Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The cost is progressive: the wealthy members pay more than the poor members.

That doesn't mean anything. We have a household income of $160,000 (now living outside of DC) which appears to be in the top 5% of our small town BUT we're dipping into savings to pay a nanny. I'd be pretty ticked off if we were expected to pay based on our HHI.

nanny is a luxury item you choose to have. Do you expect others to pay your share because of lifestyle choices?

Is it a luxury when the only daycares around are unlicensed in-home ones? No, sorry, it's not.

Thank goodness I am Catholic.

If you're Catholic, why do you care how much synagogues charge?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The cost is progressive: the wealthy members pay more than the poor members.

That doesn't mean anything. We have a household income of $160,000 (now living outside of DC) which appears to be in the top 5% of our small town BUT we're dipping into savings to pay a nanny. I'd be pretty ticked off if we were expected to pay based on our HHI.

nanny is a luxury item you choose to have. Do you expect others to pay your share because of lifestyle choices?

Is it a luxury when the only daycares around are unlicensed in-home ones? No, sorry, it's not.

Thank goodness I am Catholic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The cost is progressive: the wealthy members pay more than the poor members.

That doesn't mean anything. We have a household income of $160,000 (now living outside of DC) which appears to be in the top 5% of our small town BUT we're dipping into savings to pay a nanny. I'd be pretty ticked off if we were expected to pay based on our HHI.

So, you would rather see 2K/family regardless of income, so someone making 20K pays the same as you? I bet 1) you are not jewish, and 2) your candidates debated last night.

I am not Jewish and I vote Libertarian (I don't even know who debated last night, so I can't answer that).

And that's not what I said. What I said was that even apparently well off families sometimes can't afford it.

Libertarian...explains it. Every man for him/herself. No communal good.

I'm sorry, I missed where I said I was economically libertarian.

Just how would you expect me to pay as much as a single man making $160,000 a year?

No, but I expect you to pay more than a family making 55K, and less than a family making 300K.

When I was making 55K, I had a lot more disposable income than now. I think you're being deliberately obtuse as to how this works.

No, I think I nailed it. You are making choices...the house you live in is probably nicer than mine (it is not hard), the cars you drive, child care (nanny vs ?), pets, vacation choices. My only luxury these days is I spend 1000/month (1/8th of my take-home pay) on cancer treatment. This is after insurance. I pay my share at temple. It is negotiated down from the baseline....but I pay it.

We live in a $120,000 house, both paid cash for used cars, and don't go on vacations. We DO have a nanny because we live in an area where it's hard to find quality daycare. I guess if I'm temporarily paying less at church to keep my child safe, I'll have to answer for that later. Somehow I think the sins I'll need to answer to are much greater than loving my child.

You're definitely being obtuse. The fact is, we don't have the money. I'll say it again: When I was making 55K, I had a lot more disposable income than now.

IME, many people start to think more about synagogue membership once they have a family and children. Often, the main benefit to membership is access to religious school. That's not universal, of course, but when you compare who is paying in your "strata" with a graduate dues system, it will be mostly families with children.

So, I think it is fairer than thinking you are being purely compared to a random cross section of the population in terms of availability of your income. And, of course, as people have said, if you truly have a special circumstance, you can always talk to the business office.

We actually did discuss dues with our business office. Our synagogue seems pretty strict on the 3% of AGI if you only read the website. But according the woman I spoke to, they have a special arrangement with a substantial portion of the membership. The only time this takes more than a pro forma phone call is if you are asking for a huge reduction - under a $500 per year for a family or under $100/year for a single

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The cost is progressive: the wealthy members pay more than the poor members.

That doesn't mean anything. We have a household income of $160,000 (now living outside of DC) which appears to be in the top 5% of our small town BUT we're dipping into savings to pay a nanny. I'd be pretty ticked off if we were expected to pay based on our HHI.

So, you would rather see 2K/family regardless of income, so someone making 20K pays the same as you? I bet 1) you are not jewish, and 2) your candidates debated last night.

I am not Jewish and I vote Libertarian (I don't even know who debated last night, so I can't answer that).

And that's not what I said. What I said was that even apparently well off families sometimes can't afford it.

Libertarian...explains it. Every man for him/herself. No communal good.

I'm sorry, I missed where I said I was economically libertarian.

Just how would you expect me to pay as much as a single man making $160,000 a year?

No, but I expect you to pay more than a family making 55K, and less than a family making 300K.

When I was making 55K, I had a lot more disposable income than now. I think you're being deliberately obtuse as to how this works.

No, I think I nailed it. You are making choices...the house you live in is probably nicer than mine (it is not hard), the cars you drive, child care (nanny vs ?), pets, vacation choices. My only luxury these days is I spend 1000/month (1/8th of my take-home pay) on cancer treatment. This is after insurance. I pay my share at temple. It is negotiated down from the baseline....but I pay it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The cost is progressive: the wealthy members pay more than the poor members.

That doesn't mean anything. We have a household income of $160,000 (now living outside of DC) which appears to be in the top 5% of our small town BUT we're dipping into savings to pay a nanny. I'd be pretty ticked off if we were expected to pay based on our HHI.

nanny is a luxury item you choose to have. Do you expect others to pay your share because of lifestyle choices?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The cost is progressive: the wealthy members pay more than the poor members.

