| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 554.1 | HURRAY FOR THE CAP | FANTUM::TOOHEY | | Fri Nov 20 1987 12:50 | 3 |
|
I hope the cap is successful. I don't have any children. Why should
I subsidize those who do.
|
| 554.2 | | AKOV04::WILLIAMS | | Fri Nov 20 1987 14:18 | 23 |
| I support the concept for those who have a need to take advantage
of it but can't support a $5,000.oo level. SAVE (401K plan) is
limited to $7,000.oo and DEC is having difficulty keeping enough
lower income employees in the plan (companies lose the 401K plan
if there is not a sufficient cross section of employees enrolled).
Giving additional tax breaks to people in higher income levels is
discriminitory, in my opinion. I suggest the amount of pretax income
which can go to daycare expenses should be based on income level
and proven need.
An example: two working parents, each with $50K salaries.
Do they need the option to place $5,000.oo in pretax earnings aside
for daycare expenses? I don't think so. But, two working parents
with combined incomes much less than $100,000.oo might. The single
working parent with a lower income would probably have to put money
aside for daycare and, based on her/his salary, should be able to
place aside sufficient money to cover the actual cost of daycare.
Deciding on a simple dollar amount, in my opinion, is too simple
and a bit absurd. Tax advantages should be based on need, not simply
on the ability to take advantage of them.
Douglas
|
| 554.3 | Drivel | IAGO::SCHOELLER | Who's on first? | Fri Nov 20 1987 15:28 | 20 |
| < Note 554.1 by FANTUM::TOOHEY >
> -< HURRAY FOR THE CAP >-
>
>
> I hope the cap is successful. I don't have any children. Why should
> I subsidize those who do.
How about, because some of the people helped by this plan will be working
instead of collecting.
This argument sounds like one that I have heard from older, childless or
uneducated people.
"Why should we pay such high school taxes (or such high teachers'
salaries)? We don't have any kids in school."
Obviously these people haven't benefitted from other people being
educated. (Please note heavy sarcasm here!)
Dick whose_mother_is_a_teacher_and_who_has_heard_this_kind_of_drivel_before
|
| 554.4 | Wishing DEC offered such a choice | SHRMAX::ROGUSKA | | Fri Nov 20 1987 15:37 | 16 |
| So because some well to do couples might make out from the plan
as it stands, we should limit to it $500 and hurt those that really
need it?
Does this benifit actually differ from DEC paying a large chunk
of your health insurance premium for you, ie. rather than increase
your salary by x dollars and making you pay for your own health
insurance. In this case you get the benifit of DEC paying for a
part of your premium with money you pay no taxes on, and on top of
that DEC probably gets a break on its taxes by claiming it as an
expense.
For every tax exemption, only some and not all benifit. Let's face
it, life isn't fair, taxes aren't fair. I'd rather see tax
dollars support the health and well being of the countries children
than Star Wars.
|
| 554.6 | ad hominem | FANTUM::TOOHEY | | Tue Nov 24 1987 14:35 | 14 |
|
>note 554.3 by IAGO::SCHOELLER
>drivel
>This argument sounds like ones that I have heard from older, childless
or uneducated people before
Why the ad hominem attack? I would have thought the child of a teacher
would know the proper rules of debate. Is it just I who is uneducated,
or anybody who disagrees with you?
Obviously, these are typical tactics of socialist (please note heavy
sarcasm here!)
Paul
|
| 554.7 | I'm willing to help with other people's kids | CADSYS::SULLIVAN | Karen - 225-4096 | Tue Nov 24 1987 15:19 | 19 |
| RE: .5, .6
On the other hand, I agree that people have some responsiblility
to others in the society, especially children. We don't live
in a vacuum, so let's recognise the problems that parents face
in raising children, and try to help them. I don't think that
there are that many people who are working just for the fun of
it and take advantage of any tax situation when they can well
afford to pay it all themselves. I work with a lot of parents
with children in daycare. I'm amazed at the cost of a decent
daycare center. A tax break on $5000. is a drop in the bucket.
Instead of complaining about subsidizing daycare for other
people's kids, why don't you complain about the waste of your
tax dollars on other government programs (i.e. military)? To
me, it sounds like sour grapes that you can't get some small
tax break just because you don't have kids. Be glad you don't
have the other expenses that go with kids instead.
...Karen
|
| 554.8 | | CSC32::WOLBACH | | Tue Nov 24 1987 15:26 | 16 |
|
1. I DO have a child, and do NOT advocate company sponsored
day care. My child is MY responsibility.
2. Why penalize those who have higher incomes? Perhaps they
EARNED that higher tax bracket. Lower income parents
should not become parents if they cannot afford to raise
those children.
Deb
P.S. Yes, I vote the Libertarian ticket.
|
| 554.9 | How much of what I make is yours? | SSDEVO::YOUNGER | There are no misteakes | Tue Nov 24 1987 16:25 | 7 |
| Re .8 I agree completely (perhaps that's because I too vote the
Liberaterian ticket).
Re .(last several) How much of what I make belongs to YOUR children
and WHY?
Elizabeth
|
| 554.10 | what's the topic? | CADSYS::SULLIVAN | Karen - 225-4096 | Tue Nov 24 1987 17:37 | 8 |
| excuse me, but who's asking you to contribute more? I thought the
issue was getting a tax break for those who take advantage of
it for help with daycare costs. Are you implying then that
your tax dollars contribute to daycare? And even if your
money did help with daycare, why is that worse than helping
with military expenditures, welfare, etc.?
...Karen
|
| 554.11 | You've been reading between the lines again | IAGO::SCHOELLER | Who's on first? | Tue Nov 24 1987 17:49 | 17 |
| Re: -several
First of all, I never said that anybody in this notes file was
uneducated. If that was what I implied then I apologize.
What I did say that the argument against properly funding
education generally comes from those who are not currently or
never have benefitted from it. The reason that I make this
comparison is that I consider day care to be part of education.
Now we can carry this debate in either direction. Is day care
education? How well funded should education be?
Dick
BTW I would love to stay home and take care of kids when we have
some, but we can't afford it on my wife's (Sr. Eng.) salary :^{).
|
| 554.12 | | CSC32::WOLBACH | | Tue Nov 24 1987 18:20 | 21 |
| 1. Day care is not education. Day care is a place for
children to stay while their parent(s) are elsewhere.
The modern day version of grandma's house.
2. A tax break means that the individual taking advantage
of the tax break does not pay taxes on those dollars.
A tax break does not mean that less taxes are collected.
It means that those designated tax dollars are collected
elsewhere.
3. What does this have to do with my opinion on military
spending, medical research, welfare, etc etc etc???
Let's not mix apples and oranges. We are simply dis-
cussing one aspect of taxes.
For the record. I am not opposed to tax dollars being spent
on public education. This is for the good of society. Why
should taxpayers subsidize my babysitter?
|
| 554.13 | | PASTIS::MONAHAN | I am not a free number, I am a telephone box | Tue Nov 24 1987 23:30 | 19 |
| I hate to seem to interfere in U.S. politics, since I have no
interest in it at all, but I do object to the idea that day care
is not education.
My wife is a qualified teacher, and when we lived in England
she ran something which sounds about the same. They accepted children
from about the age of 2 - not normally those that were not toilet
trained. The children would be taught how to hold a pencil or
paintbrush, how to use scissors, growing cress on blotting paper,
simple cooking, and a myriad of other things. By the time they left
to go to a state school at the age of 5 most of them could read
a little and write their own names.
Nothing spectacular, and no doubt many of them could have learnt
all these things from Grandma. My (older) kids get taught advanced
chemistry by their grandma and grandpa.
Maybe you should be improving the quality, rather than saying
that since the kids do not learn anything it is not education.
|
| 554.14 | | CSC32::WOLBACH | | Wed Nov 25 1987 01:08 | 18 |
| If your reply is directed at me, as I assume it was, I did not
say that children in day care are not learning anything. Life
is a learning experience, most especially with children. My
son learns every waking moment of his life. He learns from
watching television. Television is a babysitter, not a school.
Day care center offer learning activities, that I would not deny.
However, the basic function of a center is to safeguard children
while parents are elsewhere (normally elsewhere=work)....as stated
earlier, public education (or private, should the parent so choose)
benefit society by helping to nurture future contributors to society.
Day care, on the other hand, is not necessary for the good of society.
It benefits a small portion of the public ie people who choose to
have children and continue to hold down a job. As a parent, it
was my choice to have a child, and it's my responsibility to see
that he is cared for when I am not able to care for him myself.
|
| 554.15 | | PASTIS::MONAHAN | I am not a free number, I am a telephone box | Wed Nov 25 1987 09:01 | 21 |
| I suppose it depends what you consider the "basic function"
is and how that should be judged. My wife also worked at a secondary
school where many of the teachers took the (reasonably justified)
attitude that they were keeping the 15 year olds off the streets
until they were old enough to legally become road sweepers or
pregnant.
By the attitude of the teachers and the progress of the children,
the organisation for the 3 year olds was educational, while that
for the 15 year olds was baby minding.
Incidentally, this opinion seemed to tally with that of the
parents too. Non-working mothers of the three year olds would
often not only pay for their children to attend, but then come
along on a voluntary basis to help with the supervision. At the
secondary school the only contact the teachers had with many of
the parents was when the parent came in to "rough up" a teacher
for scolding their child.
Do you distinguish between "educational" and "baby minding"
purely on the age of the child?
|
| 554.16 | Day Care Benefits Society | CSC32::JOHNS | Yes, I *am* pregnant :-) | Wed Nov 25 1987 11:14 | 12 |
| Here is one of the areas that Deb and I disagree. I believe that
Day Care *IS* in the best interests of society. By having available,
inexpensive Day Care, we are able to increase the numbers and quality
of people in the work force; this helps our society a great deal.
Too many women (and a few men) feel that they MUST stay at home
with the child(ren) in order to afford a home and food. Especially
benefiting from accessable, inexpensive Day Care would be the parent
on Welfare who has been wanting to have a job, but who has not been
able to afford to get one. I, for one, would rather that we help
these people get off Welfare than to continue to pay for them to
stay at home.
Carol
|
| 554.17 | Is the issue tax deductions or child care? | MARCIE::JLAMOTTE | AAY-UH | Wed Nov 25 1987 12:04 | 18 |
| I think I am a little confused here. I understand there is a proposal
to allow corporations to deduct from employees wages before taxes
the cost of day care.
Day care is an expense of working, is currently a tax deduction
and will just be treated differently.
This proposal will mean that the employee will not have taxes taken
from their pay that would be returned to them after filing their
return and claiming their deductions.
This is something that I am 100% for. We allow our government to
use millions of dollars from January 1st until we receive our tax
refund sometime in February or thereafter.
I cannot see as anyone is supporting anyone else's children. I
view the proposed legislation as a different way of handling an
existing tax deduction.
|
| 554.18 | | CSC32::WOLBACH | | Wed Nov 25 1987 12:10 | 33 |
| "one" of the areas? What are the others, Carol dear? ;-)
I think our basic difference of opinion is that, I don't feel
that people should be having children unless they can afford
to support them. Bringing children into the world has nothing
to do with the number and/or quality of people in the work
force. ie, I can be a contributing member of society and of
the work force without having a child. Where do we draw the
line? Should tax dollars pay for clothing for children? For
educational toys? How about deducting my cable payment ? After
all, Jamey does watch the Disney channel, which is very educational.
Welfare parents that want to work? Again, why are these people
having children that they cannot afford?
Realistically, I realize that there will always be a small per-
centage of the population that need assistance. But we are
talking tax breaks here-SOMEONE has to pickup the slack. Should
those who chose to limit their family size, because they were
responsible and knew they could not afford a child, or more
children , have to pick up the tab for those less responsible?
Carol, I don't think that we are as far apart on our opinions
as it seems...you chose to have a child AFTER you knew you could
support one, and that is exactly the responsibility that I am
suggesting.
DK
P.S. HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO YOU AND SHELLIE AND "KIDS"!!
|
| 554.19 | Better education? | BISON::YOUNGER | There are no misteakes | Wed Nov 25 1987 12:49 | 32 |
| RE (last several)
Saying that a tax break on something is not a subsidy is naive.
If a group of people are getting a break on what they do, someone
else has to pay more taxes. The government is not going to say
"this tax break means that people are paying $X less in taxes, so
we need to reduce spending by $X". The argument of "rather pay
for daycare or military" reduces to this. The government will continue
to spend on military no matter what tax breaks exist.
For the record, I support spending money on education, through the
bachelor's degree level in college. If there are teachers who view
their job as high school teachers as "keeping 'em off the streets until
they get pregnant or can become street sweepers", these people should
be encouraged to find job opportunities in non-teaching areas (to put
it lightly). Obviously, all 16 year olds don't drop out. Many continue
their education and become responsible members of society.
I don't disagree that children learn *something* at a daycare center.
Children also learn from a stay-home parent. Do children who go
to daycare centers recieve a better education? Do they ultimately
do better on their SAT scores?
I agree with Deb. Having children (and keeping them) is a choice.
Raising children is expensive. Most people find it worthwhile,
even with the expense. Thus, the parents are responsible for the
FULL COST of raising these children. Any sort of tax breaks amount
to a government subsidy. In my most liberal of moods, government
subsidies should only go to things that there are shortages of.
Last I knew, there was no shortage of children on this planet.
Elizabeth
|
| 554.20 | I don't understand | ULTRA::GUGEL | Don't read this. | Wed Nov 25 1987 13:19 | 17 |
| re .19:
>For the record, I support spending money on education, through the
>bachelor's degree level in college.
