You Are Selfish

I'm with Joe. (O'Connor not Biden). I can't buy his critics' arguments for the simple reason that child 'free' people, while they 'enjoy' their lifestyle, they fail to understand that they maintain a critical dependence on literally thousands of other peoples' kids efforts & outputs. No kids? Fine. Then no doctors, no mechanics, no farmers etc. Sort of parallels Ayn Rands philosophy of Takers and Makers.

Nice rant Cappy! I get the impression that Joe's article was designed to be inflammatory enough to get people reading and commenting, but not so much as to get him into trouble therefore he sticks to apparent soft targets. For example, since gay marriage is seemingly the most pressing issue facing western civilization these days, Joe could have mentioned how selfish gays were for choosing that path...

As long as childless couples pay the full cost of elder care and not take a subsidy then I have no trouble with it at all, its their choice.

They should be able to afford the robots (i.e. like the japanese)and filipinas that are required to take care of them and provide companionship.

Watching my own in laws and family go through this now. Nothing wrong with being selfish, just accept the life cycle costs of it.

Natural selection.

I've got kids and I whole heartily agree with his rant.
Having kids is one of the few remaining freedoms we have where the state has little ability to limit outside of trying to convince women they should invoke their rights to abortion.
If you are consuming non governmental goods and services, you are contributing through the tax system, which funds the provision of the governments goods and services.

Yeah well...I'm currently not married and no kids "to speak of". No kids to care for me in my dotage....I guess we're all in the same boat in that last regard.......

Well, one thing's for sure. If you don't have kids, you've got lots of time to make long videos about youself that I (with kids)don't have the time to watch.

People without children have no stake in the future and should not be able to vote to tax my children to support their current consumption. They should also no be able to vote to bring in huge numbers of immigrants because we need a younger population, so that my children are forced to be strangers in a strange land when they grow up.

what minuteman said

It is obvious that the guy in the video should not have any children.

That would be waste of human flesh, waste of school, waste of correctional facilities, waste of taxes for all the things that parents want other people’s money for, waste of human life.

He is exactly right.

The only thing remains is, who is going to pay for his old age.

Sorry, never mind, some other people. They will be happy to no end to contribute.

Does the term nihilist mean anything?

None the less, he should not have children. Should not change his mind, ever.

"People without children have no stake in the future and should not be able to vote to tax my children to support their current consumption"

Excellent! Then we shouldn't be taxed now to support the current education, healthcare or lifestyle of children right now.

Fair is fair. Please apologize to your children for us.

The Freedom to have or not have children should be a fundamental one.

While we can question the wisdom of either depending on the circumstances, condemning someone for wanting to choose either is wrong.

Fred - it's a deal!!!

You keep your education taxes and healthcare taxes that are spent on my children. (BTW - kids in private school and I've private medical insurance). Not sure what part of my kids lifestyle you are funding, but feel free to invent a number!

In return, your pension, your old-age social and health care will not be paid by my children.

Fred, I'd be good with that. I don't believe in public healthcare or education, but since they are not going away, we could at least stop borrowing money that no one alive today will ever be around to pay back.

I always figured the tax argument to be a bit of a red herring. A guy I know used to bitch at me because he had to pay school taxes, when he and his wife had decided not to have kids. I pointed out that my kids would have the extra tax burden of looking after him when he is old and sick. So he could damn well help out with their school now.

However, the good Captain did make me question this somewhat. I would point out that I cannot afford live on $20,000 per year. I make a little over $70,000. And yes, I am one of those guys who gets out of bed at 6, spends a lot of time driving kids to dance, karate, etc. And I really do wish I couold afford to travel more.

I save for my retirement, but not nearly as much as I would like to. I just don't have the cash. I would love to have a motorcyle, but can't afford it. I have always wanted a sports car, but such a thing is impossible to justify given my circumstances. I am not complaining mind you. It is just the reality of my life and the choices I have made.

But as the Captain pojnts out, he makes around $20,000 per year. He probably pays very little income tax. And I am willing to bet that his retirement porfolio looks a lot better than mine. He has a motorcycle, and probably travels more than me. Not that I begrudge him any of this. But it does strike me that he is paying very little now, but will reap the benefit of my kid's taxes later on, assuming that they make choices more like mine than his.

But whatever. Who ever said life was fair.

There are many ways to contribute to society. People without children do so in other ways. Perhaps they have time to volunteer to coach or run a church group for kids. They pay taxes to support many programs which benefit parents and children. Parents get tax breaks that single people don't--so in essence they benefit doubly.

