Consequently, I wonder if I am turning them into libertarians.

Heaven forfend.

I’m sure your kids see the Dad tax for what it is: a way for Dad to glom onto whatever they have that you want. I guess as long as they continue to go along with it, you’ll know that it’s not yet that onerous a bill to be paid.

The day they tell ol’ Dad to stuff his Dad tax where the sun don’t shine will be the day you know you went too far. You’ll probably be able to win them back, however, by announcing a child tax on everything you eat that requires you to share what you have with them, though.

Tagore,

But in our society, i.e. in the United States of America, taxes are NOT imposed. We elect officials who set policy we desire. If we ever decide that those officials are levying us too greatly, we have the ability to remove them from power and place other people in their stead. Furthermore, what services have you provided your children for your Daddy Tax? Anything? Or are you merely taking their tax and hoarding it all for yourself? See, most of the taxes go towards programs that benefit society (like say the roads or our military). It’s no wonder your children hate your taxes. You’re not giving them anything for their sacrifice. It would be a shame if they were taught the wrong lesson on taxes. They might end up being unreasonable libertarians who decry public services and all. ;)

Dan, in practice, a voter has about as much influence over the government as a shareholder has over a corporation.

Tagore, great post. I don’t need to use any particular method of parenting in order to make my kids conservatives. Raising smart kids in Massachusetts is guaranteed to make them both Republican and conservative, because they see first hand how vile and blackhearted Democrats are.

When my daughter was the only one in her class who voted for George W. Bush in the 2004 school election, her classmates attacked her for it, and she came home crying.

One day, I pulled out of my driveway to go to drive to the chapel to watch the priesthood session of general conference. Some guy who had passed my house when I was pulling out of my driveway was in front of me at a stop sign. He got out of his car and walked back toward me. I rolled down my window, and he bent over to shout in my face, “YOU F*CKING REPUBLICAN *SSHOLE!,” “YOU D*CK CHENEY LOVING PRICK!”, “YOU IRAQ WAR-LOVING SH*THEAD.” I can only guess that he’d driven by my house before and seen the Bush/Cheney bumper sticker on my sedan. Anyway, he shouted at me for well over a minute.

At some point, I was able to get a word in edgewise, and I enquired about exactly what his problem was. He shouted back, “YOU PULLED UP TOO CLOSE TO ME, YOU REPUBLICAN F*CKER!” (everything he said really was at the top of his lungs). I responded, “How much room is there between our cars?” And he shouted back, “THERE’S ENOUGH ROOM TO FIT THE F*CKING IRAQ WAR!” I’m not sure exactly what that was supposed to mean, but I didn’t want to be late for priesthood session for a democrat. So I put my car in gear and started to go around him. He then sat on the hood of my car. So I proceeded at about 2 MPH while he shouted over and over, “ARE YOU GOING TO F*CKING RUN ME OVER?” After about 10 feet, he finally got the idea. He got off of my car, and he ran back to his own car. He then followed me and honked for several miles. Perhaps he wanted me to pull over again, but I did not. I did arrive at priesthood session on time, and I was substantially edified.

True story.

I could give more stories, but this comment is already too long. Suffice it to say that I’ve come to learn that Democrats become unhinged quite easily, and they vilify people more than any other demographic I know of. A friend of mine who lives here is fond of joking that we should go ahead and pass hate-speech legislation, and then use it to round up all of the democrats.

DKL – I am not sure whether to laugh or cry over that story. Nice to know there are so many psychos out there…

Nice post Tagore – we may have to implement a similar tax in our household.

Devyn,

If you implement a tax in your home, make sure you provide some kind of service for that tax. Otherwise, all you will end up being is a King Noah dictator.

Dan – As Tagore lays out, they get a lot for the “tax”. I also tend to agree with you that there is plenty of hate mongering on both sides to go around. Neither the Dems or the Pubs have a monopoly on “niceness”

I also do “daddy tax”

Lighten up Dan

I see it more as a “tithing” than as a tax, since all that his kids have come as a result of Tagore and his wife’s benevolence (and perhaps the threat of incarceration by the state). Tagore is simply making the kids acknowledge that without him, they have nothing.

Now, come to think about it, there might be a problem with the fact that he “makes” them comply. Since the kids aren’t given a choice and there is no free agency involved, it’s more like Satan’s plan of tithing.

So, maybe the lesson Tagore is teaching is that Satan’s plan is bad. Free agency is better. Perhaps the “daddy tax” should be restructured so that if they offer it voluntarily, there is a fixed amount that they give. If they don’t “offer” it, you can take as much or as little as you want.

