I was actually going to suggest that, Turtle, but I wanted to include one-person households as well.
To say that the childless have to pay this penalty and don’t get any say in it isn’t technically true.
This is a democracy. I would venture a guess that the vast majority of voting adults out there have kids.
In theory, your recourse if you don’t like the ‘childless penalty’ is to vote candidates who support it out of office. Vote for a candidate who thinks like you. You, of course, won’t find one - at least one that will say it. The power of the parent is too strong politically.
I don’t like my tax dollars going to subsidize insanely rich Virginia tobacco manufacturers, either, but I can’t do an awful lot about it with my one vote.
Give me immortality, or give me death!
I’m not going to talk about tax breaks…my head is spinning on that debate. However, I do feel that there is an inequity in the way single people are sometimes treated in the workplace.
I have a classic example of this, happened right after the Northridge Quake in LA, 1994. I was working at a retail store, and was living with my sister and an elderly friend. Both were handicapped, and in a delicate state, stressed out, etc. The quake shook us all up (pardon the pun) and I didn’t want to leave them alone to go to work - I was scheduled to work the day of the earthquake. The phone lines were going in and out all day, I could not see myself leaving my sister and friend alone.
When I called my boss, she wouldn’t hear of me not coming in. I told her about my situation, my handicapped sister, etc. No dice, had to come in. She did explain “Well, if you had kids I wouldn’t make you come in…” She was a parent herself, she obviously saw the value in staying home with kids, but somehow, handicapped adults weren’t a good enough reason. (As it turns out, I didn’t go to work that day, and the store survived my absence. It was a damned fabric store - who wants to buy fabric on the day of a major quake?!?)
I experienced that attitude many times at that job. I usually had to leave last, because I didn’t have kids. A certain value was placed upon kids, that was not placed upon things I found important. Now, I am not saying that kids aren’t important…I love my nephews. My parents were great when I was growing up, I do think it is important for parents to be there for their kids. But, are my feelings less important? Are my interests less worthy? Am I not allowed to be tired at work? To maybe, just once, NOT be the one to leave last? Are my adult, handicapped friends/relatives LESS important, and in LESS a need of care? I don’t think so. I felt resentment at times at that job, because the message I got was that my feelings and interests were less important because they were not centered around kids. And I didn’t think that was right. I was there to do a job, as was everyone else. I was a good employee, just like the parents.
Just had to get that off my chest.
Of course that’s my remedy in theory, but as you also point out, that is no remedy at all in practice, because the voting power of parents is too great. It is an example of the tyrrany of the majority. The majority can always vote themselves a raise at the expense of the minority. (And you can see the baby boomers doing this time and time again as they pass from one phase of their lives to the next…)
I know I’ll be attacked for whining, but I really think this is a flaw in our system the Founding Fathers did not anticipate. If they had, I imagine there would have been a Constitutional provision or an amendment to prevent it. What is to prevent the tax break for city dwellers I describe in my earlier post? Not a damn thing under present Constitutional construction.
You could try to make the argument that such taxation violates the right of equal protection under the law, but it would almost certainly be doomed to fail. An argument based on “equal protection” is one of the weakest arguments you can make in Constitutional law. The equal protection clause has been so watered down by the Supreme Court as to provide almost no protection at all, at least in circumstances such as these.
It’s frustrating because there’s no way a minority can prevent such a “majority tax” and there’s sure as heck no way we could muster the numbers to amend the Constitution.
I should expand on my comments about the equal protection clause. Technically, you couldn’t even make an equal protection argument, as such, because the equal protection clause (14th Amendment) applies only to State (and by extension local) government action. It does not apply to the Federal government per se. However, the Federal government is constrained by the “due process” clause (5th Amendment). (“No person…shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law…”) The Supreme Court has held that “due process” includes a requirement of equal protection under the law.
In theory, the concept of “equal protection” prevents the government from making decisions which favor one class of persons over another. In the example we are debating, I would be in the position of arguing that the tax break favors “parents” as a class over “childless persons.”
The Supreme Court has held repeatedly that unless a classification trammels fundamental personal rights, or is drawn upon inherently suspect distinctions such as race, religion, etc., the Court will presume that the discrimination contained within the law in dispute is constitutional, so long as it is “rationally related to a legitimate state interest.”
In the case of the tax break for parents, I have no doubt that if it were challenged, the Court would simply rule that the tax break is “rationally related” to the “legitimate state interest” of promoting the well-being of the nation’s children, and would therefore rule the tax break constitutionally valid.
The problem is, you can almost always come up with some “legitimate state interest” to justify a discriminatory tax. (See my arguments above about the potential “legitimate state interest” in a tax break for city dwellers.)