>Any sort of tax breaks amount
>to a government subsidy. In my most liberal of moods, government
>subsidies should only go to things that there are shortages of.
>Last I knew, there was no shortage of children on this planet.
But, in your last paragraph you stated that we should support kids
through college. There's no shortage of college-bound kids either,
last I knew. How do you explain the apparent disagreement between
your first and second paragraphs? Is it simply the AGE of the child?
If so, your reasoning doesn't make any sense.
-Ellen
|
| 554.21 | Daycare is so much more! | LEZAH::BOBBITT | a collie down isnt a collie beaten | Wed Nov 25 1987 13:27 | 29 |
| There is an advantage that no one has mentioned yet - an advantage
that daycare can provide over staying home. Daycare helps the children
socialize with one another. It helps them adjust to a school-like
environment which makes school much less traumatic. It also teaches
them social skills like how to communicate, proper behavior when
with other people, good manners, and enables them to work with a
variety of art media, toys that exercize eye-hand coordination and
large and small motor skills, teaches them about nature, takes them
to libraries, allows them to play with building blocks, dolls, trucks,
puzzles, and other toys (hopefully without regard to the child's gender).
A parent can sometimes not afford the variety of pastimes and the
attention that the teachers give to the children. The ratio in
the daycare centers I've been involved in is 1:5 for toddlers,
1:7 for threes-fours, 1:9 for the after school programs...or somewhere
around there. Also, many daycare centers encourage inquisitive
children to learn, having songtime or show-and-tell is another
experience that is not the same on a one-to-one basis at home.
Naptime can help the child get ready for a fun afternoon. Outside
play on various playground equipment, and with sandtoys (and sledding
in the winter) can work off energy so that when the children are
picked up, the children have had a pleasant day and are ready for
a relaxing evening.
After seeing how expensive daycare can be, I'm all for the bill.
I don't plan to have children myself, but I have seen what can happen
when children who need daycare have parents who can't afford it.
Maybe this will help some of them partake.
-Jody
|
| 554.22 | | CSC32::JOHNS | Yes, I *am* pregnant :-) | Wed Nov 25 1987 13:32 | 16 |
| Also, folks, you are talking about having children as if *not* helping
them is going to make them stop having kids. I think that I am
being a little more realistic in that I don't think this is the
case. Some people are going to have as many children as they want
to, no matter if they can afford them or not. Sometimes this comes
from their cultural background, sometimes from personal choices,
but it does happen. Right now there are many, many people in this
situation, and I think that the others of us are paying for it.
If we can get these people to be more self-supporting then the rest
of us will benefit. If giving them a tax break through employment
will help, then I am all for it.
Carol
Deb, how can I possibly remember what else we might disagree or
agree about; we never see each other anymore. :-( I miss you.
|
| 554.23 | Supported or funded education | SSDEVO::YOUNGER | There are no misteakes | Wed Nov 25 1987 15:43 | 29 |
| RE .20
>But, in your last paragraph you stated that we should support kids
>through college. There's no shortage of college-bound kids either,
>last I knew.
I never said we should *support* kids through college, I am suggesting
making higher education state supported (of course, there will still
be private schools for those who want and can afford them). There
is a big difference between paying for education and paying to support
someone. As far as the "age of the kids" thing, everyone in college
(or high school) are not "kids". There are many people far beyond
ordinary school age who want to persue their education. So far, no
one has explained how daycare is educational. The only thing mentioned
is the "fun" of various activities, and the social interractions.
When I was a 2-5 year old, there were plenty of other children in
the neighborhood to play with, share toys with, and learn social
interractions, how other people live, politeness, and all the things
you mention from daycare centers. I'll ask again, HOW DOES DAYCARE
HELP THE CHILDREN IN THEIR EDUCATION?
I doubt many newborns are learning much of anything at a daycare center
that they wouldn't get at home, or with an ordinary babysitter.
One more silly question to those that think daycare is beneficial.
Do you view that women who stay home and take care of infants and
toddlers themselves are being negligent by denying them daycare?
Elizabeth
|
| 554.24 | being deliberately provocative... | PASTIS::MONAHAN | I am not a free number, I am a telephone box | Wed Nov 25 1987 16:57 | 31 |
| When my wife was teaching 15 year olds she was supposed to be
teaching the geography of S. America to a class, some of whom she
knew could not read or write. When she tried to disuade them from
wandering round the room during the lesson she was threatened with
a knife by a child larger than herself. Other teachers at the school
had been assaulted by parents for punishing children by keeping
them in after school.
When she was teaching 4 year olds to read and write she had
a much better success rate.
How much the U.S. spends on what is no business of mine, but
it is wrong to claim that what may go on before the age of 5 is
less educational than what may go on after the age of 10. I think
it was .21 that said this sort of thing better than I could. Social
skills and attitudes start to be learnt very early. Some children
need and deserve a better example than their parents. A
maternelle/playschool/day care centre might provide this, but these
are the very parents who will not pay for it whether they are working
or not.
As an idealist I would say that for the benefit of society the
best professional assistance should be available from the earliest
age possible until the child has the basic skills to be an accepted
member of society - reading, making friends, writing, simple
arithmetic, filling in tax forms. For anything beyond that it is
arguable whether society benefits by it being given to all the
population, and therefore whether it should be funded by taxes.
On this basis, it should be questioned whether education beyond
the age of 8 should be subsidised, not below the age of 5.
|
| 554.25 | the downside of daycare | TFH::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Wed Nov 25 1987 17:54 | 30 |
| re .21:
you have been fortunate in the daycare centers you have seen.
they can also be "garages" where parents "park" their kids for the
day. There are centers where you can look at their advertised schedule
of activities and think the place will be absolutely *wonderful*
for the child. Yet go see exactly what 20 minutes of "music" really
means: 20 minutes of listening to the assistant sing 'itsey bitsey
spider' and 'old mcdonald'. As for teaching "good manners" could
mean teaching them to be submissive when there is only a few riding toys
for twenty children.
My wife provides daycare in our home and tries to make it as pleasant
and as educational as possible, and the children, I think, genuinely
enjoy coming. Recently the parents of one of "her kids" decided
to put her in a nursery school. Arlene went to visit the one they
decided on as "the best". Her description of the place is the previous
paragraph. Yes, their schedule looks very nice, and in reality they
do follow the schedule; to the letter, not the spirit.
One must be very careful in selecting daycare.
>> After seeing how expensive daycare can be, I'm all for the bill.
I think you mean you are _against_ the bill (that would limit deduction
to only $500)
Sm
|
| 554.26 | | CSC32::WOLBACH | | Wed Nov 25 1987 18:02 | 9 |
|
What does the high cost of daycare have to do with this
discussion? The question is simply, should parents re-
ceive a tax credit for paying someone to babysit their
kids? And should we add more government red tape to
the existing bureaucracy?
|
| 554.27 | Sociopaths | SSDEVO::YOUNGER | There are no misteakes | Wed Nov 25 1987 18:03 | 34 |
| rep .24
I'm sorry your wife had such a negative experiences with the teen-agers
she was supposedly teaching. I maintain that a few sociopaths do not
mean that secondary education is worthless. If the teachers believed
that their students were going to do poorly, the students probably will
do as expected. A teacher who has developed (rightly or wrongly) this
level of attitude problem should give up teaching. They are going to be
at best ineffective. Secondary education is almost necessary in
Western countries now. What jobs are available with just a HS
diploma? Very few, and even to get one of these, one is quite lucky,
or knows the right people.
You say that social skills and attitudes are learned early. How
does a daycare center provide this better than other forms of early
child care? Another factor here is whether or not professionals
actually give infant and toddlers better care and learning experiences
than most parents. The professionals may be intellectually better
equipped, but the parent probably has no more than 1:3 ratio of
adults to pre-schoolers. Parents usually care more.
>Some children need and deserve a better example than their parents. A
>maternelle/playschool/day care centre might provide this,
Agreed, some parents are poor examples for their children. If you
want to take your argument one step further, why not just raise
children in something like the Creches in Israel and formerly the
USSR? This removes the problem of sociopathic parents completely.
Speaking of sociopaths, what about the occasional abuse of children
that happens in daycare centers? They certainly aren't perfect.
Elizabeth
|
| 554.28 | What is our future? | BUFFER::LEEDBERG | Truth is Beauty, Beauty is Truth | Fri Nov 27 1987 21:35 | 20 |
|
I am not sure why I am even entering this reply.
This country of ours needs day care, has needed it ever since
families moved away from Grandparents. 15 years ago I was
spending over $500 a year for daycare. All of the children
of this country are intitled to a future, yet we spend a lot
of money trying to keep them from having one. A tax break on
$5000 is what the Army spends on weapons that don't work each
day.
_peggy
(-)
| May the Goddess inspire
our children with more
hope for the future.
|
| 554.29 | re: "education" and "beauracracy" drivel | ULTRA::GUGEL | Don't read this. | Mon Nov 30 1987 10:49 | 18 |
| re .23:
Anyone who thinks that children under the age of 5 aren't learning
something every single minute of their waking lives and are being
educated in whatever environment they are in, hasn't been near a
toddler very recently or just hasn't been paying attention.
Your real concern then is not whether or not children under the
age of 5 are being "educated" in day care centers. They, undeniably,
*are*. But, this doesn't have anything at all to do with the original
question of a tax deduction for parents who pay for day care.
To whomever asked (a couple replies back) whether we should add more
beauracracy or not - if it were *your* favorite issue or cause, I'm just
*surrreeee* we could find a way to support more beauracracy (heavy
sarcasm intended).
-Ellen
|
| 554.30 | | CSC32::WOLBACH | | Mon Nov 30 1987 11:23 | 15 |
|
*I* asked if we needed more government red tape. My note
was laden with heavy sarcasm also...whether it is my "favorite
cause" or not, I still don't believe this bill is necessary.
Perhaps I don't understand your definition of "favorite cause".
Perhaps you could define your terms. Do you mean, if I had a
child and if I used day care, and if I benefitted from a tax
break? Surprise, I fit all three catagories. That does not
change my original contention that parents are responsible for
the expense of raising the children they chose to bring into
this world.
Deborah
|
| 554.31 | I hope you can see what I mean | CADSYS::SULLIVAN | Karen - 225-4096 | Mon Nov 30 1987 19:41 | 39 |
| I agree that parents should be responsible forthe cost of having
children. I still think that the limit should be higher, and I
still think that the standard deduction on your taxes for children
is okay. The problem is that I have a hard time verbalizing why
I think so.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the issue is more than whether or
not parents should have some type of tax break to put their children
in daycare. I think it really comes down to the government helping
to support the idea that women should be allowed to work if they
want to (not just if they *need* to). Please bear with me as I attempt
to explain.
There is a lot of pressure on women to stay home with the children.
I'm not saying that women who do so do it out of pressure, but just
that it's a fact that was women's traditional role. Some religious
groups try to blame women who work for the problems with children
today. Now if a woman wants to work, what does she do with her
children (and there is *nothing* wrong with wanting to have children
and a career)?. Not many men are willing to stay home (even if
they could afford it), and men too should be able to have both
careers and children. Daycare is very expensive, and allowing
the parents to use pre-tax dollars helps them. Now this is
not a tax break yet because it just delays paying taxes on that
money. What it does is make more money available during the year.
I believe that there is some credits for daycare you can claim later
which is dependent upon your income. Someone may correct me if
my understanding of the laws are faulty.
I believe that in order to provide equality amongst the sexes it
is very important that daycare be supported. Now this method
is a means of providing minimal support, but it's all there is
so far. It might be unfair to those who do decide to stay home
instead of using daycare, but getting rid of the help to those
who use it is not a way to even the scales.
I think the issue is really about women, not children (sigh).
...Karen
|
| 554.32 | | CSC32::WOLBACH | | Mon Nov 30 1987 23:23 | 33 |
|
Now I understand. Continuing the stereotype that women are
responsible for child care, and then asking the government
to fund the unburdening of women, will therefore help to
make women "equal" to men. I see. Thank you for explaining.
I'm certainly glad that we don't divy up the chores in our
household into "men's work" and "women's work". I'm certain
relieved that no one explained to my husband that child care
is the responsibility of the mother, especially on all those
nights that HE got up to take care of the baby.
I am really angry that some women seize every opportunity to
take advantage of the 'women's lib movement'. For heaven's
sake, tax breaks on child care are not aimed at freeing women
from the kitchen and nursery!! Child care is NOT a gender-specific
role. Working at an outside job is not a gender-specific role
either. Who told women not to work? Why are women buying this
drivel? No one, male or female, should have a child they can't
afford. Day care happens to be an expense of rearing a child.
These days, we read and hear all about the trials and tribulations
of the 'working mom'. I happen to be one. My huband is a working
father. I don't see anyone lauding him for his dual role! And
I certainly don't see anyone claiming that we need the government
to assist him in being both an employed person and a parent!!
It's time women stopped shouting "discrimination" and starting
taking care of themselves, without the support and backing of
Big Brother.
|
| 554.33 | stereotypes exist | CADSYS::SULLIVAN | Karen - 225-4096 | Tue Dec 01 1987 00:08 | 81 |
| < Note 554.32 by CSC32::WOLBACH >
RE: .32
Sigh, I knew I wouldn't be able to convey what I mean.
> Now I understand. Continuing the stereotype that women are
> responsible for child care, and then asking the government
> to fund the unburdening of women, will therefore help to
> make women "equal" to men. I see. Thank you for explaining.
First of all, the stereotype exists, it's in use. Given
that it already exists, daycare is more a woman's issue.
