UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (77) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: 5000fingers Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 42358  
Subject: How babies save you money Date: 10/15/2006 4:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
As a counterbalance to avjo's thread on baby-related expenses, maybe we should also discuss the ways that having a baby and staying home (as she is hoping to be able to do) can save money.

• Taxes. DW was making $50K, which we were thinking was going to be make a huge difference in our budget (essentially half our total income), but in fact we've been surprised to see how little of a hit we've taken in real terms. With her staying home and not bringing in any income, right off we're saving about $15K in her taxes, in about $7-8K in taxes on my income being in a lower tax bracket. So I would say definitely taxes are definitely the biggest savings. I was able to adjust my withholding so I have more take home pay.

• Our transportation costs are way down from when she was working.

• Our food costs are way down since she has more time to make our dinners and my lunches

• Our entertainment expenses are WAAAY down. Fifteen bucks a month for Netflix pretty much does it all. No more operas, concerts, or even movies. :-( It's well worth it, though.

• DW's wardrobe expenses are way down.

• Breastfeeding is much more convenient with DW at home, so no formula expenses

• Since our boy isn't in daycare, cloth diapers are a more viable alternative. Even with our diaper service (gotta love it!), it's much less than disposables.

• How much does quality daycare cost these days?

I read a study once (a fairly objective one without an axe to grind either way) that showed that the average middle class family only nets about $7,000 a year by having both parents working. Although our income is probably on the high side for middle class nationwide, it's on the lower side for the Bay Area. And in our case, that study is probably about dead on. With all of the hidden savings, surprisingly we don't even notice a difference in our monthly budgeting and having ironically saved more since DS was born than is usual for us since we got married.
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: zsimpson Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27013 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/15/2006 9:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I read a study once (a fairly objective one without an axe to grind either way) that showed that the average middle class family only nets about $7,000 a year by having both parents working. Although our income is probably on the high side for middle class nationwide, it's on the lower side for the Bay Area. And in our case, that study is probably about dead on. With all of the hidden savings, surprisingly we don't even notice a difference in our monthly budgeting and having ironically saved more since DS was born than is usual for us since we got married.

I made a bit more than your wife, and it stunned us how little I actually made once we took all the details into consideration. A great book on this is "Shattering the Two-Income Myth".
http://tinyurl.com/yyqrsd

Print the post Back To Top
Author: johnmoni Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27016 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/15/2006 11:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
" As a counterbalance to avjo's thread on baby-related expenses, maybe we should also discuss the ways that having a baby and staying home (as she is hoping to be able to do) can save money."

Very good post.

Agree - my wife is a stay at home Mom, and I strongly agree with your categories in which we save lots of money, particularly with regards to transportation. She puts very few miles on her car (less than 6,000 miles a year.) In addition to the related savings in gas, maintenance, etc., vehicle insurance is also cheaper given the low mileage.

While she has no income, the significantly reduced costs help offset the imcreased costs associated with the children.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: medgoddess Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27017 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/16/2006 7:40 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
• Taxes. DW was making $50K, which we were thinking was going to be make a huge difference in our budget (essentially half our total income), but in fact we've been surprised to see how little of a hit we've taken in real terms. With her staying home and not bringing in any income, right off we're saving about $15K in her taxes, in about $7-8K in taxes on my income being in a lower tax bracket. So I would say definitely taxes are definitely the biggest savings. I was able to adjust my withholding so I have more take home pay.

**********************************
I was making $0 per year (in school) when my first was born...minimal savings in taxes for us.

Our transportation costs are way down from when she was working
**********************************************
No change.

• Our food costs are way down since she has more time to make our dinners and my lunches
****************************************
Again, no change since I was cooking dinners and packing lunches for us before kids. I LOVE my crockpot!

Our entertainment expenses are WAAAY down. Fifteen bucks a month for Netflix pretty much does it all. No more operas, concerts, or even movies. :-( It's well worth it, though.
*************************************************
We were homebodies before, so no change.

DW's wardrobe expenses are way down.
*************************************************
Again, no change.

How much does quality daycare cost these days?
***************************************
Depends upon place. I wouldn't want to think about what SF Bay area would pay. Me, $135/week for a toddler. My DD gets an hour of after-school care for $35/week. Both are at quality centers - DS's is an intergenerational center with adult daycare too and the age groups are deliberately mixed. DD can't go there, because she's too old (I know, the irony), so she goes to a place 1/2 mile from our house - even riding the same bus in the afternoon.

I'm not knocking you, 5000. It's just that mileages vary so easily. When we had our first, I was in medical school, DH was earning significantly less than what your DW was earning. We made it work. When the 2nd came along, DH lost his job so became a stay-at-home-dad for a year (allowing me to finish residency), until he restarted his schooling. Differing situations require different responses.

Kristi

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 5000fingers Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27018 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/16/2006 9:51 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
...mileages vary so easily. When we had our first, I was in medical school, DH was earning significantly less than what your DW was earning. We made it work. When the 2nd came along, DH lost his job so became a stay-at-home-dad for a year (allowing me to finish residency), until he restarted his schooling. Differing situations require different responses.

Oh, absolutely. Each family has to do what they can do make it work. The point was to discuss ways that having a child actually saves you money, as a counterbalance to the many ways that they represent an added expense. It's just surprising to me how little a second income actually nets a family. And now that DS is here, I'm painfully aware of how little time my evenings and weekends are with him. My only consolation is that he is with my wife, who is amazing with him and gives him far better care than anybody in this world including me. And to think for so many, evenings and weeks are all the children ever get with both parents is pretty sad and kind of shocking, epecially in light of how little it actually gains a "typical" family at the end of the day.

Sure, your mileage may vary, but I wonder if it isn't more that your values will vary. Because if it's important enough to you, you make it work. But leaving the more controversial aspects aside, since finances are the primary consideration, to me it just makes sense to consider everything, not only the typical expenses but the typical savings as well. Obviously your situation wasn't all that typical.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: reallyalldone Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27019 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/16/2006 11:46 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
• Taxes. DW was making $50K, which we were thinking was going to be make a huge difference in our budget (essentially half our total income), but in fact we've been surprised to see how little of a hit we've taken in real terms. With her staying home and not bringing in any income, right off we're saving about $15K in her taxes, in about $7-8K in taxes on my income being in a lower tax bracket. So I would say definitely taxes are definitely the biggest savings. I was able to adjust my withholding so I have more take home pay.

