Strollerderby : money

How Much Would It Cost You to Take a Career Break?

Miriam Axel-Lute — Fri, 29 May 2009 15:00:00 GMT

The New York Times (h/t Creative Class blog) has an interesting report on the financial penalties sustained in different fields by people who take some time out of the workforce. Apparently, although medicine has the most grueling training, once you get there, it's a lot easier on work/life balance than, say, finance, business consulting, or law. Or even academia.

Of course by "people who take time off for family" we still mean mostly (but not entirely) women (it used to be called the Mommy track, remember?), and I'm surprised that the research didn't explore whether women and men experienced different financial penalties when they do take time. (And I'm surprised that the Creative Class blog post didn't even acknowledge that gender is still a huge factor in this.)

It's also, perhaps, a little hard for me to get too worked up about the relatively lower salaries of highly paid MBAs and PhDs who've taken a few years off when there are so many other people for whom work-life balance means being able to get paid time off or support their family without taking on a second job. Ok, so perhaps that's a little too harsh. Work-family balance is important for everyone, for the kids, and because people who've been forced to work 70-hour weeks when their kids are young often have a I-did-it-so-you-should-too attitude toward their own subordinates, not to mention about efforts to improve work-life balance for everyone.

More by this author:

Jon & Kate Plus 8 Premiere Snags 9.8 Million Viewers

Brett Singer — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:00:00 GMT

So you know this Kate Gosselin we've been hearing so much about? Mother, reality show star, husband may or may not be cheating on her? Lots of backlash against her?

After all the sturm und drang that the Gosselins have generated in recent weeks, you might think that would hurt their ratings. But you would be wrong.

The season premiere of "Jon & Kate Plus 8" was watched by 9.8 million people. That's not only the largest audience for a cable show on Monday. It was the largest audience for ANY show that evening.

People, negativity sells. Big time.

Yes, it was Memorial Day. But "Jon & Kate" isn't even on a network. It's on cable. Which means that not everyone -- most people, but not everyone -- can see the show. To me, this was an astonishing feat.

I have a confession to make. I don't watch "Jon & Kate Plus 8." I don't watch any reality shows regularly, which isn't a judgment on those of you that do. It's just not my thing. (If they could make a reality show with superheroes in it, that I might watch.) But all of the tabloid news has been oddly fascinating to me. I read the People Magazine article. Someone left a copy of US Weekly in my house and I read the "Jon & Kate" article. (Well, I started it. But I'll finish it.) And I have to admit that I might just check out a few minutes of the show.

Did you watch the "JK8" premiere? Did the recent scandals surrounding the couple make you more interested in the show?

Source: Hartford Courant

Morning News - California Supreme Court Upholds Prop 8

Kate Gosselin - Mom or Monster?

Gosselins are Good for a Gander (big roundup of stories on Famecrawler)

Mom Arrested for Having 555 Pound Son

Morning News - Mike Tyson's Daughter Injured

Build A Bear Slapped With Child Labor Violations

JeanneSager — Tue, 19 May 2009 20:34:00 GMT

Child labor is heinous in its own right, but something about a company that makes stuff for kids abusing kids makes for particularly vile subject matter.

And isn't there something ironic about Build-a-Bear, the company that lines our kids up in little factory worker queues to "build" massively expensive toys which we then have to shell out to outfit, getting in trouble for child labor law violations?

The company has been fined by the U.S. Department of Labor for allowing fourteen minors to perform tasks that violate federal laws at sites in four states. A closer look at the charges reveals the company wasn't working kids to the bone for five cents an hour (the kind of sweatshop, third world country images that come to mind when I think of child labor issues). Teens ages sixteen and seventeen were being allowed to operate trash compactors and similar duties. The company has been fined by the Department of Labor, and it has adapted its rules so no one under age eighteen will be hired to work in the factories.

The latter seems unfair, as though the kids are being punished here rather than the company. And I can't say the company's statement, "Importantly, no one suffered any injuries from performing these tasks" sounds like much of a mea culpa.

As a mom who has so far avoided the big Build-a-Bear birthday celebrations, this was just another nail in that coffin. What about you, will you be humping it to build a bear anytime soon?

Image: Build-a-Bear

Your Kid's Identity Is at Risk

JeanneSager — Tue, 19 May 2009 16:01:00 GMT

Identity theft may be the hot topic at many a dinner party, but it might be time to start talking social security numbers on the playground.

Because hackers have turned their eyes toward our kids, making them the number one target of identity theft.

According to a recent article in Hitched, kids identities are the fastest growing sector for theft, and because kids aren't generally USING their own identities (not in the sense of a credit identity anyway), it can go unnoticed for years.

Just think, when was the last time you had to haul out your child's social security number for anything? Besides our yearly tax filing, I can count on one hand the number of times I've used it since she was born, and each time I've had to pull out the card to check the digits. Where we as parents can keep close tabs on our credit card bills to monitor any odd spending, most kids don't have bills coming to the house. Even kids' savings accounts are less likely to be monitored by adults - chiefly because we don't use them for anything other than holding money, which we'll check in oh, about eighteen years when the first tuition bill arrives.

No wonder the FTC has found half a million child identities are stolen every year, a number they expect to rise. According to the Identity Theft Resource Center, more than half of those children whose identities were corrupted were under the age of six. Late last year, a study from Javelin Strategy and Research estimated one in twenty kids overall have been victimized. They've rung up an average of $12,000 in wrongly assigned debt.

Foster kids are a major target too. Shuttled in and out of homes, their most secret information is an open book shared with hundreds of adults, and not always the most trustworthy types. They're also more likely to come out of homes where parents have fallen on hard times, parents who used their identity with the best of intentions. A mom who couldn't get an electric company to allow her to open an account in her name, for example, uses her child's name and social security number to try to keep lights on for the family. But when she can't get a job and fails to pay the bills, the black marks grow on the child's credit.

With the grim economic picture, that's a factor that's spreading to more and more homes. The economy is no doubt having an affect on the numbers of desperate people looking for a clean slate.

Makes you want to run out and order your child's credit report, doesn't it? You should. Hitched has a list of other tips to protect your kids here. Will you be making some changes?

