Push

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Message
Author
User avatar
peacock2121
Posts: 18451
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:58 am

#26 Post by peacock2121 » Sat May 10, 2008 6:53 am

marrymeflyfree wrote:My grandmother had 17; one set of twins. We figured out once that she was either pregnant or nursing for nearly 30 years without a break.

Seeing as how my due date is either tomorrow or 10 days ago depending on the source, I have just one thing to say:

Screw that and thank God and Margaret Sanger for contraception!
Made me laugh - right out loud!

Hope you are done being pregnant very soon.

User avatar
fantine33
Posts: 1299
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:15 pm

#27 Post by fantine33 » Sat May 10, 2008 7:13 am

Ha, I only read like the first three posts and thought "Wow, is it time for another Duggar yet or does she have a pretender to the throne?" I think the oldest one turned 18, so they have to keep churning the dependents. I get the vapours just thinking about the EIC they're raking in over there.
tlynn78 wrote:
have learned so much about me from watching her
She's very anal, but most of it is necessary, I think.
Ha!

User avatar
peacock2121
Posts: 18451
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:58 am

#28 Post by peacock2121 » Sat May 10, 2008 7:16 am

What is EIC?

User avatar
fantine33
Posts: 1299
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:15 pm

#29 Post by fantine33 » Sat May 10, 2008 7:29 am

peacock2121 wrote:What is EIC?
Earned Income Credit. Yet another tax credit for having children. My main gripe with it is that 1. it comes straight off tax, not income and 2. it doesn't end at your tax liability, not only do you pay no tax, you get cash back if you go over.

User avatar
peacock2121
Posts: 18451
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:58 am

#30 Post by peacock2121 » Sat May 10, 2008 7:37 am

fantine33 wrote:
peacock2121 wrote:What is EIC?
Earned Income Credit. Yet another tax credit for having children. My main gripe with it is that 1. it comes straight off tax, not income and 2. it doesn't end at your tax liability, not only do you pay no tax, you get cash back if you go over.
Got it.

I know Cal was saying he got back more than he gave.

I told him You are welcome.

He is welcome.

If he (not him, personally, him as a whole) wasn't having kids, there would be no future. If it were up to you and me, our country would be in trouble.

User avatar
littlebeast13
Dumbass
Posts: 31416
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:20 pm
Location: Between the Sterilite and the Farberware
Contact:

#31 Post by littlebeast13 » Sat May 10, 2008 7:39 am

peacock2121 wrote:
fantine33 wrote:
peacock2121 wrote:What is EIC?
Earned Income Credit. Yet another tax credit for having children. My main gripe with it is that 1. it comes straight off tax, not income and 2. it doesn't end at your tax liability, not only do you pay no tax, you get cash back if you go over.
Got it.

I know Cal was saying he got back more than he gave.

I told him You are welcome.

He is welcome.

If he (not him, personally, him as a whole) wasn't having kids, there would be no future. If it were up to you and me, our country would be in trouble.

Kids are evil....

lb13

User avatar
peacock2121
Posts: 18451
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:58 am

#32 Post by peacock2121 » Sat May 10, 2008 7:43 am

littlebeast13 wrote:
peacock2121 wrote:
fantine33 wrote: Earned Income Credit. Yet another tax credit for having children. My main gripe with it is that 1. it comes straight off tax, not income and 2. it doesn't end at your tax liability, not only do you pay no tax, you get cash back if you go over.
Got it.

I know Cal was saying he got back more than he gave.

I told him You are welcome.

He is welcome.

If he (not him, personally, him as a whole) wasn't having kids, there would be no future. If it were up to you and me, our country would be in trouble.

Kids are evil....

lb13
and they get you EICs.

User avatar
littlebeast13
Dumbass
Posts: 31416
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:20 pm
Location: Between the Sterilite and the Farberware
Contact:

#33 Post by littlebeast13 » Sat May 10, 2008 7:46 am

peacock2121 wrote:
littlebeast13 wrote:
peacock2121 wrote: Got it.

I know Cal was saying he got back more than he gave.

I told him You are welcome.

He is welcome.

If he (not him, personally, him as a whole) wasn't having kids, there would be no future. If it were up to you and me, our country would be in trouble.

