Duggars make 17!

[ducklite]

There are a lot of home churches - there's has a numbered membership of over 100 people. I know a lot of churches that have memberships that are a lot less than that! They have "bought used and saved the difference" (that's their motto) and own commercial real estate debt-free that they have rental income from. The man served the government (in the form you are supposed to I might add, i.e. he didn't spend his entire career in politics but instead served and went back to the private sector - politics is not supposed to be a life-long career but a obligation to serve and return to private sector living - something most politicians have lost sight of).

They save, buy at auctions, purchase clothes at thrift stores (they could use a makeover, but geez that's a lot of people to try and clothe in more up-to-date styles). We could all learn something from these people in regards to living on a budget! Yes, they have sponsors, and get help from people, but so do people who decide to do IVF and have 8 babies at one time. These people don't ask for anything from anyone other than themselves, but if people or TV shows want to pay them for telling their story - more power to them!

What does all of that have to do with them not paying their fair share of taxes?

Mayor Bloomberg and Governors Corzine and Schwazenegger (sp?) not only pay their taxes, but they also serve the people for free. I'm not seeing where spending four years in the state assembly makes this guy worthy of anything other than putting it on his resume. You make him out to sound like a saint. I know plenty of people who have spent a lot more of their lives serving for free volunteering for good causes. And they still pay their taxes.

I can understand not paying a small portion of property taxes on the room in their home used for worship. but the way I'm understanding it, they are basically paying nothing in property or income taxes, and I have a real problem with that.

Anne

 

[mom2mek]

What does all of that have to do with them not paying their fair share of taxes?

Mayor Bloomberg and Governors Corzine and Schwazenegger (sp?) not only pay their taxes, but they also serve the people for free. I'm not seeing where spending four years in the state assembly makes this guy worthy of anything other than putting it on his resume. You make him out to sound like a saint. I know plenty of people who have spent a lot more of their lives serving for free volunteering for good causes. And they still pay their taxes.

I can understand not paying a small portion of property taxes on the room in their home used for worship. but the way I'm understanding it, they are basically paying nothing in property or income taxes, and I have a real problem with that.

Anne

Maybe you misunderstood. My first part of the post was in regards to the tax status of the home church. I was not implying, with the second part of my post, that just because someone serves in the government, that they get certain tax breaks (although a lot of them feel that way, LOL). My point was to show that the man has WORKED all his life (private sector and public sector) - that they don't receive welfare and medicaid to pay for their personal decisions. They take the responsibility of raising their family seriously and don't depend on others to share in the burden. They homeschool (for which the tax breaks are virtually non-existent) and don't reap any benefits from the public school tax support. Buying curriculums, computers, etc is not cheap (my sister home schools and by no means is it a way to SAVE money - it's very expensive if you do it right). BTW, the Duggar's oldest son graduated from high school (passing a state exam) 2 years ahead of other children his age. They are by no means entitled to tax breaks just because he served the government - sorry if that wasn't what came across in my post.

 

[jackskellingtonsgirl]

Interesting thread.

What concerns me is that the older children have to raise the younger ones. That is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Bless their hearts, none of those kids could ever decline the responsibilty of caring for younger siblings if they didn't want the burden. They just get handed a younger child and are expected to handle it.

Just because a girl is biologically capable of reproducing at age 13 I think we can agree that a 13 year old isn't mature enough to raise a baby. By the same token, children 13 and under aren't mature enough to raise their siblings, either. Having a few chores to do in addition to schooling and extracurricular activities and church is PLENTY for adolescents. They do NOT need to be raising babies. The problem here is that they don't have enough knowledge of the outside world to recognize that other children and teens are NOT expected to raise babies. It will be interesting to see if any of the kids choose to try to experience life outside of the compound, or if it would never occur to any of them to wonder what lies beyond.

 

[Mkrop]

They homeschool (for which the tax breaks are virtually non-existent) and don't reap any benefits from the public school tax support. /QUOTE]


Tax breaks are non existent for those that send their children to private or paraochial schools either! But they should not get tax breaks on the entire land. DH gets tax writeoffs for a home office, it is that room and only that room, so let them pick a worship room, or build a chapel on all that land they have "saved" for the kids and then pay the rest, that would be fair!

 

[chobie]

Interesting thread.