Jota,

If we take the Tagore family situation, this is what we have. A mother and a father and several children (don’t know how many). The father decides to levy a tax on all items provided to the children as a method to teach about taxes. If done properly, this tax would be for services rendered as a contract. I.e. the children would accept that a tenth of their cookie would be taken by their father for their father doing some kind of service for them. In a very small environment like this, truly the providers of the tax would get some kind of net return for their sacrifice.

If we take a nation of 300 million people, this is what we have. We debate about what kind of services our government should provide as common services, i.e. services for all. We decide that providing security is one of those common services. This costs X amount. We decide that we will make roads a common utility which will cost Y amount to produce and maintain. We decide that providing a fireman service is an effective common expense. It will cost Z amount. We add X + Y + Z = T. T is the total expense of our common services. Not everybody will partake of the common services. For example, I may go my entire life without having the need of the fireman. But I pony up for that expense in any case because someone else will need it, and I deem it a worthy common expense. These common services are for the good of the entire community, and not for my selfish self. I make this sacrifice because there is a balance that has to be made between the individual and the community he or she resides in.

To teach children as they grow up that taxing individuals for these common services is bad is in my opinion bad form and a disservice to the community.

Dan,

What additional services could there be? And does the Daddy tax always create Hatred? Or could it create something else?

Tagore,

I think the dad tax is excellent in that it hopefully teaches appreciation for ownership of the whole cookie when it exists, appreciation of as much cookie as one ends up with, and appreciation of the hand that feeds. I don’t think one political philosophy encapsulates the dad tax more than the other.

I know a family that has a big sign on the refrigerator that reads, “pull your own weight.” In that household, one ought not take to much, nor contribute too little. That philosophy is expressed to the children as early as they can understand it as they are brought up in a good Puritan work ethic. The kids have never had any issues with feeling “entitled” to anything, they have always earned and felt they ought to earn their keep. The Daddy tax is accepted wholeheartedly as a sort of payment for the rest of the cookie- something that is considered a treat and not necessary for survival. It is one more way to earn something.

I especially love the heartbreaking political rants on this post.

I really don’t want to clog this thread with a related, but off-topic discussion, so I’ll say this and be done –

1. If the “T” in Dan’s equation were divided by 300 Million making each person pay their share, then I would probably be okay with it. It is not. The problem is that the voting population (arguably a majority of the voters) who choose the services, don’t end up paying for them. They impose that burden on the minority who wouldn’t choose those services if they had a choice.

2. If services were limited to “security, roads, and firemen” and people in my tax bracket were required to pay most of those taxes, I would probably be okay with that too. However the services we are talking about go so far beyond the scope of “security, roads and firemen” that the burden becomes excessive for the minority of taxpayers who pay the vast majority of taxes.

Okay, sorry Nasamomdelle, Dan can respond if it floats his boat, but I’m done.

Tagore, I think the Daddy Tax is brilliant. Indoctrinate your children as much as you can. If Dan thinks it will teach them not to respect the government or their obligation to pay for useless, wasteful programs, then I’m all for it.

DKL,

Raising smart kids in Utah is guaranteed to make them both Democrats and liberal, because they see first hand how vile and blackhearted Republicans are.

Tagore:

Doesn’t sound there is any consensus in the comments about what kind of political persuasion your children will grow up into being raised under the Dad Tax (we had one growing up in my house too). My own opinion is that you’re turning them into that peculiar political creature that can thrive in any ideology, conservative or liberal. Yes Tagore, you are raising your children to be lobbyists!

queuno: The benevolent dictator is an interesting idea. But do you think it makes your kids more or less likely to become fascists?

Dunno. Hopefully it will make them into benevolent dictators as well.

As I said, I let them reason with me (my 10-year-old daughter is very good at this). Sometimes I agree. Sometimes I don’t. I always try to explain my decisions. Sometimes, though, the decision is too complicated to explain and capricious and I have to resort to “because I said so”. But really, not often.

The great thing is that my children seem to understand a father’s (and mother’s prerogative) to make a decision, and they understand how they contribute to the decision, so they really do take a sense of ownership in the dictatorship. What’s even better is when the older two work out their own issue before risking a judgment.

I really don’t think the Kingdom of God will operate as a democratic republic, or a republican democracy. I don’t think our form of government will endure. I think the Kingdom of God will function like a benevolent dictatorship.

Growing up, there was a family who tried to operate as a mini-United Order. Whatever money you made from babysitting was subject to being taken to help someone else who might be in need. Of course, I would get into arguments with the dad (who was our bishop for a time) over my view that he had only implemented a poor form of socialism.

But the kids are now all rock-hard conservatives who try as hard as they can to take away other people’s money. One of them even tried to get me to sign up for Amway.

Please, people: It’s “Dad Tax,” not “Daddy Tax.” The latter makes it sound like it’s some kind of cute game. Do you think taxes are funny?

