NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,868
Member is Online
|
Post by NastyWoman on Oct 30, 2016 23:14:32 GMT -5
I believe that is short sighted of you! In the long run the government and you benefit from having more women in the workforce and contributing $$$ to the government vs being forced to staying home because they cannot afford childcare. And women in that situation down the road tend to rely even more heavily on the government if their spouse or significant other is no longer in their lives due to illness, death, divorce etc. I think we as a country can benefit from households where both mom and dad do not feel the pressure of having to choose between career and child rearing and can continue to be taxpaying citizens.... Carl, I'm all for women in the workforce. My DW is one of them. But, I wonder if couples would make different choices about the size of their family if they had to shoulder all of the financial responsibility of becoming parents, as my parents did. Remember, tax breaks for parents, such as the dependent deduction, childcare credits, education credits, and the like, are relatively new additions to the tax code.That may be true, but it is also not that long ago that families had enough children to naturally replace those who retired/died/etc in the workforce. You see the real problem the boomers (myself included) caused, is that we didn't have enough kids to take our place and care for our generation, and now we have "entitlement issues". And if we don't help those couples who are willing to do the work of raising kids now, this problem will get even worse. Or do you really think that either all the kids that society will ever need have already been born, or that these tax breaks in some way make having kids easy or close to "free"? An alternative to tax breaks now would be that if not enough labor is available to care for your generation when you are old, people who chose to be child free would end up at the end of the line to be assisted only by the spare/leftover labor after everyone else has been helped. Just pointing out that children benefit society as a whole. There are many wonderful aspects to a life with kids, but parents pay for them in many ways --- and society should be willing for the benefits it reaps as well.
|
|
TheHaitian
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 27, 2014 19:39:10 GMT -5
Posts: 10,144
|
Post by TheHaitian on Oct 30, 2016 23:15:05 GMT -5
I believe that is short sighted of you! In the long run the government and you benefit from having more women in the workforce and contributing $$$ to the government vs being forced to staying home because they cannot afford childcare. And women in that situation down the road tend to rely even more heavily on the government if their spouse or significant other is no longer in their lives due to illness, death, divorce etc. I think we as a country can benefit from households where both mom and dad do not feel the pressure of having to choose between career and child rearing and can continue to be taxpaying citizens.... Carl, I'm all for women in the workforce. My DW is one of them. But, I wonder if couples would make different choices about the size of their family if they had to shoulder all of the financial responsibility of becoming parents, as my parents did. Remember, tax breaks for parents, such as the dependent deduction, childcare credits, education credits, and the like, are relatively new additions to the tax code. That is exactly the issue at he heart of it! We need more educated/driven middle class people to have kids because exactly like you said: they are the ones that are limiting the amount of kids they are having due to the costs. What is 1 more kid to a poor person? Actually some sees it as a source to increase their income. They are taken care of by the government : WIC, vouchers for section 8, vouchers for daycare, head start, etc. The ones that are being screwed and limiting the amount of kids they have are exactly the people that should be having more kids; people that will Raise more responsible tax payers. Instead they are limiting themselves to 1 or 2 kids because they understand the responsibilities and expenses that comes with raising a kid and also that the government will be no help. Idiocracry anyone? So your thinking is hurting exactly the group of people we should be supporting because the ones that you think your policies or removing the tax credit will hinder : - already don't use it - already don't care about it - will have kids regardless of it because the rewards outweighs the consequences.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,140
|
Post by giramomma on Oct 30, 2016 23:34:19 GMT -5
Carl, I'm all for women in the workforce. My DW is one of them. But, I wonder if couples would make different choices about the size of their family if they had to shoulder all of the financial responsibility of becoming parents, as my parents did. Remember, tax breaks for parents, such as the dependent deduction, childcare credits, education credits, and the like, are relatively new additions to the tax code. But, not every family with kids can take advantage of all those deductions, too..(And that goes for other "tax breaks." We've never had a mortgage large enough be able to take advantage of whatever tax break you get for having mortgage interest. We've always been a healthy lot, and never been able to take of medical deductions, etc.) We knew that we could not foot the 3500/month daycare bill for three kids if we both worked full time, regardless of gov't tax breaks..So..we made the decision for DH to be the primary care giver of our kids. Actually, that decision was made for us, as when I was pregnant with #1, I had family supporting job, and DH didn't. ETA: We made the choice to adjust our lifestyle accordingly prior to having kids. It actually started while we were engaged...we were planning on how to make it on one average income. We had three kids because I wanted three kids. Tax breaks really didn't enter into the equation. There was a brief time we considered a 4th. Ultimately, we decided not to, due to finances on big ticket items, like fertility treatments, braces, private school tuition, and teen drivers.. I also think the argument about all the tax breaks in the tax code is silly to some degree. Because you have to generally spend a metric crapton to get little return. Take for example, starting int 2015, we began to get tax breaks at the state level because we send our kids to private school. We ended up spending almost 10K to get an extra $400 back on our taxes. Most people would not purposefully go out and spend 10K to get $400 back.