What concerns me is that the older children have to raise the younger ones. That is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Bless their hearts, none of those kids could ever decline the responsibilty of caring for younger siblings if they didn't want the burden. They just get handed a younger child and are expected to handle it.

Just because a girl is biologically capable of reproducing at age 13 I think we can agree that a 13 year old isn't mature enough to raise a baby. By the same token, children 13 and under aren't mature enough to raise their siblings, either. Having a few chores to do in addition to schooling and extracurricular activities and church is PLENTY for adolescents. They do NOT need to be raising babies. The problem here is that they don't have enough knowledge of the outside world to recognize that other children and teens are NOT expected to raise babies. It will be interesting to see if any of the kids choose to try to experience life outside of the compound, or if it would never occur to any of them to wonder what lies beyond.

That's just it. Their world view is so limited. They only associate with other compound families like themselves. They are dressed in a way that ostracizes them from society (especially the girls) and unlike the Amish, they do not get a chance to run wild and then decide whether to live the life they were raised in. They are completely indoctrinated into a way of living that is very far from the norm of society. I support their right to raise their kids these ways, but I question their sincerity when they parade themselves on tv and I feel they are doing a disservice to their kids even though they have the right to do this.

And again, I find nothing to admire about these people.

 

[ducklite]

They homeschool (for which the tax breaks are virtually non-existent) and don't reap any benefits from the public school tax support.

Tax breaks are non existent for those that send their children to private or paraochial schools either! But they should not get tax breaks on the entire land. DH gets tax writeoffs for a home office, it is that room and only that room, so let them pick a worship room, or build a chapel on all that land they have "saved" for the kids and then pay the rest, that would be fair!

That's my perspective as well. As I understand it, they are paying no income or property taxes, and I've got a real problem with that when so many families of lower means struggle to pay thier bills.

I moved here after my son was out of school, and yet the school portion alone of my 2006 property taxes was over $4000. That's the way life works--or is supposed to anyhow.

Anne

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

That's my perspective as well. As I understand it, they are paying no income or property taxes, and I've got a real problem with that when so many families of lower means struggle to pay thier bills.

Anne

As I understand it, that's just a rumor that spread and continued to grow...

https://www.ark.org/washingtoncounty/index.php?ac:show:step3b_itemdetail=1&billno=815-29111-030
https://www.ark.org/washingtoncounty/index.php?ac:show:step3b_itemdetail=1&billno=2901455
https://www.ark.org/washingtoncounty/index.php?ac:show:step3b_itemdetail=1&billno=830-38318-000
http://www.duggarfamily.com/contactus.html

The address matches up with the address on their website.

If you go to the Arkansas tax website and enter their name it shows $0 for 2006. But if you click on each property (they seem to have the property divided up into multiple sections) it comes up as paid.

 

[mom2mek]

That's just it. Their world view is so limited. They only associate with other compound families like themselves. They are dressed in a way that ostracizes them from society (especially the girls) and unlike the Amish, they do not get a chance to run wild and then decide whether to live the life they were raised in. They are completely indoctrinated into a way of living that is very far from the norm of society. I support their right to raise their kids these ways, but I question their sincerity when they parade themselves on tv and I feel they are doing a disservice to their kids even though they have the right to do this.

And again, I find nothing to admire about these people.

These kids are not cooped up in a house to never leave. They go to private music lessons outside the home, they go on family trips, (went to DL - do you think the kids just close their eyes to all the other children they see); they are aware that they are not the norm! They embrace it! They have other friends (I'm beginning to wonder if a lot of the people on this thread have actually watched the documentaries on this family). They go out to restaurants, to stores, to parks, to hospitals, on vacation, etc. Yes some of the places they go are filled with other families similar to theirs, but we all do that - I tend to hang out with people that see life in a similar way or have similar interests. Their grandparents are "normal" people (whatever that is). They might dress modest and where discreet clothing, but is that wrong really? Would it be so bad if more children and teenagers dressed a little bit more conservatively? One of the girls on the show said they like to do the TV shows because they hope some people will watch and learn of their love for the Lord and eachother and be inspired - what is their to hate about that?

Joyful, happy, healthy, unselfish children who enjoy helping eachother and others - someone stop this! It's un-American!

