There was a guy who used to post here that used to complain his job after graduation didn't have health insurance and it wasn't fair. I posted 15 jobs that had health insurance and he was beside himself because those jobs were beneath him. It's all about choices.

Jack Boyette said:

---

Tats what's possible if you work hard. Your statement is false. You thinking people can't do it if they actually try and follow a path like I just laid out (there are many variations) is you being brainwashed to believe the American Dream isn't real. You're being manipulated by people that don't want you to believe in it.

---

I'm genuinely happy for you and your family. I'm happy that I got there eventually; I know it's possible. I'm also aware that not everyone is as intellectually (or any other positive attribute) strong.

I'm not arguing that the government should just pay for it by raising taxes or continued borrowing. I'm stating that I don't believe it's as cut and dry as get the government out of the way and have people fend for themselves. Not if your societal goal is buying a house in your early 20s and starting a family by your mid 20s plus doing it on a single family income.

My interest isn't in saying you're wrong; my interest is discussing what other solutions might help the issue. For example, would a four-day workweek help accomplish some of these goals regarding childcare costs? I don't know, but I'd like to believe that's the essence of the OP. Surely there is something out there that might help push us closer to those societal ideals and I, maybe naively, thought this might be a place for those discussions.

backintexas2013 said:

---

I chose not to have kids. Once again it's a choice. It's not the government pushing choices.



I also have spent my whole life working with at-risk kids. I give back and help others. Keep trying with the gotchas.

---

Dude, if you want to have open dialogue, then do so. I'm not trying any gotchas or trolling or whatever you want to say I'm doing. I'm trying to have open discussion and you're being a right arsehole. We can continue discussing if you want, but I'm done with you if all you're interested in is liberal bashing.

Four day work weeks exist. You could also have two different shifts one morning and one evening and the husband works somewhere with one and the wife with the other.

I haven't seen anyone saying that mid twenties need to be married with a kid and a house. Maybe but I haven't seen it.


Imagine if we only paid 5% tax rate. Imagine how much more money everyone would have. Imagine that a part time job had a 0% tax rate. Imagine no payroll taxes. Imagine the company not having to match payroll taxes and how that will impact costs. Imagine a 2% sales tax and how much more money people would have.

I am not bashing. You keep saying things like "did you get help"? You never got help? No Aggie network? That's not having a discussion.

You are kind of being sensitive. You don't have a solution but want to poke holes in other peoples solutions

I can imagine all those things all day. At some point, it makes a heck of a lot more sense to spend that effort being pragmatic and doing some problem solving. At the end of the day, that's where I'm at knowing that those imaginations are pipe dreams and trying to problem solve. You're less pragmatic; and that's totally okay and I respect you for it.

I know said it in direct response to another poster, but I'm also extremely happy for you that you got to a place where you're satisfied with your life. That's fricken awesome. We also all play a part. You positively influence disadvantaged kids; a noble and worthy cause. I target my influence on A&M students since I firmly believe that time period is where you do most of your life learning.

It's not only hard work. It's sacrifices. Some can't do that.

backintexas2013 said:

---

I am not bashing. You keep saying things like "did you get help"? You never got help? No Aggie network? That's not having a discussion.

You are kind of being sensitive. You don't have a solution but want to poke holes in other peoples solutions

---

I apologize if it came off as attacking. That is not my intention. It's my personal bias and insecurity; simething that stretches back to the piss-pore parenting I received.

I'm not less pragmatic I just think it's not governments job to do it. I think its societies to help but not forced by government. There are tons of ways to get help. The problem is that help means following certain rules. Some don't want to do it.

It's like Twin City Mission homeless shelter. They are required to stay sober to receive help. Many don't want to do it.

No problem. It's been a long week with about 1000 miles of windshield time for me.

I can only offer that I'll try to be better at not coming off as attacking. When I feel attacked, my instinct is to lash back. I hope that you're willing to keep an open mind that I'm trying to have a good faith discussion. Regardless, I promise to also make an effort toward keeping an open mind.