It *shouldn't* be a womans issue, it should be an issue for
everyone. But if it continues to be harder for people to
obtain day care it will be 99% women who will be the ones
who have to compromise by giving up their careers (well,
he makes more money so it was just more economically feasible).
> I'm certainly glad that we don't divy up the chores in our
> household into "men's work" and "women's work". I'm certain
> relieved that no one explained to my husband that child care
> is the responsibility of the mother, especially on all those
> nights that HE got up to take care of the baby.
I don't want these stereotypes, and I don't live by them
either. But face it, a *lot* of people are living those
stereotypes. And there are people who want us, who don't
live the stereotypes, to go back to them.
> I am really angry that some women seize every opportunity to
> take advantage of the 'women's lib movement'.
Who's taking advantage of what?
> For heaven's
> sake, tax breaks on child care are not aimed at freeing women
> from the kitchen and nursery!!
Don't you think that it helps families to afford day care
which results in allowing both parents to work?
> Child care is NOT a gender-specific
> role. Working at an outside job is not a gender-specific role
> either. Who told women not to work? Why are women buying this
> drivel? No one, male or female, should have a child they can't
> afford. Day care happens to be an expense of rearing a child.
agreed
> These days, we read and hear all about the trials and tribulations
> of the 'working mom'. I happen to be one. My huband is a working
> father. I don't see anyone lauding him for his dual role! And
> I certainly don't see anyone claiming that we need the government
> to assist him in being both an employed person and a parent!!
Well, I admire your husband and all the men who take on careers
and child-rearing just as I admire all women who do. Yes, it's
unfair that the media doesn't devote more time to the problems
of fathers who are doing as much towards child care as women.
I guess women get a lot of hype in the media because not all
men equally share in child care.
It helps both parents to have more funds for child care. I never
said it didn't. I just said that limiting it tends to affect
many more women then men. Because society is unfair, because more
women are responsible for all of the childrearing.
> It's time women stopped shouting "discrimination" and starting
> taking care of themselves, without the support and backing of
> Big Brother.
Great let's do it! But what's so wrong with getting help and
support? Especially when there is so much pressure to force
women to not have careers. Maybe if we could change the
stereotypes we will no longer need any help. Or maybe daycare
will become less expensive and have more quality. Or maybe
people will stop having children.
...Karen
|
| 554.34 | Still say it is simple | MARCIE::JLAMOTTE | days of whisper and pretend | Tue Dec 01 1987 05:51 | 19 |
| To me the issue is much simpler and far less emotional than the
replies in this note.
Child care is an expense of working for some people. If they work
they will have this expense. The same dollars get taxed again by
the individual providing the care. Thus child care should be a
deduction...if it weren't the government would be getting taxes
on the same dollars twice.
There are many deductions for working that I would question. Business
lunches for instances. Why is that a deduction? It is a choice
that someone makes and not 'necessary' to conduct business. What
about uniforms....everyone has to wear clothes to work...why does
the individual who wears special clothes get a deduction?
Taxes and deductions are for the governments benefit and rarely
ours. By giving parents a deduction for an expense that they will
have if they work they in turn get more people in the work force
and more tax dollars.
|
| 554.35 | | RAINBO::TARBET | Margaret Mairhi | Tue Dec 01 1987 06:09 | 5 |
| <--(.34)
WELL said, Joyce!
=maggie
|
| 554.36 | | CALLME::MR_TOPAZ | | Tue Dec 01 1987 09:23 | 31 |
| re .34:
The idea of the dollars being "taxed again" doesn't really apply:
the same applies to any income that we spend -- for example, the
money that you spend to put gas in your car gets taxed as income
tax, as federal and state gas taxes, and as business taxes for the
gas station.
I'm also not sure whether you are suggesting that child care
should be a deduction because it is a cost of working. If so, is
it any different than the cost of commuting to work? Should
transportation to work costs be tax-deductible? Should someone
with a 50-mile commute get a bigger tax break than someone with a
2-mile commute (in the same way that someone with 2 kids in day
care would get a bigger tax break than someone with no kids)?
I think it's important to recognize that when one group of
taxpayers gets a tax break, then the burden must be picked up by
another group (either by receiving fewer government benefits,
paying more taxes, or increasing the debt). It might be
interesting to see if any studies have been done to determine the
overall revenue impact of increasing/decreasing day care
deductions. If it costs $10/day to keep a child in day care, then
someone in the 28% bracket would save $2.80/day if the day care is
fully deductible. People earning less money, and therefore in a
lower tax bracket, would save correspondingly less. It would be
interesting to have an idea how many people would stay out of the
work force (as suggested in .34) due to the loss of the $2.80 (or
less) per day.
--Mr Topaz
|
| 554.37 | philosophically speaking... | MYCRFT::PARODI | John H. Parodi | Tue Dec 01 1987 13:24 | 13 |
|
The question apparently boils down to:
Are you in favor of using tax incentives for the purpose of social
engineering?
Of course the biggest tax break in this category is the exclusion of
income for interest payments on a primary residence. So if your answer
to the question is "no," and your wish comes to pass, it probably means
that you will either lose your house or lose any hope of ever owning a
house. So much for the American Dream...
JP
|
| 554.38 | Day Care is Education | YODA::BARANSKI | Too Many Masters... | Tue Dec 01 1987 14:20 | 47 |
| RE: .8
"Lower income parents should not become parents if they cannot afford to raise
those children."
True, but *"should"* is the important word here. What do you do with the
children once they have been had? Ignore them, and hope they go away? No,
something has to be done to help these children and/or their parents be able
live a fruitfull life, or we will all pay more in the long run.
RE: .12
In the sense that all life is education, daycare is education. The earliest
years of life, their whole life is learning, education.
"Day care, on the other hand, is not necessary for the good of society."
Can you be more specific?
How is Day Care not necessary for the good of society. Imagine the upheaval
that would happen if all day care dissappeared. Do you believe that there
should be no day care? Do you believe that day care is not necessary to working
parents? Do you believe that it is not necessary for the good of society for
parents to work?
"... people who choose to have children and continue to hold down a job. As a
parent, it was my choice to have a child,"
What about people who did not choose to have children, and have them regardless?
"... it's my responsibility to see that he is cared for when I am not able to
care for him myself."
What if you were not able "to see that he is cared for ..."?
RE: .19
"Having children (and keeping them) is a choice."
Again, there is not always a choice.
RE: .23
Would you pay for the 'education' (however you want to define it) of an baby
(age 2-5)? Why? How would you define it?
Jim.
|
| 554.39 | | CSC32::WOLBACH | | Tue Dec 01 1987 14:30 | 30 |
|
There are many parents, usually young, unwed mothers, having
babies every day, that they cannot care for. Some of these
infants are given up for adoption. There are thousands of
potential parents most anxious to adopt a child. As an alter-
native, grandparents and other members of the extended family
will help to care for the child. And, let's face it, abortion
is also an option for some. This has nothing to do with the
discussion on tax breaks for day care.
Can I imagine a society with no daycare? Quite well! Nursery
schools were not so popular when I was a child. Some children
had babysitters in their own home. Others stayed with relatives.
And some went to 'day care' homes. With more and more 2-income
households, day care has become a necessary business. I'm not
suggesting that day care is not necessary. Simply that I don't
believe in tax breaks on the dollars spent for day care.
What if I couldn't take care of my child? In what respect? If
I died? He has a father also. And a stepfather. And a godparent.
Provisions have been made. I also have life insurance, to provide
for my child in the event of my death. Again, a parents basic re-
sponsibility.
Again, the issue is not "Should children attend day care" but rather,
should the general public and the government be responsible for
the payment of daycare? And again, I say "no".
|
| 554.40 | I paid for your home (along with the government)... | NEXUS::CONLON | | Tue Dec 01 1987 16:31 | 19 |
|
RE: .39
Deb, do you own a home? Do you take a tax break for your
home?
Why should the government pay for your home? Aren't you
responsible enough to pay for it yourself without the help
of the government and all the other taxpayers (**MANY** of
which **DO NOT OWN** homes?)
I only bought my house this past May, so I've yet to see
a tax break yet. That means that YOU (and others) paid
for YOUR homes off MY BACK!!
To paraphrase another: "How much of MY INCOME did you and
YOUR HOME own?"
Suzanne...
|
| 554.41 | Do you plan to live by your principles? :-) | NEXUS::CONLON | | Tue Dec 01 1987 16:38 | 9 |
|
RE: .39
P.S. Deb, if I have unjustly accused you of owning a home,
can I assume that if you ever *do* buy a home, you will
refuse the tax credit in keeping with the principles you've
stated in this topic?
Suzanne...
|
| 554.42 | | CSC32::WOLBACH | | Tue Dec 01 1987 16:55 | 36 |
| Yes, Suzanne, you unjustly accused me of owning a home!
I paid for rent the same amount that others paid for
house payments, and they also were able to claim the
interest on their income tax....I don't agree with this
"tax credit" either. And I understand that interest
deductions are becoming a thing of the past (correct me
if I'm wrong, as I'm sure someone will ;-)
My basic philosophy is "less government intervention into
private citizens lives"....and I think a flat tax rate
would be nice, although not necessarily fair, since it
would effectively penilize those in higher income brackets.
Would I refuse the tax credit. No. In the past I have
claimed the tax credit for daycare also. And yes, this
is hypocritical...however, I have refused public assistance
when I qualified. And I refuse-even though it's court or-
dered-to let the agency that handles child support receive
the check from my son's father and then dole it out to me.
We are quite capable of handling our own affairs and object
to government agencies being involved in something which
should be between two individuals.
Bottom line. I am uncomfortable with more 'red tape'; and
I'm sure if this bill passed (or failed, I forget now, what
were we hoping for? Speaking of which, was the vote last
week and what happened?), there are obviously going to be
'operating costs' involved....seems like a real waste of
money to me, and who is going to pay for this, ultimately?
Do I plan to live by my principles? Well, I give it my
best shot, and when I fail, believe me I am my harshest
critic! I have rather high standards. To my credit, I
do live up to most of them most of the time...
|
| 554.43 | Should have left well enough alone... | NEXUS::CONLON | | Wed Dec 02 1987 05:00 | 52 |
| RE: .42
Deb, if you want to object to the bill because of "red tape"
and/or because you are against all tax breaks in general,
that is fine as far as I'm concerned. I don't agree with
you, but that point of view doesn't bother me.
You make a tax break for daycare sound like welfare (when, in
reality, there is no real difference between that and a tax
break for business expenses or a tax break for interest on a
mortgage for residential property.)
You said earlier that people shouldn't have children if they
can't afford to support them without taking a tax break for
daycare.
How many people do you know that could afford a HOUSE if there
wasn't a tax break associated with it? Is it *more* or *less*
responsible to buy *property* that one cannot afford without
tax breaks than it is to have *children* that one cannot afford
to support without tax breaks?
When people go under because they can no longer afford the
property that they bought, the property goes through foreclosure
(and is sold to someone else.)
When *parents* find that they are having trouble supporting
their children, do you think that *children* should be foreclosed
upon (and sold off to more affluent parents?) I don't think
so. You may think that if parents can no longer support their
children without help, it should be their tough luck. I disagree.
For my tax dollars, I'd rather see *families/people* benefit
directly from tax breaks than big business.
My child is too old for daycare (so I would not benefit from
a tax break for daycare), but I would certainly not begrudge
anyone else from being helped by it.
Your comment about "shouting discrimination" was an unfair
stereotype about people who are concerned with how bills will
affect women.
There are very few tax breaks that I can think of that do *NOT*
benefit men in some way (so why don't you tell *MEN* to learn
to take care of themselves without the government's help??) :-}
If you merely don't believe in red tape (or whatever), that
is a good enough argument on its own. Some of the other things
you said were a bit on the "cheap shot" side and were unnecessary.
Suzanne...
|
| 554.44 | Supply and demand, basic economics | SSDEVO::YOUNGER | There are no misteakes | Wed Dec 02 1987 11:39 | 5 |
| If there were not tax breaks for owning real estate, the price of
real estate would be lower, and the same number of people could
afford houses as can now afford houses.
Elizabeth
|
| 554.45 | | NEXUS::CONLON | | Wed Dec 02 1987 12:09 | 18 |
| RE: .44
That may be true, but the reality is that there *ARE* currently
tax breaks for people who own real estate (which means that
those people are being *HELPED* by the government in the form
of tax breaks that are *NOT GIVEN* to people who do not own
real estate.)
Which brings me back to the idea you brought up earlier.
How much of MY income (until this year) was owned by people
who owned houses while I didn't?
I don't see why one kind of tax break is ok and the other is
not (nor do I see why tax breaks for daycare are treated as some
sort of "handout" while other examples of tax breaks don't have that
kind of stigma attached to them.)
Suzanne...
|
| 554.46 | A Leap In Logic? | FDCV03::ROSS | | Wed Dec 02 1987 12:11 | 16 |
| RE: .44
> If there were not tax breaks for owning real estate, the price
> of real estate would be lower, and the same number of people
> could afford houses as can now afford houses.
Maybe I'm missing something in this logic, but, how would not
having tax breaks lower the value of real estate?
Your title refects the concept of the law of supply and demand.
If, in fact, there were more people looking to buy houses than exists
the supply of houses, then prices of houses would increase. *This*
is the law of supply and demand in action.
Alan
|
| 554.47 | | CALLME::MR_TOPAZ | | Wed Dec 02 1987 12:50 | 31 |
| Elizabeth is right about the price of houses, but her note (.44)
did overlook a crucial point.