 

[ducklite]

As I understand it, that's just a rumor that spread and continued to grow...

https://www.ark.org/washingtoncounty/index.php?ac:show:step3b_itemdetail=1&billno=815-29111-030
https://www.ark.org/washingtoncounty/index.php?ac:show:step3b_itemdetail=1&billno=2901455
https://www.ark.org/washingtoncounty/index.php?ac:show:step3b_itemdetail=1&billno=830-38318-000
http://www.duggarfamily.com/contactus.html

The address matches up with the address on their website.

If you go to the Arkansas tax website and enter their name it shows $0 for 2006. But if you click on each property (they seem to have the property divided up into multiple sections) it comes up as paid.

Interesting. I stand corrected if this is what it appears to be. The "personal property tax" in the one link would most likely be the tax on a commercially registered vehicle.

Where is Jim Bob's office? Could the one tax bill be for an office building?

Anne

 

[barkley]

There are a lot of home churches - there's has a numbered membership of over 100 people. I know a lot of churches that have memberships that are a lot less than that! They have "bought used and saved the difference" (that's their motto) and own commercial real estate debt-free that they have rental income from. The man served the government (in the form you are supposed to I might add, i.e. he didn't spend his entire career in politics but instead served and went back to the private sector - politics is not supposed to be a life-long career but a obligation to serve and return to private sector living - something most politicians have lost sight of).

They save, buy at auctions, purchase clothes at thrift stores (they could use a makeover, but geez that's a lot of people to try and clothe in more up-to-date styles). We could all learn something from these people in regards to living on a budget! Yes, they have sponsors, and get help from people, but so do people who decide to do IVF and have 8 babies at one time. These people don't ask for anything from anyone other than themselves, but if people or TV shows want to pay them for telling their story - more power to them!

duggar's return to private sector living was not of his own choosing. he served in the arkansas house of representatives from 99-02, and ran twice more but was defeated (u.s. senate in '02 and arkansas senate in '06). he still has potitical aspirations-it's just the constituents in his region are not supportive. he is working towards gaining another political post-and one of the programs he is currently working on is a property tax credit for homeschoolers (which right or wrong-many of his constituents feel is geared not to benefit the average homeschooler so much as the other followers of his lifestyle who have been unsuccessful at their attempts to get the church designation for their private homes).

as for them not asking people for things-check out the credits at the end of their tlc specials-they now produce those specials, so it is they who approach the dozens of manufacturers of furniture, appliances and household wares for donations in exchage for advertising them. i realize that this is a popular trend in advertising-abc's extreme home makeover does it all the time-the difference being that the participant/recipients on that and similar shows bare the tax consequences-but the duggars because they have their home designated as a church do not. if their home is truly utilized as a church i have no issue with items related to that function falling under the tax exempt status-but the beds, the bedding, the decorator touches that were personalized for their children's use...don't appear (imo) to be appropriate for this designation.

 

[BuzznBelle'smom]

I feel a little better hearing that the oldest son passed a test to complete HS--I would feel even better if I knew the girls would take and pass such a test, too. Not a slam on home schoolers at all, but to me, this would show that these children are, in fact, learning more than how to fold clothes and cook for a crowd.

I find the whole idea of putting their family up for public scrutiny to be odd, in the least. I'm sure they justify it as spreading the good word or some such, but the reality is, they're selling their lifestyle for financial profit--as barkley mentioned, the tons of donations listed at the end of the shows.

 

[JennyMominRI]

These kids are not cooped up in a house to never leave. They go to private music lessons outside the home, they go on family trips, (went to DL - do you think the kids just close their eyes to all the other children they see); they are aware that they are not the norm! They embrace it! They have other friends (I'm beginning to wonder if a lot of the people on this thread have actually watched the documentaries on this family). !

Because we think there is something wrong about the family we must not have watched the shows?
I've watched every single one once or twice.. The very first special on them was edited heavily before it was shown again months later.. It was like someone did a complete PR makeover on them..
I have a fascination with shows about big families.. Like I mentioned before there was series about large families on the discovery channel or TLC. I liked those families and don't realy have any criticisms about them.. The Duggars are a differet story though .

 

[eclectics]

And again, I find nothing to admire about these people.

