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.
Wow, reading all these, I just can't imagine how either of my daughters' families could possibly even survive, let alone thrive. Between my two girls (ages 30 and 32) they have seven children (three in one family, four in the other) and they are one income families. They do not accept any government aid. Their husbands have good jobs with decent incomes (and well they should since they are in their early thirties) but neither husband makes a lavish income at all.
They drive older vehicles, they shop well, they don't spend lots of money on entertainment or eating out (they eat at home nearly all the time), but neither family "lives or looks" poor. They also have less than $1000 at any given time on revolving credit. One family has a vehicle payment and the other doesn't. No student loans - they paid as they went prior to qualifying for the GI bill and then used the GI bill to finish their degrees/certifications.
Not only are they doing well in the present, they are also able to save for college and retirement. They abide by a very strict budget.
They felt it was best to have their children in their 20s. Like I did, they enjoy being young and energetic parents.
So you have one daughter with 3 kids and another daughter with 4 kids. Both of the daughters stay home and they have their guys (who must be naive as hell to allow their women to use them like this) work like slaves to provide for them and the kids? But you say the husbands don't make lavish incomes?
- What is lavish?
- What city are they in?
- When you say they eat at home nearly all of the time and spend little on entertainment, are you saying they hardly EVER go out or do any entertainment spots for the kids? The kids don't have a playtime at Chucke Cheese?
- You said one family has no car, how does the husband get to work? The bus?
Something doesn't line up here. I'm going to say since you said the husband doesn't make lavish income I will assume it's not 6 figures, I will say it's $60,000 a year. With 3 or 4 kids and a WIFE that does nothing but sit at home and brings in no income, there's no way in hell they are "thriving". Either you are deliberately keeping out portions of the situation or they are taking government assistance and just not telling YOU about it because quite frankly....it's none of your business?
Getting an exemption for having a kid isn't the same as the Government sending you food stamps, housing vouchers, free healthcare, etc. Come on lol.
Actually it is EXACTLY the same thing. Decrease in revenue is no different than increase in expenditures. The net result is the same -- whether it's a direct payout or forgiveness of tax obligation.
Actually it is EXACTLY the same thing. Decrease in revenue is no different than increase in expenditures. The net result is the same -- whether it's a direct payout or forgiveness of tax obligation.
It's not the same thing. In one case the person NEVER spent any money to take care of the child because they HAVE NO MONEY. The Government is the one spending the money, all of it. In the other case a person is getting "reimbursed" a portion of what they SPENT to take care of the child. You guys are trying to spin apples and oranges.
Oh please ....you got caught making an irrational argument, just deal with it lol.
No you just have an inability to actually read and think about it before going on to the next rant. My responses to you are filled with reiteration of what I have said. Simply put.... you only process what you want to read.
How many times do I have to say that I do not support irresponsible behavior when it comes to having children? If you read the article, it specifically states that having children earlier has certain biological advantages... that's exactly what I am referring to (from personal experience). NO WHERE did I indicate that you should be irresponsible about the decision.. as you put it "for the heck of it".
It's not the same thing. In one case the person NEVER spent any money to take care of the child because they HAVE NO MONEY. The Government is the one spending the money, all of it. In the other case a person is getting "reimbursed" a portion of what they SPENT to take care of the child. You guys are trying to spin apples and oranges.
You're just doing word gymnastics at this point.
Did the government subsidize you due to the fact that you have a child?
Answer: Yes (through tax credit)
I think Jo wants to feel morally superior to the "welfare queens."
LOL. Thanks for the comic relief.
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.
