Kindergarten these days ... Ready for school?

when you devalue ordinary workers' jobs so much that dual incomes are pretty much a necessity for a decent standard of living? When I grew up, the typical middle class family had a working dad and a stay-at-home mom. That's the rout to economic suicide, these days. How do you propose the mom makes it if she has to pay for day care?

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

The percentage of taxes that we pay today is alot higher than it was 30 years ago. Also, in this specific case WHERE"S THE FATHER. We have far too many shortsighted economic incentives that encourge some to have and raise children without two parents

My youngest daughter works the graveyard shift so her husband is home to take care of the 3 boy's! She also stayed home for a few years to be with the youngest! It's all about choices!

your biggest compliants is reducing taxes. Which is it? I remember seeing an inflation adjusted standard deduction. It was enormous! Devaluation is higher taxes. Welcome to the Republican Party?

plain old supply and demand...
The average household income goes up as both parents start to work... consumers start to buy more goods because they have expendable income. Demand rises, especially for luxury goods, and prices are increased because more people are willing to spend more money on them.
This explains car and house prices. It even explains the increases in college tuition...

The second parent has to work just to pay the increasing tax burden, not just to buy stuff.

When I was single and just out of college I got a pretty good paying job. Because my Dad had drilled saving into me, I signed up right off the bat for the max savings plan that the employer matched (at least in part), etc. I never "saw" that money. When I got my first big promotion, I upped the contribution and set up automated savings so that I got a little "raise", but never really saw the huge jump in income. I had co-workers that seemed to be broke until the next paycheck came along. I never understood that, I wasn't exactly living like a scrimp with what I took home ... actually quite the opposite. But that money I never saw -- that wasn't really all that much out of each paycheck statement -- DID add up while my friends were spending it.

Most folks don't look at all the numbers, only on the numbers on the paycheck ... and after a while, ESPECIALLY those that live paycheck-to-paycheck, get very accustomed with spending what they take home.

When I quit my job to go back to grad school full time, my income was cut in half. Surprisingly, the tax differences made the transition far less traumatic than I had envisioned. Had I not owned my condo (at the time mortgage/expenses exceeded rent for similar accomodations) I could have lived reasonably similarly on that lower income.

Even ignoring for academic exercise those that live beyond their limits, most of us just get used to living a certain lifestyle.

When I first got married, all of a sudden, we were two people with decent incomes put together. Yet now we were sharing the cable and phone bill, the property taxes, the mortgage, the electric, etc. Let's face it, until you have kids, most couples' expenses amount to only a fraction over the expenses of a single -- depending on the couple, the entertainment/dating expenses might just even balance it out. But now you have two incomes.

Folks take on mortgages they qualify for. Have vehicles they can afford, etc. Most two-income households can't even think of one person staying home with the kids because of the financial obligations they have taken on. Restructuring that seems to not be an option for many. What? Keep that car another 5 years? Not get that new XYZ??

Of course two people making $30K/year can keep up with the Jones' of one wage-earner making $60K/year. The household takes in the same, but is glorified as struggling while $60K single earner borders on "rich" in certain circles. But when the two $30K people have a kid, something's got to give. Unfortunately it seems less and less likely these days that anyone would even EXPECT them to "downsize" so that they can raise their own children anymore

Also, while I'm all in favor of family-friendly tax policy (although I think a social-engineering neutral tax is still best) all of the various perks kick in AFTER you have the kid and only as long as you don't make too much (IOW those that planned better are effectually penalized). What ever happened to socking some money away before getting married and starting a family. Inherent in all the "assistance" for families is a disincentive for actually planning for the family. Ditto for retirement, education, life's curves.

In their quest to penalize the "rich" and buy off the poor, the tax code leaves little room for a middle class anymore

Evie

... there is no need for Kindergarten! Quite the contrary. Just that some kids are not mature enough for even those things like sitting still and raising hands. Those kids might be better to start with something a little less rigid and smaller groups. My friend's kid that was kept "home a year" didn't exactly sit at home alone -- he had other less rigid interactions.

Evie