Me either. Just my opinion. I would never deny anyone the right to live their lives the way they see fit. I just don't see how these kids are getting the full benefit of their parents love and attention. Seems to me, one of the prerequisites of having kids should be the ability to properly care for them. Not fair to the older kids, imho. Nothing wrong with expecting them to help out, but not when it becomes all encompassing. The older kids quality of life is being negatively impacted.

As far as the tax thing goes, sure, no reason not to explore legitimate avenues to ease your burden. But when you have to go to extremes such as declaring yourself a church, maybe it's time to concentrate on taking care of the children you already have and stop having more. As Judge Judy likes to say; "Don't make babies if you can't afford to raise them properly". Simple advice, but it works for me.

 

[chobie]

These kids are not cooped up in a house to never leave. They go to private music lessons outside the home, they go on family trips, (went to DL - do you think the kids just close their eyes to all the other children they see); they are aware that they are not the norm! They embrace it! They have other friends (I'm beginning to wonder if a lot of the people on this thread have actually watched the documentaries on this family). They go out to restaurants, to stores, to parks, to hospitals, on vacation, etc. Yes some of the places they go are filled with other families similar to theirs, but we all do that - I tend to hang out with people that see life in a similar way or have similar interests. Their grandparents are "normal" people (whatever that is). They might dress modest and where discreet clothing, but is that wrong really? Would it be so bad if more children and teenagers dressed a little bit more conservatively? One of the girls on the show said they like to do the TV shows because they hope some people will watch and learn of their love for the Lord and eachother and be inspired - what is their to hate about that?

Joyful, happy, healthy, unselfish children who enjoy helping eachother and others - someone stop this! It's un-American!

More like creepy, cult-like, xenophobes. It is un-American to not want your kids to pursue whatever career they want and to limit their exposure to what the world has to offer. A trip to the store or Disneyland does not make for a good world overview.

They are whoring themselves on tv for some freebies and possibly to help Jim Bob political career.

I don't hate them, but I don't find them admirable either. Any animal can reproduce.

 

[ducklite]

These kids are not cooped up in a house to never leave. They go to private music lessons outside the home, they go on family trips, (went to DL - do you think the kids just close their eyes to all the other children they see); they are aware that they are not the norm! They embrace it! They have other friends (I'm beginning to wonder if a lot of the people on this thread have actually watched the documentaries on this family). They go out to restaurants, to stores, to parks, to hospitals, on vacation, etc. Yes some of the places they go are filled with other families similar to theirs, but we all do that - I tend to hang out with people that see life in a similar way or have similar interests. Their grandparents are "normal" people (whatever that is). They might dress modest and where discreet clothing, but is that wrong really? Would it be so bad if more children and teenagers dressed a little bit more conservatively? One of the girls on the show said they like to do the TV shows because they hope some people will watch and learn of their love for the Lord and eachother and be inspired - what is their to hate about that?

Joyful, happy, healthy, unselfish children who enjoy helping eachother and others - someone stop this! It's un-American!

Actually IIR the piano and violin teachers come to them.

I think what a lot of people feel is wrong is that there seems to be a very regimented situation where the children are not allowed to think and make decisions for themselves, or even express disagreement with the patriarchal decisions. The other issue is with the older children bearing the almost complete responsibility for a younger children's upbringing, which isn't at all fair to the children and IMHO will stunt their ability to think creatively or critically because they are too busy dealing with day to day tasks to think. (Or maybe that's exactly what their parents are trying to achieve. )

I don't think anyone feels that kids shouldn't have chores, or even help care for younger siblings. But the amount of responsibility thrust on these kids is repressive and inappropriate.

Those children are not getting a full education, I don't care what anyone says. They aren't learning science with labs, they aren't learning advanced mathemetics. I highly doubt Michelle is capable of teaching creative writing, and I'm sure they aren't reading the majority of the English or American literary classics due to "objectionable" content. They are getting the equivelent of a GED at best. They will never be able to get a decent score on the SAT's becaues they simply don't have the educational background to do so. That will greatly affect their career choice potential, as they will not be elegible for 95% of the colleges in this country without taking additional remedial college classes first. In a nutshell, their parents are setting them up to fail outside of their narrow little world. There's more to living then worshipping God and popping out babies. Jim Duggar knows that, and he's doing a tremendous disservice to his kids by not allowing them to fully see it as well.