Image: Dr Bulldog

Weird Holiday Alert: Lost Sock Memorial Day

JeanneSager — Thu, 07 May 2009 16:04:00 GMT

Settle down now. I'd like to call for a moment of silence for all of my daughter's teeny tiny little socks, paid for with my precious funds and STOLEN by the gnomes that live in my dryer.

And while you're snickering, I am all too glad to tell you that somewhere, out there, there is someone who has thought to treat this tragic loss with proper reverance.

Also known as the loon who thought up Lost Sock Memorial Day.

It's a real honest-to-goodness holiday. I'm expecting Hallmark to roll out a card any moment now y'all!

Of course, the day preceding Lost Sock Memorial Day may have something to do with it. See, tomorrow, May 8, is NO Socks Day. It's the day after that, May 9, that's Lost Sock Memorial Day. So I'm thinking that all the people who ran around without their socks on No Sock Day were mourning the loss of their socks, and . . . well, OK, I'm thinking much too deeply about this one.

Perhaps this is why Crocs got so popular in the first place? No socks means no lost socks.

But this is such a parent-friendly holiday. Because, like it or not, we have to encase those adorable little tootsies in fabric at least some of the time. And since even the teeniest baby manages to burp her food to all the way down there, they will, at some point, have to go into the washing machine. And then to the dryer. Oh, the dryer, place where socks head shaking their little elastic tops in dread.

Anyone smell a dryer industry/sock industry conspiracy? Well, it's a thought. If we could only get the gnomes to move to their homes.

Have a happy lost sock memorial day this weekend!

Image: LittleMissMatched

Families Still Spending Big on Prom

JeanneSager — Wed, 06 May 2009 17:01:00 GMT

If you have watched a teen movie from any of the last few decades (pick one, any one), there's one lesson to be learned. Your kids have to go to prom.

If they don't, apparently, something dasterdly will befall them, and they will regret it for the REST of their lives. Like, totally, forever and ever and ever, along with their BFFs.

Not buying it? Me neither. But parents across the nation are.

Because with the economy tanking, parents are still apparently going hog wild on prom spending. According to a New York Times report, spending may even be up this year.

And that's not just on the gowns. The tuxes too. And the limos. And the tiaras. Some families are forced to put the finery on layaway and pay down their debt, but they've got their hearts set on making it work.

Why?

Before you write me off as some prom-hating feminist (the latter I'll own up to, but not the former), I attended two proms. I went to each with very nice boys (yes, they were boys back then), one of whom is even on my Facebook now and reads some of my Babble posts (hi Tim!). We had fun. You might even say we made some fond memories. But memories that I couldn't have lived without?

Let me put it this way - I was recently doing a thorough cleaning of my attic and chucked a never burned blue candle coated in dust with the words "Remember Me This Way" inscribed on the glass holder. I can't believe I still had it. I wasn't going to hold onto it for a minute longer.

My first time around, my dad put out at least $200 on the gown, the alterations, the shoes. The only thing I still have? A pair of earrings he bought me as a daddy/daughter special thing, which I still wear for special occasions. The dress itself was donated to a Project Cinderella group - a non-profit effort to put prom dresses in the hands of girls who don't have a whole lot of cash. They're sold for a very small sum (so the girls can feel pride in knowing they paid for them, instead of feeling like a charity case), and the money goes back into the project.

My second time around, I knew better. The dress was off the rack and under $30. The shoes were even cheaper. I already had a pair of earrings. The most expensive piece of the evening would have been the price I'd have paid if my parents learned I'd let him drive my car.

Compare the two evenings, and I can't say which one was better. The second, cheaper night, because I was actually dating the guy? The first, more expensive night, because my date for the night is someone I still talk to today? In other words, a prom on the cheap was perfectly acceptable, and a whole lot of fun. I wasn't being cheated by going cheap.

Neither will any of these kids. Send your kids to prom - if they want to go - or don't. If they don't want to, don't pressure them into doing it, and yourself into making the finances work. And for Gawd's sake, if you can't afford it, step away from the couture. Your pocketbook will thank you. And in two years, when they're trying to rustle up tuition, they will too.

Image: New York Times

Two Parents Passing in the Night: Staggered Parenting

JeanneSager — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:31:00 GMT

It's a concern that's become even bigger than ever, but the stories of parents getting creative to avoid daycare costs are only getting wilder.

Take the parents who work opposite shifts, rarely getting to spend real quality time together in their marriage, because it enables at least one parent to be home with their two kids almost every moment of the day.

Lisa Belkin of the Motherlode took a look at Megan and Tim Garrett this past week, a couple who surmises in a good week they're able to limit the use of actual (paid for) daycare to six to nine hours. How do they do it? "Staggered parenting," Belkin calls it. One works nine to five, the other in swing shifts. Just not at the same time (if they can help it).

It's something like what I talked about in my own Bad Parent essay last week in honor of Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day. Daycare is so cost-prohibitive, that I worked out a deal with my boss - I go into an office twice a week while she goes to an actual (again, paid for) daycare. The rest of the time, I take my daughter to work. Some say I've got it easy because I can do this, and I will certainly say I am lucky to have this time with my daughter.

But neither I nor the Garretts have it easy. And unless you're one of those lucky ducks still swimming in the big bucks in this economy, I dare say you don't either.

It's why we're all thinking outside that proverbial box to get the daycare bills paid - or better yet, to avoid them at all. I'm a proponent of paying people what they're worth, so it's hard to come up with a solution for the high costs of daycare. We can't very well expect these people to watch our children for free.

But what of the mom who works nights, the dad who works days, so one can be home with their son at all times? Should they simply be expected to accept the strain that puts on their marriage and their family because, well, "they are doing what should be done when we decide to have children" as one commenter over on the Motherlode said? What about the Garretts, who are ensuring their kids get to spend almost all of their time with mom and dad, but who get almost no time alone to just be adults? Not to mention virtually no "family time." This isn't a knock on single parents, but when there ARE two parents in the situation, it's hardly optimal for the kids to never see them interact.