I don't think this is an issue that anyone past 18 can solve today. We just don't know how it's going to quite turn out for Gen Alpha having their own children.

Fact is, most 18 year old's today will not be able to afford college, housing, and the daycare costs without significant family help as they mature into their 30's. It will be a choose two situation at best. Homelessness will rise, uneducated population will rise, and childless will rise.

The young Gen Z to Gen Alpha is going to be the first generation in almost 100 years without access to fast paced equity as a whole. If you can't buy a starter house, you can't sell a starter house for profit. That's going to stifle many opportunities of that generation.

backintexas2013 said:

---

I'm not less pragmatic I just think it's not governments job to do it. I think its societies to help but not forced by government. There are tons of ways to get help. The problem is that help means following certain rules. Some don't want to do it.

It's like Twin City Mission homeless shelter. They are required to stay sober to receive help. Many don't want to do it.

---

My problem growing up through those early adulthood years was that I didn't even know where to get that societal help or how to go about finding it. Sure, I very well could have done better. That's one of the reasons why my wife and I put so much of our personal time and money into these students at A&M.

Thank you for articulating what I kept missing.

Lets let the free market figure it out, or I guess we can make it even more expensive to do business in this country.

Nm

aggiehawg said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

if you cannot afford kids, do not have kids.

and eliminate the child tax credit as well.

---

My quibble with that is we wat to incentivize married couples to have children. One of the reasons there are tax deductions for dependents.

I would be okay with tax deductions for child care at licensed facilities or within the work place. Incentivize employers to either have such facilities or deductions for giving employees stipends for same.

My reasoning is that could kill two birds, encouraging a return to the workplace from WFH to help the cratering commercial real estate market (indirectly).

---

Can't say don't have kids. That's what drives economy, and should drive husbands to be better. However, more faux help by the government is not what's going to fix this. I have 4 kids, three of which were adopted, all elementary age. Wife has stayed home, as well as worked.

The first problem that has to be solved is the people that shouldn't be having kids. Until that issue is fixed, the rest is moot. My solution would be to keep abortions a States rights issue. Also for violent offenders of children that have killed/physically harmed children, or had them legally taken repeatedly, must have court ordered vasectomies and hysterectomies.

Secondly, everything the feds try to do revolving family and taxes is a disaster. Child tax credit? 1200 or whatever it is? Gee thanks. Also, when I had all 4 in daycare I was spending a little over $30,000 a year in daycare expenses. Any guesses as to what we could write off? $17,000.

It's unfair to say "can't afford kids, don't have them." People are having to choose - do I live my life and build wealth? Do I live my life and raise a family? Very few can realistically do both. Also, you can't say "we have to keep incentivizing people" nothing the feds do works. Get them out of family and taxes. Flat tax is literally the only thing that makes sense.

Quote:

---

It's unfair to say "can't afford kids, don't have them." People are having to choose - do I live my life and build wealth? Do I live my life and raise a family? Very few can realistically do both. Also, you can't say "we have to keep incentivizing people" nothing the feds do works. Get them out of family and taxes. Flat tax is literally the only thing that makes sense.

---

I was just trying to be realistic. Flat tax is going nowhere.

And I understand that childcare facilities will keep increasing costs if their parent/customers get a tax deduction.

Here's my idea. I have been shareholder in many Sub S corporations. Their tax returns were a part of mine. Childcare facilities regardlees of how organized, do the same. Have to send in 1099 type reports.

If I was to try to solve the problem, my thought would be to include each additional dependent as an additional earned for the tax brackets. Unmarried 12% rate is like 45k. Married is like 90k - just continue that math - married with 3 kids, 12% bracket is now $225k

Massively incentivizes the middle and upper middle class earners to continue to produce children at a reasonable price/tax break - and barely offers any additional incentives to have 10 kids while working as a Walmart stocker (there are already tons of benefits available, not trying to be crass).