Suppose tax deductions for mortgage interest were eliminated.
Those people who could currently afford a mortgage of, say,
$1400/month might then be able to afford only $1000. Overall,
there would be a complete downward shift of people willing/able to
pay specific mortgage amounts; therefore, house prices would have
to go down. Exactly as Elizabeth stated -- supply and demand. So,
for someone who currently does not own a house, eliminating the
tax deduction would have no significant impact in terms of their
ability to buy a house.
The important omission from .44 concerns the impact on current
home owners who are paying off a mortgage. These people would
have purchased their homes and taken on their mortgage with the
understanding that the mortgage is a tax deduction; the person
paying $1400/month recognizes that $300-$400 is going to be
returned in tax savings. If the tax deduction were eliminated,
the mortgage holder might be unable to afford the $1400/month
(with no tax rebate); moreover, the house on which the mortgage is
held would be reduced in value (as shown above), perhaps wiping
out any equity in the house.
Of course, this is a moot point. When the tax laws were being
revised a couple of years ago and the idea of eliminating the
mortgage interest deduction was suggested, congressdrones were
inundated with complaints from crazed and wild-eyed constituents,
and the idea died a very quick, very final death.
--Mr Topaz
|
| 554.49 | HEADSTART! | HPSCAD::TWEXLER | | Wed Dec 02 1987 13:22 | 35 |
|
Someone asked:
"How would daycare be better than parental care?" and
"How does daycare benefit society?"
Well, now. Haven't folks out there heard of Headstart programs?
There is substantial evidence these days that indicates that we
can brake the cycle of poverty (for some folks) by using Headstart
programs. {Sorry, I can't quote them: it's my mom who got the
doctorate in education, not me ;-)}) Suffice it to say,
I have been quoted evidence that it is acknowledged in the education
field that early educational programs CAN make a difference (on
the dropout rate, on the percentage of kids branded failures in
school who are eventually forced to drop out, even on the tested
IQs!).
Headstart programs are education for young children. Headstart
programs are the chance for our society to have an impact on
future criminals... I don't think you can change the course of
the life of an 17-year old who's a dealer... but what if you got
to put your 2 cents in when she was 2 years old? Conviced her
that there are other 'prestige' jobs out there?
The US had 'daycare' centers (much like the creche's in France,
I believe). All during World War II. Those centers were dismantled
during the push to get women out of the job market. I understand
those centers were well staffed and government run.
Tamar
ps Someone also threw in the idea that there has been alot of abuse
in daycare centers recently, ie, implying that daycare centers are
just a poor idea. To that person, just a point of information:
parents abuse children, too. We're even less likely to find out
about that.
|
| 554.50 | thoughts on the cost of daycare | YODA::BARANSKI | Too Many Masters... | Wed Dec 02 1987 15:27 | 43 |
| RE: Deb Wolbach
Congratulations on your principles.
I hate red tape too...
In some of your previous replies it seemed that you thought daycare was
unnecessary. It seems that you still feel that it is not.
It is when daycare is *necessary*, and *unaffordable*, that the tax breaks come
into the discussion; just as housing is seen as necessary but unaffordable,
needing a tax break.
This doesn't apply to the general interest tax deduction, I hate it, I wish I
knew who thought that one up, and why; imagine, the government is going to pay
me for being in debt... why not!
You mention that relatives used to watch children... I would prefer that to
daycare, but many people have no geographically close relatives. And I tend to
think that these relatives were part of the 'unpaid=unvalued work' that many
(women) homemakers complain about.
RE: .43
I don't see daycare as being a women's issue. I want the tax credit for *my*
sons, and for *myself*; none of us are women.
Whenever I think of the idea of daycare being too expensive, the first thought
that runs through my mind, and I'm sure it would still if I was a single working
mother, is that more people should start daycares, including *me* if I can't
afford daycare so that I can work.
How come people (women) don't do this? Heck, I'd do it... the pay might not be
so good, but I'd get to stay with my children, and the children would have
plenty of playmates. I'm sure it is hard work, but why not?
Someone once told me that the government deliberately sent the number of
children allowed in each daycare low, so that daycares would not be as
economical as possible. I found that hard to believe; I guess I'm just not
paranoid enough.
Jim.
|
| 554.51 | People have a right to have children. | ULTRA::WITTENBERG | The stimulation of eccentricity | Wed Dec 02 1987 15:34 | 44 |
| It was suggested earlier in this string that people who can't
afford children shouldn't have them. I find this offensive for
several reasons.
There is a very strong drive (in some people) to have children.
Many people find their children to be the most important part of
their life (and from a socio-biological viewpoint, this should be
the strongest instinct.) To prevent people from having children
strikes me as cruel.
There have been attempts in the past to define who could have
children on the grounds of strengthening the breeding stock (Nazi
Germany) or preserving racial purity (Southern states until the
60's, South Africa until a few years ago.) To continue in that
tradition is unacceptable.
How could this possibly be enforced? Forced abortions for women
who couldn't support their children? There are allegations that
the Chinese do this. Most people don't seem to consider it
acceptable. Forced sterilization for people to poor to support a
child? We rejected forced sterilization in this country 40 years
ago. And what if the person got rich later? Forcing the parents to
give the child up for adoption? Look at the pain the baby M case
is causing. Are we to inflict that on some huge number of people?
I find all of these methods unconscionable.
Note that the U.S. Constitution prohibits any punishment prohibits
punishments including "corrupting of blood" (affecting the
desendants of the criminal) Such a punishment for the crime of
poverty seems excessive.
It seems to me that if we are arguing for "reproductive rights"
that those should include the right to have children, as well as
the right not to. Freedom of choice must include the choice to
have children.
I would agree that people should consider their finances before
having children, but children are so important that I cannot
accept limits on anyone's right to have children.
Perhaps later (when I am no longer livid) I will speak to the
original point of this note.
--David
|
| 554.52 | Child care and taxes | MARCIE::JLAMOTTE | days of whisper and pretend | Thu Dec 03 1987 08:33 | 26 |
|
This note is dealing with two issues. Day care and our system for
taxing.
The current tax system is designed (it says in small print) to tax
spendable income. In that manner the individuals that have more
necessary expenses pay lower taxes. It also has provisions to allow
deductions for expenses on our end that become income on the recipients
end. Interest for example is an expense that is total profit for
the holder of the loan. If we purchase a car the portion of profit
is not easily determined hence that type of profit does indeed get
taxed twice.
I can see a trend, one that I consider dangerous, to tax the same
dollars over and over and over. This is what the revolution was
all about.
A tax structure that is based on a percentage of income might sound
like a way of insuring that each no one group (elderly, parents,
homeowners) receives a subsidy from another (single, DOINK, etc.)
but indeed if someone were to have a serious illness, more children
than the income can afford we would see an increase in government
programs.
Clearly our tax system has been diverted from the original intent
but I subscribe to a tax system that attempts to tax spendable income.
|
| 554.53 | Biological urges are controllable | SSDEVO::YOUNGER | There are no misteakes | Thu Dec 03 1987 12:04 | 34 |
| Re .51
I can hardly believe I am reading this. Yes, having children is
a strong drive in some people. If it is such a strong drive, they
can set up their lives so that they can afford to have as many children
as they are driven to have. Having children out of a biological
urge to reproduce is incredibly irresponsible. Teen agers have
strong biological urges to have sex - but they are encouraged by
most people to deny these urges until they are more mature. Is
it asking too much for people to deny their urges to have children
if (when) they cannot afford them? If someone who makes $12K/year has
an urge to have a child each year, should we support them? Should
the children live in poverty just because someone has a biological
urge to have them. Or should everyone be forced to support these
people, at the expense of being able to support their own children?
Personally, I see no reason to support indiscriminate breeding.
I recognize that children are conceived accidentally. There are
*many* well-off people that would like to adopt these children that
cannot be supported by their parents. Abortion is an option for
some. Sterilization is an option for those who know they will never
be able to support children or don't want to. Keeping your children
is a luxury. It is very self-centered to have children that you
cannot support adequately. Yes, giving up children for adoption
is emotionally painful. There are other options, including birth
control, sterilization, and abstinence that can be used. No one
is trying to base this on race, religion, etc. If you cannot give
children a good home (emotionally, financially, physically), you
should simply not be a parent.
I don't see what criminal law has to do with this...unless you support
women in prison having children if they "have the urge".
Elizabeth
|
| 554.54 | providing daycare | CADSYS::SULLIVAN | Karen - 225-4096 | Thu Dec 03 1987 12:25 | 21 |
| RE: .50
>I don't see daycare as being a women's issue. I want the tax credit for *my*
>sons, and for *myself*; none of us are women.
>Whenever I think of the idea of daycare being too expensive, the first thought
>that runs through my mind, and I'm sure it would still if I was a single working
>mother, is that more people should start daycares, including *me* if I can't
>afford daycare so that I can work.
>
>How come people (women) don't do this? Heck, I'd do it... the pay might not be
>so good, but I'd get to stay with my children, and the children would have
>plenty of playmates. I'm sure it is hard work, but why not?
Jim,
How come you don't see daycare as a women's issue, yet you keep
referring to *women* to go out and provide daycare? What about
if you were a single working father, or a married working father?
...Karen
|
| 554.55 | Is it a matter of loving money more than people? | NEXUS::CONLON | | Thu Dec 03 1987 12:27 | 31 |
| RE: .53
Elizabeth, when you say "forced to support," are you talking
about welfare or tax breaks for daycare (which is the subject
of this topic?)
If you are still talking about tax breaks for daycare, then
I think the words "forced to support" are way too strong.
One could say that *ALL* of us are "forced to support" every
single entity in this country that gets **ANY** sort of tax
credit at all!!!
Honestly, I know what you mean about having children responsibly,
but even so I think it is self-righteous to attempt to dictate
to people as to whether or not they should have children.
Affluent does not equal happy in all cases. I've known poor
families that had **FAR, FAR, FAR** more to give to their children
other than material possessions (and yes, some of these families
were assisted by our tax dollars.) Our dollars were incredibly
well spent and went toward raising citizens that were (in some
cases) *far* more worthwhile than the pampered offspring of
the affluent.
C'mon. Let's not be snobs here and assume that only people
with money know how to raise healthy, decent human beings.
Your viewpoint sounds **less** like "I care what happens to the
children" and *MORE* like "I care what happens to my money."
Suzanne...
|
| 554.56 | | NEXUS::CONLON | | Thu Dec 03 1987 12:32 | 10 |
|
RE: .53
By the way, if you *are* talking about tax breaks for daycare,
then it is pretty low to suggest that anyone that might be
helped by the tax break that *YOU* resent giving should not
have children in the first place.
Is that what you mean?
|
| 554.57 | | SSDEVO::YOUNGER | There are no misteakes | Thu Dec 03 1987 13:05 | 20 |
| I have gotten off into the tangent of *completely* supporting other
people's children - welfare, etc.
I am not saying that *all* people who take advantage of this particular
tax break should not have children. In fact, those who get the
most out of this break are in the highest tax brackets (read - have
the most money).
As far as regulating the number of children people have, why not
just do it the way it is done in some other (less socialist) countries
- have as many as you like, but either support them or watch them
starve.
I strongly support the flat tax concept. You keep n% of your income,
regardless of who you are or what you are doing with the money.
Why do you owe less taxes because you have more children? Because
you use less government services? No, in fact, you probably use
more.
Elizabeth
|
| 554.58 | | NEXUS::CONLON | | Thu Dec 03 1987 13:25 | 12 |
| RE: .57
"Watch them starve?"
Boy, you really *are* fond of your money, aren't you.
You'd rather that children starve (i.e., die) than have
their parents benefit from what you feel is *your* money
(because you paid it in taxes)?
That kind of thinking is just totally alien to me. Sorry.
Suzanne...
|
| 554.59 | | MOSAIC::TARBET | Clorty auld besom | Thu Dec 03 1987 13:57 | 27 |
| <--(.57)
You may be being a bit hard on Elizabeth and Deb, Suzanne. I feel
quite sure that as individuals they're just as sympathetic to the
plight of the poor as anyone else is. It's their politics you're
objecting to, I think.
The problem with the "Libertarian" philosophy is that it presumes a
perfect world on the one hand, and a very imperfect one on the other.
The Libertarians' world is one in which nothing catastrophic or wicked
ever happens to them, only to others. It's a philosophy of "social
darwinism" in which the fit survive and the weak go to the wall. It
also conveniently ignores what is called the "social contract" (who was
it coined that term? Brandeis?), through which we are all protected
--meant to be protected, anyhow-- from the worst effects of natural
calamity or from complete predation by others. The point of the social
contract, of course, is to reduce the danger to property: people who
have nothing left to lose are very unlikely to respect any claims that
can't be defended in blood.
Libertarians tend not to look too closely at how much they themselves
benefit from that social contract; I expect they, like most people,
simply can't imagine how different the world would be were it suddenly
indeed one in which the only rule is "you can have what you can pay
for, period".
=maggie
|
| 554.60 | Children are not a luxury | ULTRA::WITTENBERG | The stimulation of eccentricity | Thu Dec 03 1987 14:05 | 50 |
| >< Note 554.53 by SSDEVO::YOUNGER "There are no misteakes" >
> -< Biological urges are controllable >-
>
> Re .51
>
> I can hardly believe I am reading this. Yes, having children is
> a strong drive in some people. If it is such a strong drive, they
> can set up their lives so that they can afford to have as many children
> as they are driven to have.
> Is
> it asking too much for people to deny their urges to have children
> if (when) they cannot afford them? If someone who makes $12K/year has
> an urge to have a child each year, should we support them?