Did she have a 401K match ? Does $4K in a Roth make up for that ? What is the difference in retirement savings with the change ?

rad



Print the post Back To Top
Author: mapletree7 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27020 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/16/2006 2:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 25
The point was to discuss ways that having a child actually saves you money, as a counterbalance to the many ways that they represent an added expense.

That's like saying that a mortgage saves you money because it is a tax deduction.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Protomolly Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27022 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/16/2006 5:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The point was to discuss ways that having a child actually saves you money, as a counterbalance to the many ways that they represent an added expense.

That's like saying that a mortgage saves you money because it is a tax deduction.


This is more like "how staying home with the baby saves you money." We are one of those two-income families.

Still, we do "save" on eating out and entertainment, now that baby is going to bed at the ripe old hour of 7pm. (We heart TiVo.)

And we've even stopped ordering take-out since I joined WW to take off the baby weight. That monthly fee probably pays for itself in pizza and Chinese I'm not eating.

But it doesn't touch the $800 we spend on childcare per month, much less the diapers, formula, baby food...

Protomolly.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Minxie Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27023 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/16/2006 6:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
But it doesn't touch the $800 we spend on childcare per month, much less the diapers, formula, baby food...

I'm a single parent, one income without the luxury of considering staying home. I feel your pain... :-)

Minxie



Print the post Back To Top
Author: 5000fingers Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27025 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/16/2006 11:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
That's like saying that a mortgage saves you money because it is a tax deduction.

Except mortgages don't naturally force you into less expensive modes of living and less expensive lifestyle choices. Parenting does.

And besides, what rational person would only consider the expense of a mortgage, and ignore its tax benefits? If you're smart, you consider both, right?

Considering only the expenses, it's a shame, but certainly no wonder, why so many families are opting not to care for their children at home. They don't know how little that second income is benefitting them.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: medgoddess Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27026 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/17/2006 7:56 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
Except mortgages don't naturally force you into less expensive modes of living and less expensive lifestyle choices. Parenting does.

***********************************************
Not by the large minority...

How many parents do you hear justifyng the newest what-not? The Peg-Perego highchair? The Britax carseat? (disclaimer: I bought the cheapest highchair at Target for $39 and my last carseats were $100 total for 2 - replaced both seats after an accident) The gymboree outfit?

I agree with you on the values bit, but you're not including some things such as retirement matches (rad brought that up), SS income, and overstating the cost of working. A packed lunch costs the same as lunch at home. I still don't understand why people need to spend lots of money on a "wardrobe". SAHMs still need things like bras(probably THE most expensive part of my wardrobe!) shoes, and jeans. I have 3 pairs of pants, 5 shirts, and 2 blazers. All mix and match. All classic styling. Total cost $200 on sale, bought as I was starting my practice. Will last for years. If not going to work cuts back on your clothing costs, well, you were probably chasing fads anyway.
Kristi
who is still wearing sweatshirts from high school and T-shirts from 1987 (middle school years)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Goofyhoofy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27027 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/17/2006 9:20 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 47
• Taxes. DW was making $50K, which we were thinking was going to be make a huge difference in our budget (essentially half our total income), but in fact we've been surprised to see how little of a hit we've taken in real terms. With her staying home and not bringing in any income, right off we're saving about $15K in her taxes, in about $7-8K in taxes on my income being in a lower tax bracket.

This is the second time I have seen this in a couple days, and I think it demonstrates a misunderstanding of taxes. You don't fall into "a lower bracket", because taxes are applied against marginal income increases, not "total income."

Your first $15,000 is taxed at 10%. The next ~$40,000 is taxed at 15%, and between $61,300 and $123,700 is taxed at 25%. To be clear, it is NOT your entire income that is taxed at 25%, only the marginal dollars above $61,300 and below $123,700.

By your calculation, you are saying that DW was making $50,000 per year, and you are now saving $15,000 (hers) plus $7,500 (yours), or a total of $22,500. That's 45%, and there is no "45%" tax bracket.

(If you are making over $336,550, you could be paying 35%, but then you probably wouldn't even be talking about the loss of your wife's income.) My guess is that you will "save" about 25%-28% in taxes, because her income was additive to yours, so that marginal income would have been taxed at that rate.

If you have adjusted your own withholding, I would do a quick pro-forma to make sure you aren't going to get walloped with a big hit next April, and I would check over on the tax strategies board to make sure you understand the rules about "penalties" for underwithholding so you don't get smacked twice. (When last I knew them - several years ago - they were that you must withhold at least 90% of your actual taxes, or "more than last year", whichever is less, otherwise both penalties and interest payments may be levied.) If you find yourself in that situation, now is the time to correct it by "overwithholding" for the remainder of the year to make up for the difference.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 5000fingers Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27028 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/17/2006 11:57 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
By your calculation, you are saying that DW was making $50,000 per year, and you are now saving $15,000 (hers) plus $7,500 (yours), or a total of $22,500. That's 45%, and there is no "45%" tax bracket.

The difference between your numbers and mine seem to be that mine are comprehensive and in real terms, whereas yours are abstract and seem to completely disregard any other taxes and payments besides federal income tax. Have you looked at your W2 lately? If you are retired and living in Nevada, I suppose the oversight might be understandable.

Admittedly I presented the numbers in an oversimplified way, but they are a reasonably accurate estimate based on our W2s and on running a comparison with last year (gotta love Turbotax). Sure, you could (somewhat naively) argue that we *might* see DW's Social Security deductions upon retirement one day, and that these payments don't qualify as a "tax." But we're not concerned with the 4-5 years that she'll be out of the workforce and its effect on our retirement benefits. We're talking strictly cash flow over the near to intermediate future, and the bottom line is that we'll be saving an amount that is almost equal to half of her previous gross income in *real terms* (accounting for state taxes, SDI, SSI, student loan deductions that we'll now qualify for, dependent exemption, our medical expenses this year, etc.).

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: synchronicity Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27029 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/17/2006 12:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 24
The difference between your numbers and mine seem to be that mine are comprehensive and in real terms, whereas yours are abstract and seem to completely disregard any other taxes and payments besides federal income tax.

Er, no, the difference is that your wife not working doesn't reduce your tax burden. You still pay 7.65% in OASDI and Medicare on your first 94.2K in wages. You still pay state income tax. Your exact quote was

With her staying home and not bringing in any income, right off we're saving about $15K in her taxes, in about $7-8K in taxes on my income being in a lower tax bracket.

