U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-22-2010, 08:48 AM
 
8,308 posts, read 8,589,144 times
Reputation: 25929

Advertisements

Quote:
I don't care how many kids a family decides to have as long as they can take care of them by themselves and don't ask tax payers to shoulder the burden.

I have heard this before many times. On its face its sounds ok.

The problem is that even if large families are taking care of immediate needs such as food, shelter, and clothing they really aren't paying their own way in society. In a previous post, I explained this by reference to the way that the property tax, sales tax, and income tax systems work.

We have a family in our neighborhood with eleven (yes eleven) children they gave birth too. That family lives in a house that is maybe worth $250,000. They pay property taxes of approximately $1500 per year. I have two children and I live in the same neighborhood and own a house worth $300,000. I pay about $2,000 in property taxes. I am paying $1000 per year for each of my children for educational and other governmental expenditures. My neighbor is paying about $130 per child for the same expenditures. Do you think children can be educated in the public schools for $130 a piece, per year? Of course they can't. I subsidize my neighbor and so does my sister who has chosen to not marry and not have children.

Many states have a sales tax, but exempt food from the tax. I submit that a sales tax on food is one of the few taxes that actually affects large families in any significant way. So again, if your state has abolished the sales tax on food its one more break that society is giving to people who choose to have inordinately large families.

The level at which we subsidize large families gets even worse though. My neighbor gets a deduction on his federal income taxes for every one of the eleven kids he has. I receive two deductions for my two children. With thirteen people (eleven kids and two adults) living in a household which family do you think is more likely to require government services? My neighbor or I?

In pioneer times, the rationale for having large families was much different than today. A large number of children died in their early years of life. No contraception was available for couples. If public education existed, it was a one room school house with a single lady teacher who was often paid in agricultural produce for her labors. Government programs for the poor, the disabled, and the elderly were virtually non-existent. The population had a low density. Having a child had few societal implications. Having children today does have many societal implications. The birth of a child represents a claim being placed on resources that are not unlimited. The question when any child is born is will that child eventually grow up and contribute to society at least that amount of resources that he or she takes?

I don't ask society to outlaw large families. That would be much to personal and too private a thing for government to interfere with. What I do strongly believe is that we should rewrite some of the tax laws to stop indirectly subsidizing and encouraging couples to have large families. It seems the right thing to do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-22-2010, 08:48 AM
 
4,044 posts, read 5,947,709 times
Reputation: 3819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momma_bear View Post
Of course kids are raised as individuals. In the US kids grow up to be adults who need to be responsible for themselves NOT responsible for their family unit. Kids can be taught to take care of each other AND to function as individuals.

My oldest likes football, my middle like music, my youngest likes lacrosse. Why SHOULDN'T they each be permitted to explore their own individual interests? The brothers go to each other's games/performances. The older ones teach the younger ones the ways of the school. But when they get out of school they will NOT function as a unit. They will each have to find their own way in the world.
Kids can play football, music and lacross WHILE being raised as a unit. And pray tell, why would it be so much more important for kids to play these different things and always focus on some personal goal, completely separate from what others in the family do, at the expense of building a close relationship and a strong sense of solidarity with their family?

Believe it or not, playing up commonalities and similarities between your children, as opposed to differences, can turn into an amazing support network in adulthood.

When you play up "difference" and "separate interests" for your children at the expense of a sense of loyalty and belonging to the family group, just don't be surprised when they grow up to hate each other's guts for having to share whatever little is left from you.

Just in case you haven't noticed, the individualistic doctrine of being strictly responsible for oneself and no one else, has been a historical fluke in the large scheme of things, and not the other way around.
This doctrine is working less and less in an economy increasingly hostile to the average Joe.

People in history have never functioned by being strictly responsible FOR THEMSELVES. They have always needed a little "tribe" and solidarity has alwways helped them.

The individualistic model has been a breach, NOT the NORM in history - and this was only because of unusually prosperous circumstances and a sense of unlimited space and opportunities, made possible by colonialism - to a small portion of the world's population.

That false sense of unlimited opportunities and "I should fly all on my own" is about to go away again. The sooner you figure this out, the better off your children will be in the future.

But hopefully, lacross skills will help your kids when life will hit hard.
Because it always does, one way or another.

Strong family ties and a solid sense of solidarity and loyalty are the ultimate lines of defense against the hardships of life.

You should try it sometimes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2010, 08:51 AM
 
4,044 posts, read 5,947,709 times
Reputation: 3819
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
I have heard this before many times. On its face its sounds ok.

