|
If the following were true, would you be less averse to having kids? - universal daycare provided so that jobs and education are not disrupted. - school funding moved to being drawn from state income tax rather than property tax and given to k-12 schools in a state equally so that the $/student in each school is the same. Thus allowing you to focus on location and price more like a single person would. - if a child's grades are high enough, any publicly funded college that will accept them is free so you don't have to scrimp and save a college fund unless you have a lower performing child that you want to attend college anyway ( the wealthy will pay to send even idiot offspring to college presumably ). This offer good up to some maximum age with individual extensions offered if time was taken off from school due to medical issues such as sickness, injury, or pregnancy. - if the child's grades are not high enough, then any publicly funded trade school that will accept them is free. Same maximum age caveats as above. - universal health care enacted for children. ( most of the arguments against it assume adults ... They'd make the speaker look like a monster used against a plan just for minors ). - Women get to accrue social security credits during the tax year they are pregnant and the tax year a child's first birthday is celebrated in at either the highest rate they had previously accrued or their actual contribution for those years if it is higher. - The "married" tax bracket is eliminated and each parent files separately ( this is a good thing. The married brackets are less than 2x the single brackets for all but the poorest families and were literally crafted post WWII with the intent of making it less worthwhile for the lower earning - presumably female - spouse to work by reducing the marginal utility of their salary through higher taxation of it. Congress wanted Rosie the riveter back in the kitchen. ). A child may be claimed as a deduction by any parent provided they live with the child at least 4 months out of the year - even if this results in two deductions claimed for the same child. Note please that the following is already true. - Married fathers are paid more and promoted faster for the same work than childless or single men. Employers rank married fathers as the most desirable employees and studies show that adding a line about being in the parent-teacher organization increases the call rate for otherwise identical resumes when the name in the resume is masculine. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/upshot/a-child-helps-your-career-if-youre-a-man.html?referrer= - Parents - biological or adoptive - live longer than childless people on average: http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20121204/secret-longer-life-children
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 04:51 |
|
|
It's all to cash in on those sweet, sweet Mother's/Father's Day gifts. Free vacuum or push mower and it's not even my birthday? Yes please!
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Keshik posted:beep boop I am a goon I do not know why humans reproduce McAlister posted:Note please that the following is already true. McAlister posted:- Parents - biological or adoptive - live longer than childless people on average: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jul/11/parenthood-happiness-kate-kellaway
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
I'm fine dying young because of all the drinking, hookers, and cocaine I did with my kid-money. Edit: Of course I mean all the videogames, pornography, and snacks I bought but the idea is sound I think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
I highly doubt that you'll find a satisfying answer to your question on the Something Awful forums, OP. Perhaps you should ask your parents.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
There is no good reason to have children if you do not want to have children. NONE. Please don't have children OP.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Married men are more desirable in the workplace because they're inherently older and more experienced, statistically, and more importantly are seen as less likely to demand raises, promotions, etc. that could impact their ability to bring home the bacon to their (increasingly financially vulnerable) families. Personally, I don't want kids but I'm more than happy to raise my own taxes to help increase their welfare and likelihood to succeed. It is an interesting point, though, that society seems to keep stacking the deck more and more in favor of people without children - it only makes sense that we'd want to incentivize having kids but America goes further and further from that direction every passing year. Radbot fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Jun 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
having a kid forces you to stop being a manchild goonlord, or it exposes to the world that you're a horrible manchild goonlord
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Hey, if I want to name my child after my favourite anime character, then that's my own business.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:having a kid forces you to stop being a manchild goonlord If only this were true.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
to get to the other side, op
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:Because if you play your cards right that means that you won't be dying alone, poor and without any to call for aid. Long-term care insurance is much cheaper than raising a child
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