>
> Keeping your children
> is a luxury.
Well, I can't believe I read your replies. Having children is a
basic human right. Having watched parents sacrifice for their
children, I'm inclined to think that having children is the most
important part of life for many people. Denying that part of life
to anyone is unacceptable. Are you suggesting selling children to
the highest bidder? That does have the advantage of making custody
battles in divorce much simpler: One simply considers the children
as one more asset to be sold, with the proceeds divided equally.
> No one
> is trying to base this on race, religion, etc.
You aren't trying to base this on race or religion right now
(Apart from the rampant race discrimination in salary in this
society.), but in this century there have been attempts to prevent
some groups from reproducing.
>
> I don't see what criminal law has to do with this...unless you support
> women in prison having children if they "have the urge".
Criminal law is the way we enforce policies that aren't self
enforcing. Unless we simply say that any children whose parents
can't support them starve (and this society seems to feel that we
should protect everyone in this country from starvation) the only
way to enforce your position is with criminal sanctions. It is
inconceivable that poor people will stop having children merely
because you don't think it's a good idea.
--David
ps. Sorry about the flames, I kept them as low as I could, given
the positions I was responding to.
|
| 554.61 | Historical nit-picking | ULTRA::WITTENBERG | The stimulation of eccentricity | Thu Dec 03 1987 14:16 | 22 |
| >< Note 554.59 by MOSAIC::TARBET "Clorty auld besom" >
>
> the "social contract" (who was
> it coined that term? Brandeis?), through which we are all protected
> --meant to be protected, anyhow-- from the worst effects of natural
> calamity or from complete predation by others. The point of the social
> contract, of course, is to reduce the danger to property: people who
> have nothing left to lose are very unlikely to respect any claims that
> can't be defended in blood.
The "social contract" dates back to Locke and Russeau in the last
century. If memory serves (and I was a science nerd, so I may be
a bit off), it had nothing to do with group insurance, but more to
do with being a member of society, and going along with group
decisions in exchange for some say in the decisions (maybe) and
the advantages of being in a society. They were still willing to
let people starve. The idea that the government will step in to
prevent starvation is relatively recent (this century, I think),
although various religous groups were moving in that direction for
a long time.
--David
|
| 554.62 | oops | MOSAIC::TARBET | Licenced Philistine | Thu Dec 03 1987 14:28 | 4 |
| Thanks, David. Clearly "coined" wasn't the right phrase; maybe "first
used with its current meaning" would have been better. <sigh>
=maggie
|
| 554.63 | I Feel Better Now | FDCV03::ROSS | | Thu Dec 03 1987 14:49 | 86 |
| RE: Various by Elizabeth
I'm not sure which annoys me more: your elitist attitude or your
feeble attempts at explaining economic theories.
To imply that children should only be a luxury enjoyed by the rich
or the very poor on welfare (oops, forgot, there should be no
welfare, we'll let the kids starve, or breed them for the rich)
is classism at its finest. This attitude would've fit very nicely
with the aristocracy in European countries during the seventeenth
through nineteenth centuries.
> I am not saying that *all* people who take advantage of this
> particular tax break should not have children. In fact, those
> who get the most out of this break are in the highest tax brackets
> read - have the most money).
Say again! (Please don't, actually, once was enough). The people
who get the most out of the personal deductions for each dependent
child *are* those with lower incomes. For example, a couple whose
combined income is $100K, and who have 3 kids, have a taxable income
of $94K ($100K minus $6K - ~ $2K for each kid). $94K, under the
new tax structure, is taxed at, say 33%, bringing the federal tax
owed to ~$31K. Thus, they have $69K left in the pot ($100K minus
$31K).
The married couple who have a combined income of $40K, and who have
3 kids, have a taxable income of $34K, which under the tax code,
is taxed at, say, 18%, bringing the federal owed to ~ $6.1K. This
couple ends up with $33.9K.
Even though the couple earning more is getting hit more in taxes,
I think we can agree it's far easier to raise 3 kids with $69K
available than with $33.9K.
> As far as regulating the number of children have, why not just
> do it the way it is done in some other (less socialist) countries
> - have as many as you like, but either support them or watch them
> starve.
In America, we're doing a pretty good job of watching too many of
our kids starve, or be undernourished, already. Of all the indust-
rialized countries in the world, America does the least, in helping
people pre- and post-natally. Look at America's infant mortality
rate, compared to Sweden, or even the USSR, for that matter. BTW,
if these kids are going to starve, anyway, we probably shouldn't
get too upset if they're being sexually abused. What the hell,
they're expendable.
Children are not a luxury. They are a nation's natural resource.
And thank you very much, but I'd prefer to live in a country
whose citizens come from all stations in life. They provide the
diversity that helps us grow and evolve toward something better.
Rich or poor, we all have something to offer.
> Why do you owe less taxes because you have more children? Because
> you use less government services? No, in fact, you probably use
> more.
If I adopt this philosophy of paying only for the services I use,
then:
- Well, I don't have any school age kids. I'm not going to support
public schools through my taxes. Let them be illiterate.
- I never drive on route 290. Screw it. I want the gasoline
taxes *I* pay to be used only on routes 128, I 95, and a
few others that I designate. Let the others pay for their
own damn roads.
- *MY* tax dollars being used to aid the Contras? F-ck it, I
don't care if some country in Central America is communist
or not. Uncle Sam, you can't use my money for that.
- I never ride on public transportation. Why should my tax
dollars be used to subsidize it? Let those poor slobs buy
cars like normal people, or walk to work. Not my problem.
Elizabeth, there's a good reason for having the word "united"
as part of the name of our country. We, all of us, are united,
interconnected, inseparable from each other, in some way or
another.
And, sadly, you don't want to buy into that concept.
Alan
|
| 554.64 | Freedom or non-accountability | SSDEVO::YOUNGER | There are no misteakes | Thu Dec 03 1987 14:55 | 26 |
| Re .58
Fond of my money? How much of *your* money are you spending on
children in countries like Ethiopia? Not much, I expect. How much
of your time are you spending with "unadoptable" children? How
many of these children have you adopted? I maintain that breeding
is definitely self serving, and it is not MY responsibility to provide
for other people's children. If I (or anyone else) *wants* to help
others support their children, there could be freedom to do so.
Certainly there are families with a lot to give their children.
There are families where little of the welfare money actually goes
to the children.
I guess I'm a little upset about how much of my money is going to
other people and weapons since I get to keep $27 out of a $52 raise.
As soon as you give your responsibility to others (society), you also
give them your freedom. If we are responsible for caring for your
children, we have the right to tell you what to eat, what kind of
medical care, not to smoke, not to drink, where to go, etc. while
pregnant to be certain that you will have a healthy baby who is more
likely to become a useful member of society. If you are responsible
for yourself and your own children, you can do whatever you please.
Elizabeth
|
| 554.65 | reverse discrimination | YODA::BARANSKI | Too Many Masters... | Thu Dec 03 1987 15:05 | 19 |
| RE: .54
"you keep referring to *women* to go out and provide daycare?"
:-<
How many people do you think would want their children in a daycare run by a
man? Be realistic. Believe me, I would, if I thought I could. Not only that,
but *if* I tried, I am still be accountable for paying the child support of a SW
II, while I am trying, and when and if I suceeded. Sorry, that bird won't fly.
:-<
RE: .57
What do you think of the interest deduction, specifically, the mortgage interest
deduction?
Jim.
|
| 554.66 | | MOSAIC::MODICA | | Thu Dec 03 1987 15:13 | 15 |
| RE: entries by SSDEVO::Younger
I had no doubt you would be attacked for your views.
Many people seem to want nothing to do with personal
responsibility.
Yes, everyone is entitled to have all the children they want.
But if you are unable to provide even the barest essentials
to that child, is it fair to bring them into the world at
that time? Is it right? Is it your responsibilty as parents
to address that question? Or do you just have all the
children you damn well please and let others worry about their
plight?
|
| 554.67 | | NEXUS::CONLON | | Thu Dec 03 1987 15:50 | 40 |
| RE: .64
Ok, now we are getting somewhere. You feel that children
should be made to starve because you are pissed off about
losing $25 of your most recent raise. Ok. That seems
like a fair exchange. Just exactly how many children have
to die for you to feel like you've gotten your money's worth?
Elizabeth, the government is doing *far* worse things with
your money than feeding children. Why is it that you have
homed in on this one thing as being such an unfair burden
to you?
*My* last raise has had a substantial nibble taken out of it
by Uncle Sam (and I'd venture to say that quite a few other
folks within Digital can say the same thing.)
Hey, I'm not crazy about it (but I'm not looking to take my
revenge out by demanding the blood and death of children.)
Let's get real.
Oh, and by the way, since you ask, I *do* donate regularly to
several charities/organizations that help PEOPLE. I also donate
to one that helps animals/the_environment.
I don't consider those charitable activities a trade-off (in
the sense that the government should sentence the children of
the poor to death because *I* happen to contribute money
elsewhere on my own.)
Sorry if I find your position totally callous (and yes,
downright bloodthirsty.)
As far as I'm concerned, the only **GOOD** thing about paying
taxes is that *SOME* of it goes to PEOPLE. If it all went to
give tax breaks to big business, I'd be just as pissed as you
are about it.
Suzanne...
|
| 554.68 | hippocritical remarks, ad hominum suppositions... | SSDEVO::YOUNGER | There are no misteakes | Thu Dec 03 1987 16:13 | 38 |
| Re .67
You are being hipocritical if you are not living at the poverty
level and sending *all* of the rest of your money and energy seeing
that the other children of the world don't starve. If you are not,
you are only being concerned about you and yours, and those who
just happen to live near you. I will once again be elitist and
tell you that at least I am not a hippocrite.
I am sure that there are many that seem to view parenting as a
responsibility, then go on to say that they don't want this
responsibility for themselves, let the taxpayers do it.
This "right to reproduce" argument kind of breaks down when you
apply it to your 14 year old daughter, who recently found out she
loves babies, and is feeling the stirrings of her hormones inside.
Would you encourage her to wait a few years, until she is able to
hold a job, and support her children.... hah, rediculous, asking
someone to wait until they are able to handle responsibility before
assuming it.
I am not responsibile for other people's indiscriminate breeding.
If they chose to have (and keep) the children, and will do anything
for the children, is it asking too much to ask them to get a job
and support them?
I resent the comment by .-several who stated that believing what I do,
I must support the concept that it's alright to sexually (or otherwise)
abuse unwanted children. Child abuse is a crime of violence, and the
only valid purpose of government is to protect it's citizens against
violence.
I would also like this person to know that I did *not* come from
a wealthy family. In fact, much of the time, we were below the
poverty level...but not on welfare. So much for my elitist, classist
ideas.
Elizabeth
|
| 554.69 | | NEXUS::CONLON | | Thu Dec 03 1987 16:34 | 45 |
| RE: .68
Elizabeth, why am I being hypocritical if I don't give up
every cent I own to support others. Hey, I have a child
(and I am supporting him 100% by myself.) You have asked
me to be responsible, and I am doing just that.
There are more than two choices here. One doesn't have to
believe that either a) none of our money should support
children and they should starve to death, or b) every cent
of our personal money should go to support other people's
children (or else we should ADMIT that we *also* want poor
children to die.)
I'm not attacking you or your character. I'm arguing against
your words (especially words like, "watch them starve" in regards
to parents who are irresponsible enough to end up poor while
trying to raise children.)
Who are you punishing by letting parents watch their children
starve to death because *YOU* want to keep that other $25 of
your new raise? Yes, you'd punish the parents, but you'd also
be punishing the children. (What irresponsible acts did the
*CHILDREN* do that they deserve to die for????)
I'm also not suggesting that we all go out and have 20 kids
that we can't support. Most of us here work for Digital
(hopefully :-) and we do OK. We are the ones who are in the
position to HELP those that cannot afford to support their
children alone.
As a person who is in a position to help, I am damn glad my
taxes go for that purpose (and I help out in whatever other
ways I can financially, etc.) There is nothing hypocritical
about that position.
Elizabeth, I am not saying that YOU are bloodthirsty. I think
that your politics are (and I admit that I am somewhat shocked
to hear you SAY that you think children should die for your
beliefs.)
That is not a personal attack. If you didn't MEAN that parents
should "watch their children starve," then what DID you mean?
Suzanne...
|
| 554.70 | It May Be Fine In Books, But.... | FDCV03::ROSS | | Thu Dec 03 1987 16:56 | 43 |
| RE: .68
> I resent the comment by .-several who stated that believing what
> I do, I must support the concept that it's alright to sexually
> (or otherwise) abuse unwanted children. Child abuse is a crime
> of violence, and the only valid purpose of government is to protect
> it's citizens against violence.
But letting children die of starvation, if their parents can't,
at that particular time in their lives, afford to feed them is
reasonable. What's wrong with massive doses of benign neglect, eh?
And you still can't think of any other valid reasons for having
government? How about highways? Oh, I see, we'll get a few people
here this weekend and build this fantastic, 3,000 mile road.
How about Federal agencies overseeing the protection of our health
when it comes to releasing ethical, licit drugs. You *do* remember
thalidomide, don't you? Thanks to the FDA, an agency of Uncle Sam,
American mothers were spared the tragedy of having babies born with
stumps for limbs.
But again, I forget. If these babies were unfortunate enough to
be born to poor parents, they'd die of starvation anyway. So, no
big deal, they'd have stumps for a few years and *then* they'd die.
No need for arms and legs in this case.
