[quote=victor809]My amusement with the environment is the same as my amusement with inheritance. They both tend to highlight the lies people tell. Everyone says they love their children, but when you look at their actions from both an environmental policy standpoint, and an economic standpoint... they don't. At least not as much as they love themselves. And that makes me giggle on the inside.

On an economics side, inheritance laws/taxes are pretty straightforward. If you wait till you're dead, your stuff gets taxed. Alternatively, you can reduce the tax and increase the transfer of wealth to your children by giving them the maximum non-taxable monetary gift every year, until either you've disbursed all your money or you die. If people really wanted to maximize their children's happiness over their own, this would be much more popular than it is. People lie. they actually value their own happiness over their children's.

On the environmental side, you see the same thing. A risk has been identified. One can work to minimize that risk (yes Tail, even if man contributes some small percentage to that risk, your actions can reduce it by a percentage of a percentage)... but many people don't want to. Even if you honestly believed it was a natural phenomenon, then one would assume that their love for their children and grandchildren would inspire them to demand a scientific solution to the problem (people are awfully quick to demand a scientific cure to diseases which impact them directly). But they don't. Because it would cost more money and effort in the NOW, without benefiting them directly, only their offspring.

Conclusion. People only love their offspring as long as loving them doesn't cost them any money.

I really love reading these threads.[/quote]

Where do you get this stuff Victor? Cut and past from 'Misanthrope Weekly'?

[quote=ZRX1200]Demanding a scientific answer.......ok.[/quote]

Forty-two.

[quote=tailgater]Again, you are being too simplistic.

Loving your children does not equate to giving them all your money. It means balancing work and play. Being a happy person allows you to be a happy parent.

Some of the best parents in the world don't leave 1 cent to their kids. Some didn't pay one semester of their kids college. And yet they love them and you can't comprehend that.

Further, it's not a stretch to say that many who DO leave a bundle and pay for 100% of college don't give one rats azz about their kids.

It's no wonder you don't want kids. You are unable to see the big picture. Raising a child is not a study on "economic concepts versus maximizing happiness". Everybody has a different balance. Many get the balance wrong, but that doesn't mean they should resort to charts and graphs and an independent study.

[/quote]

You're imagining this as if we were comparing two different people... try looking at this as an intellectual exercise. One parent. They have done (or not done) all the balancing of work and play, they have (or haven't) been a happy parent. ALL those decisions have been made and done in the present and the future. We arent' comparing a wealthy ass with a poor parent who does everything... that's just a distraction. The only decision we are looking at is how they view the disposition of money.

The collection of decisions around the money boils down to a single concept: Do you try to maximize the wealth your children will have access to over their lifetime, or do you try to maximize the wealth you have access to over your entire lifetime.

[quote]

As for the lasting effect being small or enormous? That's not the point. Of course it could be devastating.

But if you take a hike in the mountains, each step you make could dislodge a pebble that falls into a rock that rolls onto a boulder that plummets down the mountain and through a dam that bursts and wipes out the town.

Do you want to live in a world that bans hiking because of this?

[/quote]

In all fairness, a dam bursting and killing an entire town has much less lasting effects than what is discussed when you talk about environmental damage. Global environmental changes aren't really reversible. It's more likely they would stabilize in whatever state they find themselves. Something which is likely to not be ideal for us. This is significantly different than just the death of thousands of people.

Don't get me wrong. I'm still not advocating we do anything about it. The environment will be fine for the next 50 years, and I don't have children. After my death the planet can burn as far as I'm concerned. So I'm totally cool with everyone who doesn't care about their kids either. I mean, not doing anything regardless of risk in the end actually maximizes my happiness, so that's good. I just find it hilarious how people think in regards to the long term.

[quote=victor809]You're imagining this as if we were comparing two different people... try looking at this as an intellectual exercise. One parent. They have done (or not done) all the balancing of work and play, they have (or haven't) been a happy parent. ALL those decisions have been made and done in the present and the future. We arent' comparing a wealthy ass with a poor parent who does everything... that's just a distraction. The only decision we are looking at is how they view the disposition of money.

The collection of decisions around the money boils down to a single concept: Do you try to maximize the wealth your children will have access to over their lifetime, or do you try to maximize the wealth you have access to over your entire lifetime. [/quote]

Again with the "wealth = happiness = proof of love".

Victor, you can be intelligent on a lot of subjects. This isn't one of them. I can't decide chicken-or-egg: whether you won't have kids because you don't get it, or if you don't get it because you don't have kids.

Either way, you're in over your head.

And that's not to say that many parents DO put their wants over their children's needs.

But nobody grows up with mental issue because mom and dad took too many vacations.

The kids emotional future is more often mortgaged by lack of attention or some other means unrelated to "wealth".

One day you might fall in love with some rugby playing chick. Or maybe just a regular hooker.

You might get married and you might know deep inside that you'd give anything to make her happy.

Then one day, you buy a box of $250 cigars for yourself. Or heck, make it a $25 bundle for your buddies.

Do you now love her less? Couldn't that money have gone to her happiness instead?

[quote=tailgater]Again with the "wealth = happiness = proof of love".

Victor, you can be intelligent on a lot of subjects. This isn't one of them. I can't decide chicken-or-egg: whether you won't have kids because you don't get it, or if you don't get it because you don't have kids.

Either way, you're in over your head.

And that's not to say that many parents DO put their wants over their children's needs.

But nobody grows up with mental issue because mom and dad took too many vacations.

The kids emotional future is more often mortgaged by lack of attention or some other means unrelated to "wealth".

One day you might fall in love with some rugby playing chick. Or maybe just a regular hooker.