why even bother with car insurance, just ride a bike dude. Why have car.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:why even bother with car insurance, just ride a bike dude. Why have car. It's a good question, a lot (arguably, most) of Americans could probably get buy with fewer cars and more bicycles. Just goes to show you that it's important to question society's assumptions of what you should do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:why even bother with car insurance, just ride a bike dude. Why have car. No, I mean this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_care_insurance Average lifetime cost of Long-Term Care Insurance (let's say you take out a policy at Age 30 and live to be Age 80): $110,350 Average lifetime cost of raising a child (from birth to Age 18): $245,340
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Yeah, like I said, car's are expensive. it's not the destination that matters, it's the journey 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
http://www.amazon.com/The-Conspiracy-against-Human-Race/dp/0984480277 I'm reading this now. I like the philosopher who wanted full socialism so people could collectively accept that life sucks and begin planning out our extinction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
McDowell posted:http://www.amazon.com/The-Conspiracy-against-Human-Race/dp/0984480277
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Radbot posted:It is an interesting point, though, that society seems to keep stacking the deck more and more in favor of people without children - it only makes sense that we'd want to incentivize having kids but America goes further and further from that direction every passing year. Until nearly every kid in America lives in a 2000sf home and absolutely not in a 600sf apartment why should we incentivize children? As it stands now we should encourage to rich to have more children to increase economic spending and the poor to have less children to reduce social expenditures. Also promote cross class marrying to reduce wealth inequality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
McAlister posted:- Married fathers are paid more and promoted faster for the same work than childless or single men. Employers rank married fathers as the most desirable employees and studies show that adding a line about being in the parent-teacher organization increases the call rate for otherwise identical resumes when the name in the resume is masculine. It's easier to imply that this is the product of social conservatism on behalf of the employer than it is saying that married men are superior to single men. This is not a fair metric. e: And being married has nothing to do with having a kid. Guildencrantz posted:Biological imperative, pleasant brain chemicals when you see your kids (apparently), all your ancestors did it and it's good to pay it forward, and it's the only way to shut out the constant background terror of certain death by making sure a part of you lives on after you're rotted away and forgotten forever There is evidence that only a handful of men had kids 8000 years ago. Job Truniht fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Jun 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Crazy Mike posted:Until nearly every kid in America lives in a 2000sf home and absolutely not in a 600sf apartment why should we incentivize children? As it stands now we should encourage to rich to have more children to increase economic spending and the poor to have less children to reduce social expenditures. Also promote cross class marrying to reduce wealth inequality. You could do all of this crazy bullshit, or you could just ensure that parents have living wages, paid maternity and paternity leave, laws against retaliation for using that leave, etc. We as a society have decided that it's more important that the rich get richer than to ensure that children are universally well cared for. That's not a society I will choose to bring a child in to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Without kids our genetic line dies out and no one will ever remember or care that we ever existed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Radbot posted:That's not a society I will choose to bring a child in to. If you want to have a child, move to Sweden, Denmark, Norway, or Finland. Ender.uNF posted:Without kids our genetic line dies out and no one will ever remember or care that we ever existed. Embrace the nihilism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
Crazy Mike posted:Until nearly every kid in America lives in a 2000sf home and absolutely not in a 600sf apartment why should we incentivize children? As it stands now we should encourage to rich to have more children to increase economic spending and the poor to have less children to reduce social expenditures. Also promote cross class marrying to reduce wealth inequality. I would argue we want the most fertility in the middle class with the rich having few or no children to break aristocracy and ensure room at the top. And while I agree that right now population decline is not a bad thing, eventually we will want to pull out of this dive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Grandkids
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
