3 ms·

Uhh wait are you actually complaining about having kids and a job? Wasn't that all your choice?! Didn't a $300 tax break per child just get sent out directly to

Uhh wait are you actually complaining about having kids and a job? Wasn't that all your choice?! Didn't a $300 tax break per child just get sent out directly to you? Isn't that paid for by everyone even people without kids? Aren't you getting a free lunch? I demand you send me your $$ or stop your whining

quantumBerry 5y ago
It isn't a free lunch, because the $300 is going towards the start-up cost of the future tax-base. The cost to raise a child is estimated to be about $250,000, and the average amount a person will pay in taxes is $340,000. By my calculation that is a $90,000 "free lunch" to society with the investment to make that largely born by the parent. The people actually getting the "free lunch" are those who don't have children, but benefit from the investment made by parents.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- bestiezone 5y ago
  The free lunch means that it's coming from people who do not directly benefit from the result. It benefits the families with children and hypothetically should go straight to just children. The fact that you think it will result in more taxes for the community in the future does not change the fact that it comes from people without children and is still a "free lunch". Nevermind that people w/o children would only partially POSSIBLY benefit from this in the future, while parents get the direct aid now and possible future benefits... you're wrong twice.
- jayrice257 5y ago
  What? The free lunch means that it's coming from people who do not directly benefit from the result. It benefits the families with children and hypothetically should go straight to just children. The fact that you think it will result in more taxes for the community in the future does not change the fact that it comes from people without children and is still a "free lunch". Nevermind that people w/o children would only partially POSSIBLY benefit from this in the future, while parents get the direct aid now and possible future benefits... you're wrong twice.

quantumBerry 5y ago

It isn't a free lunch, because the $300 is going towards the start-up cost of the future tax-base. The cost to raise a child is estimated to be about $250,000, and the average amount a person will pay in taxes is $340,000. By my calculation that is a $90,000 "free lunch" to society with the investment to make that largely born by the parent. The people actually getting the "free lunch" are those who don't have children, but benefit from the investment made by parents.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bestiezone 5y ago
The free lunch means that it's coming from people who do not directly benefit from the result. It benefits the families with children and hypothetically should go straight to just children. The fact that you think it will result in more taxes for the community in the future does not change the fact that it comes from people without children and is still a "free lunch". Nevermind that people w/o children would only partially POSSIBLY benefit from this in the future, while parents get the direct aid now and possible future benefits... you're wrong twice.
jayrice257 5y ago
What? The free lunch means that it's coming from people who do not directly benefit from the result. It benefits the families with children and hypothetically should go straight to just children. The fact that you think it will result in more taxes for the community in the future does not change the fact that it comes from people without children and is still a "free lunch". Nevermind that people w/o children would only partially POSSIBLY benefit from this in the future, while parents get the direct aid now and possible future benefits... you're wrong twice.