SingleDad wrote:
You mean adopting two children automatically made you not single any more? What, do they throw in a free wife with every two-pack of kids? 
Time to make dinner, so I’ll respond to the substantive posts later.
tracer: Before I had children, my tax status was “single”. Once they became my dependents my tax status became “head of household”.
Dr. Crane! Your glockenspiel has come to life!
meara:
No, you’re just avoiding a particular opportunity for allowing people in our society to provide you the assistance you arguably deserve.
spoke-:
No, I’m saying that the tax break is a particular expression of the universal ethical obligation of all citizens to support procreation.
meara:
A red herring. I’m arguing that each of us has an ethical obligation to the species, not that society’s requirement for procreation completely supercedes our individual will. There is a difference between the existence of an obligation and it’s particular implementation.
Bad-Mojo
Such a comparison is, well, childish (sorry, I couldn’t resist). As I’ve said time and again, regardless of the number of children we have, we must continue to have children or the human race will indeed persish.
If childless people were a powerful majority, and obtained preferential benefits because of that majority (which would, in theory, be legitimate), the society would soon die out.
spoke-:
You quote the sense of the definition of “pander” as, “Someone who profits from exploiting the needs and weaknesses of others.” Just where is this “exploitation” of “weakness” happening?
Actually, yes, it’s the same logic. People in cities receive far more taxpayer-subsidized services that people in rural areas. So what?
The limit on this sort of behavior is constitutional. There are minority rights that must not be abridged regardless of “social benefit”: Freedom of religion, speech, privacy, etc.
Again I will say if you derive benefit from a society, you accept the obligation to that society’s requirements. The obligation is not absolute, but it must be respected nonetheless.
You can argue that a particular requirement is not in society’s best interest, or that an alternative has a greater benefit. But you can’t just whine that “I’m don’t like this or that obligation, therefore I have the right to ignore it.” Society is not on the cafteria plan.
And I’m just going to ignore the discussion over the most politically correct term for people without children. Puleeze, people. Childless, child free, PWOC… get a grip.
spoke-:
The reason why there’s not a constitutional protection requiring each and every individual action by the government be precisely fair to each and every person 100% of the time should be obvious. It’s pointless and impossible to enforce.
If you don’t have a car, why should you pay taxes to maintain the roads? Well, all the stuff you buy at the store was shipped in by truck. Without the roads, they’d have to bring it in by mule train, costing you a lot more money.
As mentioned before, anyone who says, “It’s not my responsibility to see to the future of the human race” should allow that philosophy to apply retroactively to their parents.
Dr. Crane! Your glockenspiel has come to life!
“I’m arguing that each of us has an ethical obligation to the species, not that society’s requirement for procreation completely supercedes our individual will.”
This is very scary. That argument implies that the collective will of the society, in order to preserve the species, has greater rights than the individual member of that society. I will accept that only when it comes to ants, bees, and the Borg.
But for American society and its reverence for the individual, the preservation of the species should not factor into tax law, company benefits plans, and general acceptance of families without children.
The idea that having children should be an obligation is an awful damnation of parenthood itself. Is being a parent so bad that we must force couples into parenthood by obligation? Are there no rewards at all for raising children? If there aren’t, then child-rearing should be mandated by law because clearly the species would be threatened. But for so many Americans, parenthood is a joy and neither tax incentives nor social obligation played a part in their decision to have kids.
The species is safe. Let us move past this argument.
The more I read this thread, the more ridiculous it seems.
As miscwit points out, humans are in no danger of dying out. We have a biological imperative to procreate – we don’t need a tax incentive as well. If you can’t raise a child without an extra 5K a year, don’t have one. (Adopters of non-infant or problem children can keep the deduction – that’s an area where we really DO need an incentive)
Only part of the OP was about tax breaks and other financial “benefits” to having children. The other part of the OP is the fact that many workplaces, and bosses, have the attitude that almost nothing (or no one) is more important than kids and parents. Or at least this is the message I’ve gotten at a workplace.
As I illustrated in my previous post, a former boss of mine obviously thought my handicapped, (but adult) friend/relatives were not as important as someone else’s kids. Also, I don’t take a job thinking that I will just “have to” work more overtime, because my coworkers have kids. And yet it has happened, believe me. Is this right? I am sure none of you here think so. But this attitude seems to be somewhat acceptable in today’s society. And if we dare not like it, are we “whiners”?
He was a lot older than I, but he was rich, so I married the old geyser.
Authentic Sig line by Wally!