The problem is that even if large families are taking care of immediate needs such as food, shelter, and clothing they really aren't paying their own way in society. In a previous post, I explained this by reference to the way that the property tax, sales tax, and income tax systems work.

We have a family in our neighborhood with eleven (yes eleven) children they gave birth too. That family lives in a house that is maybe worth $250,000. They pay property taxes of approximately $1500 per year. I have two children and I live in the same neighborhood and own a house worth $300,000. I pay about $2,000 in property taxes. I am paying $1000 per year for each of my children for educational and other governmental expenditures. My neighbor is paying about $130 per child for the same expenditures. Do you think children can be educated in the public schools for $130 a piece, per year? Of course they can't. I subsidize my neighbor and so does my sister who has chosen to not marry and not have children.

Many states have a sales tax, but exempt food from the tax. I submit that a sales tax on food is one of the few taxes that actually affects large families in any significant way. So again, if your state has abolished the sales tax on food its one more break that society is giving to people who choose to have inordinately large families.

The level at which we subsidize large families gets even worse though. My neighbor gets a deduction on his federal income taxes for every one of the eleven kids he has. I receive two deductions for my two children. With thirteen people (eleven kids and two adults) living in a household which family do you think is more likely to require government services? My neighbor or I?

In pioneer times, the rationale for having large families was much different than today. A large number of children died in their early years of life. No contraception was available for couples. If public education existed, it was a one room school house with a single lady teacher who was often paid in agricultural produce for her labors. Government programs for the poor, the disabled, and the elderly were virtually non-existent. The population had a low density. Having a child had few societal implications. Having children today does have many societal implications. The birth of a child represents a claim being placed on resources that are not unlimited. The question when any child is born is will that child eventually grow up and contribute to society at least that amount of resources that he or she takes?

I don't ask society to outlaw large families. That would be much to personal and too private a thing for government to interfere with. What I do strongly believe is that we should rewrite some of the tax laws to stop indirectly subsidizing and encouraging couples to have large families. It seems the right thing to do.
Great post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2010, 09:06 AM
 
2,605 posts, read 3,938,868 times
Reputation: 2164
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
I have heard this before many times. On its face its sounds ok.

The problem is that even if large families are taking care of immediate needs such as food, shelter, and clothing they really aren't paying their own way in society. In a previous post, I explained this by reference to the way that the property tax, sales tax, and income tax systems work.

We have a family in our neighborhood with eleven (yes eleven) children they gave birth too. That family lives in a house that is maybe worth $250,000. They pay property taxes of approximately $1500 per year. I have two children and I live in the same neighborhood and own a house worth $300,000. I pay about $2,000 in property taxes. I am paying $1000 per year for each of my children for educational and other governmental expenditures. My neighbor is paying about $130 per child for the same expenditures. Do you think children can be educated in the public schools for $130 a piece, per year? Of course they can't. I subsidize my neighbor and so does my sister who has chosen to not marry and not have children.

Many states have a sales tax, but exempt food from the tax. I submit that a sales tax on food is one of the few taxes that actually affects large families in any significant way. So again, if your state has abolished the sales tax on food its one more break that society is giving to people who choose to have inordinately large families.

The level at which we subsidize large families gets even worse though. My neighbor gets a deduction on his federal income taxes for every one of the eleven kids he has. I receive two deductions for my two children. With thirteen people (eleven kids and two adults) living in a household which family do you think is more likely to require government services? My neighbor or I?

In pioneer times, the rationale for having large families was much different than today. A large number of children died in their early years of life. No contraception was available for couples. If public education existed, it was a one room school house with a single lady teacher who was often paid in agricultural produce for her labors. Government programs for the poor, the disabled, and the elderly were virtually non-existent. The population had a low density. Having a child had few societal implications. Having children today does have many societal implications. The birth of a child represents a claim being placed on resources that are not unlimited. The question when any child is born is will that child eventually grow up and contribute to society at least that amount of resources that he or she takes?

I don't ask society to outlaw large families. That would be much to personal and too private a thing for government to interfere with. What I do strongly believe is that we should rewrite some of the tax laws to stop indirectly subsidizing and encouraging couples to have large families. It seems the right thing to do.
That makes so much sense. Instead of trying to equally distribute wealth, which Obie is trying to do, "Take from the rich and give to the poor", there should be more of a trend to redistribute taxes to reflect the amount of kids any one family has that takes in different ways.

