Reply With Quote
Smart, productive people have fewer kids. Sad but true. Limit the number, multiply the help you can give the kids to be successful in their own lives.
From Andrew Sullivan's page, an interesting take on the issue:
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/11/tax...=Google+Reader
Millions? If that sounds like hyperbole to you...I would focus on tax policy. As Phil Longman explains in The Empty Cradle – and I paraphrase — by raising and educating their children, parents have already contributed hugely (in the form of human capital) to social insurance systems. The cost of their contribution, in both direct expenses and forgone wages, is often measured in the millions. Requiring parents to also then contribute to payroll taxes is not only unfair, but imprudent for societies that are already consuming more human capital than they produce.
http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/...me&ref=general
Now, that author lives in the northeast so it likely is cheaper for those who live in the midwest/south. But it's an interesting conversation.Without excessive expenditures, surely people like us could raise a child for more than the $435,030 the government estimates but less than the $776,000, $1 million or $1.6 million guessed at on the pages of the Wall Street Journal. Right?
I had hoped so, but my estimation of what my spouse and I might spend – and, crucially, what we might lose – having a child ended up being more than those estimates.
And just for completion sakes, what are the monetary benefits to having children? Are there any? (Excepting if your child blows up big in Hollywood or something...)
http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ising-a-child/
Smart, productive people have fewer kids. Sad but true. Limit the number, multiply the help you can give the kids to be successful in their own lives.
Yeah, I think those "18 and Counting!" show parents are pretty reprehensible. At least the Eight with Kate thing happened to be a huge fluke, where they had sixtuplets. I don't think that parents are sinners or saints for raising kids, but I do think the idea that "parents are necessary for society to function, therefore, they should get tax breaks" is an interesting one. Some people will say, "They CHOSE to be parents though! No tax breaks!"... but if that's all that people are bringing to the table, the easy counter is that people choose to run businesses, employ people, etc etc and we give tax breaks to encourage that activity as well.
That dependent deduction ain't if you are doing right by your kids. And they are still always your kids. Help doesn't stop when the deduction ends. I'm in the process right now of buying a nice house with my single adult daughter to get her out of apartment/renter .
the smartest people don't have no kids at all imho.
Whats the ing point then. You live, you die. Raising good kids is a legacy.
That's pretty much how I see it CC. Sure, I could've not had kids, and traveled the world, and probably retired somewhat comfortably. But then what? I just never envisioned myself NOT having kids, even if it doesn't make economic sense. I guess I'm not a Randian.
Do we really need to encourage people to reproduce?
not only should they not get aid but we shouldn't pay for their abortions and contraceptives either
Your life has no meaning without children, that's sad. I hate to break it to you but you live, you die same as people without kids.
HOUSEHOLD INCOME SHORT OF $68K? WELCOME TO THE NEW POVERTY
A new study proves that a family of four needs $67,920 a year (pre-tax) to survive in America. And that’s basic: no vacations, no fancy dinners, no wine tastings, no fun-box deliveries from Amazon or Zappos or whatever every couple of months to break up the crushing monotony of work and eventual death. You will, however, spend an average of $12,000 a year on car insurance and payments on your crappy mid-sized sedan, because we don’t have much in the way of public transportation in this country. And you’ll spend another $12,000 a year on child care, because we don’t like to provide socialism in these parts, ha ha.
Freedom isn’t free, after all.
Not much left after $12,000 a year in rent and utilities, either. Don’t forget to pay $9,000 in taxes on that $67,920! Who do you think you are,General Electric?
The median household income in the United States is $52,029 — nearly $16,000 shy of what it actually costs to keep your head above water if you’ve got a two-income two-child household.
A single worker with two young children needs an annual income of $57,756, or just over $27 an hour, to attain economic stability, and a family with two working parents and two young children needs to earn $67,920 a year, or about $16 an hour per worker.
That compares with the national poverty level of $22,050 for a family of four. The most recent data from the Census Bureau found that 14.3 percent of Americans were living below the poverty line in 2009.
http://wonkette.com/442001/welcome-to-poverty-everyone-you-need-household-income-of-68k-to-live
I'm getting tired of all these ways politicians keep trying to buy votes, and how the people thenselves out to them.
Why should I pay higher taxes when my children leave the nest?
More to the point, why is the government playing favorites again...
can someone translate butthurtneeze for me?
ing dumbass. I have done all the you probably wish you could do...had all the cool cars, motorcycles, boats, etc., chased and caught a ton of hot women, had the condo at a ski area in Colorado, etc...sure it had hedonistic meaning and some great memories but at the end of the day it's just stuff. Kids and grandkids are in a class of their own.
I've got a platoon of kids and grandkids. My life had meaning prior to their births, and if they get into my wallet one more time without asking, my life will have meaning after their deaths.
Hey your the one who said your life doesn't have meaning without children so don't get pissed at me. LOL talking cause you've been to Colorado... ing rednecks.
Well said
Some argue that we need to. Look at Japan, which they're top heavy with elderly. if the birth rate keeps dropping, and people keep living longer... well, those two don't add up to a rosy scenario.
The fact that you're not supporting them is probably a big one...
Uhm.. that's kinda the point of the entire article. I'm guessing you didn't read it?
Maybe I am just infuriated with things unfair that people like you accept.
Should people with the ability to buy things others cannot have their taxes reduced for buying them?
The argument presented in the OP is that, while no one in particular needs children, society as a whole depends on them. After all, do you think our society would last long if the birth rate dropped precipitously?
Now, people CHOOSE to have children, so we shouldn't necessarily reward this. However, if the birth rate drops greatly, and the expected life rate goes up, then maybe producing children SHOULD be rewarded.
People who have capital gains and other types of savings have their tax burden reduced because it's (in theory) a benefit to the nation. You yourself have argued we need to keep tax rates low to keep producing jobs in America. This is the same argument, except replace "jobs" with "children".
We already do; only right now we only do it for the least productive among us.
Do you think there should be a discount for all parents, or just those under a certain income level?
Although I do think that other forms of promotion child-bearing would be something to look at... what's Singapore doing, for instance?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...477900124.html
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
