They (the tax benefits, that is) are honestly not that great, and certainly don't outweigh the costs of raising children.
Seriously.
Dawn: Any luck? Willow: If you define luck as the absence of success--plenty.
'Touched'
Natter 69: Practically names itself.
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
Jessica - Oct 26, 2011 8:41:56 am PDT #3218 of 30001
And then Ortus came and said "It's Ortin' time" and they all Orted off into the sunset
Jesse - Oct 26, 2011 8:48:03 am PDT #3219 of 30001
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
I don't have a car, so I don't know why my taxes have to go to pay for roads and highways.
Connie Neil - Oct 26, 2011 8:48:44 am PDT #3220 of 30001
brillig
No, it's not the primary reason, but they certainly gloat over it as an advantage.
Calli - Oct 26, 2011 8:50:06 am PDT #3221 of 30001
I must obey the inscrutable exhortations of my soul—Calvin and Hobbs
I'm quite happy to pay taxes to educate (and, as necessary, help feed and doctor) other people's children. I'd be even happier to pay more taxes so a) those things could be done better/more thoroughly and b) the people who do those things could be recompensed more highly. The effort I put into earning the amount of tax money that I pay into education and etc. is far less than the effort that goes into birthing and raising the kids in question, and should help lead to the sort of society I want to live in 20 years down the road—one with reasonably educated, healthy young adults.
Living in a civilized society costs money. I'm good with that.
Dana - Oct 26, 2011 8:56:16 am PDT #3222 of 30001
I'm terrifically busy with my ennui.
My grandmother had eleven kids and they were all just fine. People with a lot of kids probably wanted a lot of kids.
§ ita § - Oct 26, 2011 8:56:43 am PDT #3223 of 30001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Other people are paying taxes so she can do some of her shit. That's just how things go around. Though isn't it possible that she meant children were a lifestyle choice *and* human beings? They aren't inherently mutually exclusive, are they?
Ginger - Oct 26, 2011 9:00:58 am PDT #3224 of 30001
"It didn't taste good. It tasted soooo horrible. It tasted like....a vodka martini." - Matilda
I have never resented paying the school portion of my property tax. I believe everyone benefits from an educated citizenry. I wish they were being better educated, but that's a different question.
I have whined a little when they announce federal tax breaks that seem specifically designed to not give a tax break to single, childless, self-employed people.
javachik - Oct 26, 2011 9:07:31 am PDT #3225 of 30001
Our wings are not tired.
Nope, but I can't see the decision being made to crack down so hard without her okay.
Oh yeah, I was actually piling on with my comment - I am pissed that our stupid mayor isn't onsite to deal with her city. I love Oakland so, so much, but I detest the people in charge.
I hope that your Hubs is well soon, Fred.
Jessica - Oct 26, 2011 9:09:09 am PDT #3226 of 30001
And then Ortus came and said "It's Ortin' time" and they all Orted off into the sunset
The problem with saying kids are a lifestyle choice is that it's an incredibly privileged perspective - not everyone who wants kids is able to have them, and not everyone who has kids chose to do so.
§ ita § - Oct 26, 2011 9:14:17 am PDT #3227 of 30001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
True, Jessica. But it's the "in a perfect world" sort of privilege, isn't it? I think it's trivialising to refer to kids that way, but I just don't see where she said or implied they weren't people too.