Daycare is expensive. Daycare is often inflexible. And daycare is not created equal. My friend pays $30 a day for her son to go to a small registered daycare with a nursery school curriculum and both breakfast and lunch provided. That's $150 a week - not too bad, but not available to too many families. She's popular, and fills up fast. In the same town, another friend pays $490 a week for the same service. The disparity is hard to fathom.

For parents who work part-time, the problem isn't just expense but finding a program that will accept their child. We need the money, but few daycares want to take on a child who will not be bringing in steady income for them (can you blame them?) to the tune of five business days, and many are loathe to take on a child at the tail-end of toddlerhood because they know the money will soon dry up once the child is enrolled in "real" school. Infants are tough to place too - in many places they take the place of two older children. In other words, the provider can charge the parent of an infant one fee, or they could take in two toddlers and get two fees - but not both. Again, you can't fault the provider (I'd prefer a limit in kids, wouldn't you?) but it certainly doesn't make life any easier for parents.

So what do you do? Many of us go unregistered, which carries with it its own problems - when I recently wrote about setting up a quid pro quo system with an unemployed friend (cash in exchange for their babysitting time), a commenter pointed out that flies in the face of attempts to professionalize the industry. Again, I agree that daycare workers shouldn't be treated like scut labor, but "non-professional" daycare providers can provide top notch care too.

So what's the fix? Employer-sponsored daycare (um, yes)? Government intervention? For one, I'd like to see the childcare tax write-off system change so we can write off ALL daycare expenses (rather than the "up to $6,000 for families with two children under age thirteen"). Not to mention paid paternity leaves, lengthier paid maternity leaves, and . . .

For all those, of course, there are the arguments from the same people who popped up on the Motherlode citing the rest of the country shouldn't have to pay for our kids. But let me ask: would they rather provide universal programs for parents to keep us in the job market or pay for us all to sit at home with our kids all day being unproductive and FEELING unproductive? Might I point out, those kids are American citizens and future taxpayers too. So how about a little help?

Image: No Time For Laundry

Also on Babble:

Bad Parent: Me and My Shadow

Economy Fix: Give 'Em All Jobs in Daycare

JeanneSager — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:27:00 GMT

No good could come of this phone call - my babysitter was hacking up a lung, and I knew I couldn't call out sick from work. Who knew I'd find the silver lining in finding an unemployed neighbor?

Yes, I called my neighbor, who is a grandmother and fantastic with kids - mine especially. She was happy to lend a hand and get a little cash; I was happy to have someone I trusted watching my kid.

After doing a little informal poll, I'm finding a lot of parents have started turning to the unemployed for extra childcare options. Let's face it - these are generally responsible folks, and they're home . . . all day. They might be hitting up the work force development office and making the job fair circuit, but otherwise, they have a lot of extra time on their hands. I've had more than one unemployed acquaintance tell me the frustration of the day isn't just money but the lack of productivity. They WANT to be doing something - and babysitting may not be glamorous, but it's a job.

So what can you do? Instead of calling the teenager next door to watch their kids after school so you can go out and run some errands; call the neighbor kid's mom to watch them during the same time period . . . and spot her a fistfull of dollars. When your sister calls out sick, don't call your boss and call out yourself - find a friend who could use the boost.

It isn't the big economy fix we're all hoping for, but for parents who are always searching for the next daycare fix - it could mean a world of difference.

Image: HomeCareWorld

What They're Babbling About: David's Back at the Dentist and We Rant

JeanneSager — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:26:00 GMT

It's a random round-up in this week's edition of What They're Babbling About - nothing ties them together - other than parenting of course. So let's dig in.

Thought David Goes to the Dentist was hilarious? It gets better - someone's mashed up David with the Christian Bale rant. Warning - kick the kids out of the room, and do not play this one at work! - YouTube

We've all been there - pissed beyond belief, pissed beyond compare . . . sound kind of like Christian Bale. So how do you rein in the rant when your kids are around? Stamp down the steaming streaming with these tricks. - Parent Dish

Just don't use the brake pedal for discipline - or you'll end up in the slammer with this bus driver. - Parent Dish

Think the ranting over Madonna adopting out-of-country is over the top? This mom thinks that's just another road that will lead the reduction in reproductive choice. Weigh in here. - Proud Parenting

Since we're talking taboos, is money no object these days. . . conversation-wise? Everyone's moaning about the economy, so is this mom right in finding more room to talk about family finances out and about? - Work It, Mom

Ready to get this kid out of you but not willing to try something crazy? Find out what doctors say is a no-fail way to get the baby moving, and what one moms says it did to her. - LilSugar

And since that will generally lead to breastfeeding, my favorite pick of the day - what to do when a mother is breastfeeding next to you on an airplane. A primer for all you lucky ducks on your way home from spring break. Hint: it's not looking around uncomfortably. - Sustainable Mothering

Is Pay to Play At Public Schools Fair?

JeanneSager — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:29:00 GMT

There's a storm a brewin' in one Pennsylvania school where administrators have suggested parents pay for their kids to take part in extra-curricular activities. With the economy oh so sunny, I can't help but wonder if this isn't a national trend.

Are more public schools going to call for a pay to play system?

You're darn tootin'. In fact, many do. And in states like Minnesota and Arizona, it's written right into state law that they CAN. Ditto Pennyslvania, where a 2002 law stipulated it's OK for schools to charge fees for activities that are not "essential to core education."

But parents at the Dallastown Area School District in Southern Pennsylvania say this will put an undue burden on them - especially for families with more than one child. They point out that the economy is making parents pinch the same pennies as the school district; and they need free activities for their children now more than ever.

There's long been an argument that fees for extra-curricular activites in a public school system do more harm than good. The lower income families struggle to pay the fees while kids from more affluent families are treated to more opportunities. It perpetuates the separation between the classes. It's a valid argument. Except, when I look at my property tax bill (schools are funded via property taxes in New York State), I am more liable to celebrate if I knew my daughter learned to read and write then I am if I know she just got a free t-shirt for playing free soccer.

The crux of the argument lies in the notion of a free education as guaranteed by our Constitution. But is football education? What about yearbook? Or art club? In Dallastown, the school spends $1.3 million a year on extra-curricular activities for their kids. This in a state where ninety-five percent of school districts were found in 2007 to be spending well below what was recommended per student on academics.