Jota G, nasamomdele, Dan, KyleM, queuno: Interesting ideas, all around.

Dan Ellsworth: The question your San Francisco experience raises is whether you stopped long enough at that intersection for the Iraq War.

Jeff Bennion: Yikes!

DKL,

I think you should insert another “*” into your cussing.

Tagore,

I need to figure out some way to impose the Dad Tax in my house. The problem I have is that I gave up sugar about seven months ago. Any ideas?

I guess I could take the stuff out of principal and hide it somewhere, give it to my wife or throw it away. Do you think the idea that “the power to tax is the power to destroy” is only properly conveyed when the kids see you consume their edibles? Maybe the lesson would be equally conveyed if I just ripped off a piece of their stuff and threw it in the garbage. I could then say “this is what happens with taxes – government waste.” As much as the principle is important, I can’t take this approach because I couldn’t endure the big eyes welled up with tears that would inevitably follow such a demonstration.

I don’t think the principle is as readily conveyed using non-perishables. I only need so much GeoTrax playing time, and my 3-year-old doesn’t see it as a burden to let me have my turn.

Tagore:

And what about spanking? Is this a liberal or conservative tactic? While the practice is often associated with conservatives, isn’t it arguably a liberal approach? The government (i.e., parent) intervenes in the market (i.e., the kid’s behavior) to control it in a way deemed desirable by the government. In any case, is it more likely to make kids politically liberal, or conservative?

Obviously a liberal interventionist tactic. In a free market, Adam Smith’s invisible hand does the spanking for you.

Jota G: Well, if your underlying interest is in teaching your kids to dislike government, you’ve got some options beyond the tax. You could have your neighbor dress up like a monster, come over to the house and start stealing things while shouting menacingly, “I’m the Government!” He could then laugh wickedly and run off with some of their prized possessions. You probably need to do that only once to make your kids completely horrified of the government.

DKL: Fascinating point; worthy of its own post.

ctlewis: LOL. Good point.

queuno: No, everyone is not overthinking; they (and you) are all underthinking. My post is not really about taxes, kids, or candy. It’s a larger discourse about the limitations and failures of US foreign policy in a post-911 world from a post-modernist perspective. I’m surprised you didn’t pick up on that.

ctlewis, LOL. Very astute point about spanking.

danithew, that’s it! The new subtitle of the ‘nacle! It shall henceforth be called,

“The Bloggernacle: Where people equate their own opinions with common sense and simultaneously believe that anyone who disagrees (with them) is an idiot.”

Tagore –

No, I did pick up on it, but … I’m a little hesitant to believe that you actually sat down and created a scenario to teach this to your children. I still think that you wanted the darn sweets and when the kids protested, you came up with a way to legitimize it. The “Dad tax” is a well-known way to steal candy from a baby, so to speak.

(I’ll equate this to the people who insist that the purpose of BYU football is to attract people to the missionaries. No, it’s because people like college football. The fact that we baptize one or two people a year at a cost of millions of dollars gets thrust out there as the key.)

Danithew: It’s fascinating how many people equate their own opinions with common sense and simultaneously believe that anyone who disagrees (with them) is an idiot.

Well said. I’m appalled sometimes by how many completely blind retards there are who wouldn’t know the truth if it bit them in the shorts, but who view anyone whose opinions deviate from their own moronic beliefs as an idiot.

DKL–#47 was hilarious.

Tagore–How about my favorite: “I’m just making sure it’s not poisonous” to turn them against the pseudo solicitous nanny state and to teach them to be dismissive of unreasonable fears.

Dan (40) –

You said: “But let me just tell you now, the fury of liberals will be nothing compared to that of conservatives if liberals were to cross that arbitrary line of no return and do something to this country that conservatives do not approve of. Because conservatives tie their political beliefs so strongly to their religious beliefs, their ability (or inability) to compromise, especially with something that crosses their point of no return, will render them with no choice but to get violent. Mark my words.”

Wow, I’m glad I have my food storage, or at least that Ellsworth has his food storage and will share with me when the rampaging conservatives start overthrowing the country because the liberals “crossed the line.”

Dan, the conservatives don’t need to get violent if the liberals “cross the line” all we have to do is stop working and get in line for our check. Then, who will pay the taxes to fund all the entitlements? The whole liberal system would come screeching to a hault. The Germans learned you can print money only so fast.

To tie it back to the thread – if nobody’s providing the cookies, there’s no Dad Tax.

But, that said, go ahead, make my day. You feelin’ lucky, punk?

Suprise, suprise. Who’s the one advocating violence now?

Bah. You cite Jefferson, but I’ll credit Marko Ramius with that line (who was surely channeling Jefferson, anyway).

“we’ve had no peace with Republicans in charge and it is time that ends.”

I’m going to keep my eye on the news for you.