L-Boned posted:Grandkids Grandkids are awesome, luckily nieces and nephews are almost as fun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:It's easier to imply that this is the product of social conservatism on behalf of the employer than it is saying that married men are superior to single men. This is not a fair metric. I'm dead sure it's because of social conservatism. I exist because my father was told he'd be a shoe in for promotion to the executive level if only he were a stable family man. And his wife alone wasn't sufficient family to count. You can't tell people things like that these days but in the 1970's you could. The thought process is that a family man is more stable and reliable. A childless man is more likely to jump ship if he thinks he sees a better offer. A father is rooted into the community more firmly as his family won't want to relocate. Fathers are, supposedly, more risk averse which also makes them less likely to take all the training you've invested into them to your competitor. And maybe that's true for a man who wanted to have kids. It isn't even a little bit true for someone whose paternity was a command performance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Crazy Mike posted:Until nearly every kid in America lives in a 2000sf home and absolutely not in a 600sf apartment why should we incentivize children? As it stands now we should encourage to rich to have more children to increase economic spending and the poor to have less children to reduce social expenditures. Also promote cross class marrying to reduce wealth inequality. Why the gently caress do you need a 2000sq ft home? I spent a good deal of my childhood growing up in a ~800sq ft home and it was fine by me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
McAlister posted:I'm dead sure it's because of social conservatism. I exist because my father was told he'd be a shoe in for promotion to the executive level if only he were a stable family man. And his wife alone wasn't sufficient family to count. You can't tell people things like that these days but in the 1970's you could. Also realize that in the US, employers up until recently were able to dangle health insurance plans of employees and their families over their heads as leverage. "You're working slower...I wouldn't want to see your sick son Timmy not be able to afford his medication...work harder!" The health exchange changes that, as even someone who gets fired still can get affordable coverage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Why the gently caress do you need a 2000sq ft home? I spent a good deal of my childhood growing up in a ~800sq ft home and it was fine by me. My master bedroom is 800sq ft. It's much better than the ~800 sq. ft. ghetto box "apartments" I grew up in. Why wouldn't you want to live in a larger home, is my question. More space for kids means more space for me, and that's what matters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
McAlister posted:I would argue we want the most fertility in the middle class with the rich having few or no children to break aristocracy and ensure room at the top. I don't want to break the break the aristocracy as much as I want to join the aristocracy. While the middle class fuels the economy, it's a lot easier to fall from the top than climb from the bottom which is why my idea was to have fertility concentrated at the top. A rich man can take care of four kids more easily than a middle class man, even if they might have to go to a state school instead of the ivies. A middle class man would be reliant on loans and scholarships to send four kids to state school although he might be able to swing by taking care of one. I would wait on pulling out of population decline until we determine that the global resources needed to sustain luxurious living is within grasp for all. Define a minimum standard of living that is more than TV dinners and leaky plumbing, and work to get everyone up there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Look, when the Moloch demands his due, it's our responsibility to have a few kids to contribute. Lest we risk his wrath against our nation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
sullat posted:Look, when the Moloch demands his due, it's our responsibility to have a few kids to contribute. Lest we risk his wrath against our nation. The remaining children will be favored by Moloch, so it all evens out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Interesting. It wouldn't be surprising that one of the first problems civilization encountered was a monopoly on the means of reproduction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:But in doing so you have created something that will also die alone unless it has kids. It's a pyramid scheme rooted in fear. Children are a pyramid scheme rooted in fear. Daaamn - you could argue that, bleak as hell though
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
You got to have kids because it traps you in the horrible capitalist system. You can't drop out of society to a commune or a self sufficient farm or the glorious people's revolution if little Austyn needs braces and little Ashleegh is just starting to fit in at school.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:You got to have kids because it traps you in the horrible capitalist system. You can't drop out of society to a commune or a self sufficient farm or the glorious people's revolution if little Austyn needs braces and little Ashleegh is just starting to fit in at school. ...let rich people buy/adopt poor kids The kid gets taken out of poverty, the poor parents get a shitload of money Everybody wins
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
"I'm gonna do it, honey. I'm quitting my job, selling the house, and I'm gonna use that money to start a cooperative record label that produces socially conscious music made by impoverished inner-city GSRM youths of color." "But Braxlee just got accepted into that great pre-school, that's been her dream for months!" "Alright, nevermind"
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:...let rich people buy/adopt poor kids *Jrodefeld comes running into the thread, panting heavily* "Did somebody say 'a free market in children?!'"
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 04:51 |
|
|
ANIME AKBAR posted:"I want someone who will unconditionally love me forever, no matter how hosed up things get." -Almost everyone *axe-murders parents while they sleep*
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 03:01
|
|