And that is demonstrably false. You do not save income because "your income" is on a lower bracket.

The fact that you are looking solely at your W-2's, rather than your actual tax return, shows that you don't fully understand how this works, and/or you are deceiving yourself.

-synchronicity

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Reinerman One star, 50 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27031 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/17/2006 1:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Well I'm fairly certain that having a child hasn't saved us money overall, but it certainly cut our expenses in areas that we really didn't need to be spending as much on as we were. For example, the amount we spend on eating out as gone WAY down. We seldom go to movies any more - we also heart TiVo. We hardly even rent movies anymore because staying up past 9:30 can get ugly with a child who is an early riser. Now that my son is 3.5 and likes to help in the kitchen, we make more meals at home. Plus, I run or work out at home instead of paying gym fees because I don't have time to get to any classes at the gym. All in all, I think having a child shifted our spending into different areas.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: zsimpson Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27032 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/17/2006 1:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
How many parents do you hear justifyng the newest what-not? The Peg-Perego highchair? The Britax carseat? (disclaimer: I bought the cheapest highchair at Target for $39 and my last carseats were $100 total for 2 - replaced both seats after an accident) The gymboree outfit?

I married him.
Kathleen

Print the post Back To Top
Author: IndecisiveFool Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27033 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/17/2006 1:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
Considering only the expenses, it's a shame, but certainly no wonder, why so many families are opting not to care for their children at home. They don't know how little that second income is benefitting them.

{Keeping this on a purely financial discussion}

Have you considered the lost potential income? Your analysis only looks at current income. A person may lose potentially more income due to lack of work experience. A stay-at-home parent working as cashier at the local supermarket may not lose much potential income increases but a stay-at-home parent in a professional field may lose much more income because he/she isn't advancing in their field or may even be losing the benefits of advanced training.

IF

Print the post Back To Top
Author: zsimpson Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27034 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/17/2006 1:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If not going to work cuts back on your clothing costs, well, you were probably chasing fads anyway.
Kristi


That depends upon your work. I've never been one to "follow fads", but I was required to go to customers' sites so I had to wear business suits. You have a lab coat on over your clothes most of the time. I was crawling under desks and in closets with business suits. Big difference. I actually started buying men's button down shirts as they were less expensive, and much more rugged, and upkeep was a LOT cheaper.
Kathleen

Print the post Back To Top
Author: maracle Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27035 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/17/2006 1:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Also, I may be wrong but you can't claim your wife as a dependant just because she doesn't work. The child related credits are the same whether your wife is employed or not.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: concordiadiscors Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27036 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/17/2006 1:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
My DH and I are in a similar position to you and your DW (except that I quit my job at the end of June and we're still waiting for our kid to be born, any day now). Since I'll be at home and freelancing from time to time, I plan to breastfeed, cloth diaper, all that good LBYM stuff. I have to say, though, that when I crunch the numbers for me working + baby costs (daycare, disposable diapers, a really good quality breast pump etc. and so forth), AND include max 403b/Roth deductions, I'd still be bringing home a not-insignificant amount of $$, certainly enough for me to justify continuing to work by that measure.

So, while our cash flow hasn't really changed, due to DH changing his withholdings, and we will definitely be paying less in taxes next year due to the loss of my income, and we won't be spending money in a lot of discretionary and work-related categories-- well, we won't be *saving* nearly as much money as we would if I were working, especially if you include retirement savings and employer match (which, in my case, wasn't a match but a straight 9%-13% contribution, sigh).

Nevertheless, I think the point you're making is important-- it can be entirely possible to give up one of two incomes without suffering too much if you're willing/able/forced by a baby : ) to make other changes as well. It may not be sustainable over the longterm depending on your financial situation or goals, but it doesn't have to be dismissed out of hand, either. But as others have said, YMMV depending on myriad factors. In my/our case, we can swing it, but I'm not deluding myself that my income and benefits were negligible.

Good luck with your DS!


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: IndecisiveFool Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27037 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/17/2006 1:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
The child related credits are the same whether your wife is employed or not.

Not necessarily. The child tax credit disappear after a certain income. A two income family may not qualify for the tax credits but a one income family may qualify because their income fell below the cutoff level.

IF

Print the post Back To Top
Author: zsimpson Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27038 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/17/2006 1:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The fact that you are looking solely at your W-2's, rather than your actual tax return, shows that you don't fully understand how this works, and/or you are deceiving yourself.

So we no longer have an upwardly adjusted tax rate? A couple making $150k a year no longer pas a higher percentage than a couple making $50k a year?
Kathleen

Print the post Back To Top
Author: maracle Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27039 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/17/2006 1:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
A couple making $150k a year no longer pas a higher percentage than a couple making $50k a year?

On the first 50,000 in income, no.

There may be some minor differences in deductions that are phased out based on income but thats not going to wind up being too significant.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bangar8 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27041 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/17/2006 1:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I too am in a field where I occasionally have to go to customer sites. Dress code is business casual for us tech people (though our sales people dress in suits).
My clothing costs have never been significant (probably because I always buy on sale) and the clothes do last a long time. And I don't have a huge wardrobe. I too do a lot of mix and match.
As for jewellery and accessories, I probably would have them whether or not I am working (actually I don't wear much of these for work).
Gas costs: Till last week, I was working out of home, but that changed from this week (alas thats another story). So, a little extra in gas costs (but not much - a tank every two weeks?).
Eating out: Probably abt once a week or less - not related to whether I am working or not.
Taxes: We would make far less in net income, even considering that DH makes more than I do and subtracting my portion of the taxes from the income loss.
Day care: I think this is the only expense that reduces/goes away if I stop working.

So, on the whole, the summary from 5000 applies to those few moms whose jobs REQUIRE a high expenditure out of pocket to keep the job.
For most of us, it seems like the analysis does not apply.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: bangar8 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27043 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/17/2006 1:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
if you include retirement savings and employer match (which, in my case, wasn't a match but a straight 9%-13% contribution, sigh).


Oh Wow! Thats a great benefit. Must have been a tough decision to give up the job.

Good luck with your delivery and the new addition to your family.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: concordiadiscors Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27045 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/17/2006 1:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Oh Wow! Thats a great benefit. Must have been a tough decision to give up the job.