> I would also like this person to know that I did *not* come from
> a wealthy family. In fact, much of the time, we were below the
> poverty level...but not on welfare. So much for my elitist, classist
> ideas.
I certainly did not say you came from a wealthy family. But people
who are elitist and classist do not necessarily have to be born
that way. Like bigotry, racism and a whole host of other negative
human qualities, elitism and classism can be very effectively
incorporated into one's personality.
Your views are a shining example of that process in action.
Alan
|
| 554.71 | | CSC32::WOLBACH | | Thu Dec 03 1987 17:08 | 31 |
|
Gee whiz, who opened this can of worms, anyway?
For the record, Elizabeth, I think you and I are on the
same side of the fence. You've basically said the same
things I would have said. So I won't repeat them.
I've lost track of who said what, but for the person who
is "livid" because I suggested that humans should be re-
sponisible enough to have babies only when they can care
for those children: why is having a child a "right"? Who
gave us that right? who's protecting that right? It may
be YOUR right to have a child, but I resent someone else
forcing ME to care for that child..
I never once suggested that day care is unnecessary. In
fact, I think I've stated several times that it IS neces-
sary. I don't feel it's necessary to have more tax breaks
in effect.
While you are re-reading these replies, please note how many
persons mentioned that this is a "woman's issue" and will bene-
fit "women" and that this bill should not be supported because
it's passage would be detrimental to "women" who "need all the
help they can get." I see statements as discriminating against
men.
Deb
|
| 554.72 | | TFH::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Thu Dec 03 1987 17:33 | 38 |
| re.69:
How much more benevolent could you be if you were not taxed at all?
what would be so bad about making the Interstate Highway system
a toll road that was paid for by those who use it?
> I am somewhat shocked to hear you SAY that you think children should
> die for your beliefs.
That is a gross distortion of what Elizabeth has said. You have
removed "watch them die" from its context. She said that people
should only bear children that they can support. IF more children
are born, they will starve. This is a fact. So, you say, "society
can pitch in 'just a little' to help and that poor child will not
starve." But then there is another child, and another, and so on
until everything that the society produces is going into feeding
the children that cannot be supported individually. But by now,
no one can raise a child individually because everything they make
is going into taxes to support someone else's kids. All that has
happened is that you've gone from an individual who can't support
his kids to an entire society who can't support their kids.
How can it possibly be RIGHT to bear a child that you can not support
and DEMAND that everyone else support it?
If you would like to help an individual raise a child with your
money, then you are perfectly free to do so.
> If you didn't MEAN that parents should "watch their children starve,"
> then what DID you mean?
I think she meant that responsibility means realizing that if you
have another child, and you can not support it, then you should
not have it in the first place. OR, if you do have it, to find some
way of supporting it that does not require the FORCED contributions
of everyone else.
Sm
|
| 554.73 | Perhaps you didn't understand me... | SSDEVO::YOUNGER | There are no misteakes | Thu Dec 03 1987 17:41 | 68 |
| Suzanne,
I view anyone who says that they can't believe anyone would ildley
watch children starve to death, then doesn't do everything in their
power to prevent that from happening (and it is, in some parts of
the world), is being at least slightly hypocritical. While it
is nice to give money to charity (guess what? I give money to charity
too), if you aren't giving everything you are capable of giving,
you are not helping as much as you can. If you give $100 (or whatever)
to help starving children, then spend $400 on a new VCR, you are
saying that you value the VCR more than you value the children.
If you were truly appalled at the idea of *any* children starving
to death, you would send the $400 to help the children.
Re .63 (Ross)
I guess I am annoyed at your half-hearted socialist viewpoints.
Name calling can be a two way street...
I have not said that children should be enjoyed only by the very rich
or the very poor. That is what is happening *now*. The very rich
and the very poor on welfare can have all the children they wish,
at no significant expense. It's those in between who are having
to carefully plan, and perhaps forgo, having children.
With the idea of the tax breaks, perhaps you did not understand
me by who benefits the most. If we use the couple who have $94K
in income, who are in a 38% tax bracket (with the changes, I am
not sure about the current brackets), and they get a 5K deduction,
they get a boost in income (above the level if there were no such
tax break) of .38 * 5000. If another couple makes $12K per year,
and they also get the 5K deduction, and are in an 11% bracket, they
get a boost of income of .11 * 5000. Thus, the wealthy family gets
about 3 times as much money out of the deduction. And yes, they
are certainly going to have an easier time living on their income
than the poor family. Granted the tax break may make the difference
of the children getting milk or not in the poor family, and
whether or not they get a vacation to Hawaii in the rich family,
thus, in that respect, it makes more difference to the poor family,
but the rich family gets more $$$ out of it.
I have not said "pay for only the services you use". I am talking
*quantity* of services used. BTW, I am not talking about school
taxes - they come out of real estate taxes that you pay, or your
landlord pays out of your rent.
BTW, someone asked about my position on real estate loan deductions.
I maintain the "flat tax" idea, even though it would hurt me.
The "United States" means that the STATES are united - not the people.
If you really want a "United People", you are talking about communism.
Then you criticise the communist government in Central America.
I may back off of "let the children starve". After all, child neglect
is already illegal in this country. Just take the children away, put
them in an environment with some good role models, give them food and
an education, and jail the neglectful parents. I kind of suspect that
not many would be jailed - most would figure out a way to give up, or
not have (so many) children. I also don't think many would starve if
the parents were aware that they had to support the children. I think
we would have a more responsible group of people doing the parenting.
FWIW, I realize that anyone reading this notesfile has a job (we
hope :^)), and are supporting their children, and would probably
continue to do so if not given tax breaks.
Elizabeth
|
| 554.74 | I can't believe what I just read !!! | DPDMAI::RESENDEP | following the yellow brick road... | Thu Dec 03 1987 17:41 | 43 |
| RE: .51
> There is a very strong drive (in some people) to have children.
> Many people find their children to be the most important part of
> their life (and from a socio-biological viewpoint, this should be
> the strongest instinct.) To prevent people from having children
> strikes me as cruel.
Well, I've read all the replies to this note, and managed to keep
my fingers off the keyboard, but this notion just floored me! This
reply has absolutely no relation to tax breaks for daycare, BTW,
but it touched on a real hot button.
I cannot believe that someone would actually say that it is your
God-given right to have babies in litters, and my God-given
responsibility to pay for them!!!
Well, tell you what. I don't have any children. Why? Well, years ago
when I felt that urge, that drive that most if not all women feel, my
then-husband and I didn't feel we were established enough in our
careers to give children the things we wanted them to have. So we put
it off. Over time, I got extremely involved in my career and, also
believing that I'd want to stay home full time to raise my child,
wasn't willing to give that career up. I don't believe I did anything
particularly *noble* by not having children; it was a matter of
simple responsiblity, nothing more.
Let's see now, using your reasoning, let's suppose I have a "strong
drive" not for babies, but for a pretty house. You know, there *are*
people who's "most important part of their life" (to use your words) is
a pretty house. Does that give them the "right" to satisfy that drive
at the taxpayers' expense? If not, why?
One more note. Who says having babies *should* be the strongest
instinct? Does that mean that women who don't want children have
something wrong with them? After all, their instincts aren't telling
them what they "should".
Sorry for the flames, but this bit about the "right" to follow your
own selfish urges at my expense absolutely blew my mind!
Pat
|
| 554.75 | | SUPER::HENDRICKS | Not another learning experience! | Thu Dec 03 1987 18:03 | 52 |
| I sympathize with a number of things that Deb and Elizabeth are
saying, but I would phrase my version a little differently.
Lots of people (poor, rich, students, employed, unemployed, single,
married, old, young) don't seem to know a lot about what having
children involves until they have them. Lots of couples I've met plan
the timing of the pregnancy, the leave from work, and the pre-natal
months very, very carefully, and yet when the baby is actually a part
of the household, the parents find they have signed up for a
20+ year project that goes way beyond the biological aspects. Many
well-off couples say that having a baby costs a great deal more than
their worst-case projections. I think a lot of poor people do
without many of the things well-off couples feel are necessary,
but even then I think the costs are frighteningly high.
Professional couples/single parents with jobs and resources are
somewhat better equipped to deal with the material side of
child-raising. And that's not all there is to it.
I feel that teenagers need to be educated about the realities.
I think some "family living" courses were tried in the 1970's, but
they were often taught by a less-than-credible home ec teacher.
I think that before hormones and peer pressure totally take over
(6 months? :-) ) kids need to learn about the realities and
consequences of breeding from someone who is very, very credible
(to them!) and competent and sympathetic.
Some young people will have children by accident, and others will
have them by design while still kids themselves. We probably can't
stop that from happening. But if a percentage of kids could be
educated to wait, to plan, and to prepare before bringing kids into
the world, we could focus on the needs of the others.
It would be great if kids in school could see other kids being rewarded
for waiting and planning. But they often don't. Weddings are
romanticized, pregnant people get a lot of attention, and for young
women who are not academically inclined, motherhood may look like a 9
month ticket to adult status. Young couples with babies have a
lot of status with their peers at a time in their lives when they
still aren't sure what they want to do with their lives.
I would never say "Let the kids starve", but I have no trouble with the
idea of "workfare" over welfare AS LONG AS some of the workfare people
are assigned to daycare of the others' children at a ratio acceptable
to the mothers or fathers.
I would be very excited to hear that some of my tax dollars were
going to a program that was proving successful in reducing the rate
of teenage pregnancies, and increasing the rate of teenagers actively
pursuing careers first.
Holly
|
| 554.76 | Moderator Plea | MOSAIC::TARBET | Licenced Philistine | Thu Dec 03 1987 18:08 | 5 |
| Please please please remember to apply the heat to the *issue*, not
to the *people*. Slanging one another helps nothing and harms
everyone.
=maggie
|
| 554.77 | | CSC32::WOLBACH | | Thu Dec 03 1987 18:22 | 18 |
|
Oh, come on, Maggie, it builds charactor! ;-)
Said tongue in cheek because I'm "normally" the last to
join a debate or discuss a "hot" issue, for fear of of-
fending someone. Now that I've offended just about every-
one in this conference, I think I'll zip over to CANINE
where they still like me!!! (I'm a proponent of responsible
pet ownership also...believing that every baby, every puppy
and every kitten should be a "wanted" one)
|
| 554.78 | | NEXUS::CONLON | | Thu Dec 03 1987 18:27 | 14 |
| RE: .72
Whoa. Elizabeth did not say that if more children were
born, they would starve. This is what she said (in .57):
> As far as regulating the number of children people have, why not
> just do it the way it is done in some other (less socialist) countries
> - have as many as you like, but either support them or watch them
> starve.
What sort of a solution is it to let children die because
we resent losing $25 out of our most recent raise?
Suzanne...
|
| 554.79 | Discussions about politics are *often* this heated, Maggie... :-) | NEXUS::CONLON | | Thu Dec 03 1987 20:47 | 89 |
| RE: .74
Pat, try to remember who you are talking to here. Dave W. is
not going to satisfy *his* urges to have babies at *your* expense.
*HE* is in the same position that you are in (and that I am
in) along with nearly every other person in DEC. He (and
the rest of us) are being "forced to help" the people who
*ARE* having babies that they cannot afford. We are *ALL*
essentially in the same boat here (except that some people
highly *resent* being forced to help, and others of us *do
not*.)
Please don't start talking to Dave as if he is a welfare
recipient who just happened to drop by. Ok? He is one of
ones who is *paying*. (So am I, so is Alan Ross, etc.)
You say that no one has the "right" to have children? What
is the legal basis for this statement? Show me the law that
says we have to have some sort of permit (or permission) to
have a child.
You also ask about a hypothetical scenerio where a couple
strongly desires a HOUSE instead of a child (you ask why the
government and taxpayers should be forced to subsidize that
house.) GUESS WHAT -- THE GOVERNMENT AND TAXPAYERS ALREADY
DO EXACTLY THAT!!!!
Every person/family that gets a tax break on their residential
mortgage is getting "help" from the government (and every tax-
payer in the U.S. is being "FORCED TO HELP" them buy that house!!)
Digital Equipment Corporation takes tax breaks. DEC is being
"helped" by the government (and every taxpayer in America is
being "forced to help" DEC stay in business.) As long as DEC
stays in business, they will pay us our salaries. So, in effect,
it's as if every one of us in this corporation is on workfare
(along with every other employee in America who works for a
company who takes tax breaks.) :-)
RE: .71
Deb, *you* tell *us* how many people have brought up that a daycare
tax break would help women (I can only remember one offhand.)
Since nearly every one of the taxbreaks in the world help men, how
is it discriminatory to men to have one that is *perceived*
as primarily helping women (although men will **NOT** be
prevented from taking advantage of it, too)?
The daycare taxbreak helps *FAMILIES*, remember? Would it
make you feel better to know that, yes, men will benefit from
this tax break, too? (It isn't just *women* who "need help"
from the government and taxpayers. *MEN* "need help," too,
and so do billion dollar corporations.)
RE: .73
Elizabeth, we are talking in this note about taxes (and how
our tax dollars are spent.) You say you think children should
starve to death rather than be allowed to be fed by TAX dollars.
I disagree.
I like the fact that my tax money goes to feed children (and
I wish that more of it would go to children than to big business
or to defense.)
Now, what does that have to do with the rest of my money? I'm
not trying to tell you what to do with the money that *YOU*
have left over from taxes, so why do you think that you can
argue me into believing that if I really feel my TAX money should
go to children, then all the rest of my money should go to children
as well??
Guess what -- most of it *does* go to children. Or to a child.