Kids are evil....

lb13
and they get you EICs.
I'll just pay the tax and be happy....

lb13

User avatar
peacock2121
Posts: 18451
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:58 am

#34 Post by peacock2121 » Sat May 10, 2008 7:47 am

littlebeast13 wrote:
peacock2121 wrote:
littlebeast13 wrote:
Kids are evil....

lb13
and they get you EICs.
I'll just pay the tax and be happy....

lb13
Me too!

Hence, the "You are welcome."

User avatar
TheCalvinator24
Posts: 4884
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:50 am
Location: Wyoming
Contact:

#35 Post by TheCalvinator24 » Sat May 10, 2008 9:07 am

peacock2121 wrote:
fantine33 wrote:
peacock2121 wrote:What is EIC?
Earned Income Credit. Yet another tax credit for having children. My main gripe with it is that 1. it comes straight off tax, not income and 2. it doesn't end at your tax liability, not only do you pay no tax, you get cash back if you go over.
Got it.

I know Cal was saying he got back more than he gave.

I told him You are welcome.

He is welcome.

If he (not him, personally, him as a whole) wasn't having kids, there would be no future. If it were up to you and me, our country would be in trouble.
My extra isn't from the Earned Income Credit. There's a pretty low cap on income in order to qualify for that. I have gotten back more that I had withheld (for Income Tax only—when you include all the other taxes withheld, I still am taking home much less than my salary) the past few years because of the Child Tax Credit and the Extra Child Tax Credit. The "Extra" modifies "Credit" and not "Child."

The Duggars would get $1000 in tax credit for each child, but limited to their tax liability. The Extra Child Tax Credit could go beyond the actual tax liability, but it would depend on other factors to determine whether they got the whole $17K.

Assuming they qualified for a Stimulus Check, they would receive a payment of $6300 for that. If Child number 18 is born in 2008, they will get an additional $300 in refund next year.
It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities. —Albus Dumbledore

User avatar
TheCalvinator24
Posts: 4884
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:50 am
Location: Wyoming
Contact:

#36 Post by TheCalvinator24 » Sat May 10, 2008 9:10 am

peacock2121 wrote:
TheCalvinator24 wrote:It takes all kinds.

What I can't understand is why anybody would be judgmental of this couple making their own choice.
I kinda think you can understand it. I kinda think you saying you can't is more of a sideways nudge than a statement of not understanding.

I also think there are choices people make that you have judgements about. People just have different things they judge as 'wrong' and different things they judge as 'understandable'.
Nope. I cannot understand it. I cannot understand a bias against large families.

I do understand some forms of judgmentalism, but not this one.
It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities. —Albus Dumbledore

User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 16205
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

#37 Post by Beebs52 » Sat May 10, 2008 9:25 am

TheCalvinator24 wrote:
peacock2121 wrote:
TheCalvinator24 wrote:It takes all kinds.

What I can't understand is why anybody would be judgmental of this couple making their own choice.
I kinda think you can understand it. I kinda think you saying you can't is more of a sideways nudge than a statement of not understanding.

I also think there are choices people make that you have judgements about. People just have different things they judge as 'wrong' and different things they judge as 'understandable'.
Nope. I cannot understand it. I cannot understand a bias against large families.

I do understand some forms of judgmentalism, but not this one.
My initial post wasn't a judgment. It was almost literal. Just like a buttclench when something creeps you out, my reproductive organs clenched. I personally could not imagine overworking them to that extent. Personally. Plus, I would have been around the bend past two. I admire anyone who can handle a bunch of kids.

With that being said I do sometimes wonder if there isn't a good chunk of self righteousness/hubris involved in having a LOT of kids. Numbers may vary.
Well, then

User avatar
marrymeflyfree
Posts: 600
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 8:58 pm
Location: the couch

#38 Post by marrymeflyfree » Sat May 10, 2008 9:35 am

TheCalvinator24 wrote: Nope. I cannot understand it. I cannot understand a bias against large families.
For what its worth...my mom and her siblings, and most people I've met who come from very large families, all seem to agree that they aren't the best family environments.

The older ones shoulder a lot of responsibility in caring for the younger ones. The younger ones, by the time there are that many children, get less one-on-one care and attention. The kids almost never have any personal space or true ownership of anything, as every thing and every spare square inch is shared/cooperative space. The mother's health suffers, whether she realizes it at the time or not, from nutritional deficits from so many pregnancies and so little down-time between them. Clearly there are financial concerns, and in most large families that equates to sub-par nutrition, health care, and education.