Sports and other extra-curriculars are good for kids. They're social activities, for one, educating children on the nuances of a working with others, often adding discipline and rounding out their core education. But think of how many parents can't send their kids to extra-curriculars because they won't make it home in time to pick them up from practice, and you'll see how limited the offerings already are to the general population. That was me - I didn't play one single school-associated sport during my twelve years of public school. The school wasn't expected to step up and help my parents arrange for me to get home from practice. Nor did they supplement my parents' payments for me to play AYSO soccer in elementary school. It was expected to keep me in line from 7:30 to 3:55 and produce a college-ready senior.

I'd prefer to think that every kid - rich or poor - got a good start on reading, writing and arithmetic before I start worrying about whether little Johnny gets to stay after school for extras. Once we have that down, then I'll think about.

So what do you think, parents? Is it fair to force parents to pay for extra-curriculars, even in this economy?

Image: Wikimedia

Playdate: How to Exploit Your Own Kids

JeanneSager — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 16:25:00 GMT

OK, we're not actually suggesting you exploit your kids. But this guy is!

Meet Mel Kane and his bad eighties era how-to on getting your kids into commercials. Fat kids (yes, he really said that), thin kids, short kids, tall kids! He sounds like a bad Dr. Seuss impression, only he's dead serious.

And what fun it is! He picks apart a kid who looks like she's acting ultra hard to be not interested in what's going on (and probably getting paid very well), and lets you parents of twins out there know you've got a hot commodity or two on your hands.

AdFreak dug this one up, and it's worth taking a look for the laugh at the giant glasses and poufy hair alone. And, you know, if you want to make money off your fat kid.

Have fun in Hollywood.

Also on Babble:

Bad Parent: Stage Mother

Want Free Childcare? We Can Help

JeanneSager — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:05:00 GMT

So the economy is getting worse, and you have to work more hours . . . but you can't afford to add extra daycare for the kids? We might have the answer for you.

Host and Care was set up to link students in need of accomodations with people they can help - primarily parents who have a guest room in their house and could use eight to sixteen hours a week of someone extra watching their kids.

The free site doesn't run background checks on care seekers or care providors, nor does it determine the terms of a care/accomodations deal. It's simply a conduit - and one that's gaining attention in an economy where every little bit helps.

Daycares have been announcing enrollment drops since the economy took a turn for the worse, in part because there are more laid off parents at home to watch their kids. But the bigger reason? Parents just don't have the cash - and while some babysitters have taken paycuts to keep their jobs, most daycare costs are contractual. There's no break for parents, leaving them with options that range from bad to worse. Like reports that an increasing number of parents are simply leaving their kids home - alone.

So instead facing of a mountain of bills to pay, they'll be facing a pile of child neglect charges . . . or worse - their kids could seriously hurt themselves.

Host and Care could be an option for parents with guest rooms, rooms they already pay the mortgage on and heat, rooms that won't be filling with guests any time soon considering friends and family are hurting financially too. It's akin to having a live-in nanny - without the cost - while the students get a leg up on paying their way through school with the burden of rent off of their shoulders.

Is there a college near you where there might be students looking for a room? Check out the site - they also connect families for house swaps, a great way for bigger families to save on accomodations on the road.

Image: MilitaryMoves

Morning News -- Layoffs and Vampires Edition

Brett Singer — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:00:00 GMT

Friday, Friday, Friday! Let's get to it, people.

"Obama to Set Benchmarks in Fight Against Militants." So sayeth the New York Times. What's that conversation like? "Have we found Osama Bin Laden? No? Okay, what else you got?" Another headline from the Times: "Pakistani and Afghan Taliban Unify in Face of U.S. Influx." Oh goody. Sounds fun. Not.

Here in North America, it's layoffs, layoffs and more layoffs -- Google (200 people laid off), the New York Times (100 people laid off and most remaining employees taking a 5 percent pay cut), and the Canadian Broadcasting Company (800 jobs cut, hoping to sell some assets). Google? Really? That's not good.

Speaking of Canada ("C'mon, say 'about' one more time. Please?"), Garth Drabinsky was finally found guilty. Drabinsky was the head of Livent, the producer of the Broadway shows 'Ragtime' and 'Kiss of the Spider Woman.' I admit that I was somewhat giddy to read news of Drabinsky's legal demise; I used to work in theater and was fascinated by the brazen way he left the United States to avoid prosecution. Apparently Garth and his co-hort Myron Gottlieb pulled a Max Bialystock and kept two sets of books -- one fiction, one non. What I've never completely understood about schemes like this is why they keep them both. Wouldn't it make more sense to only keep the fake books? I don't want to give anyone ideas or anything. No word on whether or not Garth is wearing a cardboard belt. (I hope someone gets that reference.) Amazingly, Garth has been appearing on a Canadian reality show called "Triple Sensation" where he and some other people "look for young stars who can sing, act and dance." But not add. That's not needed. Despite Garth's conviction, there will be a season 2. I might need to find that show. (If you want to know the whole saga of Garth, click here.)

If you live in New York and ride public transportation, prepare to pay more. The MTA voted for a big fare increase and cuts in service. Hey, at least it's green.

Speaking of New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has resorted to quoting Popeye the Sailor. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

By the way, if anyone didn't know what I meant when I referred to funny car radio ads, here's an example. Except that this ad is for church. "Sunday! Sunday! Sunday!" Seriously. Check it out. Consider this your "Moment of Zen", Daily Show style.

And speaking of Comedy Central: I like Stephen Colbert, but naming a space station after him is stupid. The faux-conservative's fans "stuffed the virtual ballot box with 230,539 write-in votes, overriding the four official choices NASA offered," according to Wired.com. NASA can change their mind, but why did they put themselves in this position? Not exactly rocket scientists over there, are they? Oh. Oh! Never mind.

Finally, a fun little item from Gawker. Students at the Boston Latin School have been spreading rumors that the prestigious institute of pre-higher learning is infested with vampires. According to MTV.com, "The headmaster [had become] concerned that some students' safety might be jeopardized, particularly if they were accused of being members of the undead." (Maybe private school doesn't always offer the best education.) Police were called. Parents were alarmed. But school officials promised that it's not true. Then they turned into bats and flew away. (Note: They didn't really turn into bats. Although the rest of the story, as far as I know, is true.)