You might get married and you might know deep inside that you'd give anything to make her happy.

Then one day, you buy a box of $250 cigars for yourself. Or heck, make it a $25 bundle for your buddies.

Do you now love her less? Couldn't that money have gone to her happiness instead?

[/quote]

Every time you make the argument, I'm pretty sure you aren't understanding the set-up.

I'm not talking about your cash flows, your cigar spending, your vacations (although, that would be an interesting discussion in and of itself, but is NOT part of this), I'm talking money saved over the years. Lets say you have $2MM saved up for your retirement in a 401K. You turn 65 and can pull money out penalty free at this point. Your children are probably around 30.

Your options with your retirement money are either: 1) Keep it in your hands, use it as necessary to pay your retirement expenses. Eventually you die and any remainder is given to your kids after they are taxed by the government. 2) Disburse the maximum tax free amount to your children annually, use what is in your hands to pay your retirement expenses. If you die before disbursing everything to your children, the remainder is taxed by the government. If you have disbursed everything to your children, they are then responsible for supporting the rest of your retirement expenses until you eventually die, at which point all remaining assets are already in their hands and untaxed.

As you can see, I'm not talking about "do I have an expensive cigar, or buy my kid braces" decisions... those are interesting enough, but probably not as clear cut. I'm talking decisions where you are sacrificing nothing (unless you don't trust your kids to help you when you run out of money) but are provided with the opportunity to maximize your kids wealth.

Cudda just put them into co-signed bonds and screwed the taxman out of money that was already taxed twice...maybe three or four times already...oh well...just like I'm sure you mighta had a point...oh well.

Choice Votes Statistics

No, it’s just made up by the left wing Liberals. 7 12 %

Maybe, it’s a natural cycle - not really man made. 32 56 %

Yes, it largely caused by industrial pollution. 18 31 %

Where this board is at today...looks like a runaway train.

[quote=DrMaddVibe]Choice Votes Statistics

No, it’s just made up by the left wing Liberals. 7 12 %

Maybe, it’s a natural cycle - not really man made. 32 56 %

Yes, it largely caused by industrial pollution. 18 31 %

Where this board is at today...looks like a runaway train.[/quote]

Train, train, train . . . . .train of fools . . . :-"

[quote=victor809]Every time you make the argument, I'm pretty sure you aren't understanding the set-up.

I'm not talking about your cash flows, your cigar spending, your vacations (although, that would be an interesting discussion in and of itself, but is NOT part of this), I'm talking money saved over the years. Lets say you have $2MM saved up for your retirement in a 401K. You turn 65 and can pull money out penalty free at this point. Your children are probably around 30.

Your options with your retirement money are either: 1) Keep it in your hands, use it as necessary to pay your retirement expenses. Eventually you die and any remainder is given to your kids after they are taxed by the government. 2) Disburse the maximum tax free amount to your children annually, use what is in your hands to pay your retirement expenses. If you die before disbursing everything to your children, the remainder is taxed by the government. If you have disbursed everything to your children, they are then responsible for supporting the rest of your retirement expenses until you eventually die, at which point all remaining assets are already in their hands and untaxed.

As you can see, I'm not talking about "do I have an expensive cigar, or buy my kid braces" decisions... those are interesting enough, but probably not as clear cut. I'm talking decisions where you are sacrificing nothing (unless you don't trust your kids to help you when you run out of money) but are provided with the opportunity to maximize your kids wealth. [/quote]

Again.

You equate wealth to happiness and to "proof" of their love.

I know exactly what you're saying. I just disagree on every level.

[quote=Brewha]Train, train, train . . . . .train of fools . . . :-" [/quote]

Just remember, you're along for the ride! Maybe you need to raise more awareness.

[quote=HockeyDad]Just remember, you're along for the ride! Maybe you need to raise more awareness.[/quote]

He can't afford awareness...the chinaman took his job!

Dude, "Chinaman" is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please.

How 'bout "Chi-com"?

[quote=tailgater]Again.

You equate wealth to happiness and to "proof" of their love.

I know exactly what you're saying. I just disagree on every level. [/quote]

I think I see the problem here.

You don't love your children and are just trying to shoot the messenger.

That's cool, on behalf of your children, your apology is accepted.

[quote=HockeyDad]Just remember, you're along for the ride! Maybe you need to raise more awareness.[/quote]

Are you suggesting that we have a “minimum awareness” rule imposed???

[quote=victor809]I think I see the problem here.

You don't love your children and are just trying to shoot the messenger.

That's cool, on behalf of your children, your apology is accepted. [/quote]

Is this some kind of gay rugby** awareness therapy?

Because I gave at the office...

**redundant

[quote=DrMaddVibe]He can't afford awareness...the chinaman took his job![/quote]

Fear not the man with small hands and two sticks, for the bird is the cousin or the owl – in bed.

[quote=tailgater]Is this some kind of gay rugby** awareness therapy?

Because I gave at the office...

**redundant

[/quote]

All jokes aside... I'm confused by your statement.

What exactly did you give to a gay rugby therapist in the office?

I accept your apology on behalf of the children you don't love. Except Jennifer, she refuses to accept your apology. Said something like "die already so I can get the 60% of everything you have!"

Just to keep current, when we last polled our studio audience only 1/3 agreed with the overwhelming scientific evidence the climate change is being driven by "us".

I was just wondering if we passed the 50% mark yet.

Considering that one out of four people in this country think the Sun orbits the earth, 1/3 isn't that bad. Texas and California may be leaning towards believing there really is climate change happening. Not that Texas is that much into reality.