Yeah, it was pretty sweet. I should add that I left that job not because of the baby on the way, but because I had been doing a 180 mile/day commute, 4-5 days/week, for 2 years and it just wasn't something I could continue to do under any circumstances. Had we not been expecting, I would have lined up another job locally, but given the circumstances and the possibility of me freelancing from home-- on some interesting projects!-- we've done what we've done. But I don't really anticipate that I'll be a SAHM/WAHM for more than a year.




Print the post Back To Top
Author: tconi Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27048 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/17/2006 1:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
freelancing from home-- on some interesting projects!--

what is this interesting freelancing you are doing from home?

peace & interested
t

Print the post Back To Top
Author: synchronicity Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27049 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/17/2006 2:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 22
So we no longer have an upwardly adjusted tax rate? A couple making $150k a year no longer pas a higher percentage than a couple making $50k a year?

OK, here's an example which I think shows where the misunderstanding is. I'm going to use made up numbers to keep the math simple, but can change this to actual numbers if anyone is interested.

Let's say that I make 100K and my wife makes 50K. Let's also assume that the existing tax brackets are 10% on the first 25K of income, 20% on 25,001 to 50K, 25% on income from 50,001 to 100K, and 35% on all income over 100K. To keep this simple there's no standard deductions or personal exemptions or whatnot.

At 150K, you'd pay 37.5K in taxes overall for a 25% effective rate (even though you're in the 35% marginal bracket).

Now, let's lower your income to 100K (in this case, because wife no longer works). At 100K income, you'd be paying 20K in taxes overall, for a 20% effective rate.

If you have your W-2 withholding set that you are exactly dead even at the end of the year (no taxes owed, but no refund received), AND you have the same %age taken away from each spouse (which you can do but requires some finagling of your withholding allowances), then you might say "used to be wife paid 12.5K in taxes, and I paid 25K. Now she pays nothing and I only pay 20K. Whooppee, my taxes are lowered by 5K!"

But that's not what's happening. What's happening is that that extra 50K income, wherever it came from, was taxed at a rate 35%. If you reduce total income by 50K you reduce your taxes by 17.5K. "Who it comes from" is irrelevant and depends entirely on how you choose to allocate withholding between spouses, but saying "it's saved this person XX in taxes" is illusory. The households total tax liability goes down by 17.5K.

[FWIW, I always adjust our withholding and deliberately set things up so I have a higher percentage withheld than syncspouse, and also have syncspouse contribute a lower amount towards the final tax liability (lower in "%age of income"), for various reasons revolving around how we decide contributions to household expenses as well as extra "spending money" for each of us. Last year this worked out that I paid the final tax due AND transferred $ to syncspouse's checking account to "make up" for her "excess withholding". But that's a tangent...]

As for state taxes, at the levels we're talking about here (and if we're talking about one spouse having 50K income in the actual example), then for most states that's above the top marginal rate, plus state tax rates are far more compressed anyway (in my state it's a flat tax of 3% with a small standard deduction).

Now, as for other items...

Social Security is a flat rate on wages up to 94.2K. If one spouse stops working that has no impact on the other spouse's social security withholdings. It is true that one may get some income tax benefits from dropping below certain AGI limits for credits or deductions (child tax credit, possible medical expense deductions if otherwise constant, as they may now exceed 7.5% of AGI).

But the bottom line is that, if you want to calculate "take home pay" lost, take the tax on that additional income forsaken (in this case, 35% of that extra 50K, plus any state taxes which are probably at the highest marginal rate), plus the 7.65% social security, plus any other amounts normally withheld, and subtract that total from the 50K gross income. That is the amount of forsaken take home pay. Trying to say "well, it's X much from me and Y much from her" is not really accurate.

-synchronicity

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: IndecisiveFool Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27054 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/17/2006 2:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
But the bottom line is that, if you want to calculate "take home pay" lost, take the tax on that additional income forsaken (in this case, 35% of that extra 50K, plus any state taxes which are probably at the highest marginal rate), plus the 7.65% social security, plus any other amounts normally withheld, and subtract that total from the 50K gross income. That is the amount of forsaken take home pay. Trying to say "well, it's X much from me and Y much from her" is not really accurate.

I bet it's more than 70% of income.

Oops, wrong board.

IF

Print the post Back To Top
Author: medgoddess Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27056 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/17/2006 6:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You have a lab coat on over your clothes most of the time.
********************************
Smile, actually not...I sweat too much to add extra layers! And I usually leave off the blazer and wear just my shell.
Kristi
:)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Goofyhoofy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27057 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/17/2006 7:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
So we no longer have an upwardly adjusted tax rate? A couple making $150k a year no longer pas a higher percentage than a couple making $50k a year?

Sync and maracle answered this with greater precision. The short answer to your question is "yes", they pay a higher percentage than a lower earning couple, BUT...

On the first $15,000, you pay the same rate whether you are making $15,000 or $1,000,000.

On the next $45,000, you pay the same rate whether you are making $20,000 or $10,000,000. (If you are making $10,000,000 you will pay more money, but the 'rate' will be the same on that batch. Both of you, of course, will pay a lower rate on the first $15,000, i.e. 10%)

On the next $60,000, you pay the same rate whether you are making $65,000 or $65,000,000.

Let's pretend you are making $100,000. Your taxes (simplified, obviously) are 10% of $15,000 ($1,500) plus 15% of the monies between $15,000 and $60,000 ($45,000 x 15% = $6750), plus 25% of the monies between $60,000 and $100,000 ($40,000 x 25% = $10,000.)

You have a total tax bill of $18,250, or an 18.25% effective tax, even though you are in the 25% bracket.

So yes, as you get more income the marginal income is taxed somewhat higher, topping out at 39% when you are over $336,000. But I find endless confusion that people think they drop into a "lower tax bracket" and therefore the taxes are recalculated all the way back to the first dollar. That's simply not true. (I have seen people say "I didn't work extra because I didn't want to be shifted into a higher tax bracket, I would ACTUALLY LOSE MONEY!" That, of course, is impossible.)
 



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 5000fingers Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27058 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/18/2006 9:40 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
If you have your W-2 withholding set that you are exactly dead even at the end of the year (no taxes owed, but no refund received), AND you have the same %age taken away from each spouse (which you can do but requires some finagling of your withholding allowances), then you might say "used to be wife paid 12.5K in taxes, and I paid 25K. Now she pays nothing and I only pay 20K. Whooppee, my taxes are lowered by 5K!"

But that's not what's happening.


