U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
 [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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 12-26-2019, 07:52 AM
 
5,919 posts, read 5,971,826 times
Reputation: 7068

Advertisements

Yes, you could. It would be very tight and you would be further out. Also, in terms of family---how many are we talking?

When I was growing up, we had six of us at one point in a tiny house (<750 square feet). Back in the day, it was the cheapest house in the "good" neighborhood. Aside from that, I had a few friends who lived in really small apartments to stay in the area. For example, there would be four of them in a one bedroom apartment. The parents slept on the pullout in the LR and the two kids shared the bedroom. We even looked at a small two bedroom coop when we were looking to buy and the woman had, at one point, four children with her. Point being---it's not a new thing.
Rate this post positively

 
Old 12-26-2019, 08:04 AM
 
4,231 posts, read 1,545,885 times
Reputation: 5346
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeignCrunch View Post
A child is neither a Porsche nor a commodity of any kind but rather a person whose care is the right and responsibility of each couple and then more broadly of society. Taxpayers are asked to fund everything from nuclear weapons to street paint to animal shelters, because that's how any functioning human society works. And, frankly, from education to health departments you're already "paying for" other people to have kids. The entire "don't make me pay for your kids" meme is an empty soapbox because not only are you already paying for a billion things less important than children but you're actually already paying for children, too

The only purpose of commodities is to be used by persons. Kids are major users of commodities, as their essential needs are greater than those of adults. The cost of having kids is the cost of commodities, so you are using a completely empty argument, just hiding it behind the idea of kids as saintly creatures.



If a couple does not assume the responsibility for raising their kids, they have no moral right to have those kids - particularly not in a massively overpopulated world. So, kids are not the right of each couple unless they are the full responsibility of that couple too.



Different societies have different rights and responsibilities according to customs of a specific society, and those customs are constantly changing. I am aware that I am paying taxes for some things for which I don't want to pay for, but there are ways around it. My chief way around it was an early semi-retirement, ie, instead of working 100% time and paying 50% of my income in taxes (I was in a high tax bracket), I simply cut down on the amount of work to less than half a year, traveled around the world for fun, and reduced my taxes to 25%. It is possible also to reduce taxes (sometimes to very close to zero) by right investments, or reroute your taxes into charities of your choice (eg, charitable contributions to scientific foundations, historic preservation societies etc. Bill & Melinda Gates charities, eg, have shifted last year from focusing on economic development in Africa on control of family size among the US poor). Senior homeowners over 65 do not pay school taxes any more as a part of their real estate taxes. Your argument boils down to "we the people who want to have x (where x is kids taken care of for free, free housing, free healthcare, you name it) have voted to extort money from you people who earn money, and you can't do anything about it, nanananananaaaaa". Actually, we can - the simplest thing is, for those of us who have earned enough, to simply stop working, and therefore stop paying taxes to support those who spend more than they can earn.


Also, tax laws are not written in stone, and they get modified all the time. Considering population trends and predominant society needs, it strikes me as highly unlikely that tax money will be preferentially routed to incentivization of having kids. When California was near bankruptcy during recession (due to severe drop in tax revenue), the first state-supported programs that were cut (and btw never re-instituted again) were some child welfare programs.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 12-26-2019, 08:57 AM
 
4,231 posts, read 1,545,885 times
Reputation: 5346
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeignCrunch View Post
The entire "don't make me pay for your kids" meme is an empty soapbox because not only are you already paying for a billion things less important than children but you're actually already paying for children, too

Incidentally, why do you assume that I consider other things for which I already pay taxes less important than children? I don't have children, so my children are not important to me. Your children are most certainly not important to me either. I don't consider children important (maybe I would if they were in short supply, but they most certainly aren't). To me, the only interesting thing about any child is that it may become a real adult (though a huge number of them won't become that - they will remain kids who will only want to play house and produce more kids and blather about their "rights"... and the whole silly game of make-pretend is funded by a relatively small number of real adults).

Last edited by elnrgby; 12-26-2019 at 09:17 AM..
Rate this post positively
 
Old 12-26-2019, 09:10 AM
 
Location: Montreal
850 posts, read 319,350 times
Reputation: 826
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is unless you consider continuing support for your inner child.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 12-26-2019, 09:19 AM
 
4,231 posts, read 1,545,885 times
Reputation: 5346
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOORGONG View Post
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is unless you consider continuing support for your inner child.