With food tax for families, people like your neighbors and the Duggars would be paying more to keep food on the table. With property tax equal to how many people live on any one property it would even out for what the schools receive. And if the income tax deductions were to be capped, people would think twice about having another child.

All in all, perhaps enough incentive to refrain from reproducing to the fullest. A plus for the world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2010, 10:03 AM
 
3,842 posts, read 9,244,624 times
Reputation: 3177
Quote:
Originally Posted by syracusa View Post
Ans because this is all about YOU and how YOU are happy as a family, everyone else should not dare to critique any ramifications of your choices at the structural level, right?

You are wrong to think this is nobody else's business. There is certainly no law in place overtly prohibiting large families so families can reproduce at will right now; but make no mistake about it - others CAN critique such choices and there is no law against that either.

Eventually, with all the critique and eye opening discussions, perhaps people will learn to be happy with wiser numbers of children.
Besides, the economy will slowly teach us all that birth control is a wonderful idea.
Great way to pick & choose a sentence to fit your agenda.

I said that as long as a family is capable of handling children w/ all the req's that go into it, it is no one's responsibility. It has nothing to do w/ ME ME ME. We live in a democracy. Want something different, move to China.

On the contrary, the position you are defending has all to do about the "me me me" philosophy.

Some of you take this way too seriously & must be a blast to hang out with...it was a funny, lighthearted clip for goodness sakes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2010, 04:18 PM
 
11,614 posts, read 19,724,832 times
Reputation: 12046
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoExcuses View Post
Wrong.

In the US, kids are growing up to be adults with the knowledge that they can live at home with mom and dad indefinately because they just can't make it on their own at 18 or 20 or 24 years old anymore.
Well-a good number of people don't even graduate from college until they are 22. I think it has been common for college students to remain at home at least until they graduate and then maybe for a year or two afterwards. I don't think that has changed much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoExcuses View Post
The family unit is necessary to nurture and keep whole no matter if they grow up as individuals or not, and that's not happening. Each child grows up selfish and self centered. Each child grows up thinking he/she is the most important and what they want is what matters most.
So- the family unit should be nurtured but we should throw our kids out on the street when they are 18? Which is it?

Treating each child as an individual within the family unit does not make a child selfish or self centered. It gives the child the feeling that what he does matters to the rest of the family. It also allows a child to see that there is more than one path to being an interesting and productive citizen.

It certainly would be easier for the family unit if both of my high schoolers were football players, or both of them were in the band. But I don't think that is the right thing for either of them. One plays football. The other is in band. When there are away games my band student goes to see his brother play. When there are concerts my football player goes to the concerts. That way the family unit is still being nurtured, but each person gets to thrive within the family.

BTW-I sing in a symphonic chorus and all my kids come to my concerts. None of them particularly like choral music (although they did like Messiah) but they go because it is something you do for family members. I think that ALL members of a family need to pursue individual interests, including the adults. I think it makes for a more stable family life.

Being raised as an individual really has nothing to do with being raised as part of a family. IMO kids should be raised as individuals within a family unit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2010, 04:22 PM
 
1,219 posts, read 3,745,501 times
Reputation: 579
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
I have heard this before many times. On its face its sounds ok.

The problem is that even if large families are taking care of immediate needs such as food, shelter, and clothing they really aren't paying their own way in society. In a previous post, I explained this by reference to the way that the property tax, sales tax, and income tax systems work.

We have a family in our neighborhood with eleven (yes eleven) children they gave birth too. That family lives in a house that is maybe worth $250,000. They pay property taxes of approximately $1500 per year. I have two children and I live in the same neighborhood and own a house worth $300,000. I pay about $2,000 in property taxes. I am paying $1000 per year for each of my children for educational and other governmental expenditures. My neighbor is paying about $130 per child for the same expenditures. Do you think children can be educated in the public schools for $130 a piece, per year? Of course they can't. I subsidize my neighbor and so does my sister who has chosen to not marry and not have children.

.
Someday, those eleven kids will be paying YOUR Social Security
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2010, 04:57 PM
 
4,044 posts, read 5,947,709 times
Reputation: 3819
Quote:
Originally Posted by 121804 View Post
..it was a funny, lighthearted clip for goodness sakes.
Yeap, it was.
Except that the more serious discussion that resulted as a byproduct, WAS NOT.

