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.
If the Christian’s want to maintain their values they can do so within their own churches and families. Don’t make me foot the welfare bill for unwanted babies.
Who knew women caused frivolous spending and held the power to stop frivolous government spending.
I fully understand you don't see an issue with any of this. No desire to fix the problem. Just keep enabling it. And then complaining about it. And then enabling it. And then complaining about it.
Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Keep the victims drowning in their victim status.
PS> Don't have kids till you have a partner who is sticking around. Pretty simple. But I do understand that isn't part of the agenda. Families with 2 parents.
They should really make marriage to be more tax advantaged, you will see marriage rates go up.
As is, in a lot of cases the government punishes you for being married, as the "single mother" would lose a lot of benefits.
My brother is in this situation. He and his wife have a kid, but they are not legally married. This way they are getting free pre-K and probably a bunch of other benefits. They have been living like this together for years now. I am guessing they will legally marry once the kid turns 18, many years from now.
No there is not always another job that is going to pay you what you were making. Think of this, couple making 250K collectively, daycare cost 50K lowering income to 200K. Parent with the lower income quits for 5 years now their household income is 150K. They have lost half a million dollars. In addition the parent who quit has lost potential earning power. One cannot walk back into the work force after 5 years and be at the same place they would have been if they had not left.
It all depends on what works best for the individual family. Not everyone's priority is to be a SAHP. Nothing wrong with daycare.
I have a friend who quit about 6 years ago because having baby #2 was more affordable if she stayed home than continuing working as the boss refused to give her the raise she requested (until after they made the decision for her to quit). Things are working out great for them now. They have 4 kids, one in school.
I hope they have a large life insurance policy. If something happened to her husband she would not be able to reenter the workforce where she left off. She has lost 6 years of experience and contacts and fallen too far behind in the changing dynamics of this profession. I'm sure the SSI, TennCare, and food stamps she will be eligible for will help though.
You are forgetting about the tax situation in your calculations. Child care is paid for with AFTER tax dollars. So if child care costs $50k per year, a person must earn about $65k per year to pay the $50k. In addition to this, the person who works usually has commuting expenses plus the cost of office clothing, lunches out, and other miscellaneous expenses associated with working at a office or jobsite.
By the time you take away the $65k that a person has to earn to pay for child care and add the estimated $10k in commuting/working expenses, then the person earning $100k per year is really working for only about $25k per year, and that is BEFORE TAXES.
So, bottom line, if a person making $100k per year at a job has to pay $50k (after taxes) for child care and another $10k in commuting/working expenses, that leaves them making about $8 to $10 per hour after all the expenses and taxes are taken care of.
Who knew women caused frivolous spending and held the power to stop frivolous government spending.
If they are having babies out of wedlock that they can't afford to feed themselves then yes they are contributing to government spending via welfare and other social programs.
They should really make marriage to be more tax advantaged, you will see marriage rates go up.
As is, in a lot of cases the government punishes you for being married, as the "single mother" would lose a lot of benefits.
My brother is in this situation. He and his wife have a kid, but they are not legally married. This way they are getting free pre-K and probably a bunch of other benefits. They have been living like this together for years now.
There was probably a time when more people felt shame from having the government help raise their child. Now it’s commonplace for a woman to get knocked up and raise a child alone with the help of the tax payers.
I make 6 figures (well over my town's average household income) and rent on a 1 bedroom apartment and daycare for one infant is almost my entire take-home income. The only people who can afford children are those who are wealthy, or those who are on benefits.
No, the only people who can afford it are wealthy or at least upper middle class. The ones on benefits can't afford it, they are just leeches living off the efforts of others. As long as we pay freeloaders to mooch, they will. It is time to go back to government cheese and food stamps. At least make begging embarrassing.
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.
