From: kapa@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (k.a.perkins)
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets vs. the Ovarian Nurturer
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 06:20:58 GMT
Followup-To: misc.kids
Summary: what do I get out of this money?

In article <1992Sep14.155912.8637@ll.mit.edu>, yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
> In article <1992Sep13.232121.6139@pensoft.uucp> jac@pensoft.uucp (James A. Carter) writes:
> >
> >If we aren't willing to "sponsor" our kids for the rest of their life, not
> >just until they are eighteen, then why the hell did we have them in the
> >first place?
> 
> 	People *did* have kids with the idea of "sponsoring" them in
> 	many cases.  There are however many parents who, weather it be
> 	the passage of time or whatever, prefer to have the kids gone
> 	when they grow up.
> 
> 	But that's not the issue.  *You*, a male in the unusual
> 	position of being a CP, are writing/speaking like a maternal
> 	CP.
> 
> 	If I buy a hamburger, I expect to eat it.  If I buy clothes
> 	I expect to wear them.  More specifically if I buy my kid a
> 	toy, I expect to watch them play with it.
> 
> 	But out of sight is out of mind.

But some of us learned object permanence when we were 0 year olds.

You know, we spend a lot on our daughter, and I don't see that
I get a lot back from most of it.  I don't get a lot out of watching
her eat or wear her clothes and her diapers  or go to daycare.  I'm glad
she isn't starving, but the more she eats, the more she poops, and the
more gross diapers there are to be changed.  I'm glad she wears clothes
but the more clothes she wears, the more laundry there is to be done,
and that adds up in time and money.   And I'm certainly not going to
get anything out of the money in her college fund, which her father and
I are funding, not her.  So, if I'm not getting anything
out of it, and as far as I can tell, neither is her dad - after all,
she's the one eating the food and wearing the clothes and playing
with the toys and going to daycare - why don't we just stop paying
for all this and spend our money on something we do personally get
something out of, like clothes and food for ourselves?

It seems to me the answer must be obvious to the first poster and
oblivious to the second, that we do these things for our child, not
for ourselves.  Even if we don't watch her do everything, not that
watching a 2 year old eat is particularly enjoyable or fulfilling, she
still has to eat and she still has to wear clothes and she still
enjoys her toys and her daycare.  And her life will be easier because
she won't have to foot the entire bill for her education.

We love her.  We knew the job was dangerous when we took it.  We
also knew that it was expensive and we signed on for that, too, as
well as the task of putting her needs ahead of ours much of the time.
Out of my sight doesn't mean she doesn't eat or need clothes or shoes
or dental and medical care.
> 
> 	How would you feel if a judge told you that from now on
> 	every week when you got paid you should actively take
> 	x $$$$  (some reasonable sum of money) and put it in the
> 	trash.  Go ahead.  Next time you sit down to pay all those bills
> 	try and play out the senario.  Subtract maybe $50-$200 per week.
> 	And do it with the idea that you *really* don't have the money,
> 	won't get it back, will have to keep doing it religiously for
> 	maybe 10-18 years, and will never get anything out of it.

Well, that would be the case whether the kids lived with you or not.
We pay big bucks to be parents, and diapers, school fees, clothes,
food, or whatever you're giving to this person aren't free just
because you all live together.  Kids aren't much of a financial
investment.

If you think kids are too expensive a hobby, maybe you should have
gotten a cat.

Kate Perkins
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 18:28:22 GMT
Subject: Jurisdiction Survey
Organization: HP Western Response Center