Actually, all I did was ask a question, Adrasteia.

If you found it condescending, I apologize, but I was trying to get at the fact that society has changed quite quickly with regards to its perception of the family and people often have difficulty adapting to those changes. I meant no criticism of those that choose not to have kids, as I said at the end of my post.

Fitzpatrick:

Adrasteia:

P.S. Why did you ASSume I was enlisted?

I'm just guessing, but probably because we haven't had a draft since 1973. If you weren't drafted, you enlisted.

That doesn't mean, however, that you were of enlisted rank.

Officer v enlisted. Not everyone is enlisted, some are officers. If differentEllen were in the Army she would know this.

EWilson:

Actually, all I did was ask a question, Adrasteia.

If you found it condescending, I apologize, but I was trying to get at the fact that society has changed quite quickly with regards to its perception of the family and people often have difficulty adapting to those changes. I meant no criticism of those that choose not to have kids, as I said at the end of my post.

Actually you made several statements. Am I instinctively defensive? Not normally. But when it is implied that I have somehow let down my country and am "unhappy" because I haven't answered the true calling of my womb I do become defensive.

As a right-winger Saletan probably whines every time a tax dollar goes to help some "poor by choice" person. Therefore, why should my tax dollar go to help some "child by choice" family?

If I wanted to be very, very controversial I would tell the "child by choice" group here that I don't care one iota what the world looks like after I die. But that isn't true. I do care. I care for their children and all the children after that. That's why free school breakfast is important. That's why clean air and water is important. That's why safe cars, safe neighborhoods and safe schools are important and I don't mind a bit that my tax dollars go to support those things.

But I do mind terribly being told that I am unhappy because I am childless and not because I pay money into the pockets of those who choose to have children. I don't owe Saletan anything because he believes he's doing society's work any more than he owes the volunteer at the local shelter or museum something for doing society's work.

one day my kid will be paying for your VA or retirement? Again, we are all in this together. Either you took a commissioin or you enlisted - either way it was voluntary. Especially if you took a commission.

a living. If you would were in the military, you would recognize that phrase. I didn't work for a living either. So what's your point?

Probably not. I have paid into my retirement by the low wages I earned in the miltary. I pay into my 401K now. I save and I invest. I claimed no disability when I retired and am not entitled to VA care.

You missed the entire point of my first post. I was not asking for any kudos for serving. I was making a point about with child versus childless. I pay for the future now by not using resources and by covering for those who have to leave work to take care of their children. One is not more sacred than the other.

EWilson said that the childless seem to be more instinctively defensive but you did not even read what I wrote before you became defensive.

I pay my taxes and I do so gladly. Those taxes pay for schools, school vouchers, parks, libraries, playgrounds, safe roads, and on and on. I don't mind that because it's important to me that children are safe. But as far as tax breaks for parents with children, that's a different matter.

You may pay a lot to raise fine children that will keep society rolling along, but I spent many, many hours, and still do, working while parents are at the kid's recital or doctor's appt. That is my sacred contribution to society. I don't expect kudos for it and you shouldn't expect kudos because you chose to have children. I don't get a tax break for not using as many resources as your family does and I don't feel you should get tax breaks because you have children.

I chose to put parentheses around "unhappiness" with the intention of suggesting the broad level of complaints (no tax brakes, etc.), Adrasteia, not to suggest that anyone who chose not to have children should be unhappy with that choice.

Defensiveness perhaps wasn't the best choice of word either, but I tried to indicate the sort of reaction I meant by including an example.

Both examples were inexact and inelegant, but that's a problem with Internet communication where intention and tone are so hard to convey.

Personally, I find the idea of reducing childbearing to "society's work" rather ridiculous. Certainly, well-raised children will hopefully contribute to society in some beneficial way, besides simply perpetuating it, but that's hardly the major reason I'm having a kid. (And, actually, my wife & I had a long discussion if it was fair of us to bring a kid into the world, given the current state of things.) Most people, I suspect, have a whole host of reasons for wanting kids.

differnetEllen:

a living. If you would were in the military, you would recognize that phrase. I didn't work for a living either. So what's your point?

That's pretty judgemental. Officer's work for a living too. But I was enlisted. 24 years. I didn't catch that phrase in your post but would have ignored it anyway. I find trite comments like that devisive.

>I pay my taxes and I do so gladly. Those taxes pay for schools, school vouchers, parks, libraries, playgrounds, safe roads, and on and on. I don't mind that because it's important to me that children are safe.

>But as far as tax breaks for parents with children, that's a different matter.