People may opt to have no children for non-selfish reasons. Perhaps they know they are too "selfish" for parenthood. Isn't that a "non-selfish" way to think? Having kids just so you have someone to look after you in your dotage could be considered selfish thinking.

Many people are not in stable relationships. Should they have kids and let the state support them?

Having kids doesn't guarantee that they'll be around when you're drooling and in diapers. Many elder care facilities are full of oldsters with kids that never visit them.

It's a funny world where people assume the right to judge other people's choices when it's really none of their business.

"It's a funny world where people assume the right to judge other people's choices when it's really none of their business."

Yeah! Thank God that Cappy never judges other people's choices!

The point is that the only REAL wealth we will ever create is our children. All the money, durable goods, consumable goods, services are worthless if there is no one left to use them. This insane idea that money is worth something is just that INSANE!

Don't forget that some couples have no children for medical reasons. Don't (ass)ume the reasons unless you are told personally. I feel the pain personally!

But Cappy, isn't this just a natural extension of your determination not to get caught up with any modern women? IE, those that seem to take it for granted that underneath all males are really betas.

I mean, you would have to show some sort of commitment to a long term relationship with a woman first, before the concept of having a child in your life could even be realistically entertained.

I don't see that happening any time soon.

Kids are the ultimate satisfaction of ego, a parent gets to see themselves in another human being. Who's selfish?

So having 6 or more children well collecting welfare, and getting bigger and bigger cheques with each new kid is unselfish?

Children cost a lot of time and money. My three are a bargain in both cases. Never a regret.

Single mothers and their government children are usually stupid women who spread their legs for jerks, they should not be paid.

Joe's right and good for him for saying it.
It's no big surprise that the self-absorbed set are all worked up about someone speaking the truth.
They really don't like being reminded of what traitors they are to their long line of ancestors.
But that's nothing compared to their betrayal of their very own future generations who don't get to exist.
So FU Captain!

It's a silly argument so I haven't bothered with the comments and therefore apologize in advance for any redundancy:

- People who don't want children would be poor parents.

- It is shameful to shame people into having children they don't want.

- Is is perhaps just as selfish and narcissistic to have children to perpetuate your line.

I have two children 41 and 38. Both are childless for a variety of reasons mostly to do with their chosen careers in the arts. I have expressed NO view on this and am perfectly neutral on the notion of being a grandparent. I couldn't care less.

Well, I never disagree with people who know deep down that their genetics are not worth passing on and/or they do not have the patience and resiliency required to raise a child. You've made the right decision. Good for you.

As to the specifics. How much tax does a person making $20,000 per year and living in a modest sized home subsidize public education? At best they might...might pay back their own subsidized education. Assume their own education was $5000/yr in the 80's for 12 years and divide by their current property tax of about $1000 per year (with about half to education).
I also doubt annual income tax they pay on $20000 is enough to pay for their pension and healthcare.

As for lifestyle. It depends. We traveled and did as we pleased for the first 10 years before we had kids. It was fun and carefree and then we wanted something more. Kids, especially little kids, change your lifestyle and are not always as fun as a life full of sleeping in, smoking cigars and drinking all day but they are fun in their own way. As a SAHM, the kids and I spend our summers swimming at the pool, relaxing at the beach or visiting the family cabin- we have a blast. During the school year my daytime responsibilities are as carefree as the childless.

Trying to describe parenthood and the satisfaction it brings to the childless is impossible so I won't try. I have to say though...does the man in this video seem like a happy person?

There are personal choices and there are immature choices. It takes some life experience to appreciate family. In times of troubles it is much easier when your clan stands behind you.

btw... the leading cost of unnatural death in USA: self inflicted injuries. Suicides and drug overdose, taking the flag position from car accidents.

I for one did not arise late on a Sunday morning to endure a childish James Spader want to be's anthem to nihilism. Coupled with the obvious denial of the significance of his own existence, this video brat justifies, indeed personifies, the inflammatory title of O'Connor's article and raises the stakes by grouping all childless "couples" under the self bus he drives. This, of course, is a straw man as I cannot fathom the idea that this individual has ever been in a relationship which transcended mutual usury.

While O'Connor paints with a brush too broad this respondent offers gilded framing. Bad form on a Sunday morn.

Off to church. My son serves the 12:00.
Oh, I've had my smoke and a glass of champagne.

