kaishek posted:

I would love to end the "having kids is BWM" derail. You really get into some tough moral territory here. Do you require an income test to have children, so that poor people aren't allowed to have kids?

The Mandingo posted:

As a middle class American, I want to know if we keep the poor from having kids, who am I gonna look down upon?

Rurutia posted:

I read it as they agreed with you in that they were deficient because they were irresponsible with the kids and also their money. They were irresponsible with their money by not considering it or having a financial goal. It was a symptom of their overall immaturity.

I don't think the three of us disagree in any significant way, it's just the idea of enough is weird when it comes to kids. It's very easy to fall into the trap of what Eugene J is talking about.

Devor posted:

You have some good ideas. Let's come up with a name for your theory. Since you're EugeneJ, how about "Eugenics", has anyone taken that yet?

El Mero Mero posted:

That being said why are people saying that the tax-credit is $3,000 (or $54,000 over 18 years!)? I keep seeing $1000/child when I look online.

CannonFodder posted:

Devian666 posted:

You can really see where the money went.

Everything about this car is amazing and is clearly roadworthy.

EugeneJ posted:

Would a 2-kid limit unless you have $100,000 in assets be fair?

America is a Christian society that frowns upon abortion, but can't stand people being on welfare. I think Conservatives need to realize making abortion easily available would reduce the number of kids being born into poverty.

But, you know, God's little angels and all that jazz

BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:

It's not even the rules themselves or how inherently fair or well-intentioned they are, it's just that policies or state organs with the power to limit reproductive rights have basically always in every instance have been applied in discriminatory ways against minorities, disabled, or other vulnerable groups or selectively ignored for the privileged

baquerd posted:

By privileged, you mean people able to care for the children, right?

BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:

No, I mean people able to bribe or influence the policy enforcers. Specifically I have in mind the almost openly corrupt 500,000 strong (yes, five hundred thousand) bureaucracy behind China's One Child Policy, where you could bribe your way out of forced abortions or sterilization.

EugeneJ posted:

I guess it depends what state you live in. In NY, the benefits for welfare recipients increase proportionately with the amount of kids you have. So of course girls get knocked up ASAP when they're young so they never have to work and can live off the welfare teet.

It's not fair to the kids.

Couple that with fathers either abandoning the kid or not working to avoid paying child support (or in jail!), and that's a whole lot of lovely situations that could have been avoided.

Mocking Bird posted:

Also "incarcerated, support dodging, absent fathers" is a loud as gently caress racist dog whistle.

EugeneJ posted:

As someone who witnesses human abortions carting around 8 malnourished kids while they waste their spare money on lottery and alcohol...there should absolutely be a means test for having children.

Or at least getting to keep them.

EugeneJ posted:

Should a woman with 2 kids on welfare still be having kids

Dik Hz posted:

Ban anyone who posts D&D poo poo in here. tia.

EugeneJ posted:

Should a woman with 2 kids on welfare still be having kids

BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:

In my opinion, no, but when you give the government the power to decide that it always results in atrocious crimes, so

quote:

The one-child policy has played a major role in improving the quality of life for women in China. For thousands of years, girls have held a lower status in Chinese households. However, the one-child policy's limit on the number of children has prompted parents of women to start investing money in their well-being. As a result of being an only child, women have increased opportunity to receive an education, and support to get better jobs

Dik Hz posted:

Ban anyone who posts D&D poo poo in here. tia.

quote:

The one-child policy has been challenged for violating a human right to determine the size of one's own family. According to a 1968 proclamation of the International Conference on Human Rights, "Parents have a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and the spacing of their children."[104][105]

According to the UK newspaper The Daily Telegraph, a quota of 20,000 abortions and sterilizations was set for Huaiji County in Guangdong Province in one year due to reported disregard of the one-child policy. According to the article local officials were being pressured into purchasing portable ultrasound devices to identify abortion candidates in remote villages. The article also reported that women as far along as 8.5 months pregnant were forced to abort, usually by an injection of saline solution.[106] A 1993 book by social scientist Steven W. Mosher reported that women in their ninth month of pregnancy, or already in labour, were having their children killed whilst in the birth canal or immediately after birth.[107]

budgieinspector posted:

Dik Hz posted:

Ban anyone who posts D&D poo poo in here. tia.

