Replies to post #15013 on Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[Jar]

>> I would have loved not to have worked and been home when my kids got out of school... for most it was not a choice, but a necessity.

You have 5 kids. In today's $$'s if the govt. is educating them, that's $35,000 each year. So you'd have to make at least $50,000 gross just to pay for that expense.

The economy is a huge system, but think of it like you were paying in $35K(net) and receiving $35K of "service". Seems like everyone would benefit if you taught your own kids and didn't have to work to feed the govt.

Simplistic again, but we need to realize that the reason most families need 2 incomes is due to the huge govt. burden (local/state/federal/school district/etc.). My point is I'd rather have a bare bones govt of basic services and allow all mothers to stay home with their children. Think Mayberry :)

[Jar]

>the problem with that is that kids in poorer neighborhoods would really suffer

Yes, we'd need a safety-net, as mentioned. Just like food stamps, perhaps education stamps. I don't think the poorer neighborhood schools would be any worse than they are now - gangs, violence, profanity, illiteracy. If these kids had 2 hours a day of solid 3R's with no nonsense and no backtalk, they'd be way ahead where they are now. I bet inner city parents would trade in a heartbeat.