|
|
TheHaitian
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 27, 2014 19:39:10 GMT -5
Posts: 10,144
|
Post by TheHaitian on Oct 31, 2016 1:15:28 GMT -5
Everyone wants what's best for themselves regardless of the cost to anyone else. I personally would not benefit from it since: A) already have that in place B) cannot benefit from it since she is not only a family member but does live with us and dependent on our taxes. So really I have no bone or nothing to gain in this fight but does not mean I cannot see how it affect those in similar situation minus my MIL.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 14:26:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2016 7:18:21 GMT -5
I don't get the argument that the dependent care credit or FSA is other tax payers supplementing your choices, because it seems the net effect is more money being paid in when a child is in daycare. Both parents are working and even though you're getting a tax break on the first 5K, you might be paying in 10 or 15K (or more) which the daycare is paying income tax on.
I didn't pay daycare for my first, but I stayed home for 3 years and didn't pay any taxes at all.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 14:26:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2016 7:35:11 GMT -5
I don't get the argument that the dependent care credit or FSA is other tax payers supplementing your choices, because it seems the net effect is more money being paid in when a child is in daycare. Both parents are working and even though you're getting a tax break on the first 5K, you might be paying in 10 or 15K (or more) which the daycare is paying income tax on. I didn't pay daycare for my first, but I stayed home for 3 years and didn't pay any taxes at all. I agree- it's good public policy and will pay off because now both parents are paying taxes, getting 401(k) matches, maybe getting an occasional promotion, etc. It can also be a safety net if one person losses his/her job. BIG difference going from two incomes to one rather than one to none, with a stay-at-home parent who's been out of the workforce. (When my Ex lost his job in 1987, the first thing I did was put him on my health insurance.) It also means taxes are being collected on the daycare provider's income since they require a TIN/EIN when you file for the credit.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,910
|
Post by zibazinski on Oct 31, 2016 7:43:54 GMT -5
I believe that is short sighted of you! In the long run the government and you benefit from having more women in the workforce and contributing $$$ to the government vs being forced to staying home because they cannot afford childcare. And women in that situation down the road tend to rely even more heavily on the government if their spouse or significant other is no longer in their lives due to illness, death, divorce etc. I think we as a country can benefit from households where both mom and dad do not feel the pressure of having to choose between career and child rearing and can continue to be taxpaying citizens.... Carl, I'm all for women in the workforce. My DW is one of them. But, I wonder if couples would make different choices about the size of their family if they had to shoulder all of the financial responsibility of becoming parents, as my parents did. Remember, tax breaks for parents, such as the dependent deduction, childcare credits, education credits, and the like, are relatively new additions to the tax code. I doubt it. You still have people breeding when they can't even support themselves or they're in a bad marriage with a non earner or a mentally ill person. They think only of themselves not of their children and it shows in the behavior of children born into families like those mentioned above.
|
|
skubikky
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 7:37:12 GMT -5
Posts: 3,044
|
Post by skubikky on Oct 31, 2016 7:50:47 GMT -5
Having tap water tastes on a champagne budget opens up all kinds of options, frankly. It would be easy to be broke if we had prior debt, or liked designer goods, or felt the need to buy new cars, or take luxury vacations, (or travel for fun at all)or MUST HAVE a bedroom for every child. Or, quite frankly, save the max in tax advantaged retirement accounts (hint, if you can save over 20K a year, you aren't broke, you are low on cash because of prioritizing.) It is pretty easy to spend up to your income. Fantastically easy, really, unless you are bringing in millions. It would be easy to be broke if......one has to pay for expensive medications, or has to support aging parents or has school loans, or medical debt, or a disabled child, or....
