stop having kids you can't afford to raise properly. (how much, school, financial)
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.
What's wrong with public school? It's kind of important to have an educated populace.
It's also important that enough people have kids in order to sustain our country. Just look at places like Japan that are facing crises because of the fact that they have negative population growth.
What's wrong with public school? It's kind of important to have an educated populace.
It's also important that enough people have kids in order to sustain our country. Just look at places like Japan that are facing crises because of the fact that they have negative population growth.
So you come up with a different model.
There are no jobs for kids today & you want people to breed even more?
Public school costs the taxpaying public about $10k per student per year.
That's taxes on my property and I never had kids.
I have no problem paying for education, after all, ignorance is so much more expensive in many ways.
But after that, you're on your own; no tax benefits.
so the rest of us don't have to pay taxes to fund your kids. Until you have banked 300k, you aint ready to raise your FIRST kid. 200k more for each additional kid. No reason for a woman to have a kid before she's 30, or a man before he's 35. If the 2 of you aint got 300k in 15 years combined, then you CAN'T raise kids properly, in the US, most likely. So forget it. quit putting the load on other people! each kid takes 1`/4 million to raise properly, mother should be there for them until they are 6-7 years old, in PRIVATE school. So you lose her income for those years and need baby sitters, so mom can take sanity breaks. Quit putting the load of your retirement on ss and tax payers, or on your kids. Save-invest properly, or don't have kids.
Since when did the AMOUNT of income you have determine your ability to effectively raise kids??? moronic to say the least! I think what you saying is that unless you have enough MONEY to pay someone else to raise your kids for you, don't have kids.
Per mco65, than we should be able to eliminate Children's Health Insurance and nutrition programs, headstart, college aid/grants, increased food stamps based on family size, etc.
After all, per mco65, money is not a factor in raising kids at all. So if its no factor inside the family, it should be no factor to society. That would mean subsidies should be eliminated, as they are than a waste of money.
Also tax exemptions per dependent should be eliminated, again money is no factor, so why is the deduction based on quantity of dependents?
so the rest of us don't have to pay taxes to fund your kids. Until you have banked 300k, you aint ready to raise your FIRST kid. 200k more for each additional kid. No reason for a woman to have a kid before she's 30, or a man before he's 35. If the 2 of you aint got 300k in 15 years combined, then you CAN'T raise kids properly, in the US, most likely. So forget it. quit putting the load on other people! each kid takes 1`/4 million to raise properly, mother should be there for them until they are 6-7 years old, in PRIVATE school. So you lose her income for those years and need baby sitters, so mom can take sanity breaks. Quit putting the load of your retirement on ss and tax payers, or on your kids. Save-invest properly, or don't have kids.
How about just eliminating the tax credits and allowances you get for having kids? Why should you get a tax break for burdening the system? You should actually be paying MORE if you have kids since you will now be needing more govt services.
How about just eliminating the tax credits and allowances you get for having kids? Why should you get a tax break for burdening the system? You should actually be paying MORE if you have kids since you will now be needing more govt services.
So, every family that doesn't have $300k saved per child needs government services?!?!
How about just eliminating the tax credits and allowances you get for having kids? Why should you get a tax break for burdening the system? You should actually be paying MORE if you have kids since you will now be needing more govt services.
Couldnt agree more. Those with more then 2 kids should pay an additional school tax as what they pay now may never even cover the cost of their kids education, never mind contributing even a penny to police, fire protection or road repairs.
Yeah, this makes sense. Have people delay children for 10-20 years. Parents in their 40's-50's paying tens of thousands of dollars for fertility treatment followed by the possibility that their child might suffer from birth defects.
Well it makes a helluva lot more sense than 16 year old high school dropouts fathering multiple kids from multiple partners.
300K will buy a lot of mac n cheese and ramens. LOL
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.