Polydactyl Cats Unlimited
“A Cat Cannot Have Too Many Toes”
Tom Leykis had the author of this book on his show. She had some valid points.
I’ve never paid that much attention to what parents get as tax breaks or something like time off for family emergencies. My employer would fire them if they didn’t get their work done.
What I found interesting were the callers who said they won’t hire women with kids because they are the most unreliable workers.
We kidfree probably are getting it stuck to us, but so what?
We are the ones who can travel to Naples or Paris and laze around without a care. If the job is not satisfactory we can quit and not have to panic because the kiddies need peanut butter.
Parents, however, are chained to a desk until they die. If they are lucky they won’t get a kid like Jeremy Strohmeyer or
Karla Homulka.
By the way, I love kids, especially with catsup.
lindsay
Wow! You seem to have paraphrased the entire book, Kym. And you just perused it during a coffee break? I am impressed!
I don’t agree with your assessment of the disparity between benefits to workers with kids and to those without, however.
I sent you the following reply to your response to the book. I thought I’d post it so that others can perhaps see life from another perspective.
NO KIDDING! is a non-profit social club for childfree couples and singles
with chapters in many cities in several countries. NO KIDDING! members have,
over the years, told me of the various inequities in the workplace.
In many cases, parents are given flex-time, while nonparents have to work
regular hours. Childfree people often have to pick up the slack when their
childburdened co-workers come in late or leave early because of the kids.
When shifts are involved, parents are often given the plum shift, while
non-parents are often told to work afternoons or graveyard, so their
childburdened co-workers can be home with their kids during the evening.
Parents are often allowed to leave after-hours meetings early or skip them
altogether, while nonparents are fully expected to attend each and every
meeting from beginning to end.
When a job requires some travel, often childburdened workers are exempted,
while childfree workers are expected to live out of a suitcase for months on
end.
Health insurance premiums are usually unfair. Single folks pay $X, while a
childfree couple pays $2X. A couple with ten kids also pays $2X, even though
they use medical services much, much more than smaller families.
Childfree workers are often told that they have to work over weekends and
holiday periods (such as Christmas, New Years, etc.), while childburdened
workers are given the time off to be with their families.
Often, when a company sets up an onsite daycare, workers are not given
raises or bonuses due to the expense of the daycare.
Parents are given parental leave, but if a childfree worker wants to get a
new puppy or volunteer for Big Brothers or Big Sisters, it’s on their time,
not the company’s.
Often, when a kid coughs twice, the parent brings the kid to work.
Apparently, the kid isn’t well enough to go to daycare or school, but is
fine to roam around the workplace all day and get into trouble. Speaking of
trouble, the productivity in a workplace plummets when there’s a kid around,
and an adult workplace is a dangerous place for a toddler: lots of sharp
corners on desks, sharp edges on scissors and paper cutters; stairs to fall
down; machines to climb onto (and fall off), etc. And what toddler isn’t
curious to find out if the yellow push pins on the bulletin board taste
different from the red ones?
It’s truly unfair when one group of workers is given a benefit, while
another group isn’t given an equal benefit.
Jerry Steinberg, “Founding Non-Father”
NO KIDDING!
Phone: (604) 538-7736 [24 hours] www.nokidding.bc.ca, nokidding@nokidding.bc.ca
Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father
NO KIDDING!
www.nokidding.bc.ca
{quote}Only part of the OP was about tax breaks and other financial “benefits” to having children. The other part of the OP is the fact that many workplaces, and bosses, have the attitude that almost nothing (or no one) is more important than kids and parents. Or at least this is the message I’ve gotten at a workplace.
As I illustrated in my previous post, a former boss of mine obviously thought my handicapped, (but adult) friend/relatives were not as important as someone else’s kids. Also, I don’t take a job thinking that I will just “have to” work more overtime, because my coworkers have kids. And yet it has happened, believe me. Is this right? I am sure none of you here think so. But this attitude seems to be somewhat acceptable in today’s society. And if we dare not like it, are we "whiners{/quote}
You’re not whiners if you don’t like it, but I have to say,most of the discussion I’ve heard and read about this book has been along the lines of “parents shouldn’t get these privileges”, which I don’t even think was the point of the book about the non-financial benefits.I rarely hear ( although I think Yosemitebabe would agree)“non-parents also have family and other responsibilities,and no employer should act as if they own their employees.”