Thanks for joining me on Morning News the past two weeks. I'll be handing things back over to Madeline, but will continue to do a daily round-up of newsy goodness at DaddyTips.com. Have a great weekend, don't take any wooden nickels.

Image: SXC

Husband Loses Job, Wife Loses Respect For Him

UPDATE - Josef Fritzl Sentenced To Life In Psychiatric Institution

Oprah Gets It Right On Chris Brown

Soldier Gives Birth At Army Barracks

Heath Ledger's Daughter Gets His Oscar

The Dr. Phil And OctoMom Show

Talking Taxes: How the Childcare Credit Works

JeanneSager — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:36:00 GMT

Do you send your kids to daycare? Have an in-home sitter?

As long as you work - and pay the nanny/manny/babysitter on the books - families with two kids can claim up to $6,000 in tax credits this year. So how does it work?

Your kids have to be under age thirteen. You may be worried about leaving the fourteen-year-old alone in a house with a well-stocked liquor cabinet, but the IRS doesn't care.
You must be making an income. Ya know, that's why they call it a credit on your INCOME taxes.
If your employer gives you money toward childcare, that must be deducted from the amount you're claiming. If your employer is that type, please give me his number. I want to work there.
You can't write off what you pay to one of your other kids to watch their siblings (sigh) or what you pay your spouse to watch your kids. If you're paying your spouse to watch their own child, you might want to find a new spouse (sorry, just saying).
If you're paying someone to come to your house rather than paying someone who has their own daycare or a sitter who has her own business, you may owe the government more because you're an official employer. This gets a lot of big important big wigs in trouble just as they're about to be confirmed as something even bigger and more important, so check this one closely. It might do to even hire an accountant. Just don't pick this guy.
The kid being babysat must have lived with you for at least half of 2008. If he hasn't, why did you need a babysitter?
Your filing status must be single, married filing jointly, head of household or qualifying widow(er) with a dependent child. In other words? You have to file . . . AND have a kid. Imagine that.
If you didn't pay out $3,000 for childcare for your one child, you don't get a $3,000 credit. If you didn't pay out $6,000 for two kids or more, you don't get a $6,000 credit. Those are simply the top end (try telling that to your daycare provider).

There are more tips over at the IRS Website, but these are the biggies. Are you going to be filing for a tax credit for childcare this year? Is it worth it?

Image: No Time For Laundry

Morning News -- Twitter Makes Nothing But Is Worth Something

Brett Singer — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:00:00 GMT

Welcome to Thursday! Yesterday I outed myself as one of the millions of Americans who knows zip about college basketball. I guess that's what happens when you go to a Division III school. On the plus side, I received a quality liberal arts education that allows me to do… well, this.

We'll start with something fun -- a Queens man played the lottery using the last three digits of Bernie Madoff's prison number and won $1500. The Daily News points out that this is a "16,000% return on his $9 investment - far more than even Madoff promised his bilked investors." It turns out that 501 other people hit a winner with those same three numbers (0-5-4, if you want to try it out yourself).

Back to the NCAA for a moment: Yahoo! Sports released a report claiming that the University of Connecticut violated recruiting rules in their contact with former player Nate Miles. Lots of people claim that the NCAA's rules are too confusing to follow, but I have an easy solution: hands off. Oh, but what about the shoe companies? They can contact the players. Well, under my plan, they can't. No one can. Amateur is amateur. If you want to play college ball, you can't accept any gifts from anyone at all. Ever. End of story. Of cause, its not that easy, but the solution isn't "make the rules go away", which is what some nudniks are saying.

Speaking of nudniks, somebody bilked Apple out of 9,000 iPod shuffles. What, you couldn't get them to send you a Touch? Piker.

A Chihuahua named Pebbles saved her owner from freezing to death when the two were stranded in the mountains of Wales. Beverley Burkitt is a dwarf, small enough that the little dog could keep her warm until help arrived. I still prefer bigger dogs, but this is a sweet story.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says that our "insatiable demand for illegal drugs" is partly to blame for all of the violence happening in Mexico. "I feel very strongly we have a co-responsibility." Well, it takes a village.

Democratic Senator Benjamin Cardin would like to help newspapers survive by letting them "restructure as nonprofits with a variety of tax breaks." Since many of them are losing money anyway, sure, why not? The bill had no co-sponsors as of Tuesday. BusinessInsider thinks that there are some papers that will survive even without Cardin's bill. Personally, I like newspapers, but I'm forcing myself to read more news online beacuse that's where it's going, whether I like it or not.

Twitter is going to start trying to make actual money, although maybe they shouldn't bother -- despite having no revenue at all so far, the company was recently valued at $250 million, according to Julia Boorstin at CNBC. Potential sources of cash are "the ability to search what people are saying in real time", and since such searches are valuable, the ads placed next to them are also valuable. And Twittter CEO Evan Williams also wants to start "charging companies who use the site to reach customers, helping them better target and communicate." I know it makes me sound like a luddite, but sometimes I hate the new economy. Would somebody please go back to making money by making stuff that people want to buy?

Finally, Monster vs. Aliens opens tomorrow. If you have kids, you'll probably be seeing it. Let us know what you think.

That's all for today -- see you on Friday, folks.

Image: SXC

Husband Loses Job, Wife Loses Respect For Him

UPDATE - Josef Fritzl Sentenced To Life In Psychiatric Institution

Oprah Gets It Right On Chris Brown

Soldier Gives Birth At Army Barracks

Heath Ledger's Daughter Gets His Oscar

The Dr. Phil And OctoMom Show

How to Say No To the Kid Selling You Something

JeanneSager — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:06:00 GMT

Let's face it, no matter how bad the economy gets, there's always going to be a kid knocking on your door with something useless to sell.

For Scouts, for church, for school, for the poor starving children in Ethiopia (so they can finally get a break from Mom harping on about cleaning their plates).