Yep - watching that woman who always calls in sick, leaving her colleagues with the extra workload, who spends hours entertaining our male supervisor in his office, who has taken three maternity leaves on company time and my taxes, who still gets first pick at vacation time because her "senority" isn't affected by her maternity leave, who gets first dibs on higher-paying temporary positions because her gender qualifies her over white males in the office - sh*t her little snot-nosed darlings are as much mine as hers. How is it that I am being called "selfish?"

Adding:
I once lambasted fellow staff members for exerting enormous pressure on a female staff member for not having children.
This pressure was intense and caused the target enormous anxiety.

I considered it bullying of the worst kind.

I won't besmirch their motives with the facile argument that they wanted her to "share their misery". Perhaps they wanted her to "share their joy".
Whatever: butt out.

All those economic arguments about intergenerational costs, debt and such are jejune.

Yes, it is and they are.

At least the Captain has the good manners to plan to blow his brains out when he gets too old and sick to properly care for himself. The DINK crowd are generally "employed" in make-work government jobs that let them swan off to Cuba for a month every year on the taxpayer's dime. (People with children and real jobs and businesses don't have the time or money.) They're counting on fat government pensions to pay for their diaper changes and wooden legs and oxygen tanks and heart and liver transplants---all paid for by other people's children.

Of course, long before that day comes, the government will have run out of other people's money and their blessed pension cheques, assuming they come at all, won't be enough to buy a cup of tea. The nephews and nieces who still bother to take their calls will be too busy caring for their own children---and their own parents---to have much time for the problems of the self-absorbed uncles and aunts from whom their parents were lucky to get a postcard from Havana at Christmas, never mind any help with the kids.

Oh, they've had their reward, mark my words.

Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them.

Remember the Creator of all things that told you to be fruitful and multiply. Amazing how He always seems to know best.

(Will he not provide, in our old age? Aye, he'll send us our sustenance in our old age, if we'll have them. They're called children.)

The major reason people decide not to have children is clearly cost. Money, time, energy and health. Children cost all these things.

If you are a young person pursuing education for a professional career or even an apprenticeship, you do not have the money or the time. Most young people I know are still living with their parents because its just too expensive to keep a vehicle and an apartment while studying or working those entry-level jobs.

If you are an established couple you most likely have the money, but to get the money you are BOTH working and you have considerable debt. So you -both- have to -keep- working. Therefore you may have the money, but you don't have the time.

If you are 35-45, now you might be able to spare one of the couple to look after the kids, but being older now you don't have the energy or the health, because you spent it getting money. Having your first new baby when you are 40 will test the will and the strength of any man, I don't care who you are.

Which is why people like the Captain look at that hamster wheel and say "not a chance, dude!" Most of the families where I live are broken apart by the strain, because they said "F- it!" and had kids anyway. Practically everybody around here is divorced, its a frickin' tragedy. The local school has free food for the kids who come to school without breakfast, because Dad's not home and Mum had to drive to work at 6:30 AM and the kid went to school without being fed.

Familiar to many will be the old guys like myself lamenting that we never see kids riding around town on their bikes, playing in the parks, having road-hockey in the suburbs etc. "Helicopter parents" is a current-culture term for the phenomenon. Well gee, when I was a kid we all had Mum at home when we were playing outside, within ear-shot. Nowadays Mum is AN HOUR AWAY at work and the kid is in some kind of professional care establishment, be it day-care, school, after-school care, etc. and so is Dad, and so are Grandma and Grandpa for that matter.

Why does it take two incomes to support two people? Where did all that money go?

Taxes.

Because as I and the Captain and many other people here harp endlessly, government takes half of everything you make. Or more, if you're a high income earner. So unless you make a major sh1tload of money, you can't afford kids.

I'll tell you something else. Old people with kids are going to be in the same boat as old people without in a few years, because your children won't be able to hold up the strain of caring for their ancient f-ed up Mum and Dad. Particularly if they have to look after your grand children. Kids or no kids, you are going to be "taking a walk in the snow" or dying in a gutter someplace after they boot you out of the nursing home because your money ran out. Anybody who isn't making an income of their own is going to be hungry like Victorian London. Or like China is today. That's the glide path we're on.

Really what that all boils down to is all of us paying the price of living in an inefficient command economy. It killed the Soviets, its presently killing the Chicoms, and it will most certainly kill us shortly. So we either shrug off that ever-increasingly-heavy government millstone or it crushes us.