|
|
skubikky
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 7:37:12 GMT -5
Posts: 3,044
|
Post by skubikky on Oct 31, 2016 7:53:27 GMT -5
Read this article this morning : www.npr.org/2016/10/22/498590650/u-s-parents-are-sweating-and-hustling-to-pay-for-child-careOne thing that it did bring to mind is the child care tax credit: the limit of $5,000/month has been set since 1985 and has never been raised. Now in 2016 with childcare costing about $2,000/month in my area that is barely 3 months. Should the government increase that amount? And childcare is one of those things in America where it seems it is easy good to be poor or rich: middle class you are screwed! In DC for example you are poor you get vouchers for daycare, rent, etc. Rich you can afford it so a non issue... middle class on paper and it is a struggle. As a non-parent, my answer is no. Our governments require a certain amount of money to operate. If you contribute less because you made the choice to raise a family, that means I have to contribute more to help pay the governments bills. I don't think I should have to subsidize your lifestyle decisions. Any more than you should have to subsidize mine. However, if you disagree, and think that subsidizing other people's lifestyle decisions is appropriate, I need new skis and ski boots this year. And it would be really cool if you would subsidize my decision to ski by sending your contribution. I'd be happy to cash your check. Exactly. I have no desire to subsidize people who have children that they can't afford to raise. Moreover, those that continue to have children that they can't afford to support. Over and over again.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Oct 31, 2016 8:38:04 GMT -5
Carl, I'm all for women in the workforce. My DW is one of them. But, I wonder if couples would make different choices about the size of their family if they had to shoulder all of the financial responsibility of becoming parents, as my parents did. Remember, tax breaks for parents, such as the dependent deduction, childcare credits, education credits, and the like, are relatively new additions to the tax code.That may be true, but it is also not that long ago that families had enough children to naturally replace those who retired/died/etc in the workforce. You see the real problem the boomers (myself included) caused, is that we didn't have enough kids to take our place and care for our generation, and now we have "entitlement issues". And if we don't help those couples who are willing to do the work of raising kids now, this problem will get even worse. Or do you really think that either all the kids that society will ever need have already been born, or that these tax breaks in some way make having kids easy or close to "free"? An alternative to tax breaks now would be that if not enough labor is available to care for your generation when you are old, people who chose to be child free would end up at the end of the line to be assisted only by the spare/leftover labor after everyone else has been helped. Just pointing out that children benefit society as a whole. There are many wonderful aspects to a life with kids, but parents pay for them in many ways --- and society should be willing for the benefits it reaps as well. Oh, I thought the US population was growing. So we shouldn't have to pay people to have children. Am I wrong?
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,140
|
Post by giramomma on Oct 31, 2016 9:07:21 GMT -5
Oh, I thought the US population was growing. So we shouldn't have to pay people to have children. Am I wrong? We "reward" people for all sorts of behaviors through tax codes. And it's not just the poor we're rewarding. The Bush tax credits in circa 2001 or 2002 did more for us than the child care tax credit for our first child ever did. (ETA: Having our dividend income go untaxed since then has been really, really nice. ) Are we singling out childcare because it's a child care thread? Are you proposing flat tax system where everyone pays in X amount of income and there are absolutely no deductions for anything, including retirement contributions?
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Oct 31, 2016 9:30:55 GMT -5
That may be true, but it is also not that long ago that families had enough children to naturally replace those who retired/died/etc in the workforce. You see the real problem the boomers (myself included) caused, is that we didn't have enough kids to take our place and care for our generation, and now we have "entitlement issues". And if we don't help those couples who are willing to do the work of raising kids now, this problem will get even worse. Or do you really think that either all the kids that society will ever need have already been born, or that these tax breaks in some way make having kids easy or close to "free"? An alternative to tax breaks now would be that if not enough labor is available to care for your generation when you are old, people who chose to be child free would end up at the end of the line to be assisted only by the spare/leftover labor after everyone else has been helped. Just pointing out that children benefit society as a whole. There are many wonderful aspects to a life with kids, but parents pay for them in many ways --- and society should be willing for the benefits it reaps as well. Oh, I thought the US population was growing. So we shouldn't have to pay people to have children. Am I wrong? Only because of immigration. Do you prefer people in other countries to have all the children?