That doesn't mean anything. We have a household income of $160,000 (now living outside of DC) which appears to be in the top 5% of our small town BUT we're dipping into savings to pay a nanny. I'd be pretty ticked off if we were expected to pay based on our HHI.

So, you would rather see 2K/family regardless of income, so someone making 20K pays the same as you? I bet 1) you are not jewish, and 2) your candidates debated last night.

I am not Jewish and I vote Libertarian (I don't even know who debated last night, so I can't answer that).

And that's not what I said. What I said was that even apparently well off families sometimes can't afford it.

Libertarian...explains it. Every man for him/herself. No communal good.

I'm sorry, I missed where I said I was economically libertarian.

Just how would you expect me to pay as much as a single man making $160,000 a year?

No, but I expect you to pay more than a family making 55K, and less than a family making 300K.

When I was making 55K, I had a lot more disposable income than now. I think you're being deliberately obtuse as to how this works.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The cost is progressive: the wealthy members pay more than the poor members.

That doesn't mean anything. We have a household income of $160,000 (now living outside of DC) which appears to be in the top 5% of our small town BUT we're dipping into savings to pay a nanny. I'd be pretty ticked off if we were expected to pay based on our HHI.

So, you would rather see 2K/family regardless of income, so someone making 20K pays the same as you? I bet 1) you are not jewish, and 2) your candidates debated last night.

I am not Jewish and I vote Libertarian (I don't even know who debated last night, so I can't answer that).

And that's not what I said. What I said was that even apparently well off families sometimes can't afford it.

Libertarian...explains it. Every man for him/herself. No communal good.

I'm sorry, I missed where I said I was economically libertarian.

Just how would you expect me to pay as much as a single man making $160,000 a year?

No, but I expect you to pay more than a family making 55K, and less than a family making 300K.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The cost is progressive: the wealthy members pay more than the poor members.

That doesn't mean anything. We have a household income of $160,000 (now living outside of DC) which appears to be in the top 5% of our small town BUT we're dipping into savings to pay a nanny. I'd be pretty ticked off if we were expected to pay based on our HHI.

So, you would rather see 2K/family regardless of income, so someone making 20K pays the same as you? I bet 1) you are not jewish, and 2) your candidates debated last night.

I am not Jewish and I vote Libertarian (I don't even know who debated last night, so I can't answer that).

And that's not what I said. What I said was that even apparently well off families sometimes can't afford it.

Libertarian...explains it. Every man for him/herself. No communal good.

I'm sorry, I missed where I said I was economically libertarian.

Just how would you expect me to pay as much as a single man making $160,000 a year?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The cost is progressive: the wealthy members pay more than the poor members.

That doesn't mean anything. We have a household income of $160,000 (now living outside of DC) which appears to be in the top 5% of our small town BUT we're dipping into savings to pay a nanny. I'd be pretty ticked off if we were expected to pay based on our HHI.

At our temple, there is a list of suggested donations depending on income level. However, no one ever checks to verify if your income matches your donation. It's a matter of conscience. If, in good faith, you could not meet the suggested dues obligation then you just put what you can afford. There is trust by the temple administration that you do the best you can.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The cost is progressive: the wealthy members pay more than the poor members.

That doesn't mean anything. We have a household income of $160,000 (now living outside of DC) which appears to be in the top 5% of our small town BUT we're dipping into savings to pay a nanny. I'd be pretty ticked off if we were expected to pay based on our HHI.

So, you would rather see 2K/family regardless of income, so someone making 20K pays the same as you? I bet 1) you are not jewish, and 2) your candidates debated last night.

I am not Jewish and I vote Libertarian (I don't even know who debated last night, so I can't answer that).

And that's not what I said. What I said was that even apparently well off families sometimes can't afford it.

Libertarian...explains it. Every man for him/herself. No communal good.

I have Presbyterian friends who are cheap and explicitly money obsessed, but I don't generalize.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The cost is progressive: the wealthy members pay more than the poor members.

That doesn't mean anything. We have a household income of $160,000 (now living outside of DC) which appears to be in the top 5% of our small town BUT we're dipping into savings to pay a nanny. I'd be pretty ticked off if we were expected to pay based on our HHI.

So, you would rather see 2K/family regardless of income, so someone making 20K pays the same as you? I bet 1) you are not jewish, and 2) your candidates debated last night.

I am not Jewish and I vote Libertarian (I don't even know who debated last night, so I can't answer that).

And that's not what I said. What I said was that even apparently well off families sometimes can't afford it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The cost is progressive: the wealthy members pay more than the poor members.

That doesn't mean anything. We have a household income of $160,000 (now living outside of DC) which appears to be in the top 5% of our small town BUT we're dipping into savings to pay a nanny. I'd be pretty ticked off if we were expected to pay based on our HHI.

So, you would rather see 2K/family regardless of income, so someone making 20K pays the same as you? I bet 1) you are not jewish, and 2) your candidates debated last night.

Anonymous wrote:

The cost is progressive: the wealthy members pay more than the poor members.

That doesn't mean anything. We have a household income of $160,000 (now living outside of DC) which appears to be in the top 5% of our small town BUT we're dipping into savings to pay a nanny. I'd be pretty ticked off if we were expected to pay based on our HHI.