Zero One posted:

GWM or BWM?

Zero One posted:

GWM or BWM?

slap me silly posted:

This option is very much on the table!

Moneyball posted:

Hey, can we start a new BWM thread and move this one to D&D?

Nail Rat posted:

So this checks a lot of bad with money boxes.

We just got a company-wide email invitation to a "Free Class" in one of our conference rooms from 5:30-6:30 PM next Wednesday.

It's a doTerra "Introduction to Essential oils" which teaches you how to "avoid pharmaceuticals" and "explore ways to share with others and earn cash"

And this is from ONE OF OUR EXECUTIVES.

I'm glad it's Friday afternoon. I need a drink.

quote:

Hello PF. I've been looking for a few different opinions on (1) getting a new and (2) what to do with my saved up money. I'm hoping someone might be able to give me some good advice.

I make about $150k per year before tax. That's about $12,500.00 per month.

I have a $380.00 rental obligation. I send $3,000.00 per month to a $200,000.00 student loan obligation. All other expenses are at about $1,000.00 per month (e.g., groceries, bills, etc.). I have no other debts.

So, my income is $12,500.00 conservatively. My expenses are $4,080.00. The difference: $8,420.00. My credit score is around 780.

I've been thinking about buying or leasing a new "weekend" car just as somewhat of a splurge for myself-- definitely not as an investment. I'm 29 years old, and I figure I should do something fun with my money since I usually just save it all after expenses. Currently, my liquid money is at $100,000.00 saved.

I really like the Maserati Ghibli. It's about a $75,000 car. A 36 month lease would, ultimately, cost $30,000.00 over the life of the lease. So, in total, a 36 month lease with a 10,000 mile per year limit would be an $833.00 expense per month. At the end of the lease, I could buy it for $40k or return it.

I did some research, and the car would likely be worth around $40k FMV in 3 years anyway. So it's like I'm paying for its depreciation to "own" a Maserati for 3 years. That's kind of why I think leasing is the better option than buying/financing a "weekend" car used solely for fun. I also plan to keep my current 2005 Nissan Altima with 170,000 miles on it while maintaining it properly and regularly. That will be my regular "weekday" car and help me stay within the 10,000 mile lease limit. I figure that car is good until at least 225,000 miles. I typically drive about 5 to 7 miles a day just to put that into perspective. A 10,000 mile limit lease means I can drive that car 27 miles a day given a 365 day year.

My question is should I or should I not do it? Why or why not? (Kinda sounds like an old high school AP English question haha)

I've been trying to rationalize it. I know I should pay off my student loans first, but I also want to live a reasonably enjoyable life now. Given my current payment schedule, my loans should be paid off in 6 years or so. And I like sporty, nice cars that you can't really justify financially most of the time. My credit will take a hit initially, but I'll be able to make the monthly payments without much of a problem since I already have the money saved up.

But, in 3 years, I will have "owned" a Maserati for about $30,000.00 total. In that time, if my income and expenses remain the same, I should have about $400,000.00 to $500,000.00 saved up. That's when I can return the car and either purchase a home or my actual dream car a 2019 BMW i8.

Anyway, that's pretty much my question. The second part is just... what should I do with the other money? I've been looking into high yield online savings accounts. Also, I plan on opening up an IRA and depositing the full contribution every year.

Thanks for your help guys! Also, if this is the wrong subreddit for this question please let me know. I just know that PF usually has the best financial advice out of all the subreddits.

Edit: I forgot to mention taxes. I'm self-employed and my CPA has calculated my 2015 Tax Obligation at $40,000.00. I actually have $140,000.00 saved up. I plan to send $40,000.00 next month to the IRS. I pay quarterly "estimated" taxes, but my quarterly changes all the time. I at least know for sure that $40,000.00 is going to taxes next month until next quarter.

Ornamented Death posted:

Outside of the Ghibli not being a good car, at first blush I don't see anything particularly wrong here. The guys is making bank, paying off his debt and saving a ton. Sure, BWM thread wisdom is to toss every available cent at the student loan, but this guy isn't hurting and leasing the fancy car won't significantly impact his finances. Let him have his fun I guess.