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,868
Member is Online
|
Post by NastyWoman on Oct 31, 2016 10:06:55 GMT -5
That may be true, but it is also not that long ago that families had enough children to naturally replace those who retired/died/etc in the workforce. You see the real problem the boomers (myself included) caused, is that we didn't have enough kids to take our place and care for our generation, and now we have "entitlement issues". And if we don't help those couples who are willing to do the work of raising kids now, this problem will get even worse. Or do you really think that either all the kids that society will ever need have already been born, or that these tax breaks in some way make having kids easy or close to "free"? An alternative to tax breaks now would be that if not enough labor is available to care for your generation when you are old, people who chose to be child free would end up at the end of the line to be assisted only by the spare/leftover labor after everyone else has been helped. Just pointing out that children benefit society as a whole. There are many wonderful aspects to a life with kids, but parents pay for them in many ways --- and society should be willing for the benefits it reaps as well. Oh, I thought the US population was growing. So we shouldn't have to pay people to have children. Am I wrong? Yes
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Oct 31, 2016 18:11:40 GMT -5
Oh, I thought the US population was growing. So we shouldn't have to pay people to have children. Am I wrong? We "reward" people for all sorts of behaviors through tax codes. And it's not just the poor we're rewarding. The Bush tax credits in circa 2001 or 2002 did more for us than the child care tax credit for our first child ever did. (ETA: Having our dividend income go untaxed since then has been really, really nice. ) Are we singling out childcare because it's a child care thread? Are you proposing flat tax system where everyone pays in X amount of income and there are absolutely no deductions for anything, including retirement contributions? No to proposing a flat tax. But, just think how much easier it would be. About 15 minutes to collect records and prepare a tax return instead of the person-weeks of labor we spend today. The millions and millions we would save by Eliminating thousands of IRS jobs from the federal budget. All we'd have to do is find other employment for the former IRS employees, former tax accountants, and former tax lawyers.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Oct 31, 2016 18:17:00 GMT -5
Oh, I thought the US population was growing. So we shouldn't have to pay people to have children. Am I wrong? Only because of immigration. Do you prefer people in other countries to have all the children? Does it matter why the population is growing if you have an adequate supply of labor? Which, by the way, I suspect could become an issue in the next couple of decades. The issue I project is an over supply of labor. It's already happening now. Why do you think we have had stagnation of wages? Too many workers chasing too few jobs. And I project that the too many workers issue will get worse as legislation to increase minimum wages and benefits causes businesses to automate or outsource many jobs, such as flipping burgers or accounting. Looking toward that probability, it looks like we should be encouraging taxpayers to limit the size of their family, rather than what we do today.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,910
|
Post by zibazinski on Oct 31, 2016 18:52:37 GMT -5
Taxpayers already limit the size of their families. It's the non taxpayers that don't.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 14:26:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2016 19:59:08 GMT -5
If all kid related deductions should go away so should all other deductions. After all it is all about personal choices. You choose to have a mortgage so why should you get a tax break? You choose to have a job that makes you pay for health insurance, why should that be pretax? You can use the same argument for everything that is used as a deduction. In my opinion it should be one rate for everyone. A 10% tax for example. If you make more you would be paying more anyway. If you make less, you end up paying less. I don't agree with having tax brackets. Also, you should not be getting money you did not pay through tax credits, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 14:26:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2016 22:16:41 GMT -5
Only because of immigration. Do you prefer people in other countries to have all the children? Does it matter why the population is growing if you have an adequate supply of labor? Which, by the way, I suspect could become an issue in the next couple of decades. The issue I project is an over supply of labor. It's already happening now. Why do you think we have had stagnation of wages? Too many workers chasing too few jobs. And I project that the too many workers issue will get worse as legislation to increase minimum wages and benefits causes businesses to automate or outsource many jobs, such as flipping burgers or accounting. Looking toward that probability, it looks like we should be encouraging taxpayers to limit the size of their family, rather than what we do today. We don't have an adequate supply of labor around here, in fact, it is damn near impossible to get people. Our company is struggling to keep customers because we can't meet the demand due to the labor shortage and now Mayo clinic is talking about expanding and adding 30K jobs. That could kill us. Last week there smocks and ESD straps found in the parking lot. Someone bailed midday and didn't even bother to turn their stuff in. WTH? It's clean, easy work and when everyone is complaining about healthcare costs we pay $350/month for family PPO coverage with a $500 deductible. WHERE ARE ALL THE PEOPLE HURTING FOR JOBS?!? <MPL is getting really burned out trying to do the work of 3 QEs>
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,910
|
Post by zibazinski on Oct 31, 2016 22:39:19 GMT -5
Oh, but people have the right to live wherever they want even if there are no jobs. The hue and cry would be unbelievable if you demanded that the unemployed go to where the jobs are. Even worse, that those on welfare have to actually work. Much easier to let taxpayers fund their choices and lifestyles. After all, getting up in the morning and staying drug free is too hard. Then to have to "answer to the man!" The horror of it all.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Nov 1, 2016 6:32:34 GMT -5
We need to the whole stupid tax code and go with a flat tax. God only asks for 10%. The greedy arse govt shouldn't get any more than that.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,910
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 1, 2016 6:34:40 GMT -5