Anne

 

[ducklite]

Because we think there is something wrong about the family we must not have watched the shows?
I've watched every single one once or twice.. The very first special on them was edited heavily before it was shown again months later.. It was like someone did a complete PR makeover on them..
I have a fascination with shows about big families.. Like I mentioned before there was series about large families on the discovery channel or TLC. I liked those families and don't realy have any criticisms about them.. The Duggars are a differet story though .

Jenni,

I think you hit the nail on the head. Every Christmas I look forward to the issue of Good Housekeeping with the McCaughey septuplets (and Mikayla) on the cover. They are certainly a large, and devoutly religious family. I love to read about the progress of Alexis and Nathan. I love to read about how Bobbi is holding up--for a couple years she seemed on the verge of frazzaledom, but now she takes it all in stride. They seem like a normal, albeit large family. One who laughs and cries, raises their voices. The kids argue, get in thier older sisters hair, and ham it up for the camera. They don't seem like they are almost afraid to speak up, afraid to disagree, which is the vibe I get from the Duggars.

Anne

 

[mom2mek]

To quote a few well-knowns:

Pope John Paul II said that the greatest gift a parent could give his child was another sibling.

Mother Theresa compared children in a large family to flowers in a garden, and asked how one could have too many.

The Psalms teach that children are a blessing from God (remember Him?) and that children are like arrows in the quiver of a warrior.

I only have 3 children - really, it's all I can handle (and at times too much to handle), but our society's embrace of one- and two-child families is serving to raise a generation of self-centered, demanding, immature people who have no clue about self-sacrifice or true service. I would be happy if my children could grow up to put their siblings, neighbors, and others' needs ahead of their own.

 

[ducklite]

To quote a few well-knowns:

Pope John Paul II said that the greatest gift a parent could give his child was another sibling.

So two kids=they each have another sibling.

Mother Theresa compared children in a large family to flowers in a garden, and asked how one could have too many.

While she had many she might have considered her children, when it really came down to it, she never bore a single child. Instead she took care of the children of women who had kids they couldn't take care of.

The Psalms teach that children are a blessing from God (remember Him?) and that children are like arrows in the quiver of a warrior.

But even that quiver can become full. When the warriors quiver is so full that he needs the help of others to care for his arrows, it's time to stop getting more. The Duggar parents are completely unable to take care of their children on their own without the help of the indentured servents--I mean older kids.

I only have 3 children - really, it's all I can handle (and at times too much to handle), but our society's embrace of one- and two-child families is serving to raise a generation of self-centered, demanding, immature people who have no clue about self-sacrifice or true service. I would be happy if my children could grow up to put their siblings, neighbors, and others' needs ahead of their own.

I absolutely disagree. I have one child and he is hardly celf-centered, demanding, or immature. He does volunteer work and almost never asks for anything. never has. And we've never spoiled him. If you ask him my favorite word, he'll tell you it's "no." I think that implying that any family who doesn't have multiple children is raising horrid self-centered brats is beyond rude. It's also completely untrue. I've seen large families with aboslute monsters for kids, I've seen only children who were terrors. I don't see how the size of a family makes any difference.

Anne

 

[JennyMominRI]

To quote a few well-knowns:

Pope John Paul II said that the greatest gift a parent could give his child was another sibling.

Mother Theresa compared children in a large family to flowers in a garden, and asked how one could have too many.

The Psalms teach that children are a blessing from God (remember Him?) and that children are like arrows in the quiver of a warrior.

I only have 3 children - really, it's all I can handle (and at times too much to handle), but our society's embrace of one- and two-child families is serving to raise a generation of self-centered, demanding, immature people who have no clue about self-sacrifice or true service. I would be happy if my children could grow up to put their siblings, neighbors, and others' needs ahead of their own.

I think part of the problem here is that you take this as a slam on large families.. I wanted a large family..Medical issues stopped that. I spoke of my long standing desire to have a large family long before the Duggar debate.. Most of us would probably choose not to have 17 kids, but I don't care how many you or Michelle Duggar choose to have..It's not how many kids she has that is the real issue, it is how she is raising them that is the issue

 

[chobie]

How much running around, playing ball, riding on bikes etc. can those little girls do wearing those long, heavy skirts? Even their freedom of movement is restricted. How archaic is that?