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.
You don't know me from Adam, so how can you make such a statement? My wife and I don't expect anyone to pay for anything for our son. We both make a decent income, but the concept of needing hundreds of thousands of dollars saved up in order to have a child is ridiculous.
If you hate our current tax system so much (that's what this nonsensical thread is really about, right???), complain to your elected officials, not people following the basic biological concept of having offspring. Like most people, yourself and the OP would rather rant anonymously on the internet than actually doing something meaningful to effect change.
Is it possible the hundreds of thousands figure was meant as an expense made over years and years? Because if so, it is certainly true.
That is not to say only the wealthy should have children. I would simply suggest that parents should be stable, mature and have means.
I am all for people having 10 or 15 kids, if they can afford them. And if someone has no desire for kids, what do I care?
What I am sick of is teenagers and other immature people of little education and means having children out of wedlock without a second thought. Its destructive.
the question is whether that subsidy is for the greater good
I believe it is not, except for education.
If you can't afford them, don't have them.
They're expensive in both time and money. I'm not getting into other earthly resources here.
They require education and nurturing in the home.
They don't usually get it.
Well it makes a helluva lot more sense than 16 year old high school dropouts fathering multiple kids from multiple partners.
One other thing-
Wow...is that the obvious conclusion? Why did you make such a HUGE leap in logic? Are you suggesting that the only alternative to waiting 10-20 years to have children, is to have them at 16 and with multiple partners? indeed.
tax exemptions and deductions should be sacred in the US.
Reserved for those taking care ofg THEIR responsibilities.
What does this mean?
Are you saying that you want to penalize people who chose not to breed?
Why are you special because you want to have kids?
You're not, they're your, not my, responsibility.
Cut all subsidies and tax breaks for business and people.
I'll take it a step further: all females who have reached menarche are required to have the norplant if they're receiving pubic assistance of any kind, that would be unemployment or welfare. If you can't take care of yourself, you can't take care of another.
Wow...is that the obvious conclusion? Why did you make such a HUGE leap in logic? Are you suggesting that the only alternative to waiting 10-20 years to have children, is to have them at 16 and with multiple partners? indeed.
No. I think it obvious which scenario is preferrable.
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.
