Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

4478Re: Time magazine catches on to the childfree movement, misses the green angle

Expand Messages
  • Beth
    Aug 14, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      The child support guidelines that we have in the US are grossly unfair to the noncustodial parent. At the same time, because the charts give as much as 2/3 of a noncustodial parent's pre-tax income, the custodial parent can live much the way (she) is accustomed to - better because she works. Meanwhile, the noncustodial parent, if (he) works at a better-paying job, depending on state, will likely have a total tax liability of around 1/3 of (his) income - counting Federal, State, local, FICA, and Medicare taxes.

      The result of this, since the noncustodial parent cannot possibly live on nothing, is that 1) He gets a second job. However, if the ex-spouse finds out and goes to court, that income can be taken too! or 2) He (usually) quits the job, moves to another state, does not tell them that he owes the child support, and stops paying. Hence, all of the "deadbeat Dads". The semi-legal alternative is to come to some sort of agreement where the custodial parent gets a reasonable sum to support the kids and the noncustodial parent has more to life than sleeping in the car, eating at the soup kitchen, and showering at work.

      Now, as to "live frugally", that's the only thing that makes much sense! We are bombarded at every turn to get credit, put things on credit with "easy terms". These all add up, and soon someone is paying the interest, cannot get new things unless they declare bankruptcy. If they do that, they're out from all of the "easy terms", but more will appear. Since they cannot file for bankruptcy again for 7 years, and they get to a spot where they cannot pay the interest, they go to jail.

      If you live frugally - within your means - when you want or need to buy something, you've got the money saved to purchase it. You pay for it once, not pay for it and pay 18% interest on it for 5 years - effectively paying for it twice. You aren't "keeping up with the Jonses" that way. You are living within your means, and are likely accumulating a savings account which can come in useful in case of an unusual expense, a long-term expense, retirement, or so forth.

      You also are not essentially enslaved to the job and its income that is allowing you to keep your head above water with all of that debt.

      Still, it's a basic principle of economics that wants are unlimited while resources are limited. It's human nature to want more and more and more. But, getting those things leaves one with the millstone of debt around his or her neck, unable to get more, and having to keep paying for what was once had.

      That goes for goods and services as well as children. It's difficult to have enough saved for the contingencies that come about with children. Most people don't worry about it, and trust that someone else will pay for them.

      Beth
      --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, "ES" <everiman@...> wrote:
      >
      > Well all right I will give you one concrete example of how it costs more to have kids for the rich. In Canada, and I suspect the US as well, mandatory child support payments are legislated, including a formula for minimum payments based on the gross income of the parent paying child support. So the more income you have, the more you will pay for child support. This is based on the premise that a child with an absent parent is entitled to the same relative standard of living they would have if both parents were living together.
      >
      > You say, based on your case study of one, that because you are satisfied to live frugally and that it is working well for you that everyone else should do so. Like all the other hbuta social theorists you conveniently ignore how the majority of humanity behaves. That is why every designed society based on social theory to date has failed miserably. That is not to say they have to fail, but the design must take into account that humanity will always tend to behave in certain ways, and to understand that behavior and take that into account for the design. You can't design a sewage disposal system that fails to take into account that shit runs downhill, the same goes for engineering Utopias that ignore how humans interact with each other. That is why Evpsych is the proper way to study human behavior, the acceptance that we are hairless apes.
      >
      > Nobody gets that better than the advertising industry, and they to date are the most successful in manipulating society - all of it - including the political system. Unfortunately they pretty much only do it for personal gain, which in our culture translates to wealth.
      >
      > There is little point in having wealth in our society. Our wealth consists of either electronically stored concepts or stuff we don't really need, except that we can use it to bump our status relative to others, so off we go.
      >
      > Diogenes supposedly conducted an experiment of doing without, and lived in a rain barrel (apparently he had a nagging wife as well, so maybe the experiment had more than one purpose to it). His one possession was a cup, until he saw someone using his hands as a cup to drink, so he happily tossed away his cup as well. So if you are serious about living frugally give that Haiti hovel a shot, and let us know how it works out for you :-)
      >
      > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, Alan Thomas <alankingsleythomas@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Well, note I didn't mention my own Ph.D., because I don't have one--or any
      > > degree other than a high school diploma. However, I do have a lot of
      > > knowledge rattling around in my noggin, and that was my point. (It is
      > > perhaps possible that I did not answer every question correctly on the SAT;
      > > but I did get the highest *score* possible.)
      > >
      > > That "most people's outgo equals or exceeds their income" I do not dispute.
      > > But it is still a leap too far to say "it *costs *more to be rich".
      > > Webster defines the intransitive verb "to cost" as "to require expenditure
      > > or payment". Similarly, American Heritage says it means "To require a
      > > specified payment, expenditure, effort, or loss". Just because most people
      > > do something does not mean they are *required *to do it.
      > >
      > > And yes: compared to someone living in a hovel in Haiti, I am "rich". What
      > > does that have to do with anything we are discussing?
      >
    • Show all 14 messages in this topic