Everyone wants what's best for themselves regardless of the cost to anyone else. I personally would not benefit from it since: A) already have that in place B) cannot benefit from it since she is not only a family member but does live with us and dependent on our taxes. So really I have no bone or nothing to gain in this fight but does not mean I cannot see how it affect those in similar situation minus my MIL. It will affect you if your MIL is unable to care for your child.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,910
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 1, 2016 6:35:48 GMT -5
Effect
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 1, 2016 13:12:18 GMT -5
Carl, I'm all for women in the workforce. My DW is one of them. But, I wonder if couples would make different choices about the size of their family if they had to shoulder all of the financial responsibility of becoming parents, as my parents did. Remember, tax breaks for parents, such as the dependent deduction, childcare credits, education credits, and the like, are relatively new additions to the tax code. That is exactly the issue at he heart of it! We need more educated/driven middle class people to have kids because exactly like you said: they are the ones that are limiting the amount of kids they are having due to the costs. What is 1 more kid to a poor person? Actually some sees it as a source to increase their income. They are taken care of by the government : WIC, vouchers for section 8, vouchers for daycare, head start, etc. The ones that are being screwed and limiting the amount of kids they have are exactly the people that should be having more kids; people that will Raise more responsible tax payers. Instead they are limiting themselves to 1 or 2 kids because they understand the responsibilities and expenses that comes with raising a kid and also that the government will be no help. Idiocracry anyone? So your thinking is hurting exactly the group of people we should be supporting because the ones that you think your policies or removing the tax credit will hinder : - already don't use it - already don't care about it - will have kids regardless of it because the rewards outweighs the consequences. So you think because the taxpayers aren't paying for your children you are being screwed? Seriously?
|
|
TheHaitian
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 27, 2014 19:39:10 GMT -5
Posts: 10,144
|
Post by TheHaitian on Nov 1, 2016 14:34:16 GMT -5
That is exactly the issue at he heart of it! We need more educated/driven middle class people to have kids because exactly like you said: they are the ones that are limiting the amount of kids they are having due to the costs. What is 1 more kid to a poor person? Actually some sees it as a source to increase their income. They are taken care of by the government : WIC, vouchers for section 8, vouchers for daycare, head start, etc. The ones that are being screwed and limiting the amount of kids they have are exactly the people that should be having more kids; people that will Raise more responsible tax payers. Instead they are limiting themselves to 1 or 2 kids because they understand the responsibilities and expenses that comes with raising a kid and also that the government will be no help. Idiocracry anyone? So your thinking is hurting exactly the group of people we should be supporting because the ones that you think your policies or removing the tax credit will hinder : - already don't use it - already don't care about it - will have kids regardless of it because the rewards outweighs the consequences. So you think because the taxpayers aren't paying for your children you are being screwed? Seriously?
Seriously what? And how are the taxpayers paying for anything? The money is just not taxed, the taxpayers are not paying the actual daycare cost, not even close. And I don't need the taxpayers to pay for anything for my children.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 14:26:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2016 14:45:13 GMT -5
Does it matter why the population is growing if you have an adequate supply of labor? Which, by the way, I suspect could become an issue in the next couple of decades. The issue I project is an over supply of labor. It's already happening now. Why do you think we have had stagnation of wages? Too many workers chasing too few jobs. And I project that the too many workers issue will get worse as legislation to increase minimum wages and benefits causes businesses to automate or outsource many jobs, such as flipping burgers or accounting. Looking toward that probability, it looks like we should be encouraging taxpayers to limit the size of their family, rather than what we do today. We don't have an adequate supply of labor around here, in fact, it is damn near impossible to get people. Our company is struggling to keep customers because we can't meet the demand due to the labor shortage and now Mayo clinic is talking about expanding and adding 30K jobs. That could kill us. Last week there smocks and ESD straps found in the parking lot. Someone bailed midday and didn't even bother to turn their stuff in. WTH? It's clean, easy work and when everyone is complaining about healthcare costs we pay $350/month for family PPO coverage with a $500 deductible. WHERE ARE ALL THE PEOPLE HURTING FOR JOBS?!? <MPL is getting really burned out trying to do the work of 3 QEs> Sooooo..about this job? What kind of experience do you need and would relocation costs be approved? Since it sounds like the Mayo Clinic is in the area I can drag DH's ass out there and he can see specialists there. I would need to trade the CRV in for a truck though.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,081
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Nov 2, 2016 15:16:56 GMT -5
That is exactly the issue at he heart of it! We need more educated/driven middle class people to have kids because exactly like you said: they are the ones that are limiting the amount of kids they are having due to the costs. What is 1 more kid to a poor person? Actually some sees it as a source to increase their income. They are taken care of by the government : WIC, vouchers for section 8, vouchers for daycare, head start, etc. The ones that are being screwed and limiting the amount of kids they have are exactly the people that should be having more kids; people that will Raise more responsible tax payers. Instead they are limiting themselves to 1 or 2 kids because they understand the responsibilities and expenses that comes with raising a kid and also that the government will be no help. Idiocracry anyone? So your thinking is hurting exactly the group of people we should be supporting because the ones that you think your policies or removing the tax credit will hinder : - already don't use it - already don't care about it - will have kids regardless of it because the rewards outweighs the consequences. So you think because the taxpayers aren't paying for your children you are being screwed? Seriously?