And, if you're anything like me, you buy it all. Because you . . . just . . . can't . . . say . . . no. But there's a set of columnists over at Slate who say you can say no to charitable giving without feeling like a total tool (OK, I added that), and they're willing to tell you how.

Written in part by a former staffer at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, who had to say "uh uh" thousands of times over to worthy charities who were lining up for grants, the piece advocates pumping up the asker . . . and then saying no. Basically their suggestions are to validate the person fundraising by telling them how important their work is, and how much you value what they're doing.

OK, that might work for adults, if you can figure out how NOT to sound like a patronizing SOB. But with kids . . . it just ain't gonna work. Why?

For starters, there's that cute factor. As my colleague Brett says, if you want to sell something to him, send a little girl knocking on his door. That's why schools and churches use kids to sell. They KNOW we don't want to disappoint kids.

And that's the second part. Kids don't want to hear that they're doing a great job. They want results. It could be seen as an unfortunate result of our instant gratification society, but a part of me is happy to know kids want to succeed and they are learning to stand up for themselves. The words "you're doing a great job," ring hollow for a child who has been told that they need to sell 10,000 boxes of sugary treats in order to get their school a new set of swings. If you're not buying, they're that much farther from their goal.

And kids like goals. They like the big picture. They're not quite as good at the smaller one, like the size of your paycheck this week or the comparatively huge number on your mortgage bill.

My advice? Honesty. Not brutal honesty, but honesty all the same. Like, "I'm sorry, I just bought from Timmy down the hall." or "I'm sorry, I am full up on wrapping paper this week." Sometimes cutting them off at the pass works, setting a limit like "I'll buy if you have something under $5." If they do, great. If not, well, at least you set a limit that priced you out of that $50 raffle ticket. You were honest.

The important thing is the follow through. Don't say no to one kid then buy from the next one - word always gets around. Don't say, I have only $5 to give and then rack up a $50 tab - they'll know you're a soft touch.

Not that there's anything wrong with being a soft touch. I can't say I've ever passed a kid and said an outright "no." But I have skimped out on my purchases, picking the $7 box of candy and NO MORE before.

As long as it's the kid asking and not their parents, I'll probably say yes. But I don't have to like it. As I told my babysitter's granddaughter, "Don't ask if I WANT to buy some Easter candy for your trip to sleepaway camp. Ask if I WILL buy some Easter candy for your trip."

Image: Childrens Dayton

11-Year-Old Gets Rich Selling Happy Meal Toys

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:00:00 GMT

I wish I had one ounce of 11-year-old Luke Underwood’s financial sense. When he was just seven, he convinced his father to buy a Happy Meals toy collection for $350. Apparently, Luke had a precocious understanding that there are rich people out there who collect everything.

And lo and behold, four years later, the collection—to which Luke added over the years—has sold to various buyers for a total of $11,000. Although Luke never played with the toys or even, in many cases, removed them from their original packaging, he was sad to see the collection go. His parents persuaded him it was time to sell when they couldn’t look anywhere in the house without seeing a Happy Meal toy.

Clearly not an impulsive kid, Luke plans to use his 11k to buy and resell another collection, turning an even greater profit. If only the rest of us had been investing in Happy Meal toys instead of 401k's....

Photo: The Daily Mail

Family Mounds Up 250 Pounds of Plastic in a Year

JeanneSager — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 22:06:00 GMT

All these "I did it for a year" people are starting to get to me.

They live the Bible for a year. They live on $1,500 for a year. They cook from the Julia Child cookbook for a year. Get ready to hear about one family, one year, two hundred fifty pounds of plastic (yes, this is where we start being REAL!).

The Garcias of Phoenix, Ariz. did everything they could to eliminate plastic from their lives. Jesse and Kim and their young kids skipped plastic bags at the supermarket and opted out on plastic water bottles.

Every piece of plastic that made their way into their house, they saved (where, I don't know - I get irate just dealing with a month's worth of yogurt cups and empty milk cartons waiting for the recycling truck to make its rounds). In the end, they had two hundred fifty pounds.

That's my three-year-old times eight! That's the more meat than you get from your average side of beef. It's disgusting. But not all that surprising (we fill an average of five milk crates with plastic recyclables each month. What's actually worst about all of this is that the Garcias were only able to recycle twenty five percent of the entire pile - the rest went into the landfill. And remember, this is a family trying to CUT BACK on plastics.

The problem is, not every "numbered" plastic is recycled in ever area. The "chasing arrows" at the bottom of a plastic container don't necessarily mean they're recyclable. And as the economy slumps, so does demand for recyclables - which means haulers don't want to take them off your hands.

Which means the only option is to do what the Garcias have done from the beginning - attempt to reduce consumption. But is it feasible? What percentage does plastic represent in your garbage can or your recycling bin?

Image: WasteRec

Lock in Your Kid's College Price NOW

JeanneSager — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 20:01:00 GMT

If Republican lawmakers in New York have their way, parents of kids as young as, well, as young as possible, could lock in now the price they'll pay eighteen years down the road for college tuition.

The twist? Your kid will have to attend a state or city school.

State lawmakers have proposed a pre-pay tuition program, which will allow parents with kids fourteen and younger to buy "credits," at today's tuition rate that will be redeemable when their kids go to college.

It's tempting. Tuition is ever-increasing. According to the most recent estimates from the College Board, families paid on average from $108 to $1,398 more for the 2008-09 school year tuition and fees than they did for 2007-08. They even have a handy dandy tuition cost projector on their site to really freak you out.

But my kid is three. I have no idea if she'll want to attend a State University of New York school in fifteen years. Who says she'll even want to stay IN the State of New York? What if she goes private? Or follows my husband's footsteps and attends college online? It seems a little unfair to lock her in to an institution she won't necessarily be happy attending for the sake of a little savings. True, the plan says families would get a full refund, but imagine the guilt trips on these kids: "Well, I saved all this money, and I had it all tied up in the state for fourteen years when I could have had it in an interest-bearing account, and now look what you went and did? So ungrateful . . ."