Just like you asked of me, I am responsible for my own child
and most of my money goes for him. (He hasn't starved yet, and
you aren't supporting him.) So I'm doing exactly what you have
asked me to do.
If I gave up all my income to feed other kids (and went down
to the poverty line, as you have suggested), then I'd probably
have to start asking *YOU* to support *my* child (through your
taxes.) Is that what you are asking? :-) :-)
Suzanne...
|
| 554.80 | | EUCLID::FRASER | Crocodile sandwich & make it snappy! | Thu Dec 03 1987 20:50 | 30 |
| Interpretation alert!
What I feel Elizabeth is attacking is the system, not the
plethora of hungry children. If you (generic) KNEW that if you
had another child it would go hungry and perhaps die because
you didn't have enough resources to feed yourself and your
current family, would you still have that child? The maternal
instinct must bear fruit, regardless?
The problem is that in the 'civilised' world, you (generic) can
go ahead and have the child, satisfy the instinct, relatively
safe in the knowledge that the child (and you) will be
supported by 'The System'. Guess who supports the system and
the irresponsible bearing of offspring...
I've lived, worked and taught in a non-welfare third world
country, where a birth weight of one or two pounds is the norm
and the infantile death rate was around 40% - no 'System' to
provide pre- or post-natal care or support the ongoing family.
Here and in the U.K., it's all too easy to let other people
worry, abrogate your (generic) responsibilities and fall back
on the system - and let others pay for your indulgences.
Andy.
PS. Yes, I did contribute to Ethiopia, via Bob Geldof's
campaign and we (Sandy and I) are adopting a child for
Christmas - voluntary social responsibilty, not imposed.
That's the difference.
|
| 554.81 | | NEXUS::CONLON | | Thu Dec 03 1987 21:15 | 34 |
| RE: .80
One thing I'd like to mention is that I honestly do agree that
one should be responsible about parenting (and *not* have children
that one cannot afford.)
However, as has been pointed out, few of us in DEC are in that
position. Most of us (including me) can *afford* to have our
children. (So we are, instead, in the position of helping others
who *can't* afford to support their children.)
We can argue all day about how some of these folks should *not*
have had children, but the children do exist now (and more are
being born every day.)
So, what do we do? What is the solution?
I don't know, but I find it barbaric to hear someone say
that it is so upsetting to lose a big $25 out of his/her recent
raise, that people who have children and need help supporting
them should be made to watch those children starve to death
(as if it is some sort of fitting punishment for irresponsible
parenting and as if it might take the sting out of losing that
precious $25 every paycheck.)
We won't educate people about responsible parenting by showing
them what it's like to watch their children die before their
eyes.
There are better ways to get the message across (and in the
meantime, let's let our tax money continue to help feed the existing
children.)
Suzanne...
|
| 554.82 | No one is an island | MARCIE::JLAMOTTE | days of whisper and pretend | Thu Dec 03 1987 23:30 | 25 |
| I hate to pop anyone's balloon but their is a real world out there.
People are going to have babies they can't afford.
People are going to get sick.
People are going to get old and they are going to neglect to save
enough money for their retirement.
Houses are going to burn.
We might have a depression and some of us might not have jobs.
Insurance companies could go broke.
Noone is immune to tragedy, poverty or misfortune.
In my case I received benefits for years because I had children
(I shouldn't have had them by some of the equations here). I paid
very little in taxes. I am paying now.
For those who propose that children be born only to families that
can afford them....might I gently suggest that you relocate to China
that concept has been decreed by the government.
|
| 554.83 | Who CAN afford to have children? | STAR::BECK | Paul Beck | Fri Dec 04 1987 00:21 | 36 |
| The ensuing is a gut reaction to several threads of conversation
of late, and was merely triggered by the following quote...
> For those who propose that children be born only to families that
> can afford them....might I gently suggest that you relocate to China
> that concept has been decreed by the government.
Can't really let this slide by ...
Gee, the old dictum "if you don't like the way things are, don't
try to change them here; leave" is awfully familiar; I remember
hearing it from the hawks during Viet Nam.
Anyway, there's some irony in the suggestion. China is a socialist
country, and the suggestion is for those who oppose socialistic
tendencies in our own society to go there. China has little or
no choice about the matter: either they reduce their population
or they starve.
We have the disadvantage of living in a nation of plenty. This
gives us the false sense of security that the number of children
we can have is solely related to our ability to feed them (whether
by the fruits of our own labor or by handouts), and not to whether
the world can support the generations they will produce. I suppose
we should be glad that we'll probably be dead before the population
disaster we are creating comes to a read head...
While I certainly support the notion of a safety net for those who
come upon hard times, I also believe that anyone who has children
WHILE they can't afford to support them has a priori demonstrated
their unfitness as parents. (Caveat: no individuals singled out
here, as I know nobody's circumstances.) And with the world
population the way it is and growing as it is, the same holds
for couples that have more than two children. Reducing the rate
of growth of the population is simply not good enough; look at
the deficit for an example of where that mentality gets you.
|
| 554.84 | Ah yes, China, the flower of Socialism | TFH::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Fri Dec 04 1987 10:24 | 31 |
| re .78:
> What sort of a solution is it to let children die because
> we resent losing $25 out of our most recent raise?
Okay, so I yield up that "extra" $25, fine, I can afford it YOU
say. How many kids will that support? Say it will support N. What
happens when N+M are born? You will come back and take ANOTHER $25
dollars from me each week so as to support 2N kids. And so on, and
so on, until my back is broken supporting other people's
irresponsibility.
And I think you are still misinterpreting what Elizabeth is saying
here. By adopting the "cruel, bloodthirsty" method of birth rate
regulation, there is a VERY good incentive to NOT produce more children
than you can afford to support.
re .82:
> For those who propose that children be born only to families that
> can afford them....might I gently suggest that you relocate to China
> that concept has been decreed by the government.
Bad choice. China has decreed that couples can only have one child,
whether they can afford more or not. And this is what must eventually
happen when "society" is forced to support its children collectively.
Government will have to step in and regulate exactly who can and
cannot bear children in order to distribute the resources "fairly".
Sm
|
| 554.85 | There is always a two sided coin | MARCIE::JLAMOTTE | days of whisper and pretend | Fri Dec 04 1987 11:02 | 12 |
| There is a concern among demographic specialists that the population
in the United States is reducing at a rate unanticipated twenty
years ago.
This drop in population is and will affect the way our government
is structured, the tax structure and the work force. It is entirely
possible that the elderly population will not have the work force
to support them.
If we suggest that the poor be forbidden to have children might
we also suggest that the rich be forced to have the children needed
to maintain the economic base for our current system?
|
| 554.86 | this is not a tax break | YODA::BARANSKI | Too Many Masters... | Fri Dec 04 1987 11:40 | 22 |
| RE: .79
"Since nearly every one of the taxbreaks in the world help men,"
"The daycare taxbreak helps *FAMILIES*, remember?"
Most taxbreaks *do* in effect help *families*. To say that the tax breaks go to
the 'men', when the men are working to support their families, and cry
"discrimination", because most tax go to 'men', does not make sense. I don't
sense that you are complaining, but I wanted to point out this fallacy. This tax
break is not any different then any other tax break.
Actually, this is *not* a tax break, which is being discussed. If I recall
correctly, this is plan not have to have taxes deducted for a tax break that
already exists, and will continue to exist.
RE: Elizabeth
I find your idea of giving starving children to parents who can support them, a
better idea then letting them starve.
Jim.
|
| 554.87 | Difference between "increase" and "rate of increase" | STAR::BECK | Paul Beck | Fri Dec 04 1987 11:50 | 8 |
| re .85
I would be much astonished if the population of the United States
is decreasing at all. Can you substantiate this? I believe what
is happening is that the RATE OF INCREASE is decreasing, and
that's a totally different kettle of fish. There should be no
increase in population at all, anyplace in the world, from here
on. There are MORE than enough people in the world.
|
| 554.88 | some options | LEZAH::BOBBITT | a collie down isnt a collie beaten | Fri Dec 04 1987 13:46 | 27 |
| If there is a problem with people having unwanted children,
particularly due to ignorance etc., then I might suggest the following:
a. sex education in the schools, including methods but also heavily
stressing family planning and the proper "climate" for child-raising.
b. safer, less expensive, more accessible abortions for those who
do not consider them taboo (I would NEVER force an abortion on someone
who finds it unconscionable)
c. make adoption simpler, less expensive, and more readily available
to all classes (I am unaware of the actual process, but have heard
there's lots of legalities, red tape, and fees). A middle class
couple who cannot bear children, but can afford the time and money
to love them, deserves an equal chance to give a child a happy home.
These are just my suggestions. If provoked with heated flamage
in response, rather than logical and calm discussions, you will
find that I would rather clam up then die defending a point of view
that I choose to believe in, but that I do not expect others to
partake in. This is just my way. I don't like getting in embroiled
discussions cause then it turns into mud-slinging and nobody benefits.
-Jody
|
| 554.89 | Correct.... | NEXUS::CONLON | | Fri Dec 04 1987 14:55 | 26 |
| RE: .86
Jim, you are correct. I was **not** "crying discrimination"
when I wrote the thing about tax breaks going to men.
Someone was talking earlier about how women shouldn't have
tax breaks that help us more than men (because we should learn
to take care of ourselves, etc.) It was also stated that the
daycare tax break *is* discriminatory against men (if we allow
that it more often helps women.) [Note: We're not talking
about a situation where men are ever *denied* the break. I
would strongly argue *against* denying men a break for daycare.]
My point was that men (and corporations) are routinely "helped"
by tax breaks (and, yes, those same breaks help out women, too.)
All I meant to say is that women should not feel that it is
a negative sign of our competance to be offered a tax break
that might be aimed at us.
If most of the men in our country can take tax breaks (and
even DEC can take tax breaks), then we're in good company.
Thanks for helping me make that point clear.
Suzanne...
|
| 554.90 | flat tax rate stinks | ULTRA::GUGEL | Who needs evidence when one has faith? | Fri Dec 04 1987 15:33 | 10 |
| re .57, Elizabeth:
You say you support a flat tax rate of n% of someone's pay. I hate
to pop your fantasy, but that definitely puts the burden on the
poor and middle class. The wealthy get off easy. Do you really
think that someone earning 10K a year when your flat rate if 5%
should have to pay $500? While the couple earning 100K a year pays
$5K? Who do you think is going to have a harder time paying?
-Ellen
|
| 554.91 | | MOSAIC::MODICA | | Fri Dec 04 1987 15:37 | 6 |
| RE: .90
I'm not sure if it would harm the poor more. At least with a
flat rate the very wealthy would not be able to "hide" their
income and avoid paying any taxes. Perhaps the answer lies somewhere
in the middle....
|
| 554.92 | | CSC32::WOLBACH | | Fri Dec 04 1987 15:40 | 21 |
|
.90 This is ludicrous! The only drawback to the "flat
tax rate" is the it PENALIZES those in a higher income
bracket! For example:
If my huband makes $100,000 a year and the percentage is 10%
then he will pay $10,000 in taxes.
If I earn $10,000 a year and the percentage is 10%, then I will
pay $1,000 a year in taxes.
Quite a discrepancy for the same good and services in return!
I'm not sure who we are referring to as "wealthy" but it's been
my experience that those in the upper-middle class bracket got
there by EARNING that money. Usually thru years of education
and sacrifice. Why should they be penalized simply because they
earn more money?
|
| 554.93 | Oh, You Mean We Have To Eat, Too? | FDCV03::ROSS | | Fri Dec 04 1987 16:01 | 17 |
|
RE: .92
Well now, we've had two people who want to keep more of their money
after taxes, disagreeing over whether a flat tax or a graduated
tax is right or wrong.
One says: only tax me at 5% so I can keep more of my money. The
other states that: by taxing me at 5%, I'm paying $10K, while that
ne'er-do-well earning $10K is only paying a measly $1000.
I have the solution: Those earning $10K and those earning $100K
should *both* pay $10,000 in taxes.
Now there, that was easy wasn't it?
Alan
|
| 554.94 | What's 5 Percent Among Friends | FDCV03::ROSS | | Fri Dec 04 1987 16:05 | 7 |
| Re: my .93
The percentages I gave should have been 10%, not 5%. (I guess
I'm all excited about the party. :-))
Alan
|
| 554.95 | | ULTRA::GUGEL | Who needs evidence when one has faith? | Fri Dec 04 1987 16:11 | 29 |
| re last two:
I was talking about the ability to pay.
Just because someone is making $100K and worked hard to get there
doesn't automatically absolve that person of the responsibility
of paying their share of taxes.
Ha! Funny thing I should pick that figure as my SO and I together
make more than that and guess what? And *I* don't think it would
be fair to the *poor and middle class* if we only had to pay $10K
(10% flat tax) when the poor, single mother with 2 kids makes only
that much ($10K) and has to pay $1K in taxes. That is absolutely
ludicrous! I think people should pay what they can afford to pay.
I'm interested in helping people get to where they *can* earn more
money, perhaps so they can pay more taxes. Taxing someone who earns
only $10K a year is making a bad problem *worse*. It's bad in the
longrun. They're far more likely to go over the edge and really
need help than someone with far more money. I can't believe what
you're thinking by saying that this would be a good thing. It almost
sounds like "you're poor, sucker, pay anyway, and if you can't,
too bad". What an attitude (problem)!
As an aside, it deeply saddens me to see people here who don't care if
children starve or not because they resent paying taxes. I think
that is *very wrong*. You will never convince me (and a lot of
other folks) that it is not *wrong, wrong, wrong*!