Dawnguard said:

---

If I was to try to solve the problem, my thought would be to include each additional dependent as an additional earned for the tax brackets. Unmarried 12% rate is like 45k. Married is like 90k - just continue that math - married with 3 kids, 12% bracket is now $225k

Massively incentivizes the middle and upper middle class earners to continue to produce children at a reasonable price/tax break - and barely offers any additional incentives to have 10 kids while working as a Walmart stocker (there are already tons of benefits available, not trying to be crass).

---

Fine on the front end, completely screws you right around retirement age though.

Hawg, I know I'm just saying the incentives keep putting more harm on the situation.

Finally, actual discussion. In response to the $17,000 deduction on a $30,000 childcare bill, I'm guessing this wasn't recent? I have a 6-year old. Before she finally started kindergarten, we were only allowed to stash away about $5k maximum, in a pre-tax account, regardless of the number of children. After that, you could only claim 25% of anything spent past that pre-tax amount. Daycare was approximately $250 per week in south College Station. You can quickly see how fast those numbers shaft parents trying to build a family.

C@LAg said:

---

Dan Scott said:

---

Pick your poison. More immigrants to increase population for federal programs to encourage more births.

---

less illegals in the country means less federal and state dollars covering and subsidizing their illegal asses.

yes prices will rise, but an equilibrium will eventually be set while we work to fix our broken visa system and can kick them out when their visa expire.

---

fewer

Jack Boyette said:

---

Kraft Punk said:

---

It already exists...

It's called work from home....

Companies run by intelligent people have adopted wfh full time.....

---

For lower level people that aren't producers, maybe. For producers and highly paid people, it doesn't.

---

Meh...

There are quite few remote jobs out there for "producers" and "highly paid people"....

Jack Boyette said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

As a Gen X, I completely and totally enjoy the forced changes for the better that the Millennials have brought on. Time for the old farts to get pushed out the door and make some real changes for the better. Companies will be forced to make good changes or they will die. Easy peasy.

---

Yeah, what do the "old farts" know? It's not like they have more life experience than you.

You and I are the same age. I don't know anyone my age who's even moderately successful that thinks what you just said.

---

What a ****ing boomer

Oyster DuPree said:

---

Jack Boyette said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

As a Gen X, I completely and totally enjoy the forced changes for the better that the Millennials have brought on. Time for the old farts to get pushed out the door and make some real changes for the better. Companies will be forced to make good changes or they will die. Easy peasy.

---

Yeah, what do the "old farts" know? It's not like they have more life experience than you.

You and I are the same age. I don't know anyone my age who's even moderately successful that thinks what you just said.

---

What a ****ing boomer

---

I'm 43.

Ag with kids said:

---

Jack Boyette said:

---

Kraft Punk said:

---

It already exists...

It's called work from home....

Companies run by intelligent people have adopted wfh full time.....

---

For lower level people that aren't producers, maybe. For producers and highly paid people, it doesn't.

---

Meh...

There are quite few remote jobs out there for "producers" and "highly paid people"....

---

Not really. Of course, you and I might have different definitions of that. $200k isn't "highly paid" or even close to it.

jopatura said:

---

I don't think this is an issue that anyone past 18 can solve today. We just don't know how it's going to quite turn out for Gen Alpha having their own children.

Fact is, most 18 year old's today will not be able to afford college, housing, and the daycare costs without significant family help as they mature into their 30's. It will be a choose two situation at best. Homelessness will rise, uneducated population will rise, and childless will rise.

The young Gen Z to Gen Alpha is going to be the first generation in almost 100 years without access to fast paced equity as a whole. If you can't buy a starter house, you can't sell a starter house for profit. That's going to stifle many opportunities of that generation.

---

There are plenty of starter homes available in the market.

What does work well is a society more geared towards single worker families with a stay home parent if possible.