No such thing, I'm an adult inside out :-).
Rate this post positively
 
Old 12-26-2019, 09:38 AM
 
1,600 posts, read 794,877 times
Reputation: 2813
A household of 75k probably pays little or no income taxes if you have multiple kids. Deduct 24,000 for married filing joint. Put enough in retirement accounts to bring down ago a little more. Child tax credits, earned income credit, savers credit
Rate this post positively
 
Old 12-26-2019, 10:26 AM
 
Location: Montreal
850 posts, read 319,350 times
Reputation: 826
Quote:
Originally Posted by elnrgby View Post
No such thing, I'm an adult inside out :-).
Only problem with the self-sustaining, self-contained theory of the individual universe. If your job is to sell a service or product, you at point need to own up with the fact that if it weren't for all the little kiddies (grown-up and not) around you, you wouldn't have a desk to sit at, a grill to flip burgers on, a pipe to unclog, a heart to replace.

There wouldn't be the need to build more nuclear missiles if it weren't for all the pesky kids milling about. So much energy and money spent on that kind of thing, it's no wonder the killer instinct is alive and well in a society that promotes it in every way. Crap music, huge military interests, and on and on...
Rate this post positively
 
Old 12-26-2019, 11:25 AM
 
4,231 posts, read 1,545,885 times
Reputation: 5346
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOORGONG View Post
Only problem with the self-sustaining, self-contained theory of the individual universe. If your job is to sell a service or product, you at point need to own up with the fact that if it weren't for all the little kiddies (grown-up and not) around you, you wouldn't have a desk to sit at, a grill to flip burgers on, a pipe to unclog, a heart to replace.

There wouldn't be the need to build more nuclear missiles if it weren't for all the pesky kids milling about. So much energy and money spent on that kind of thing, it's no wonder the killer instinct is alive and well in a society that promotes it in every way. Crap music, huge military interests, and on and on...
I don't have a problem at all with people and kids when people support their own kids. But 800,000 New Yorkers (I mean in NYC only) who live in welfare housing, 33% of the population of New York State on Medicaid, and 7,800,000,000 or so people who have destroyed their own place to live in the universe attest that there are waaaay too many people and kids for the well-being of each individual member of human race.

If there were only 1,000,000,000 people in the world, and only 50,000,000 people in the US, nobody in New York would be living in welfare housing or be on Medicaid, and everyone would be doing something useful and earning enough to have a desk, a grill, a pipe, a Porsche, and a heart to... wait, do we actually know each other in real life outside of this forum??? :-) Something tells me that there would also be much less need for nuclear missiles and other forms of aggression/ defense/ competition if resources were larger than needs, rather than needs being way larger than resources (as it is now). When a population of wolves exceeds the supply of food in an area, wolves start killing their own puppies (many animals do some form of that) to prevent starvation of the entire herd. Humans fortunately don't have to do that because there are IUDs that are nowadays extremely close to being 100% effective all the time and in everyone who uses them.

I am not arguing that nobody should have kids, and there should be no humans on this planet. I am just arguing that people should limit their number of kids to what they realistically can support without imposing on other people.


PS- incidentally, I am a woman, and of European origin (ie, not, say, Navajo)... what made you conclude that I smoke a pipe, just wondering? I actually don't :-). I don't smoke, never did.

Last edited by elnrgby; 12-26-2019 at 11:34 AM..
Rate this post positively
 
Old 12-26-2019, 11:35 AM
 
24 posts, read 8,787 times
Reputation: 75
Default Yes

I am too lazy to elaborate, but I just want to say that in broad, general terms, I agree with E. Rigby.
And I can't rep her so showing support here.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 12-26-2019, 11:43 AM
 
4,234 posts, read 1,742,865 times
Reputation: 9789
Staten Island. In walking distance to Hylan Blvd, from New Dorp south, renting an apartment in a two family house until you can save up a down payment to buy a house. Commuter buses run along Hylan Blvd to Manhattan. Decent public schools. Clean, family oriented, suburban type, middle class neighborhoods. Staten Island has always been the borough for families who couldn't afford to live nicely (renting or buying) in the other boroughs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeignCrunch View Post
A lot (most) of people live somewhere in NYC on far less than 75k/year. But I'm wondering how well they are actually living. Is it possible to live in a safe neighborhood, not in Morris County (or really anywhere in the suburbs), and not in a literal shoebox run by the Russian mafia, in NYC on less than 75k/year for a family with kids? I'm not talking about major travel, private school, much eating out, Alfa Romeros, etc. I'm talking about living frugally, but safely and within NYC, on 70k a year. Is this even possible?

Last edited by bobspez; 12-26-2019 at 11:52 AM..
Rate this post positively
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.


Closed Thread



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 > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top