Um, that is exactly what's happening. It seems clear that you don't seem to understand the concept of joint filing. The way you are characterizing it is that my income was previously being taxed at 10-15%, and only my wife's income was being taxed at 25%. That's ridiculous and wrong. In a joint filing situation, it's all OUR income. The IRS doesn't tax one person at one rate and the other at another! You guys don't know what you're talking about.

A portion of her income was being taxed at 10, a portion at 15, and a portion at 25. Now without her working, she is paying nothing, saving us over $15,000 annually including all of the other taxes and payments. And now, whereas my income was also being taxed at 10, 15, and 25% marginally, now it is mostly going to be taxed 10 and some at 15%. We are also going to get deductions and exemptions that we didn't previously qualify for under two income. Why is it that you can't understand that this new arrangement will indeed save us considerably on my remaining income? Come on people, it's not rocket science.

Interesting that there would be this much resistance to pointing out how little benefit there is in having two parents work and having their kid in daycare for 2/3rds of its waking life....interesting, but I guess not surprising.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ROTJob Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27059 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/18/2006 9:42 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
Um, that is exactly what's happening. It seems clear that you don't seem to understand the concept of joint filing.



I'll grab the popcorn.....

RJ

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 2gifts Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27060 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/18/2006 9:59 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 30
Interesting that there would be this much resistance to pointing out how little benefit there is in having two parents work and having their kid in daycare for 2/3rds of its waking life....interesting, but I guess not surprising.


Actually, that's not the debate at all.

The debate is around how taxes are actually computed, and your grasp of that seems to be a bit shaky.



Print the post Back To Top
Author: whyohwhyoh Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27061 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/18/2006 10:02 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Interesting that there would be this much resistance to pointing out how little benefit there is in having two parents work and having their kid in daycare for 2/3rds of its waking life....interesting, but I guess not surprising.


There are two completely different topics being dicussed here.

Pointing out how little benefit there is having two parents work is not being argued.

You were/are stating, incorrectly, that the working parent will pay less in taxes if the other stays at home; however, this doesn't mean there aren't big savings in having a SAHM.

Many times if the mother works she is paying so much in taxes (because she effectively starts out in higher brackets) that her net income barely, if at all, covers the expenses of day care. No one is arguing this point.

In fact, in many cases it's better, tax wise, for the hubby to take the 2nd job if he is over the $94k? income on the 1st, since he is taxed less than the wife would be since there is no state SDI or Fed SS.

--
whyohwhyoh

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PanemetCircenses Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27062 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/18/2006 10:10 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Um, that is exactly what's happening. It seems clear that you don't seem to understand the concept of joint filing.

Oh my, that is rich.

sync is right. Try rereading the previous posts to see where you are misunderstanding all of this. Pay special attention to the word "marginal."

--B+C

Print the post Back To Top
Author: synchronicity Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27063 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/18/2006 10:13 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 28
Um, that is exactly what's happening. It seems clear that you don't seem to understand the concept of joint filing....You guys don't know what you're talking about.

Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out that whole "how taxes work" thing...thanks for informing me.

I'd keep up the discussion, but it's pretty obvious that A) I'm talking to a brick wall, and B) you keep putting in an artificial boundary between "your income" and "your wife's income", not understanding that it's all one pot, taxes are taken from the entire pot, and HOW YOU ALLOCATE TAXES BETWEEN THE TWO OF YOU VIA WITHHOLDING is ALMOST ENTIRELY ARBITRARY AND YOUR CHOICE. Sorry for the bold and caps, but that seems to be the only way to get the message through. When you were both working, you could have decided to have every bit of your eventual federal tax liability withheld from your paycheck, and none from your wife's. Or you could have split it with both of you having the same percentage withheld. Or you could have had zero taxes withheld from your paycheck and all of it from your wife's (assuming she earned enough to cover the entire tax liability of the two of you as married filing jointly). Payroll withholding is a different issue from actual tax liability You don't seem to want to comprehend that.

Of course, I already covered that, in thorough detail, in my last post, but you seemed to have trouble either reading or comprehending that. Probably because you don't see beyond "hey, there's less getting taken out of my W-2!"

Interesting that there would be this much resistance to pointing out how little benefit there is in having two parents work and having their kid in daycare for 2/3rds of its waking life....interesting, but I guess not surprising.

No, this is not about "how little benefit there is to having two parents work", it's about you not understanding how taxes work, although using that to beat your own drum about the evils of daycare and how SAHM's are the only right and proper way to raise children is not surprising.

Hey, it's your life, live it how you want, but when you keep saying things that are incorrect, expect to get called on it.

-synchronicity

Circular 230 Disclaimer - none of the above can be taken as tax advice or can be used to avoid any penalties the IRS may impose. Please talk to your financial or tax advisor. No, really, please, talk to your tax or financial advisor. And I don't know anything about taxes, as you've already pointed out.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: IndecisiveFool Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27064 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/18/2006 10:17 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
your grasp of that seems to be a bit shaky.

Master of the understatement.

IF

Print the post Back To Top
Author: IndecisiveFool Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27065 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/18/2006 10:20 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Circular 230 Disclaimer - none of the above can be taken as tax advice or can be used to avoid any penalties the IRS may impose. Please talk to your financial or tax advisor. No, really, please, talk to your tax or financial advisor. And I don't know anything about taxes, as you've already pointed out.

I wonder why you are adding this to your post. Maybe because taxes is part of your field and you have some expertise in this area.

That can't be right. You don't know what you're talking about.

IF

Print the post Back To Top
Author: concordiadiscors Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27067 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/18/2006 10:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Interesting that there would be this much resistance to pointing out how little benefit there is in having two parents work and having their kid in daycare for 2/3rds of its waking life....interesting, but I guess not surprising.</1>

I think people are trying to keep this a discussion about the financial aspects, not the values that motivate one's decisions. Like I said earlier, I'm going to be a occasionally-freelancing SAHM for a while, even though from a strictly financial perspective-- even with crazy expensive daycare, a crazy expensive commute and all the other attendant expenses that come with working, although I have in general always managed those frugally-- it would have STILL paid for me to work both in terms of take-home pay, taxes or no, and in terms of the other benefits I had, such as employer pension bennies, the ability to contribute to a 403b, etc.