OK, a lot of savings. But that's what they make scholarships for (as my colleague Brett pointed out, Harvard is offering full rides to smart kids - some of them anyway). And loans - they worked for our president, why can't they work for our kids? Or maybe - and I'm just spit-balling here - the state lawmakers could instead see fit to work on shaving the cost of tuition so it can be affordable for every family and level the playing field for the poor and middle class families?

Image: SayEducate

Expose Puts Another Spin on Jon and Kate Plus 8

JeanneSager — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 16:28:00 GMT

If you're a fan of the Jon and Kate Plus 8, you might be shocked by the venom reserved by some parents for spewing at the Gosselins. Then again, if you read last weekends Philly Mag, you might be joining them.

In case you haven't seen it, it's the "normal" TLC show, the story of a couple who underwent fertility treatments because the mom (Kate) suffered from polycystic ovarian syndrome, which made getting pregnant the natural way impossible. The first time around, they came out with twins. The second, with sextuplets. Hence the "Plus 8" in the title.

Since a 2005 one-hour special garnered massive attention, the entire family and all their doings has been on TLC week in and week out on a regular series, showing life with multiples can be hectic but relatively normal. Relatively.

Frankly, I don't watch every week (I actually don't watch much TV myself), but I've seen more than my share of episodes in the off hours. My daughter got us into it - I was cuddling in bed with her one evening, flipping channels while she half dozed in the crook of my arm, and she noticed little kids on the screen. She asked me to "go back, I wanna see the kids who are cold." The Gosselins were out skiing - hence the cold. My occassional tune-ins since have been mostly out of curiousity - their younger kids aren't much older than my daughter, and it's fascinating to get a glimpse at how other kids her age act. Suffice it to say, I was never a Gosselin hater.

After reading the expose in Philly Mag, I'm still not as venomous as say Glamour's Christine Coppa . . . or the legion of commentors on either her blog or the Philly Mag piece. BUT I've certainly got my eyes open.

Open to how much "God" really does play a role in the Gosselin household - even as they attempt to differentiate themselves from their TLC counterparts, the Duggars, with a limit on the Christian speak. Check out their Website. God this. God that. There's nothing wrong with belief in God or even talking about God, but in all the episodes I've watched, I've never once seen Kate and Jon talk about religion. And apparently they make frequent visits to churches, where they allow the church to pass around the basket for a "free love offering." They also charge the churches big money to come out - not just airfare but first class airfare plus a hefty speaking fee. That's Christian?

I was also disturbed to see that the family put up a request list on the Web (akin to Nadya Suleman's already defunct donation Website) before they got the guarantee of a paycheck from TLC. Remember, they had fertility treatments - they knew what they were in for.

Some things plain old did not shock me. The Gosselin house is ranked eighth out of one hundred forty-nine cable shows for product placement these days. Jon got free hair plugs. Kate got a free tummy tuck. They get free toys, free trips to baseball games, free trips to Hawaii. It's all wrong, says Coppa and the parent commenters because it means the Gosselins are exploiting their kids. I tend to disagree. Most of us pay for these things (minus the plugs and tummy tuck), and the Gosselins get it for free. Jealous? Yeah - so are a lot of commentors it seems. Coppa too.

But as someone who has worked in journalism for the past decade, I know advertising is a necessary evil. The newspaper I work for wouldn't be published without it! And I wouldn't get a paycheck. The Gosselins "pay" by allowing cameras into their homes. The advertisers get a spot on a top-rated cable show. That's advertising folks - that's how it works. Rather than paying with funds, advertisers sometimes pay with product. And if they didn't pony up the product, when the kids played with a (Mom- and Dad-purchased) Wii, you can bet that would get cut off the show by the folks at TLC. It doesn't mean the kids wouldn't get these things, and frankly, the big companies should HAVE TO pay somehow - either with product or money. Would it be better if TLC reaped all the benefits instead of the family?

I also confess to not being all that upset that the family charges for autographed pictures. They're celebrities. Ever been to a meet and greet at a concert? Didn't you pay for that? How about the autographed tees and pictures at one of the merchandise kiosks? You paid for that too, didn't you? Although Coppa compares the Gosselins charging to her chance meeting with the OC's Mischa Barton - who posed for a picture and didn't charge, snapping your own pic with a celebrity is different from a signed celebrity photo. Those cost money to produce, and take time to actually sign. Personally, I wouldn't buy one - but if people are willing to pony up $20 for pictures of the Gosselins, that's their problem - not Jon and Kate's.

There's plenty more - some bad, some not-so-bad in the Philly Mag piece. It's extensive and well-researched, so I'd recommend reading it all the way through.

When you're done, come back and let us know - did it change your mind about the Gosselins?

Image: Discovery Store

Also on Babble:

God's Army

Five Minute Time Out: Kate Gosselin

How to Tell if Your Tot's Gonna Gamble

JeanneSager — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 21:26:00 GMT

Does your tot seem a tad impulsive? Take a cue from Kenny Rodgers - it might be time to let him know when to fold 'em, know when to hold 'em, know when to walk away . . .

OK, if he's impulsive, he probably has down running.

A new study says impulsive kindergartners are more likely to fall prey to gambling addictions when they age. In fact, the study says the problems start at the ripe old age of sixth grade.

Er, OK. And what does a sixth grade gambling addict look like? Is he up to his ears in I.O.U. used Nintendo game markers?

All joking aside, this is a serious study. Published in this month's issue of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, the study follows one hundred sixty-three kids over a six-year time frame. When the kids were in kindergarten, their teachers were asked to rate their "inattentiveness, distractibility and hyperactivity" on a scale of one to nine. If nine is distractible, I'd have to rate any kindergartner I know an eight point six.

Six years later, when the kids were eleven, the researchers were back, asking them how often they played cards or bingo for money, bought lottery tickets, played video games or video poker for money, or bet on sports. The study took place in Canada, which should account for at least some minute differences. I don't see many American children being granted access to lottery tickets - the sole time I purchased a lottery ticket, I know I was carded (I was in my twenties).

As for betting on sports or playing cards for money - does that necessarily mean kids are on a highway to hell? We played poker for money in the back four seats of our bus in high school - almost every day. I had jars full of pennies in my room because I was adept at bluffing. Yet, I live a half hour from a video lottery gaming center, and I haven't gambled once. For that matter, none of the people I played WITH have gambling troubles today.