-Ellen
|
| 554.98 | Thanks, again | MARCIE::JLAMOTTE | days of whisper and pretend | Fri Dec 04 1987 16:36 | 8 |
| RE .88
I liked this response. Some constructive ideas on how to solve
the problem of unwanted children. The ideas were also realistic
for the society we live in.
Thanks.
|
| 554.99 | Clarification | FDCV03::ROSS | | Fri Dec 04 1987 16:42 | 7 |
| RE: .95
> re last two:
Ellen, were you referring to my .93 and .94?
Alan
|
| 554.100 | And the government's opinion of rich and mine are differnet | TOLKIN::JOYCE | Maryellen Joyce | Fri Dec 04 1987 16:58 | 22 |
| Re: .93
To go further off on the flat tax rate tangent:
Instead of looking at how much you've paid in taxes, look at how
much is left after you've paid them, to get an idea of the impact
of the tax rate.
To use the previous example of someone making $100K and paying
$10K in taxes, that still leaves him/her with $90K to spend. For
the person earning $10K and paying $1K in taxes, he/she is left
with $9K to spend.
I sure would find it easier to live on $90K than $9K.
This is not to imply that I think a flat tax is a good or bad
idea or that I would be willing to defend the existing tax rate
structure. My point is only that same dollar amount or the same
percentage of income may mean appreciably more to one person than
another.
Maryellen
|
| 554.101 | Take care of the children, but come down hard on the adults !! | DPDMAI::RESENDEP | following the yellow brick road... | Fri Dec 04 1987 17:04 | 64 |
| RE: .79
> Pat, try to remember who you are talking to here. Dave W. is
> not going to satisfy *his* urges to have babies at *your* expense.
Sorry, Dave, I certainly didn't intend a personal attack. I
should have worded my statement in the third person. I realize
you are a taxpayer just like me.
> You say that no one has the "right" to have children? What
> is the legal basis for this statement? Show me the law that
> says we have to have some sort of permit (or permission) to
> have a child.
I'm talking morals here, not legalities. We have many, many moral
and ethical responsibilities in life that are not specified anywhere
in the law. Not that I don't think it *should* be specified in
the law, but the fact that it isn't doesn't mean it's perfectly
OK.
> You also ask about a hypothetical scenerio where a couple
> strongly desires a HOUSE instead of a child (you ask why the
> government and taxpayers should be forced to subsidize that
> house.) GUESS WHAT -- THE GOVERNMENT AND TAXPAYERS ALREADY
> DO EXACTLY THAT!!!!
OK, that was admittedly a bad example, though the deduction for
dependent children could certainly be compared to the interest
deduction for a house.
Let's take another example, one that I think is a closer comparison
anyway. I have two dogs that I adore. I call them my "kids" and
spoil them rotten. When I go out of town for Digital, I pay to
board them at a hand-picked kennel, where they get Cadillac treatment
at Cadillac prices. I get no break for that whatsoever. Those
dogs are very, very important to me. In fact, they help me satisfy
the "mothering" instinct since I have no human children. Would
you advocate a tax break for me on their board? If not, why?
Just as a clarification on how I feel, welfare children are not to
blame for this, and they should *never* be made to suffer for it. I'm
all for taking care of our children, and giving them everything they
need to become happy, contributing members of society. It is not their
fault they were born to unthinking, irresponsible people.
On the other hand, I believe the issue lies with the adults. I would
wholeheartedly support the idea of mandatory birth control for welfare
mothers, in a form that they can't throw away or otherwise refuse.
Perhaps a shot. No shot, no check. Period. When they accept money
from (generic) me, the taxpayer, they give up their right to make such
decisions as birth control on their own. That precedent has been set
in virtually *every* area where the gov't subsidizes anything, so it's
certainly not a new idea. States have their speed limits dictated if
they accept federal road money; school systems have very strict
operating guidelines if they accept federal money; the list goes
on and on. I fail to see how or why this issue should be any
different.
Pat
|
| 554.102 | TAX REFORM or Child Care Tax Credit??? | CSC32::C_BESSANT | | Fri Dec 04 1987 17:14 | 11 |
| WOW, from a child care tax credit, this NOTE has digressed into
tax reform (or tax structure).
Now I guess we can all see why taxes are so difficult for the
government to decide on. Imagine having to be the government and ACTUALLY
make the decisions on who pays what and who gets to deduct what (or
get a credit!!!).
Chuck "who is ducking for cover"
|
| 554.103 | egalitarianism | TFH::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Fri Dec 04 1987 18:14 | 11 |
|
Hey, if you want to do social engineering and wealth redistribution,
why fool around with the tax code, why not do it right: ALL income goes
directly to the IRS. They then skim off enough to pay for
government, the balance is then divided by the number of people
and that amount is then refunded. Total egalitarianism.
This is known as a graduated income tax. Does wonders for the economy.
Sm
|
| 554.105 | | CSC32::WOLBACH | Carol Saturnworm | Sun Dec 06 1987 16:01 | 13 |
|
Speaking of grey matter. The school I went to taught
that 40,000
+ 1,200
_______
41,200
Did you use new math to arrive at 52,000?
|
| 554.106 | good news for daycare... | LEZAH::BOBBITT | a collie down isnt a collie beaten | Mon Dec 07 1987 11:32 | 12 |
| back to the topic of daycare - I hope you'll all be glad to hear
that the Council for Children in Massachusetts has passed a (law?
ruling?) that requires anyone applying for a job at a daycare center
have a CORI (criminal offense record inquiry?) check done on them
prior to hiring. This will reveal if there has been past misconduct
on the person's part, particularly as it relates to children. This
law is effective as of November 2, 1987.
Yay.
-Jody
|
| 554.107 | Miscelaneous | SSDEVO::YOUNGER | There are no misteakes | Mon Dec 07 1987 16:06 | 56 |
| Will you guys knock it off on my $25 week loss of a raise. Remember,
this is a $50 raise. 50% OF MY RAISE WENT TO TAXES! The same thing
will happen with any and all future raises I get. If I could save all
of the underpriveliged in the world for $25 a week, I would do it. But
why does society own 50% of my future earnings? Is it all that
wrong for me to want to keep the majority of my future salary
increases? The only ethical/religious book I can find that suggests
an amount is the Bible, which states 10% of earnings go to the
community. We (as a group) are clearly *far* beyond this. Why?
I kind of find this topic a little funny. A few weeks ago, the hot
topic was one on child support. Everyone agreed that it is the
father's (or, in a few cases, non-custodial mother's) responsibility to
provide for their children. Now we apply this logic (you must support
YOUR children) to all people, male, female, custodial, non-custodial,
married, single, divorced, widowed..., and everyone screams. Why???
Yes, I support a form of workfare. If these people could provide
daycare (and other services) at an affordable price, it could be of
benefit to everyone. If we (as a society) are going to pay people, we
should get something of value from them, if they are at all able to
provide anything. If they refuse to work, I see no reason not to allow
people to starve to death. If they will "do anything" for their
children, why not work to support those children? Perhaps we shouldn't
take it out on the children. It would be better to place them with
people who can and want to support them and provide them with good (or
acceptable) role models. People too lazy to support themselves should
not become role models for children. It would be nice if the parents
would be responsible enough to put children they are unable to support
up for adoption. The question lies in what we do if they don't. I
don't see that saying "That's fine. We'll just support them and you
because you have the children." We should not be encouraging
irrisponsible parenthood. But that's what the current laws do.
I have already shown that it is possible to set things up so nothing
can happen so that your children will not be at least financially,
provided for. You can buy life insurance, disability insurance.
Unemployment insurance is paid by your employer. Most children
have two parents that are able to provide for the children. It
is not unforseeable and impossible.
I also agree with the people who are suggesting education as an
answer. Quit romanticising marriage, babies, etc. to children who
are obviously unable to have these things (yet). Tell them the
costs. Reward them for planning appropriately, and quit making
pregnancy a quick ticket to adulthood for the unhappy teenager.
I understand amoung certain sub-groups in the poplulation, it is
a status symbol amoung boys to have "knocked up" several girls.
This is one notion that needs to change.
Re .106: Great. It's about time that the backgrounds of people
caring for children are investigated. It's a sad commentary that
we don't require this for caring for children, but require it for
working on most defense projects.
Elizabeth
|
| 554.109 | | AKOV04::WILLIAMS | | Tue Dec 15 1987 13:41 | 37 |
| Another interesting topic with various directions taken by various
responders.
The principle behind tax deductions, if my memory serves, was
to offer assistance with expenses *where needed*. The principle
has gotten well out of hand - millionaires being able to deduct
revolving credit charges, for example (yes, I know this deduction
is being phased out). But the new tax laws are making an effort
to correct the problem (the increase in the percentage of income
which must be spent on medical care before this deduction can be
taken is an example of this). I support making daycare expense
deductable - pretax or posttax earnings - for those people who need
the deduction, not across the board. A couple with two children
and after tax income of X may need the deduction for economic purposes
while a couple with two children with an after tax income of Y may
not. I haven't a clue what level of income X or Y should equate
to.
As an aside, if one is losing 50% of one's latest salary increase
to Federal Income Tax that person is being paid a lot of money.
How much of the 50% is really going to Federal Income Tax? How
much to Social Security (an investment of sorts)? State Income
Tax? 401K plan? Stock purchase plan? Increased cost of life
insurance? Etc.
Another aside. Having children is not a right but it is not
a privilage either. It is a fact in our country that people are
free to have children and it is safe to assume people will continue
to have children. Minimal amounts of 'our' tax money go to support
the children of other people. A lot of mine and Libby's property
tax money goes to support the local school system. While we are
not parents - and will not be parents - we both had the option of
going to 'public' schools as children and can't now take the stand
that we shouldn't have to support the local school system simply
because we aren't parents.
Douglas
|
| 554.110 | Slight clarification | SSDEVO::YOUNGER | God is nobody. Nobody loves you. | Tue Dec 15 1987 16:18 | 11 |
| Re .109:
Just a nit, but the 50% is not going to federal - in fact, that
is above the highest tax bracket.
The 50% includes federal, state, and fica. It does not include
taxes I pay for sales, real estate, liquor, etc.
FWIW, I am not close to the highest paid person in DEC.
Elizabeth
|
| 554.111 | Consider | HPSCAD::TWEXLER | | Mon Dec 21 1987 11:52 | 66 |
| 554.107, Elizabeth you stated:
>"The only ethical/religious book I can find that suggests
>an amount is the Bible, which states 10% of earnings go to the
>community. We (as a group) are clearly *far* beyond this. Why?"
How did you come to believe this figure? There is a lot of propaganda
from both sides of the fence, and I am curious as to how you made your
decision. Do you include military spending in your "10% of earnings
which go to the community?" Do you include Nixon's current salary
in this 10%? Perhaps you mean only things which support large groups
of people ... like the Veteran's Disability benefits?
>"Yes, I support a form of workfare. If these people could provide
>daycare (and other services) at an affordable price, it could be of
>benefit to everyone. If we (as a society) are going to pay people, we
>should get something of value from them, if they are at all able to
>provide anything. If they refuse to work, I see no reason not to allow
>people to starve to death. If they will "do anything" for their
>children, why not work to support those children?"
AHEM. A recent (around 85) study done on those on welfare show
that 95% of those on welfare use it for a temporary period, about a
year. I got these statistics from _Women_and_Children_Last_ (I can
look up the authors and so forth if anyone expresses an interest--it's
essentially a study on the feminization of poverty). These statistics
would imply to me that people prefer to work... or at least they do work...
whereas your statement, Elizabeth, of "why not work to support those
children?" implies that we as a society are paying for children {with
welfare} with no assistance from the parents.
>"People too lazy to support themselves should
>not become role models for children. It would be nice if the parents
>would be responsible enough to put children they are unable to support
>up for adoption. The question lies in what we do if they don't. I
>don't see that saying "That's fine. We'll just support them and you
>because you have the children." We should not be encouraging...
><irresponsible>... parenthood. But that's what the current laws do."
I am quite horrified by your statement "...parents would be responsible
enough to put children they are unable to support up for adoption..."
(with an added implication thrown in earlier that parents who can't
support their children are just "too lazy!") Let's take a middle
class family where the mother is a teacher or a nurse or a secretary or
some other job that accounts for most of the women who work outside the
home for less than terrific pay. Let's say that something happens to
the father {divorce, death...}.
If those women have had a couple of kids... they can't afford them.
A teacher that gets ~20K is WELL paid... for a teacher. But, I know
that it would be tough to bring up one kid on that, let alone two...
So, by your reasoning, she should give the kids up for adoption. {shudder}
And, that isn't a far-fetched rare occurence. It happened to my family.
>"I have already shown that it is possible to set things up so nothing
>can happen so that your children will not be at least financially,
>provided for. You can buy life insurance, disability insurance.
>Unemployment insurance is paid by your employer."
To buy life insurance or disability insurance one needs money. If
your company supplies it at a cheap rate, you're set. But, many
jobs/businesses don't. Then the suggestion of insurance is just
another impossible expense for a struggling family. ...And
unemployment insurance lasts for what? 6 weeks?
Hardly a long term solution.
Tamar
|
| 554.112 | welfare myth | YODA::BARANSKI | Oh! ... That's not like me at all! | Mon Dec 28 1987 15:50 | 9 |
| According to the "Dictionary of Misinformation", the idea that most people on
welfare stay there a long time is a myth. In the studies listed in article, the
average length of time on welfare is four years. Of course there are anumber of
handicapped people on welfare who will never be able to support themselves.
I had typed in the entire article, but it got blown away, and I'm not about to
type it in again...
Jim.
|