The lack of benefit to having a two-income household is strictly relative, and not everyone is going to make up the difference just through a reduced joint tax burden, not paying for daycare and substituting Netflix for season tickets to the symphony. If I'd been making, say, half of what I did, it would have been a lot easier to justify the financial aspect of not working. As it is, my DH and I planned for this move and we're fortunate that we can make it happen.

concordiadiscors
too cheap to pay for Netflix, uses the library instead

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: synchronicity Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27068 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/18/2006 10:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I wonder why you are adding this to your post. Maybe because taxes is part of your field and you have some expertise in this area.

That can't be right. You don't know what you're talking about.


I just said that I don't know what I'm talking about! Geez!

But you're being pretty reckless in bandying about that 70% tax rate.

-synchronicity

PS- I've heard that Carbon Monoxide causes cancer.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: concordiadiscors Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27070 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/18/2006 10:40 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
PS- I've heard that Carbon Monoxide causes cancer.

I thought that was working mothers. Or maybe they just make their kids fat.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: lizmonster Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27072 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/18/2006 10:45 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I thought that was working mothers. Or maybe they just make their kids fat.

We don't have time to make our kids fat. We're too busy destroying the fabric of civilization.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: impolite Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27074 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/18/2006 10:48 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
We're too busy destroying the fabric of civilization.

*tsk* poor, poor woman.

I have time to do both.

impolite
of the fat kids and destroyed society

Print the post Back To Top
Author: synchronicity Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27075 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/18/2006 10:54 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
I have time to do both.

That's what happens when you bottle feed instead of breast feed and then foist the kids off on day care. They get fat and you use your idle time (which you have plenty of, of course) to destroy the fabric of civilization. Which is what, exactly? Cotton is the fabirc of our lives, so is the fabric of civlization wool? Is it hemp, and if so does that have anything to do with that "married filing jointly" thing that I don't understand?"

-synchronicity


Print the post Back To Top
Author: concordiadiscors Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27076 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/18/2006 11:01 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
We don't have time to make our kids fat. We're too busy destroying the fabric of civilization.

I'll do my best to keep up the good work while I'm freelancing down in my basement office.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: lizmonster Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27078 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/18/2006 11:20 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Is it hemp, and if so does that have anything to do with that "married filing jointly" thing that I don't understand?"

Dude, my hands are huuuuge.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bangar8 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27080 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/18/2006 11:58 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 26
Interesting that there would be this much resistance to pointing out how little benefit there is in having two parents work and having their kid in daycare for 2/3rds of its waking life....interesting, but I guess not surprising.


No, this is not about "how little benefit there is to having two parents work", it's about you not understanding how taxes work, although using that to beat your own drum about the evils of daycare and how SAHM's are the only right and proper way to raise children is not surprising.


Three points here:
1. When you pointed out that there is very little benefit FINANCIALLY to have both parents working, vs. one, a lot of us pointed out that in our particular situations, that does not hold true. YOU are ignoring the fact that there could be family/work situations different from your own.

2. You probably should go to a tax specialist to see if infact what you assume for your family is true, taxes wise, if you are curious in that regard. Not that that would change your actions, since you strongly seem to prefer that your wife stay home come what may - which I agree is your and your wife's prerogative.

3. Watch your language - Purportedly starting out with the message of finances and savings, just to insert your propaganda about working moms and the evils of day care will make your arguments look weak on both the fronts. It would be better for you to start a totally new thread on the second topic.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: mapletree7 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27083 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/18/2006 12:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
PS- I've heard that Carbon Monoxide causes cancer.

I thought that was working mothers. Or maybe they just make their kids fat.


No, that's TV.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: synchronicity Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27084 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/18/2006 12:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
No, that's TV.

No, that causes autism.

-synchronicity


Print the post Back To Top
Author: Horum Two stars, 250 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27086 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/18/2006 12:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 27
I don't see how this means that babies save you money. Couldn't a couple just have one person stay home, NOT have babies, and then save more than the couple that has one person staying home WITH a baby? Presumably the couple with the baby would be spending more on food, diapers, etc.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: IndecisiveFool Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27088 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/18/2006 3:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
If you read this board unthreaded, isn't it appropriate that another thread titled "Constipation" has posts mixed into the list of post. I think this thread is giving me constipation.

IF

Print the post Back To Top
Author: martybl Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27110 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/18/2006 6:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Social Security is a flat rate on wages up to 94.2K.

Why do people tend to leave Medicare witholding out of the discussion? Sure, Social Security is a higher rate, but, thankfully, it goes away at a reasonable income threshold. Medicare, OTOH, never goes away. No matter how much you make, it just keeps draining 2.9% of your income (supposedly made more palatable by disguising half of it as an "employer contribution)

The most one can pay in Social Security is $5840.40. (plus, to be fair, the employer "match") In comparison, you can pay much more than that in Medicare. It seems like the same considerations that call for a cap on Social Security contributions would also call for a cap on Medicare contributions.

martybl

Print the post Back To Top
Author: reallyalldone Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27112 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/18/2006 7:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
It seems like the same considerations that call for a cap on Social Security contributions would also call for a cap on Medicare contributions.

Can you say "compromise" ? :) I sort of remember when it happened.

It's kind of like the Hope credit is per student and the Lifetime Learning credit is per tax return.

rad




Print the post Back To Top
Author: donalto Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27116 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/18/2006 7:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I wandered in here from "Best of", so I apologize in advance for continuing a thread that has long since veered the board's core topic.

The most one can pay in Social Security is $5840.40. (plus, to be fair, the employer "match") In comparison, you can pay much more than that in Medicare. It seems like the same considerations that call for a cap on Social Security contributions would also call for a cap on Medicare contributions.

One could also argue the opposite, that the caps on Social Security contributions should be removed, thus largely correcting the system's projected shortfalls. Hard to take seriously a "crisis" that could be erased through some combination of raising the age of eligibility, modest reductions in benefits, and removing the caps on annual contributions.

What is so special about the 94,201st (and every subsequent) dollar, that it should not be subject to the same Social Security tax as the first $94.2k in income?


alto


Print the post Back To Top
Author: markr33 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27117 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/18/2006 7:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The most one can pay in Social Security is $5840.40. (plus, to be fair, the employer "match")

This is not strictly true (regarding the match part). While the employee total cannot be greater than the maximum (and if it is, the excess will be counted as a credit when you file), if you work for 2 employers during the year and the total of your earned income was greater than the maximum, then your employers will have remitted more than the maximum in total. For example, if you work at employer #1 and earn $95,000, you will pay $5840.40 and employer #1 will remit $5840.40. Then if you work at employer #2 and earn $95,000, you will pay $5840.40 and employer #2 will remit $5840.40. So, you will have paid a total of $23,361.60. Then when you file your income tax return, you will claim "excess social security tax" of $5840.40, and it will be credited to you (and refunded to you if necessary).