Honestly, we’ve had no peace with Democrats, either. I don’t think overwhelming peace is very much achievable in our world. Let me know when Radical Fundamentalist Islam takes a passive position and juntas cease to exist. I think history shows that none of our problems are solely attributable to Democrats or Republicans. I think history also shows that the daddy tax is government policy.

I’m the product of two educators (K-8 and university).

They used to think that both leaned so far to the right I swear that the left thinks that they are to the left of the left (I envision politics as a circle, not a line).

I have figured out, though, that it’s because one parent will not vary the teachings of my grandparents, and refuses to discuss anything “questionable” about the Church. Forget Dialogue or Sunstone or the Bloggernacle, books not sold by Deseret Books are not considered Church-kosher. My other parent never dropped intellectual curiosity, but chose not to make the waves within the marriage, especially in front of the children.

And yes, it still bothers me to this day that they couldn’t have had a more open-discussion environment.

(It’s an urban legend that you have to take the sacrament with the right hand, correct?)

Adam E.: LOL

61 and 62: But see here. Scroll down to the second question. (Not to threadjack my own post…)

queuno,

We are not afraid to have open discussions in our home. My wife and I are very communicative and we express our often various and also like-minded views. The thing is that both of us are quite comfortable with our opinions, ideologies, and philosophies so we’re not afraid to have a good open debate about something new.

I wasn’t implying you didn’t, Dan. I’m sorry if I came across like that. I was just throwing out a counterexample to the oft-cited meme that educators tend to be more left-leaning.

Tagore-
My sincere apologies for a further threadjack… I’ll make it up to you on your next thread with a very on-point reply.

queuno 68: When I think of the cliff analogy, I think of the story of the carriage drivers: the first bragged that he could drive within inches of the cliff, yada yada yada, the third said he would stay as far from the side of the cliff as possible. The passenger, of course, chose the third carriage driver to take him down the road. By this analogy, the weeds really shouldn’t affect the ride at all.

However, if there was a rut on the other side of the road, that would be a different story. You seem to be saying you avoid the cliff of personal apostasy (danger of being too unorthodox) and the rut of meaningless ritual and repetition (danger of blind adherence to traditions for sake of traditions). The gray area, of course, is this: do you take the sacramant with your right hand because Elder Nelson thinks it is a show of respect, even if you do not? (excellent and prompt link, btw, Tagore)

That was a loaded question, because, although I am doctrinally orthodox, I am unorthodox when it comes to following traditions for the sake of tradition. I believe the hand used should not even be considered when taking the sacrament. It’s a meaningless (to me, of course, since I cannot speak for anyone else) distraction from the purpose of the ordinance.

Jota G.

That’s probably one good definition of an unorthodox Mormon: “a Mormon who does not necessarily feel bound by an unwritten order of things.”

queuno,

#67,

Oh don’t worry, you didn’t come off that way at all. I was merely adding that in our household we’re quite communicative.

(Threadjack – Adam – I’m quite familiar with the driving/edge of cliff analogy. I extended it to cover obsessive superorthodoxy. And you’re throwing out a loaded question but using wet ammo. I don’t think that it’s even a sign of respect to use the right hand. I think it’s habit. Keep in mind, that in every other case where the right hand is used, it is through mandate or invitation. The sacrament is neither. I don’t think it matters one single whit where it’s used or not. It’s just like priests who put one hand behind their back. It’s not mandated or even suggested, it’s not doctrinal, it’s “superorthodox”.)

I will agree with your last statement about orthodoxy and Tagore’s Dad tax. Although, I will continue to maintain that Tagore has invented a nice justification to counter protests against his sweet tooth.

Kyle, this is far from over. Despite queuno’s insistence on maligning my motives, there are depths to the brilliance of the Dad Tax of which we’ve only begun to scratch the surface.

Dan #80

The brilliance of the Dad Tax lies in its unpredictability, I think.

Kids need structure: true.

But kids also love chaos within the structure. Living with the fear that the sleeping Giant in his recliner may at any time awaken, yawn, stretch, and then look down on your stash of candy, and demand a tribute of his choosing, is exciting! It’s like swimming in the dark waters of the ocean and wondering if a giant fish is going to nibble on your feet (or eat you)! No, really, it’s a lot like that.

But while losing candy is very exciting in a law-of-the-jungle sort of way, losing money is not. Most likely Tagore has instilled capitalist values in his children when it comes to money. If so, while they may suffer through the Dad Tax on candy and dessert, I would be very interested to see the result if it were applied to cold, hard cash, and, by extension, to actual government taxes and taxation policies.

In other news, I just ate one of my 2-year-old’s piece of cheese. Booyah!

I suffer under the tyranny of the wife tax. No matter how much she’s eaten, she always wants a bite of mine.