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.
I've been pondering this all day: if I was of very limited means but was gifted $5k to improve my kid's future prospects, what would I spend it on? I know what I'd do -- I'll share it later -- but what would you do?
I've already told you multiple times that finances are not the only consideration parents make when it comes to decision making. That means that yes, they are a consideration, but not the only, or even in many cases, a primary consideration.
If you're having an honest and open discussion about what's best for a child, finances should NOT be a consideration, right? Once finances are brought up, compromises start being made. I know this isn't practical, but the point is that about all parents are compromising what's best for their child, right?
Well the fact is - things cost money. The cost of a vacation or something can only be scaled down so far. $2k is 1.66% of a $120k income. Do you expect the entertainment budget for parents living on $40k to be 1.66%? That's $664/year. At what point does the spending of this couple stop negatively impacting their family? Perhaps 1% or $400? Are you going to tell this couple that can't spend 10% of their income despite their children being cared for in the manner they see fit?
Again, I've already addressed this. Go back and read what people are actually replying to you, please.
Throwing this back at you - where is your data that says $X amount of dollars cannot positively effect a child's life?
Seriously? Do you have any idea how basic logic works?
You are asking me to prove a negative. You prove positives not negative. Go ahead give it a shot. Prove there are no invisible pink unicorns flying around your head.
Quote:
The only goal post that have been moved is your fanatical obsession of what defines a certain social (irrelevent).
Wait, let me get this straight, when you use social class it is relevant when anyone else does, it is not. Do you know what "hypocrite" means?
Quote:
You are suggesting that the parent who is satisfied with say a low middle class lifestyle is somehow in the wrong for spending money that potentially give their child a middle-middle class lifestyle. As was pointed out to me earlier - who are you to say that's wrong?
Not what I said. You inability to comprehend is bordering on just outright fallacy at this point. What I said was it makes them a bad parent.
Quote:
Why does a child need new clothing? Do you know if the child even cares about new clothing? As I said, people from all classes shop at Goodwill. It's about value. Some see more value in used clothing and don't see the point of buying new. What next - are you going to argue that not buying name brand soda can harm a child?
Are you going to sit there an bemoan the parents need for a hot rod, a vacation, and then begrudge a child new underwear?
If there is no harm from shopping at goodwill, there is no harm from skipping a fancy car, a fancy boat, a fancy vacation. If it is about the bare minimum sufficing, why do the parents get the 5 day cruise? If it is really about what someone needs, and they "need" a vacation, than they can go camp in the woods and not spend a dime.
You have completely lost right here. Children don't need "new" clothing but parents "need" expensive vacations. fancy cars, fancy boats, etc.? You are done.
Quote:
How do you know the money spent by the parent conflicts with the families best interest?
I don't. But if the money being spent on the parents wants lowers the socioeconomic status of the child, that is not in the child's best interest. And if you were a parent, you would know that the child's best interest matter more than a fancy car, cruise in the caribbean, etc.
Quote:
How do you know the vacation interfered with raising happy, healthy, well adjusted adults? The person could take a $10k vacation and be a great parent, right?
Happy well adjusted adults are raised by responsible parents. A parent who spend 50% of their 20K income on a vacation is not providing for their children and thus is a bad parent.
Quote:
You just said "needs" - has anyone argued that a parent should put their interest before their child's needs?
Yes you. You say parents need a 5 day cruise or caribbean vacation (and a fancy car, fancy boat, jewelry) so that they can adequately parent over a children having new clothing. If the child is expected to get by with the bare minimum, why aren't the parents? That is the definition of putting their wants/needs over their children.
Quote:
Now you can try to create your arbitrary definition of "needs", but you will be doing what you said you weren't doing -- telling others how to spend their money.
Spend your money on whatever you like. It just makes you a bad parent. If I was trying to get control of how you spent your money, it would go something like this "You CAN'T spend money on X but HAVE TO spend it on Y". That doesn't happen. But what you want is to be selfish and get approval for it. You can't have it both ways.
Quote:
When I ask if someone should continually "do better" it inherently makes things about social class. However, it's not my goal to debate the arbitrary description of each social class.
Again, so when you give a definition (from wiki lol!) it is righteous, but when anyone else gives an actual number form the census it is "arbitrary". Hypocritical at best.
Quote:
As I said earlier, how does a vacation give one the lifestyle of another social class?
Seriously, do you not read carefully? I said the trappings of another lifestyle. Multiple times, btw.
One of the hallmarks as you move up social classes is that there are likely to be nicer cars, more vacations, all of the things you think parents who make 20K a year are entitled to by scrimping on buying junior new underwear.
Quote:
If I said:
Parents drive new BMWs, travel 2 months per year, wear designer clothing, fancy jewelry, own a boat, etc.
and
Kids go to the worst school in the county, have trouble finding clean cloths, eat terrible foods, have no one to take them to activities, etc
THEN you may have a point about conflicting lifestyles of parent and child.
You want to take a parents only vacation that the AVERAGE american cannot afford (and buy a hot rod, and a boat, and a cruise, and jewelry, etc) while making a lower middle class income, and finance by not buying your child the best that you can afford. So yes, I still have the point, that you are living beyond your means, by stiffing your kid.
If you're having an honest and open discussion about what's best for a child, finances should NOT be a consideration, right? Once finances are brought up, compromises start being made. I know this isn't practical, but the point is that about all parents are compromising what's best for their child, right?
WTF?
How are financials not part of open and honest discussions and decision making in a partnership between husband and wife?
Again, I've already addressed this. Go back and read what people are actually replying to you, please.
It wasn't you but another poster said the following:
Quote:
People that need to spend 10% every of their income on a single vacation without their kids, or on a single hobby or whatever, probably shouldn't have kids.
And if they do, like the poster in the thread, they will likely be remember for not making their children a priority, and thus less than an ideal parent.
Well the fact is - things cost money. The cost of a vacation or something can only be scaled down so far. $2k is 1.66% of a $120k income. Do you expect the entertainment budget for parents living on $40k to be 1.66%? That's $664/year. At what point does the spending of this couple stop negatively impacting their family? Perhaps 1% or $400? Are you going to tell this couple that can't spend 10% of their income despite their children being cared for in the manner they see fit?
OMG…the horror!! They might not be able to take a 5 day cruise to the caribbean EVERY YEAR. Selfish little child with their desire for clothing and food!!!
Oh, wait, nearly 15% of americans do not take any kind of yearly vacation. And wait again, some 20% of those families, spend well under $1000. Huh, at least most people get it.
It wasn't you but another poster said the following:
You asked me, not what another poster said. What another poster said is not what I said, nor my opinion or belief unless I have implicitly endorsed that same viewpoint.
OMG…the horror!! They might not be able to take a 5 day cruise to the caribbean EVERY YEAR. Selfish little child with their desire for clothing and food!!!
Who said the child wouldn't get food and clothing?
Quote:
Oh, wait, nearly 15% of americans do not take any kind of yearly vacation. And wait again, some 20% of those families, spend well under $1000. Huh, at least most people get it.
Does it matter what 15% of parents do and the other 20%? When I decide to take a vacation I don't look up the statistics on what other people do.
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.
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.