There are lots of cons to big families. Most people who are members of big families have no delusions about that. Except maybe the parents.

User avatar
Tocqueville3
Posts: 702
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:39 am
Location: Mississippi

#39 Post by Tocqueville3 » Sat May 10, 2008 10:06 am

Beebs52 wrote:
TheCalvinator24 wrote:
peacock2121 wrote: I kinda think you can understand it. I kinda think you saying you can't is more of a sideways nudge than a statement of not understanding.

I also think there are choices people make that you have judgements about. People just have different things they judge as 'wrong' and different things they judge as 'understandable'.
Nope. I cannot understand it. I cannot understand a bias against large families.

I do understand some forms of judgmentalism, but not this one.
My initial post wasn't a judgment. It was almost literal. Just like a buttclench when something creeps you out, my reproductive organs clenched. I personally could not imagine overworking them to that extent. Personally. Plus, I would have been around the bend past two. I admire anyone who can handle a bunch of kids.

With that being said I do sometimes wonder if there isn't a good chunk of self righteousness/hubris involved in having a LOT of kids. Numbers may vary.
I agree with bb. I think this JimBob dude thumps his chest a lot at his bazillion kids. Kinda like "Look at me!! Look what I can do!!"

Enough already. We know you and fertile Myrtle can conceive. You're fabu. BlahBlahBlah...

There also could be moolah involved in having a bazillion kids too. Like from diaper people and food people and such.

User avatar
peacock2121
Posts: 18451
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:58 am

#40 Post by peacock2121 » Sat May 10, 2008 10:12 am

TheCalvinator24 wrote:
peacock2121 wrote:
TheCalvinator24 wrote:It takes all kinds.

What I can't understand is why anybody would be judgmental of this couple making their own choice.
I kinda think you can understand it. I kinda think you saying you can't is more of a sideways nudge than a statement of not understanding.

I also think there are choices people make that you have judgements about. People just have different things they judge as 'wrong' and different things they judge as 'understandable'.
Nope. I cannot understand it. I cannot understand a bias against large families.

I do understand some forms of judgmentalism, but not this one.
Maybe you are using the word 'understand' differently than I am using it. I mean it as being able to follow the thought and the logic that has people make a judgemental conclusion.

There are numerous posts in this thread that you can read and follow the logic and understand without agreeing with the logic.

User avatar
TheCalvinator24
Posts: 4884
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:50 am
Location: Wyoming
Contact:

#41 Post by TheCalvinator24 » Sat May 10, 2008 10:18 am

peacock2121 wrote:
TheCalvinator24 wrote:
peacock2121 wrote: I kinda think you can understand it. I kinda think you saying you can't is more of a sideways nudge than a statement of not understanding.

I also think there are choices people make that you have judgements about. People just have different things they judge as 'wrong' and different things they judge as 'understandable'.
Nope. I cannot understand it. I cannot understand a bias against large families.

I do understand some forms of judgmentalism, but not this one.
Maybe you are using the word 'understand' differently than I am using it. I mean it as being able to follow the thought and the logic that has people make a judgemental conclusion.

There are numerous posts in this thread that you can read and follow the logic and understand without agreeing with the logic.
Perhaps I am saying that I think the premises underlying the judgments are so flawed that it is impossible for me to follow the logic.
It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities. —Albus Dumbledore

User avatar
peacock2121
Posts: 18451
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:58 am

#42 Post by peacock2121 » Sat May 10, 2008 10:28 am

TheCalvinator24 wrote:
peacock2121 wrote:
TheCalvinator24 wrote: Nope. I cannot understand it. I cannot understand a bias against large families.

I do understand some forms of judgmentalism, but not this one.
Maybe you are using the word 'understand' differently than I am using it. I mean it as being able to follow the thought and the logic that has people make a judgemental conclusion.

There are numerous posts in this thread that you can read and follow the logic and understand without agreeing with the logic.
Perhaps I am saying that I think the premises underlying the judgments are so flawed that it is impossible for me to follow the logic.
I can understand that.

I don't happened to think the premise is flawed. I think there is evidence that support the premise and evidence that does not support it.

Post Reply