For all those of you who say the Left is the same as the Right, that's the concept you are missing out on. The New Left is more government, the New Right is -less- government. Any party not actively engaged in cutting taxes, regulations and budgets is of the Left, no matter the rhetoric.

Joe O'Connor is a d1ck for not mentioning that part. He just wants us hamsters to run faster. Sorry Joe, getting kinda tired of running but not getting anywhere.

from NP article comments:
"AutumnSylver: Bottom line: Countries do not save your tax dollars for your future costs. They create a liability that is to be paid by future generations, if there isn't a future generation you and all of us are out of luck."
-
As for video douche guy: who is so narcissistic to think that they can upload a half hour of argumentation and think that anyone - especially us breeders - would have time to waste on a point that could be made in a couple of minutes?
-
he lost me at 'hello'...

I liked the article. We've got kids but we know people who don't, and it's not because they can't. It's on purpose.

Much of what the article says is true. The childless couples we know who are childless on purpose often spent weeks/months rambling around the world, looking for fulfillment. They always seem restless.

Kids add a great deal of interest to life. They are not a burden if you discipline them well, and don't spoil them. It's really not that hard at all.

Lot's of abnormal stuff going on these days. People not wanting to have kids, gays, adoption of children by gay couples. Perhaps we have dispensed with evolution!

Obviously the choice to have kids or not is not up to anyone else, and to call whatever choice selfish is "not even wrong".

It would be interesting, though, to calculate who actually contributes & receives most, an average DINK couple or an average 1.5 half income, 2,5 kids, family (1525?), from the time of "marriage" (age 27 or whatever) to death (let's say age 80).

Over this time frame (27-80 years of age):
- Likely the DINKs earn more and pay more in taxes (income, capital, property, etc) all through life, incl in retirement
- The 1525s get tax payer funded child benefits, utilize tax payer funded child care, schools, universities, hockey rinks, kids health care,... (adults' health care cost likely the same for DINKs and 1525s)
- Both DINKs and 1525s pay into CPP and presumably saves into RRSPs or similar schemes
- Likely the DINKs are clawed back (OAS) more than the 1525s in their retirement
- However, one can assume the 1525s' kids help fund OAS and old age healthcare for DINKs and 1525s alike (while the DINKs only pay taxes themselves during their retirement)

So, from a financial perspective, it comes down to: Does the DINKs extra tax payments and less benefits throughout life compensate for not paying fully during their old age?
No idea, can someone find some stats?

Procreation is genetically programmed into us. I would suspect that individuals who don't have children, are substituting this basic human function with alternatives whether they realize it or not. One could argue away the economics that pit neighbours against each other, or one could embrace this simple fact. A capitalist economy needs to grow or maintain the status quo in order to function. This growth is spawned from demand, and in western economies this is based on population. The entitlements that government doles out is based on this same principle. Immigration policy is based on this simple fact. If Canadians wont have children, they will be imported to replace those retiring from the workforce. The only solution is to dismantle the current system, nix all entitlements including healthcare, and let everyone stand or fall on their own.

"If Canadians wont have children, they will be imported to replace those retiring from the workforce."

Yes, good point, and that my indeed be the greatest cost of all, namely that immigration is turned up to such a high rate that Canada as we know it disintegrates.

Alan at 11:00 ,

Why stop at 6 ?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KUW2vCPX7w

Best line : "someone needs to be held accountable, and they need to pay!"

Geez, still the vitriol.

1. I will be paying for my own retirement. Doubt social security will be there.

2. If there isn't enough money and I can't afford my retirement I will be doing the Smith and Wesson plan.

3. "You'll die all alone!!!!" So you had your kids to be your personal entertainment slave AND to pay for your retirement? Wow, what great parents.

One of the benefits of having kids,is when the inevitable day comes that we are too old to care for ourselves,and the State has to decide what to do with us,having pissed away all the tax dollars on green projects,we shall be offered a peaceful transition to Heaven or wherever.

My Daughter is a nurse,and has assured me she will use a nice,"fine" needle to administer my last shot. I appreciate this as I have a phobia of needles.

I'd much rather be murdered by family than a stranger.

Phantom nails it. My fiance & I are almost exactly the spot he describes (mid/late-30s, established careers, she just completed her Masters), and I am honestly starting to wonder if we'll be able to handle having a baby or if the window has passed us by (doesn't help that she's had some medical troubles this year that a pregnancy would have only compounded).