How do you see these as different, Adrasteia?

One might honestly posit that a child who has inadequate nutrition at home because her parents lack the extra money tax breaks provide is worse off than the child who lacks a playground. Is it the question of control of you tax dollars that concerns you?

This isn't meant to be snarky. I really would like to know how you see this.

i have stood on both sides of this divide and understand the arguments on both sides. Yes, a working parent (and most working parents have no choice about working) needs to be able to deal with child-related issues such as last-minute babysitter cancellation and an attack of chicken pox. I always tried to be supportive of co-workers caught in these kinds of binds. However, I have had co-workers who have clearly overplayed the "baby card'. One mother in particular would come to work late and expect understanding when her son would cry and repeatedly beg her to stay home for another minute (this was a child with a wonderful, loving live-in nanny). Another had nannies quit at least once a month, and we would have to cover for her for a few days until she found a replacement. Needless to say I deeply resented having to complete more work than these mothers did.

My own experience is that after being childless into middle age, I was given custody of a 12 year old relative. I had been in the habit of working late; I switched and started going to work an hour early so I could be home in the evenings. I got her enrolled in after school activities so I would not have to worry about what she was doing with a 3 hour gap between the end of the school day and dinner time. I trained the kid to call my (wonderful) secretary if there was an emergency because she always knew where to find me. I also recruited a few adults (neighbor, friend, relative) to help out as needed. I could not be certain at any time that one of these people would be available, but one usually was. What I did NOT do was expect to be able to work half as much for the same salary as I had received before.

I know that it is unavoidable that a parent will have responsibilites that will occasionally cause a little trouble for his/her co-workers. However, if you are spending 10% or more of what should be your working hours dealing with the kids then perhaps you need to re-think your career and parenting strategies. I doubt if the childless person is getting paid more to do your work and his/hers too.

EWilson:

>I pay my taxes and I do so gladly. Those taxes pay for schools, school vouchers, parks, libraries, playgrounds, safe roads, and on and on. I don't mind that because it's important to me that children are safe.

>But as far as tax breaks for parents with children, that's a different matter.

How do you see these as different, Adrasteia?

One might honestly posit that a child who has inadequate nutrition at home because her parents lack the extra money tax breaks provide is worse off than the child who lacks a playground. Is it the question of control of you tax dollars that concerns you?

This isn't meant to be snarky. I really would like to know how you see this.

I don't see them as different. So why should I pay both? A playground benefits all. I like seeing happy children. Benefits me too.

A tax kickback is getting paid to reproduce. And I cannot presume a tax break will go to feed a child.

nemesis; I like your post and I agree with almost all. Perhaps I shouldn't even broach this, but do both parents have to work? To drive a Hummer? Have a 3,000+ sf home? Go to Disney World?

Parents for generations did without those things and the fact that we are all here proves they weren't necessities. I feel that those who "have" to work are probably those who don't have their own secretaries.

Nannies eh? Not even extended family?

Personally, when I see someone (or their kids) abusing the previledges given them for the special status of parenting I feel like I should get a small refund. Actually I think government servants who abuse their positions should have to refund their wages.

Now that I think about it I didn't see much of an advantage tax-wise raising my kids and I was paying in for what services they benefitted from and they started to contribute as soon as they were able...Hmmmmmmm

Heleva:

Nannies eh? Not even extended family?

Personally, when I see someone (or their kids) abusing the previledges given them for the special status of parenting I feel like I should get a small refund. Actually I think government servants who abuse their positions should have to refund their wages.

Now that I think about it I didn't see much of an advantage tax-wise raising my kids and I was paying in for what services they benefitted from and they started to contribute as soon as they were able...Hmmmmmmm

How about this for a compromise: I keep paying my taxes. Parents keep getting tax breaks. They quit talking about their sacred duty to society and how noble they are and I quit bitching about the extra hours I work.

Sounds good to me.

I, unmarried and childless, do not have a problem with tax breaks given to parents, paying school taxes, or subsidizing day care, because, as Saletan says, good parents and all children are an important contribution to the future of my community. That being said, I DO have a problem working more hours for the same salary as parents. In my office (all female, all but two of us mothers), the average salary works out to $30.00 per hour. My non-mother friend and I are expected to work 8-6, while the mothers work 9-5 or 8-4. Now, that is either an $16,800 pre-tax bonus to the mothers, or an $16,800 pre-tax penalty for not having a child. In addition, if there are any night or weekend responsibilities they always, and I mean ALWAYS, are given to the two of us, with no overtime pay.