I think he meant that when you are rich you can either afford a nanny, au pair or whatever daycare strikes your fancy because you got the dough. When you are low enough income wise you qualify for assistance. When you are in the middle you don't qualify for anything but daycare can still be the size of a mortgage/rent payment. I will say daycare assistance must depend on the state because ours is NOTHING like what I've seen described here. In Iowa it is a lottery system, first come first serve for a handful of voucher per year so the wait list is HUGE. The cut off is also very steep so a small raise could result in you holding the bag for the full cost of daycare overnight. Our system is not one I would want to deal with given the choice. I can understand why people on all ends of the income spectrum decide it's more cost effective to not work while the children are daycare age which here is until they are 12. DH commented that it often feels like we are working solely for the privlege of paying for daycare. I try to remind myself that I would be giving up my employer match, compounding interest and employer subsidized health insurance if I quit. I am giving up a lot more than I am gaining if I don't work. However it hurts to write that monthly check. Two years and counting till Abby is in school and we're done with full time daycare.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 14:26:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2016 15:20:46 GMT -5
We don't have an adequate supply of labor around here, in fact, it is damn near impossible to get people. Our company is struggling to keep customers because we can't meet the demand due to the labor shortage and now Mayo clinic is talking about expanding and adding 30K jobs. That could kill us. Last week there smocks and ESD straps found in the parking lot. Someone bailed midday and didn't even bother to turn their stuff in. WTH? It's clean, easy work and when everyone is complaining about healthcare costs we pay $350/month for family PPO coverage with a $500 deductible. WHERE ARE ALL THE PEOPLE HURTING FOR JOBS?!? <MPL is getting really burned out trying to do the work of 3 QEs> Sooooo..about this job? What kind of experience do you need and would relocation costs be approved? Since it sounds like the Mayo Clinic is in the area I can drag DH's ass out there and he can see specialists there. I would need to trade the CRV in for a truck though. There's over 100 openings, so as little as a GED for production work (probably 60% of the openings or more) to things like, supply chain, planners, schedulers, engineering... I would imagine they don't do much of anything for the production people as far as relocating, but engineer, supply chain manager? Yeah, I'm sure they'd be willing to talk. One facility is about 10 minutes from Mayo, the other about 45. If you're really interested I can PM you a link to the company website.
|
|
Bob Ross
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:48:03 GMT -5
Posts: 5,883
|
Post by Bob Ross on Nov 2, 2016 16:31:02 GMT -5
Now in 2016 with childcare costing about $2,000/month in my area that is barely 3 months. Pfft. $2k a month? I could provide child care for half that. Plus, your kids would be learning valuable skills, as seamstresses, bootblacks, and beer coasters. C'mon, whaddya say? Turn over your kids to Uncle Bob for the day? I'm only drunk half the time!
|
|
rob base
Well-Known Member
Joined: Aug 21, 2016 13:08:22 GMT -5
Posts: 1,433
|
Post by rob base on Nov 2, 2016 16:32:15 GMT -5
But ur stoned the other half, aren't u?
|
|
Bob Ross
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:48:03 GMT -5
Posts: 5,883
|
Post by Bob Ross on Nov 2, 2016 16:34:21 GMT -5
But ur stoned the other half, aren't u? If you mean, do angry parents throw rocks at me when I walk down the street, it's been known to happen.
|
|