct tax to employers and employees, like Medicare and FICA. Not everyone has children, but everyone in a society is affected for good or ill by children, who grow up to support others or to be a drain. Not everyone has elderly parents or will live to an age of dependency, but everyone is affected by dependent people. We support public schools and require all children be schooled. That is for the good of all. I don't see any real difference with daycare. We also allow for home schooling and various private school options. That should also be true for daycare. The costs of this would be a minor slice of the federal budget. The discretionary federal budget is by far mostly military ( allocation of federal budget). The fixed federal budget that is not voted on by Congress every year is fed by direct taxes: Social Security, Medicare and the like. The budget aspect that is growing at a crazy rate is interest on debt. That debt boomed as a direct result of the changes in tax law such that the top .1% of wealthy pay less than ever in taxes, while the lower 95% pay the same or more of their income. I don't see any good to be had in forcing families into impossible financial positions for want of affordable daycare. We will all lose that way. If families choose to have no, or only one, child due to this type of position we will all suffer when our GDP shrinks for want of able workers in 20 years. ETA: I was a single mother for half of my DD's and 3/4 of my DS's lives as minors. Fortunately I was highly paid and able to afford the help needed. But even with that, the struggle was painful as I had to leave work before 6 and band-aid together solutions when I had to travel. I lived no where near family. My X did not and would not care for the kids. It was an extremely stressful life.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Mar 13, 2019 12:12:19 GMT -5
Our country, and others, have long used taxes as a way of social engineering. Whether it's effective vs a more direct way is debatable. But the fact remains that until we get robots that can take over much of life, society depends on the next generation and if it's not large enough things start to fall apart. Japan is an example. Social security would not have the issues it has if the birth rate hasn't been decreasing for decades. Etc etc. So the need to entice people to procreate is there. Except that social engineering has done nothing to help Canada’s birthrate. Theirs is actually below ours. Social engineering? Idiots breed like rabbits while those that should don’t because of costs involved. If you’re ignorant, staying home is no big deal because you were unemployable anyway but if you’re educated, it becomes a big deal. Somehow this needs to change. Frankly bc should be in the water and if you’re in shape to have a child then the antidote is given.
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,745
|
Post by souldoubt on Mar 13, 2019 12:32:51 GMT -5
Except that social engineering has done nothing to help Canada’s birthrate. Theirs is actually below ours. Social engineering? Idiots breed like rabbits while those that should don’t because of costs involved. If you’re ignorant, staying home is no big deal because you were unemployable anyway but if you’re educated, it becomes a big deal. Somehow this needs to change. Frankly bc should be in the water and if you’re in shape to have a child then the antidote is given. Unfortunately stats show the lower the household income the higher the birth rate: www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/Developed countries generally have lower birth rates than developing countries but the graph above shows that even in the US (and I imagine other developed countries) there's a disparity when you look at household income. I'm fine with giving more leave, help and financial assistance (credits, breaks, whatever) to parents but not in the form of new taxes on employers or employees. All federal expenditures should revolve around working with the revenue the government brings in and not new ways for them to tax us because they've shown no ability to properly manage what they currently bring in. Also I have no idea how it should be handled but the system can't be set up so that people who keep having kids are on leave for years at a time. It's a no win situation because if the government ever told citizens they couldn't have kids or they could only have so many people would be up in arms. Then when people who shouldn't have kids do taxpayers end up footing the bill.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Mar 13, 2019 13:11:58 GMT -5
Social engineering? Idiots breed like rabbits while those that should don’t because of costs involved. If you’re ignorant, staying home is no big deal because you were unemployable anyway but if you’re educated, it becomes a big deal. Somehow this needs to change. Frankly bc should be in the water and if you’re in shape to have a child then the antidote is given. Unfortunately stats show the lower the household income the higher the birth rate: www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/Developed countries generally have lower birth rates than developing countries but the graph above shows that even in the US (and I imagine other developed countries) there's a disparity when you look at household income. I'm fine with giving more leave, help and financial assistance (credits, breaks, whatever) to parents but not in the form of new taxes on employers or employees. All federal expenditures should revolve around working with the revenue the government brings in and not new ways for them to tax us because they've shown no ability to properly manage what they currently bring in. Also I have no idea how it should be handled but the system can't be set up so that people who keep having kids are on leave for years at a time. It's a no win situation because if the government ever told citizens they couldn't have kids or they could only have so many people would be up in arms. Then when people who shouldn't have kids do taxpayers end up footing the bill. That definitely needs to end. It encourages bad decisions.
|
|