For example , I used to have a job that required occasional,short notice overnight travel. It didn’t matter which employees made the trip as long as someone did. If I didn’t make a particular trip (not a blanket exemption) because I didn’t have childcare, I don’t think anyone would see it as unfair if a non-parent coworker could also refuse on the basis of a previous obligation (which they could)
I don’t think the non-parents complaints are about working a couple of hours overtime occasionally when the parents don’t.I suspect they’re complaining about working a substantial amount of overtime so regularly it’s really become the regular working hours.It would serve both parents and non-parents better if instead of squabbling over what privileges parents get, we all worked toward making it unacceptable for employers to require that many hours. After all, if four people are working ten hours overtime a week, that’s the equivalent of another full-time position.Everyone would be better off if the company just hired another person to fill it.
Who ever said that those of us without children plan to live off the taxes of others or off the wages of the generations to come? It’s called planning and saving for retirement!! You can do it on your own, you know, without help from social security. Social security in and of itself is threatened, so even that is a fallible argument.
I just learned from ana ccountant that if a person began at 21 putting $500 a year into a Roth IRA, that person would be a millionaire by the time they are 60. I don’t see how other people are contributing to this. All the childfree and childless people I know have set upt heir own accounts and plans to save for retirement. In fact, they will probably be better off than anyone who doesn’t plan for retirement, regardless of parental status. It’s called personal responsibility - a concept foreign to most Americans.
“I can never give a ‘yes’ of a ‘no.’ I don’t believe everything in life can be settled by a monosyllable” *Betty Smith
The idea that we have to have children simply because we were children once is a giant truckload of b.s. Honestly, I think that I would have been much better off if I hadn’t been born! Had I had the choice, I would have opted out.
Can you please clarify the “logic” in this argument? And what does it have to do with the fact that a parent is allowed to get off work early for a kiddie’s ballet lesson but a non-parent can’t get off work early to take a pet to the vet?
Thank you Doreen!! I was going to post another phrasing of this, but you tackled it first! I also think that you are nailing the non-parents’ argument quite well. We aren’t saying that parents “shouldn’t” have those benefits, we are simply saying that we are entitled to similar treatment. Pets are just as dependent on us as children are. There are also people, like Doreen, who care for other family members or friends who are dependent because of handicaps. So why not have a “dependent leave” where a person can take off time in order to care for the physical or emotional well-being of his or her dependent(s).
Personally, I am lucky enough to work in a small office where time off is allocated by each individual circumstance. If I have a class at the local university I want to take, but will have to leave 1 hour early every wednesday, I’m allowed to take it, as long as I make up that hour in some other form. We have a new parent in the office who is allowed time off to take care of things, but not any more than a non-parent.
The argument in the workplace is not that parents should not be able to have benefits that let them care for their whelp at others’ expense, but that non-parents should be able to care for the socially tenable things they have in their lives as well, also at the expense of others. 
“I can never give a ‘yes’ of a ‘no.’ I don’t believe everything in life can be settled by a monosyllable” *Betty Smith
miscwit: I’ve obviously failed to clearly communicate my point: society’s requirement for procreation does not override one’s personal will. It’s a negotiation that individuals make with each other to fulfill their obligations and responsibilities.
Hardly. I have an obligation not to kill people. Is that a damnation of peacefulness? I have an obligation to defend the country should it be invaded. Is that a damnation of honor and duty?
meara:
That’s because society as a whole supports and assists parents in what is a difficult and exhausting job. Just because society’s support has become so ingrained as to become nearly invisible doesn’t mean that support has become unnecessary.
Founding Non-Father:
Soldiers are given benefits (e.g., a pension, free medical care) that I don’t get. That’s unfair!
This is obvious hooey. Soldiers perform a service valuable to society. They receive benefits that reflect the value of that service to society. It doesn’t matter that someone wants to be a soldier; the value exists and they receive benefit from it.
Likewise, parents perform a valuable service to society. It doesn’t mattery why they choose to serve. The value to society does exist, and we receive a small benefit for the value of that service.
doreen:
Rah! Well said!
Ophelia:
The bridge is just a few miles away. I’m not stopping you.
The point is, life has value to most people. That life is due to the sacrifices of the people who lived before you. No one is saying you have to give up your single freedom and have your 1.125 children. We’re just saying throw a few bucks and a few hours of your time to those of us who are exhausting ourselves chasing after rug-rats.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.
Say, if your rugrat strikes it rich in the music industry, will he buy a house for me? No? I bet he’ll buy you one. I bet he’ll come visit you in the hospital when you’re sick, and in the Old Folks’ Home, too. I bet he’ll give you a ride to the airport when you need it, and help you mow the lawn.
Parenthood is a two-way street. It has costs and benefits. Please don’t pretend that parenthood is a never-ending chain of burdens from which the rest of society is obligated to relieve you.
SingleDad,