Print the post Back To Top
Author: synchronicity Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27119 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/18/2006 8:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Why do people tend to leave Medicare witholding out of the discussion? Sure, Social Security is a higher rate, but, thankfully, it goes away at a reasonable income threshold. Medicare, OTOH, never goes away. No matter how much you make, it just keeps draining 2.9% of your income (supposedly made more palatable by disguising half of it as an "employer contribution)

If you're going to use 2.9% instead of 1.45% then all salaries should be "grossed up" by the employer contribution on FICA contributions, which would reduce the effecitve income tax rates even more and complicate the calculation.

-synchronicity

Print the post Back To Top
Author: huibs Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Ticker Guide SC1 Red Motley Fool One Everlasting Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27122 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/18/2006 10:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
<<
What is so special about the 94,201st (and every subsequent) dollar, that it should not be subject to the same Social Security tax as the first $94.2k in income?
>>

..what's so special about those dollars??..

..they're owned by the rich..

..ever since Prescott B. was told by FDR to stop selling steel to hitler's war machine, (or he'd toss him in jail) the powers that be have done everything possible to take down the new deal..

..huibs..



Print the post Back To Top
Author: martybl Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27123 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/18/2006 11:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
What is so special about the 94,201st (and every subsequent) dollar, that it should not be subject to the same Social Security tax as the first $94.2k in income?

I think that the point is that Social Security, while not strictly an insurance plan, is designed to pay benefits in old age. Since the maximum benefit is capped, it seems only symmetric that the maximum contribution should be capped as well. Right now, someone who averaged $1M/year in taxable income receives no more in Social Security benefits than someone who averaged $100K, so their contribution should be no greater. I'm expecting that before I hit Social Security age, that it'll get even worse, and that they'll find a way to means-test benefits, starting with just the "RICH", "Well, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet will do OK, even without Social Security, lets limit benefits." Once this happens, the definition of "RICH" will be scaled down over time.

The same reasoning applies to Medicare. There's a limit to how much medical care a person can receive, and you certainly wouldn't expect the person with the $1M annual income to use an order of magnitude more medical services than the person with $100K/year, yet, as things are structured now, they pay an order of magnitude more in Medicare tax. I truly don't mind paying the 35% marginal income tax on each additional dollar of income, but, at some point I really resent the 2.9% Medicare tax not going away (or, taking synch's point into account, the 2.85855101% Medicare tax).

martybl


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 5000fingers Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27155 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/20/2006 10:40 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I don't see how this means that babies save you money. Couldn't a couple just have one person stay home, NOT have babies, and then save more than the couple that has one person staying home WITH a baby? Presumably the couple with the baby would be spending more on food, diapers, etc.

Of course that's true. The point is to look at the financial consideration comprehensively, and not just from the standpoint of expenses. And as mapletree pointed out, the tax deductions of a mortgage don't necessarily "save" you money. But to make a decision about buying a home without considering the tax advantages of a mortgage would be an incomplete, unadvised decision. Nobody who is reading these words would ever do that, yet there seems to be such a resistance to the idea that there are indeed huge savings to be had when one parent stays home to care for their child.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bangar8 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27156 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/20/2006 10:47 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 13
there are indeed huge savings to be had when one parent stays home to care for their child.


OCD: the loss of income isn't as high as is expected when one parent stays home to care for their child.

(even the above statement is not true in many cases, which point doesn't seem to be sinking in for you)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: reallyalldone Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27157 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/20/2006 10:59 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 32
yet there seems to be such a resistance to the idea that there are indeed huge savings to be had when one parent stays home to care for their child.

I have 3 kids and stayed home some of the time they were around. Fortunately, I never lost my ability to understand math.

rad

Print the post Back To Top
Author: huibs Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Ticker Guide SC1 Red Motley Fool One Everlasting Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27158 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/20/2006 11:22 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<
yet there seems to be such a resistance to the idea that there are indeed huge savings to be had when one parent stays home to care for their child.
>>

..look, my wife has the best solution..

..put those babies to work!..:)..

http://www.juliegang.com

:) huibs..




Print the post Back To Top
Author: tconi Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27170 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/20/2006 6:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

..put those babies to work!..:)..

like this?

http://store.mcsweeneys.net/index.cfm/fuseaction/catalog.detail/object_id/C69C2315-D209-4178-91AC-D2F8B63FB894/BabyMixMeaDrink.cfm

peace & baby be of use
t

Print the post Back To Top
Author: FoolYap Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27171 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/20/2006 10:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
OCD: the loss of income isn't as high as is expected when one parent stays home to care for their child.

(even the above statement is not true in many cases, which point doesn't seem to be sinking in for you)


Stop slapping him with the cold smelly dead herring of reality, bangar8. You're distracting him from his point, which is that working moms are evil selfish cows that hate their children.

:-P

--FY

Print the post Back To Top
Author: synchronicity Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27172 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/21/2006 12:14 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Stop slapping him with the cold smelly dead herring of reality

Are you saying he's hard of herring?

-synchronicity

Print the post Back To Top
Author: FoolYap Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27173 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/21/2006 7:04 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 16
Are you saying he's hard of herring?

It might explain all the carping about daycare. Cod knows he's been floundering about the topic long enough. I wish he'd just clam up, but it seems his sole purpose here. Whelk, I've haddock up to here with it, but eel be back with more shellfish behavior.

--FY

Print the post Back To Top
Author: synchronicity Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27174 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/21/2006 12:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
It might explain all the carping about daycare. Cod knows he's been floundering about the topic long enough. I wish he'd just clam up, but it seems his sole purpose here. Whelk, I've haddock up to here with it, but eel be back with more shellfish behavior.

Geez, you're in a crabby mood!

-synchronicity

PS- As for your turbot charged rant, I agree, he'll be back singing the same old tuna. I don't know the porpoise either, but we're in for some roughly times ahead.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: FoolYap Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27176 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/21/2006 1:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Geez, you're in a crabby mood!

Tanks for noticing, old chum. Whale, it could just be a fluke, but the minnow hasn't been sleeping well lately.

PS- As for your turbot charged rant, I agree, he'll be back singing the same old tuna. I don't know the porpoise either, but we're in for some roughly times ahead.

OCD: "roughy". Anyway, what are you trying to do, poisson me with your fishy puns?