There is nothing lighthearted about reproducing without limits and thinking you have a right to do so as long as YOU think you'll be able to afford them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2010, 05:01 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
2,568 posts, read 5,841,274 times
Reputation: 1905
Quote:
Originally Posted by syracusa View Post
There is nothing lighthearted about reproducing without limits and thinking you have a right to do so as long as YOU think you'll be able to afford them.
Who is doing that here? I personally do not know anyone with more than 4 children.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2010, 06:08 PM
 
11,614 posts, read 19,724,832 times
Reputation: 12046
Quote:
Originally Posted by syracusa View Post
Kids can play football, music and lacross WHILE being raised as a unit.
Isn't that what I said?

Quote:
Originally Posted by syracusa View Post
And pray tell, why would it be so much more important for kids to play these different things and always focus on some personal goal, completely separate from what others in the family do, at the expense of building a close relationship and a strong sense of solidarity with their family?
What do you propose? Kids come home from school, do their homework and play with sticks until they are 18? It's not that football, lacrosse or music themselves are that important, it's just that kids grow up and grow past the playing with sticks phase of life (which was fun when they were little). THEY want to do other things. What is wrong with having interests, and being willing to work to excel at things you like?

Why would it have to be at the expense of the family? My kids love to go see one another play and perform. Having personal goals is what allows people to be successful in life. A person can have personal goals and still be close with their family members. I am not sure why you think they are mutually exclusive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by syracusa View Post
Believe it or not, playing up commonalities and similarities between your children, as opposed to differences, can turn into an amazing support network in adulthood.

When you play up "difference" and "separate interests" for your children at the expense of a sense of loyalty and belonging to the family group, just don't be surprised when they grow up to hate each other's guts for having to share whatever little is left from you.
I don't "play up" anything. I simply allow my kids to be who they are.

Again-why would having separate interests come at the expense of the family? I don't understand this line of thinking. People are all different. They are individual. A family is a unit but it is made up of individuals. Having different interests doesn't mean that the family doesn't do anything together. What it means is that the members of the family are different people with different interests who are bound together in a unit.

Dinner at our house is always interesting. My kids go to the same school but they run in different social circles and are in different grades (6,9,11). They all have very interesting experiences to share at the end of the day.

They are actually really close. My older one is good in math and tutors the middle one. My middle one is good at Spanish and actually helps the older one (they are taking the same level of Spanish) study for tests. The choose lockers together and share lockers so that it is easier for them to keep their books on the right side of campus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by syracusa View Post
Just in case you haven't noticed, the individualistic doctrine of being strictly responsible for oneself and no one else, has been a historical fluke in the large scheme of things, and not the other way around.
This doctrine is working less and less in an economy increasingly hostile to the average Joe.
Maybe it is a historical fluke, but it's the historical fluke my kids have been born into. I hope that my kids do better than the average Joe and I am trying to prepare them to do better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by syracusa View Post
People in history have never functioned by being strictly responsible FOR THEMSELVES. They have always needed a little "tribe" and solidarity has alwways helped them.
But why can't the be responsible for themselves AND be a member of a little tribe as well? In a communal setting people have roles. Everyone is not responsible for everything. Those roles are usually dependent on individual strengths and weaknesses. The tribe does not do well if the individuals do not perform their best.

Quote:
Originally Posted by syracusa View Post
The individualistic model has been a breach, NOT the NORM in history - and this was only because of unusually prosperous circumstances and a sense of unlimited space and opportunities, made possible by colonialism - to a small portion of the world's population.

That false sense of unlimited opportunities and "I should fly all on my own" is about to go away again. The sooner you figure this out, the better off your children will be in the future.

But hopefully, lacross skills will help your kids when life will hit hard.
Because it always does, one way or another.

Strong family ties and a solid sense of solidarity and loyalty are the ultimate lines of defense against the hardships of life.

You should try it sometimes.
I am acutally insulted by this last section of your post. How dare you question MY SENSE OF LOYALTY TO MY FAMILY?

It is quite laughable that you propose solidarity to a "tribe" but you poo poo team sports. Team sports teaches all the thing you are proposing as so important.

When I talk about team sports I am not talking about the powder puff, feel good about yourself brand of sports. My kids play competitive sports where only the best players play, kids get cut from the team and you only get a trophy if you win. On a team like that the kids all have to work together or the team doesn't win. They also have INDIVIDUAL responsibilities on the team. Knowing how to better yourself in pursuit of a team goal is something that kids take with them the rest of their lives.

You go ahead having your kids play with sticks and not learning how to achieve individual goals. I am pretty sure my kids will do better by being taught to follow their heart and achieve to the best of their own individual ability than your kids will do by playing with sticks and being each other's be all and end all.

Last edited by Momma_bear; 08-22-2010 at 06:17 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top