I would quite likely regret not having a child, but if that's to be our lot in life we will make the best of it. However I will certainly not be lectured by self-righteous jackasses who think we aren't looking after ourselves or not paying our share of freakin' taxes!

Won't it be great when all children are born in a bottle , raised in a government run child facility.
Its a good thing that people for the first time in history are not penalized for not having children. Every other culture has. It never works though.

Perhaps Obama is right. Only those who don't criticize the false Prophet of Islam, have the future. At least they are growing population wise while the West withers into a childless future. The lads we now inhabit will be theirs. Just as we took them from Indians after they where decimated by smallpox & cholera.
One way or another you pay a price. When childless couples , one will die before the other. Being alone cared for by those who loath them will not be an easy ride. Those with children will find the indifference of the age the nearly same outcome.
Government has destroyed the family.
Gays die early. From disease along with stress.
The only model that has truly worked is the extended family. That has been almost eradicated.
I see a future where when you reach a certain age. Without millions you are given a needle like a dog past its time. Abortion with euthanasia has made this socially acceptable. Economics will make it a standard. If not a culture that does not value life.
Sacrifice is a forbidden word in the West today.
Just like duty or honor has lost all meaning.
In the end it will be a chilly end for us all. Child arrears or the nihilists.
We will become what we value. Which apparently is materialism with only pleasure, till another culture takes us over as we shrink. That people is undeniable. My opinion is some people should never have children, some even more. That ultimately we have all lost our way for our Idols.
We don't live in a Nation any more but a temporary Hotel.

Changed over to Crome google The spell checker is a nightmare.It actually changes word without your knowledge.Including ones you want. Sorry for the confusing post.

John in Kanada

I don't think that simple stats would be enough to tell the tale. A chart of income vs. entitlements would make more sense
- a high income childless couple is more beneficial than a low income, single-parent, welfare dependent family
-a single man making $20000 per year is less beneficial than a family making $150,000 per year.
But a comparison of the average, middle income childless couple vs. average, middle income two parent family would be interesting.

I suspect that the average family would be more of a net benefit than the average childless couple simply due to them getting credit for producing the next generation of taxpayers. The childless couple's contribution to society ends abruptly when they die while the contributions of the taxpaying children of an average, middle class family continues after death. It would be like the significant difference in value between a compounding interest account and keeping your money in your mattress.

I sure hope all those memories of shopping trips and weekends skiing keep you good company when you are old.

"They are not a burden if you discipline them well, and don't spoil them. It's really not that hard at all."

Amen..... , and I think the captain would agree with that. However like him I wonder how many parents have the stomach to actually teach their children to be resilient and independent, not spoiled entitled brats waiting for their success to fall from the sky.

I'm glad my girls are at the stage they are out on their own in a few years hopefully working at a decent job, and their degrees pay off for them.

But I feel for those just having kids and having to dance the politically correct minefield the state figures healthy strong beneficial families should function under.

So many important common sense traditions and truths that have built our society, starting with the family have been replaced with feel good elitist gobbledygook. With each new rule trying to fix the shortcomings and the mess made with the last.

I don't blame people for not having children as it could get costly in more ways than just money for sticking to your guns and RAISING your kids the way you see fit to bring about responsible independent adults with a moral compass (it's not always pretty).

Who eventually (before thirty) pull up the pegs and start the cycle over again. (and hopefully have one kid as headstrong as they where - it's what keep me going).

Three more aspects missed in the discussion:

1. Some people don't have children because they have waited and waited and slipped on fertility curve.

2. When you are old you need someone to take care of you not in financial terms. You need someone to check on you that you can trust to check if you are all right, that no one scams you when you are senile, that no one hurt you when your mental and physical capacity will diminish.

3. Relations we create makes us humans. There are always exceptions, but choosing not to establish family marks the human social animal for an elimination from a genetic pool.

Are people here actually using TAXES as an excuse to guilt us into having kids we don't want? Public education and health care? What kind of statist BS is that?

My best friend got married right out of college and started pumping out kids. 3 kids later, he's stuck in a treadmill job - and will be forever - has no peace in his home, no time to read, no time to crank the music, watch an adult movie (but boy has he seen the kiddie movies 100 times) no time alone, no time to spend with his wife as adults...

He is barely a person anymore. He's a worker bee.

No cildren, more immigrants some of whom are not very desireable.
End of story.