2 ms·

Should it be more? Surely something one can think of when planning a child (or more)?

Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
I was just pointing out what the author of the statement wanted to say, wasn't really going to argue about the point. It's incredibly hard to budget for children though, you can't really foresee how much they will cost. One child eats little, one eats much, one is picky, one not, one likes soccer, the other one likes lego. Very hard to predict, except maybe year 1-2. But then one might be good with breastfeeding while the other might require formula and the cost of the first one is 0 while the second one could be very high
atomicnumber3 3y ago
The other commenter is correct about my meaning, 2k/yr is rounding error for kid costs - at best it derays the increased cost of the "Family" health insurance plan. And I'm not saying it should be more, I was more saying it in jest to help deter comments like "but you get tax kickbacks!". I do think that we should be doing more for children - free school lunches with no means testing, free childcare from birth instead of just when they enter the public school system, and so on - but the child tax credit is the most visible "kickback" so I made a joke about it to acknowledge it. My point here, more generally, is that companies shouldn't be trying to play this game with "fairness". Just call it what it is - capitalism and the invisible hand of the free markets. If people have problems with how that system allocates capital, then do something about it, but don't try to pretend any of its machinations have any relation to notions of justice or fairness.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  Very true. I mean even on my "platinum" healthcare coverage, it covers the gap of the deductible (which I know isn't exactly the same thing). Or looked at another way, it pays for 2.75 weeks of daycare. (And I say this as someone not overly invested in that world - I have a 17 yo stepdaughter, and I am fortunate that in addition to my excellent healthcare, my company pays 100% of the premiums for my partner and kid, not just me).

I was just pointing out what the author of the statement wanted to say, wasn't really going to argue about the point. It's incredibly hard to budget for children though, you can't really foresee how much they will cost. One child eats little, one eats much, one is picky, one not, one likes soccer, the other one likes lego. Very hard to predict, except maybe year 1-2. But then one might be good with breastfeeding while the other might require formula and the cost of the first one is 0 while the second one could be very high

atomicnumber3 3y ago

The other commenter is correct about my meaning, 2k/yr is rounding error for kid costs - at best it derays the increased cost of the "Family" health insurance plan. And I'm not saying it should be more, I was more saying it in jest to help deter comments like "but you get tax kickbacks!". I do think that we should be doing more for children - free school lunches with no means testing, free childcare from birth instead of just when they enter the public school system, and so on - but the child tax credit is the most visible "kickback" so I made a joke about it to acknowledge it. My point here, more generally, is that companies shouldn't be trying to play this game with "fairness". Just call it what it is - capitalism and the invisible hand of the free markets. If people have problems with how that system allocates capital, then do something about it, but don't try to pretend any of its machinations have any relation to notions of justice or fairness.

FireBeyond 3y ago
Very true. I mean even on my "platinum" healthcare coverage, it covers the gap of the deductible (which I know isn't exactly the same thing). Or looked at another way, it pays for 2.75 weeks of daycare. (And I say this as someone not overly invested in that world - I have a 17 yo stepdaughter, and I am fortunate that in addition to my excellent healthcare, my company pays 100% of the premiums for my partner and kid, not just me).