101–110 of 114 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people go through the public school system - so childless or not, you could think of that tax as paying back for the education they already received.
1. Their parents paid. 2. From my experience of public school it's more of a cost than a benefit. Many thousands of hours wasted, bullying incurred, etc. (That its value was negative does not reduce the other point about cost in taxes.)
(Disclosure, I am a parent and a happy one.) There is something so bleak about the quiet child hate in the modern world. To me, it implies on some level a lack of hope for a better future. This is as far as I can tell, a systemic problem of the modern world. Yes, bad kids are annoying. We've all been there. The problem is the behavior, not the fact that the misbehaving human is young. I'd be perfectly fine with desig…
It is not. You are giving a wider scope to something very trivial, such as feeling upset by sudden and very high noises, and the annoyance of little kids running around unsupervised. There is no higher meaning here, just the need for education.
Modest idea: Moderately tax no-kids zones. Spend the money to subsidize services which are ~essential to those with young children (such as day care) and ~useless to those without.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Their parents paid. 2. From my experience of public school it's more of a cost than a benefit. Many thousands of hours wasted, bullying incurred, etc. (That its value was negative does not reduce the other point about cost in taxes.)
Their parents also received public education. How far back do we go?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a common belief with terrible support and a good case against it. https://www.econlib.org/caplan-callard-the-case-against-educ... (I can recommend the book.)
Caplan is a well known hack of an economist. Seriously recommending his work betrays a serious lack of knowledge of the field.
(Disclosure, I am a parent and a happy one.) There is something so bleak about the quiet child hate in the modern world. To me, it implies on some level a lack of hope for a better future. This is as far as I can tell, a systemic problem of the modern world. Yes, bad kids are annoying. We've all been there. The problem is the behavior, not the fact that the misbehaving human is young. I'd be perfectly fine with desig…
That's where these rules come from. The staff has to make a choice: tolerate the unpleasant behavior, or risk ratcheting it up to even worse behavior by intervening. It was bad for business, so they made rules. They knew it would cost something; they believed that the benefit was worth the cost.
I do believe that it's incumbent on adults without children to tolerate children to a considerable degree -- more than seems fair to them. But I've also found that a lot of parents consider "I'm raising the next generation and therefore justified in demanding infinite tolerance" to be valid, and that's just not right. When we can't negotiate a middle ground, extremes get set.
I find few things as obnoxiously childish as grown people that don't want to handle kids being around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This logic makes no sense. What about no smoking spaces? Basically every nation implements these and it benefits everyone (including smokers, more reasons to quit). Are you going to try and tell me "no smoking in front of the building" is the new apartheid? Smoking and parenthood are lifestyle choices, which have consequences. Skin color is not, and shouldn't. It is not relevant to the conversation.
Parenthood is necessary so your nation doesn't go extinct and hopefully you get a paid pension from a new generation. As the other commenter said many nations tax having a child free lifestyle just like they tax smoking.
I am already 100% confident I will never see a penny from it, and as a result, I'm saving and investing so aggressively that I'll be on track for my investment income to exceed my FAANG income before I'm 40.
Relying on unsustainable government wealth redistribution programs is cargo cult behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since you're aware of the statistics, how can you reconcile that only pitbulls seem to have bad owners? Wouldn't we assume a more normal distribution of bad owners across breeds, making golden retrievers, great danes, or bloodhounds just as likely to maim and kill other pets or children?
If you’re an owner who wants an attack dog pitbulls will be on your short list along side German Shepherds. Now, there are definitely some breeds that don’t have it in them to attack (and if they do it’s less likely to be reported). Even if you get bitten by a chihuahua you’re not super likely to file a police report. And I will admit that you would be hard pressed to get a French Bulldog or Pug to hurt someone. But…
Also, FWIW, the only dogs I have been bitten by were a Chihuahua and a Pomeranian.