If we actually need so much labor that inflationary pressures require the income generation by both parents for a life above the poverty line, then yes, I think accommodations are reasonable to structure into our work paradigm for the good of the nation. A nation that supports the nuclear family structure is important because it is critical that that social structure is broadly sound for the health of the nation.

We have a problem in this country at a fundamental level, the family unit. It's people who can't afford kids having kids + people who can afford kids not having kids so that they can have more things; bigger house, nicer car, expensive vacations, more toys, etc. It's almost as if western culture had developed societal norms from centuries of experience that fostered family units, population growth, citizenship, and work ethic and then turned it on its head in the name of equity and selfishness. Now, we have witnessed the explosion of single-parent families, decreased rates of procreation to the point that we cannot sustain our culture, illegal immigration, barely functioning education system, violent crime and incivility, Welfare, homelessness, and mental illness. It is difficult to have the levels of selfishness that we are witnessing and traditional societal norms. Choices often come with consequences and most of the above can be tied back to the decline of the traditional family, i.e., mother and father raising >2.5 kids and teaching them right from wrong, work ethic, and how to be a good citizen. Of course any politician that advocates returning to these societal norms will be run out of town on a rail until they are not. That is the nature of cycles.

TA-OP said:

---

Sorry, but you're never going to convince me I need to tell my daughter to put aside her career goals and ambitions so she can raise kids for her husband. That old school philosophy is one of the reasons conservatives have trouble appealing to younger generations.

---

What a terrible take. Raising kids for her husband?! Like being a stay at home Mom is punishment. Wow! I'm not surprised you'd rather have your grandkids raised by strangers instead of a loving mom.

We are a society where our kids are raised by strangers. They spend 90% of their time with adults and other kids who are not their family. Parents pick them up at 6pm, have dinner and off to bed.

That's one reason we have a completely screwed up nation now. Back in the day, kids grew up with their siblings and their mom. Those same kids built the greatest nation on Earth. Now they are tossed into daycare 3 months after they are born for 10 hours per day. No one will ever convince me that is better.

As a culture we should be doing everything we can to uplift families. That means let the market do its thing and get out of the way. He was making a political statement without specifics. But he understands the free market.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

What does work well is a society more geared towards single worker families with a stay home parent if possible.

If we actually need so much labor that inflationary pressures require the income generation by both parents for a life above the poverty line, then yes, I think accommodations are reasonable to structure into our work paradigm for the good of the nation. A nation that supports the nuclear family structure is important because it is critical that that social structure is broadly sound for the health of the nation.

---

This.

It isn't a quick solution that will get support but is nevertheless the best long term solution.

Dan Scott said:

---

JD Vance was on with Megan Kelly and said it's messed up how we have a society where young people don't want kids because it will hinder their career. So he said we should make the work place more accommodating for parents who want to work. He didn't say how in the interview but likely means paid leave or job security while out.

Sounds like build back Better plan from few years ago. I'm thinking in the next 4 years there will be federal paid year since both sides support it.

---

The work place means just that. I think affordable daycare nearby is a better fit.

I keep an open mind. It's just hard to convince me that the government will ever be better and finding a solution. The person starting out that has no deductions gets killed in taxes. Almost 20% in income tax. That doesn't include payroll and sales tax.

If people want tax credits to subsidize this that's fine but nobody should get more back in income tax than they pay in. That's not ok. Given how social security is going to screw over people like me it is just more income redistribution that some of us have to deal with.


Some people don't want to make sacrifices. That's ok but when people won't sacrifice and then want the government to help I have an issue with it.


Also people who sometimes love some tax deductions grip about others. Seems a bit hypocritical. Not you but others. I don't understand the rationale of someone who wants this tax deduction but gripes about the mortgage one or any other one.

C@LAg said:

---

if you cannot afford kids, do not have kids.

and eliminate the child tax credit as well.

---

Correct.... now go down to the thread with people demeaning millenials and gen z not wanting to have kids because the economy is tanked, but we can't get an actual fiscal conservative in office to fix it because "muh religion" and tell them to hush.