--FY

PS,

Q: What do you call a fish without an eye?

A: "Fsh".

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Minxie Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27293 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/27/2006 6:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Stop slapping him with the cold smelly dead herring of reality, bangar8. You're distracting him from his point, which is that working moms are evil selfish cows that hate their children.

Moooooo....moooooo..... :-P

Minxie
evil, selfish, child-hating working moo cow...er...mom



Print the post Back To Top
Author: 5000fingers Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27301 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/28/2006 12:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
1. When you pointed out that there is very little benefit FINANCIALLY to have both parents working, vs. one, a lot of us pointed out that in our particular situations, that does not hold true. YOU are ignoring the fact that there could be family/work situations different from your own.

Can you provide any quote or link to support that? When did I ever say that my situation holds true for everybody? I have merely pointed out that our situation is probably fairly typical for middle class couples, especially since our numbers almost exactly match the studies that show that the average middle class couple only nets $7,000 per year after the higher tax burdens and expenses associated with work and childcare. Why is it that you can't read that without casting my words in the extreme, as if to say that I don't realize that there are many different situations out there that don't match the typical statistics so well? Everybody is not in a similar situation as DW and I, but if you know the first thing about statistics you'd know that an awful lot of people indeed are.

2. You probably should go to a tax specialist to see if infact what you assume for your family is true, taxes wise, if you are curious in that regard. Not that that would change your actions, since you strongly seem to prefer that your wife stay home come what may - which I agree is your and your wife's prerogative.

Thanks for your concern, but I do my own taxes using Quicken and Turbotax, and have for many years. Despite the petty quibbling of others on this thread, an A/B estimation of our tax savings has actually been quite easy. I merely take out my wife's 2005 W2 in Turbtax to find out how much federal and state taxes we were paying having her work full time, and check out W2s for all of the other deductions such as SS, SDI, etc. Adding these together is what our extra tax burden would be if she worked full time, and that amount is almost half of what her gross pay was. And the Quicken category makes estimating our other savings easy as well.

What's not so easy to understand is why some of you are so defensive (about your own choices, I can only assume) as to react the way that you have about my situations and assertions, which you know very little about.

3. Watch your language - Purportedly starting out with the message of finances and savings, just to insert your propaganda about working moms and the evils of day care will make your arguments look weak on both the fronts. It would be better for you to start a totally new thread on the second topic.

Oh trust me, I'm not under any illusions. I know that for 99% of you I'm either preaching to the choir (in which case you already understand that a second income probably won't net you all that much at the end of the day), or what I'm saying is falling on deaf ears. If you're willing to walk away from your child every morning, and characterize any discussion from somebody else who couldn't do that as "propaganda about working moms and the evil of daycare," there are fundamental value differences between you and I that no amount of discussion here could bridge. You're never, ever going to convince me that weekends and evenings are enough to adequately parent a child, and I'm not going to convince you that it's not. The point is that avjo is considering making this decision, and for his/her sake, I'm sorry but I do believe a balanced discussion of both sides (including opinions that might make you feel uncomfortable) is in order.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 5000fingers Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27306 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/28/2006 6:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Have you considered the lost potential income? Your analysis only looks at current income. A person may lose potentially more income due to lack of work experience. A stay-at-home parent working as cashier at the local supermarket may not lose much potential income increases but a stay-at-home parent in a professional field may lose much more income because he/she isn't advancing in their field or may even be losing the benefits of advanced training.

Absolutely. DW was at the top of her game when she took her leave of absence (and eventual resignation). Being out of the work force for a few years will have a negative effect on her career, without a doubt. If money, DW's career, our home and lifestyle all meant more to us than our boy, I assume that we'd consider the same options as many of you. But it isn't, and we won't.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: mapletree7 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27321 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/30/2006 12:45 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 11
If you're willing to walk away from your child every morning, and characterize any discussion from somebody else who couldn't do that as "propaganda about working moms and the evil of daycare," there are fundamental value differences between you and I that no amount of discussion here could bridge. You're never, ever going to convince me that weekends and evenings are enough to adequately parent a child, and I'm not going to convince you that it's not.

Interesting. What do you plan to do once the baby hits kindergarten age? Homeschool, I assume.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: IndecisiveFool Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27325 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/30/2006 9:41 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 57
Absolutely. DW was at the top of her game when she took her leave of absence (and eventual resignation). Being out of the work force for a few years will have a negative effect on her career, without a doubt. If money, DW's career, our home and lifestyle all meant more to us than our boy, I assume that we'd consider the same options as many of you. But it isn't, and we won't.

After waiting 11 days to respond to my post, you drop this bomb on the board. In your previous post, you asked why people on this board are so defensive. You are playing the innocent poster game when what you are doing is intentionally trying to stir up people whom you disagree with their lifestyle. I almost feel for your bait this weekend when I first saw your post pop up on my replies. If you want to feel morally superior to many of us, I'm not going to darken your illusion. I'll just reflect back on a my weekend.

This weekend, my daughter was in a soccer tournament. She was recruited by another team to be a guest player. Other than a wet field for the first game, you couldn't ask for a better time to play. It was sunny and temperatures were in the high 60s. Not only did my daughter have a good tournament on the field, she had a great time off the field. In between games, she socialized with the other players. She was even invited to a party next week. I can say with good confidence that the kids on that term and their parents are classy people.

I'm proud of the success that she is having in school. She is on target for straight A's this term and she earned first chair in the band. Recently, she started a job as helper at the horse farm where she takes riding lessons. At age 12, she is the youngest worker there. She also has started taking babysitting jobs.

She has faults like most kids but I am happy with her development so far. I guess these working parents ruined another kid.

IF

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: IndecisiveFool Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27333 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/30/2006 12:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Yuck, so many spelling mistakes. I should get my daughter to preview my posts.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: FoolYap Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27351 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/30/2006 8:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
Interesting. What do you plan to do once the baby hits kindergarten age? Homeschool, I assume.

OCD: What does he plan for his wife to do? He's out of the picture except weekends and evenings anyway, so it's no skin off his bad-parent back either way.

--FY

Print the post Back To Top
Author: FoolYap Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 27352 of 42358
Subject: Re: How babies save you money Date: 10/30/2006 8:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Yuck, so many spelling mistakes.

S'okay. We know you're just the mentally and emotionally deficient product of daycare, so we blame your shirksome parents, not you.

--FY

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (77) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement