Strollerderby

We own a small house.  Small=not big.  I stay home.  We manage to make ends meet.  My husband is not a college graduate.  He drives a truck.  It is hard work.  Even if I did go back to work, I wouldn't be bringing anything home due to childcare.  I wouldn't want the government taking care of us.  What exactly are you wanting them to do???  They suck at 95% of what they do.  Ever talk to someone who works for a government run program???  Not to mention the increase in taxes wouldn't be worth whatever program or law the government would come up with to "fix" the problem.

A higher percentage owned homes, ok.  But have you ever taken a look at a house, say, from the 40's or 50's???  Did they have master suites or 3-5 baths???  How about 2700 square feet???  Nope.  That's almost standard now.  

We expect everything NOW.  Debt has risen because of credit cards.  There were no computers or cell phones.  People want more stuff.  

Do I have any answers to this??? Not really, but I do know one thing--government isn't gonna help.

Student loans are one way in which the government could help - more subsidized loans, better grants.  Subsidizing child care is another.  

I don't think anyone wants to lay themselves at the mercy of the government, but there are things the government can do within the tax code to assist the shrinking middle class.  

I don't think that is the government's job.  It is the job of the universities to offer better options.  I agree with you that people in the middle class get the shaft when it comes to higher education.  The rich can afford it and the poor get financial aid.  

As far as subsidized child care, WHAT????  I wouldn't let the government be in charge of watching my dogs, not to mention my kids.  I'll be on board of government subsidized child care when I get a tax break for staying home.  

Subsidizing child care is not "the government taking care of your kids" it's a tax break, just like the breaks given that preference, cars, and the trucks your husband drives, over other kinds of transport.  You stay home to raise your kids in part I presume, based on your first e-mail, because of the expense of child care and the way 2 income families are taxed.  I also live in a small house, it takes  two incomes just to make the payments and medical etc.  I agree that stay at home moms should get more in the way of stpends etc., from the government, but it sounds to me like you get in a snit about anybody who gets anything that you might not want.  Also, this is a great country, theonly remaining "superpower", it did not become a great country by the government "sucking" at 95% of what it does.  We have the most beautiful national parks in the world, we built the Hoover dam, the entire highway system, all government programs, the reason more kids go to college today, government programs, the reason your husband might not have to work till he dies, and you'll get a social security check if he does, government program.  The problem is that for the last 30 years, we've been buying into the notion that the government can't do anything right, and electing people who by and large have an ideology that makes them determined to prove it.  Consequently, the country is going down the shitter.  France on the other hand subsidizes child care whether you work or not, has preschool for all children beginning at 2 or 3 years old, and has a higher birth rate, more moms who stay at home than in the US when children are young, and higher effective wages for 2 income families with children.  I amchauvinistic enough to believe that anything the French can do well, we can improve on.

Our parents didn't have the vast amout of credit available that we do now.  If they didn't have the money they didn't buy the item and they saved for purchases!!  I think our "soft" generation better learn to handle delayed gratification or we're headed down the tube!

Again the Y generation is blaming other people for its problems.  As noted above the standard of living that people define as "middle class" is much higher than it was during the baby boomer generation.  Computers, cell phones, two cars, 4 bedroom houses, eating out a lot and et cetera.  So no one saves for retirement and for purchases that will legitimately raise their standard of living.  Few people save for their children's education.  That is what has to change.

Oh please, Rachael:

#1: Homeownership: Sheri is right--we own a smaller percentage of our homes than previous generations because our homes are much larger and we expect things that previous generations would have considered luxuries: multiple bathrooms, walk in closets, fancy kitchens.  

#2: I agree that wages have stagnated and it's harder to make ends meet on one salary than it used to be.  And while I value greatly the opportunity to be a stay at home mother to my daughter, I recognize that not all families have the resources.  However, more could if they were willing to live like the previous generation: smaller homes, fewer meals out, one car, one tv, no cell phone/cable/satellite/high-speed internet access.  I'm not trying to tell anyone else how to live or how to spend their money, just that those things are luxuries, not necessities.  

#3: Why on earth would we hold the government (and not ourselves) accountable?  I get very upset with people who think the world owes them something.  I believe it is incumbent upon a civilized nation to provide a safety net for the truly impoverished, people with physical or mental disabilities, etc.  The rest of us need to suck it up and accept our lot in life or do something to change it.

#4: The government ALREADY subsidizes student loans!  I don't think there's been a time in our nation's history when a college education has been within reach for more people.  I am a graduate of Brown University, which has recently instituted need-blind admissions (as have many Ivies) and stated that students coming to Brown from families earning less than $60,000 will pay nothing.  I believe Harvard has made a similar statement.  There is also a fabulous network of state and community colleges in this country that are more affordable and offer just as sound an education as private universities.  Financial aid is available for those for whom a college education would otherwise be unaffordable.  I don't sympathize with people who complain about their huge college debt: if you don't want to take on that kind of debt don't sign the promissory note in the first place!  Apply for financial aid, go to a cheaper school or get a part-time job.  Our government provides a free basic education to all.  It doesn't owe you a free college education.  But it does put it within reach for most low and middle income people.            

#5: If consumer goods are less expensive but their cost makes up the same percentage of our income as in times past, [drumroll please], we must have more stuff than they did!  Simple fix: don't buy so much stuff.  It's better for your pocketbook and the environment!

End of rant!  Amen!

I must say, I'm rather thrown off by the fact that whenever the question of government aid is mentioned in regard to child care, student loans and the like, the prevailing wisdom is that we the people are messing things up in a vacuum. That the government isn't trustworthy and even if they were, its not their job to help families or students or the sick.

First off, if we don't like the current government, we should throw the bums out until we find people we do trust. Its the joy of a representative system and an option often taken for granted.

Second, the government is spending *our* money right? And officials are elected to deal with the pressing needs of us, the electorate, right? If so, why is it that money can be found for pet projects like bridges to nowhere but not for childcare credits? And why am I  somehow wrong for asking? It seems the times I hear 'personal responsibility' trumpeted the loudest are right before the interest rates go up on student loans and it becomes harder to make ends meet even on two pay checks.

Don't get me wrong, Americans should eat out less, save more and not only create budgets but stick to them.

However, as Kimora pointed out, we are the only superpower who can't seem to work out a way to give stay at home moms either a stipend or help pay for childcare. I don't think that the British, French and Dutch are all morally superior people with niftier governments but they are assured some sort of immediate help if they procreate, go to school and/or get sick.  Somehow, politicians manage to find money for boondoggles, weaponry and political maneuvering aplenty but not for partially paid family leave. How is it that the government can send people families money for 'stimulus' but  is somehow unable to figure out a way to help keep healthcare more affordable?

Again, the American populace isn't operating in a vacuum.  

I just wanted to point out that the reason that many European countries have stipends for stay at home parents/subsidized health care/childcare/university education is that their tax burdens are WAY higher than ours are here in the U.S.

When I talk about government programs, I am talking about Social Security, welfare, public housing etc.  We will all be lucky if we see social security, and it is not nearly enough to live on.  

I have heard the "Europe does it better" comment before.  Taxes are much much higher there.  So, sure, they get the perks, but they are in essence, paying for them.  What's the difference between paying the cost of childcare yourself or having the government tax you more and then giving you back the money????  Oops, I forgot, they take MY money too.  

And as far two people working, everyone does what works for them.  I'm not fighting that fight.  However, hearing people bellyache about not being able to stay home with their kids--what have you done to make that happen???  What are you willing to give up????  Really.  Have you really crunched the numbers to see what working really costs???  Here's one for you--3 kids me and dh--less than 50K a year.

And as far as the government stimulus goes, it is stupid and a smokescreen.  Not to mention that money is going to be taxed next year.

Actually, no, the stimulus won't be taxed:

From the IRS's FAQ

Q. Is my stimulus payment taxable?

A. No. You will not owe tax on your payment when you file your 2008 federal income tax return. But you should keep a copy of the IRS letter you receive later this year listing the amount of your payment.

I'm not opining on its wisdom, just pointing out the correction.

It's the height of insanity to say that "personal responsibility" is the solution to all this rather than improving the government and increasing their role. Are you aware of how many middlemen take a cut of your money in the free-market healthcare system, and how much more it costs you than a single-payer system? Madness.

You're paying the government exorbitant taxes anyway - right now they're spending them on bridges to nowhere and bailing out tanking corporations. Shouldn't they be spending YOUR money on your kids' health and education instead?

And... why do people get so mad when you suggest that the wealthy could be taxed more?

Rachel,

I disagree strongly with this post. The reason we are falling behind is because we indulge ourselves and we don't make choices the way our parents did. Cell phones and cable are considered necessities today. I know my parents wouldn't have dreamed about taking on additional expenses if they had any credit card balance at all. I believe families today often confuse what they want (eating out, designer clothes, SUVs) with what they need (food, clothes and transportation) -- that's what put them in a precarious financial position.

I'm also concerned that you've bought into the fallacy that most people need two incomes to survive. Try eating at at home, living in a smaller place, becoming a non-shopper, and you'd be surprised at how little you need to live.

BTW, I thought you post on the price of gas was spot-on. We part ways on this topic, however,

Dear Sheri,

I agree with you that Social Security will likely not be there for us or our children. Again, I say the thing to do is throw out the bums who won’t make the hard choices and bring in those who will look to the long term. And yes, that means the American populace needs to make some hard choices for themselves as well.

As I said before, I don’t think Europeans are somehow magically better people with benevolent governments that do no wrong. I do think however, that their version of the social contract does seem to offer better value for money. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, my husband are paying about 40% of our household income to the government in the form of state, federal and local taxes. That’s about what someone in the U.K. is paying. Why is it that they receive subsidized child care etcetera, and we don’t?

As to why it’s a better idea to have the government subsidize childcare and the like, it comes down to the size of things. The government operates on a much vaster scale than you or I could hope to. The collective taxes of the entire United States vs. what the average American household can portion out… there’s no comparison.

As to the idea that the government is taking some of your money to help others… well, I will assume that you are claiming your children as dependents and reaping whatever tax benefit that gives you. That means somewhere out there; someone without kids is putting some time in for you. That’s part of the point of paying taxes, so that the burden of running things is spread out amongst us all.

Speaking of the average American family, I’m not really worried about ‘bellyaching’ parents. I’m worried about parents who literally cannot afford to take care of their children on two paychecks. I know families can tighten their belts and give up on luxuries. We’ve all seen the stories of families of six surviving on less than 30K a year. But even those families aren’t saving much. And they’re healthy. Most families are one major medical issue or one layoff away from needing help.

Sadly, these days even charities are strapped as the cost of food goes up. That’s actual food, not soda and candy. If it’s more expensive to buy bread and milk, if the employer is shifting more of the cost of insurance on to the employee, if retirement funds are eaten up by childcare costs, what is the average family to do? The belt only gets so tight before it’s a noose. Also, keep in mind, that’s two parent households. A single parent with just one child is in even more precarious circumstances.

So, I'm curious. At what point do you think the government needs to intervene? I don't mean to sound adversarial, I really am interested in your viewpoint.

Taxes, yep, we all pay enough of them.  Should wealthy people be taxed more????  I dunno. If I am paying 30% of my gross salary, should my friend be taxed at 50% because she makes more???  It doesn't seem fair to me.  If I had spent years climbing the ladder and finally made it, shouldn't I be allowed to reap some of those rewards without being taxed more???  Why do people want to punish other people for being successful???  And would you feel the same way if success comes your way????  If so, when you file your taxes, don't take a return.  Give it all back.  

Fushiafinn,

I don't have the answers to all the questions.  If I did, I would probably be running for office.  

I believe that government should at least try to run better.  Less waste.  More bang for your buck.  But really, what are any of the people running for president going to do after they get elected???  They are going to do exactly as they have done before.

I also know that you can, in fact, deduct part of your child care off of your taxes.  I know that our government offers people who can't afford food food stamps, medicaid for those who are not insured and poor, many states offer health insurance for uninsured children.  I have worked with and actually graduated with people who have lived overseas and in Canada.  They told me their health care was not as good as we receive here.  They pay tons of taxes.  Overall, they came back here because our standard of life is better.

I have a child with autism.  I've seen the good, the bad, and the ugly.  One important thing I have learned is that I have to take care of his needs, because if I don't, no one else will.  The same goes for the government and politicians.  They will promise the world, they are in it to get elected.  

I don't know everything.  But one thing I do know is that government isn't the answer.  

I will agree that on the whole, people want more today than our parent's and grandparent's generations. For a variety of reasons, many of us live beyond their means and feel entitled to a luxury-centered lifestyle.

But one thing a lot of people don't realize is that when our country went of the gold standard during Nixon's presidency, our money  became essentially worthless. Money is just paper when there's no gold in the vault to back it up when our creditors come calling.

So, since about 1970 or so, inflation or the major devaluation of our dollar has been a constant and the Federal Reserve-driven boom/bust economy has made a lot of millionaires and a LOT of poor people.

Is this because we haven't taken personal responsibility? Well, most people could have been a little better about living within our means, but we have NO control over the devaluation of our currency. That's the government's doing.

When our country's money was backed by gold, inflation was unheard of. Your money retained it's value year after year after year. So, to anyone who thinks the government doesn't bear some blame for our crappy economy and that citizens don't deserve a leg up from the entity that has mismanaged our country so badly and in the process, causes millions of families to suffer, you're kidding yourself.