I understand adult gambling addiction is a real problem and clearly linked to impulse control. But what ever happened to letting kindergartners being kindergartners? Sure, they might throw crayons without thinking now, but twenty years from now, they might just know how to hold 'em.

Image: Triin

Fun Stuff To Do When The Kids Get Older

Brett Singer — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:30:00 GMT

Pictured here are a mother and her son. What's happening in this photo? Have they just received horrible news about a family member? Are they watching Joaquin Phoenix's Letterman interview, or Hugh Jackman's opening number at the Oscars? Or is it something far more sinister?

Give up? They're just trying to figure out college financial aid forms. Something to look forward to when the kids grow up.

I must admit that I did not at all appreciate what my mother had to deal with financially when I went to college. Unless you have a dump truck full of money lying around, it's not that easy to just write a check and forget about it. With college costs going up and up and up, and our savings going down down down, filling out those forms is something that we all might have to do when the time comes.

Source: NY Times

Heath Ledger's Daughter Gets His Oscar

Kid Forced To Stand In Public Square For Bad Grades

What a Typical Family Will Get From the Stimulus Package

JeanneSager — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:23:00 GMT

President Obama's weekly address promised this will be the fastest tax cut in history to start showing up in the hands of American families.

So what does that mean for us working stiffs? The "Making Work Pay" break is expected to affect about ninety-five percent of us - working families.

By April 1, Obama says, "typical" families will have an extra $65 on average to play with each month. Officially, it will be about $13 per paycheck in 2009, dropping to $7.70 per paycheck in 2010.

Rather than waiting around for tax cut checks to show up in your mailbox, these cuts will be made immediately by the person responsible for payroll at your job - they'll be adjusting your deductions to put a little extra in your check and sending a little less on up to Uncle Sam.

I've heard from some folks that $65 a month just won't cut it, but let's face it - money is money. Every little bit helps. And $65 buys a lot of kids clothes off of the sale rack. It amounts to a yearly supply of yogurt drinks for my daughter (bought in bulk at Sam's Club) or two days of daycare for a lot of folks (yes, there are places where daycare is $30 a day).

What's interesting to note is that this cut is NOT supposed to be used to boost your savings for your kids' education. Tax cuts sent in lump sums are more likely to be squirrelled away by the thrifty, while cuts in small increments are more likely to be spent on the little things (like the latte you cut out when things started getting tight) - boosting the economy.

So what will you be doing with the money? Will this help your family?

Image: AP

When, If Ever, Will You Expect Your Kids to Split the Bill?

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:30:00 GMT

Now that we’re beyond the days when children had financial value as farm helpers, it’s generally accepted that parents have a responsibility to fully support their children until they are at least 18 (octo-mom notwithstanding). But what happens after children move out and join the workforce varies widely from family to family.

Barring the instance in which the son or daughter ends up being far more financially secure than his or her parents, there inevitably comes a point in every parent’s life when going out to dinner or a movie with your children raises the question, “Who will pay?” Parents’ responses to this question run the gamut from an absolute refusal to ever accept money from their kids to an absolute refusal to ever pay for their grown children.

My own parents are both on the generous end of the spectrum, picking up the tab for all of our leisure activities without a second thought. I’ve always appreciated this unquestioning generosity, not only because it means I get a free meal or movie (though that’s a pretty nice part of the deal), but because it creates a relaxed environment of good will whenever I spend time with my parents. I know that there will be no discussions about money, as there are when I go out with friends or other relatives. I simply trust my parents to choose activities within their means. Because I appreciate this arrangement so much, I plan (or hope!) to do the same for my kids, even after they are financially independent.

On the other hand, I have several friends who would never dream of letting their parents pick up the tab. Ever since they joined the working world, their parents have expected them to chip in, and they have been glad to do so, enjoying both the sense of independence from and generosity toward their parents that this arrangement affords them.

Interestingly, all of the people I know who split the bill with their parents are men. This may be simply a coincidence or it could indicate that there’s a gendered aspect to being comfortable with accepting money from one’s parents.

What financial arrangements do you have with your parents? Do you plan to ask your kids to split the bill once they are grown up?

Photo: Monica Buck/Shine

Is One Dollar a Week a Reasonable Allowance?

Should Schools Teach Kids Fiscal Responsibility?

JeanneSager — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:36:00 GMT

It's no stretch to say there are plenty of parents out there who haven't the faintest grasp on how to fix their screwed up credit ratings or get their car back from the repo man.

So why should they be the ones teaching kids to handle their finances?The states of Indiana and Kansas are now considering laws that would make personal finance a required part of the curriculum - from kindergarten up through high school.

It's about time.

According to the AP, at the moment, only three states require kids pass a high school course in finance before graduation - Utah, Missouri and Tennessee. Seventeen more require finance be worked into a portion of the curriculum . . . at some point in kids thirteen-year career in a school building.That's it.

What about the rest of the country? What about the millions of kids of whose parents were involved in the eighty-one percent hike in mortgage foreclosures last year, the kids of parents who racked up some $900 billion in credit card debt? Before you start telling me that this is all the banks' fault, I'm with you - Wall Street did a lot wrong on the way to this recession. But so did a lot of Americans who, as our president pointed out in his inaugural, lacked responsibility. Fiscal responsibility.

What's more - they lacked fiscal literacy skills (especially those swindled by dirty mortgage brokers). If we expect our schools to teach literacy to our kids, is it so wrong to expect them to teach financial literacy as well?

It's a life skill - which parents are traditionally wary of passing over to schools because of a fear that the schools' teachings will vary from the basic family values. But this is a life skill tied to the basics of math, economics, even social studies - the subjects already taught within a school building. A basic accounting course in high school, with the basics on how to write a check, balance a checkbook and a primer in how interest rates are compounded is rooted in fact. There's little variation from household to household on the basics - or there shouldn't be. That there is a variation, that there are parents who can't understand that a pile of checks in the checkbook doesn't equal money in the bank, is the problem. Kids need one answer - the right one - as they get ready for the future.

Would it bother you to know your kids were learning courses in financial preparedness in the public school system?

Image: More4Kids