Twins born a year a part on New Years eve


#1

[Permalink]


#2

7/17/53.


#3

The crazy thing is when one twin is allowed to start school but the other is held back because they're too young. Most schools have an August cutoff now so this probably won't be an issue with these two, but it's a good example how how arbitrary the lines can be sometimes.


#4

My daughter's birthday is just a few days after our school district's cutoff date. I did look into what would be needed to start her "early", and it wasn't that much of a hassle. We're not going to do it, but it's not because it was going to be difficult.


#5

its a new fad, http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/toronto-area-mom-delivers-twin-girls-on-new-year-s-one-born-in-2013-the-other-in-2014-1.1614183


#6

The worst part about this is missing out on a tax exemption when filing 2013 taxes. In the US, the 2013 tax exemption is $3900 per dependent. In the 25% tax bracket, that's almost $1000. If the baby had been 2 seconds earlier, the Begazo's would be getting back a lot more money in April.

It's kind of funny that if you're in the 10% tax bracket (poor) Uncle Sam gives you less than $400 per kid when you file taxes, if you're in the 40% tax bracket (rich), Uncle Sam gives you over $1500 when you file taxes. "Just giving you your money back" as they say, I guess. And let's face it, rich kids are more expensive to raise...


#7

Your mom would not have the choice today, my middle son was delivered a couple minutes to midnight via cell phones and hospital clocks but the machine that went 'ping' said a couple minutes after midnight. Ms. Ratchet said "Nein" to the date I would have chosen, the one with the unseasonal thunder and lightning that morning.


#8

Actually, if you're in the 40% (really 39.6%) tax bracket, Uncle Sam gives you nothing, because the dependent exemption is subject to a phaseout that completely wipes out the deductibility of the dependent exemption before you hit the 39.6% bracket.


#9

This is far more crazy/interesting for those living in Korea. In Korea, you are considered one year old when you are born (which includes gestation period). Then, every Jan 1st, you gain a year. Thus, a child born Dec 31st is two years old on Jan 1st... but that twin born on Jan 1st will remain one year old until the following Jan 1st.

In Korea, these twins are considered one year apart.


#10

Are there currently any teenage arguments going on between pairs of twins born around midnight on December 31st about which of their little sisters or brothers was really born in a different century because their birth was 1999/2000 and the other pair were 2000/2001?

I don't suppose such a feat was managed in the same family mind.


#11

Nobody else is bothered about the use of the term "a year apart" here? Huh. I thought this was a story involving stolen embryos, cryogenics, speedboat-car-chases and robo-baboons. Woulda made more sense.


#12

It bothered me.

They weren't born "a year apart" but rather in sequential calendar years.

However, I don't benefit in any way from the advertising revenues of the website, so my decisions about sensationalistic headlines would be really irrelevant.


#13

I was bothered by it. Did not get as far as robo-baboons though ...


#14

Not a year, but...

http://gizmodo.com/how-two-twins-were-born-87-days-apart-1473107362


#15

Yup, that's specifically what I came in here to comment on (and to add the Mississauga twins linked above, too).

As for the school birthday cutoff - at least for the Mississauga kids, they very well could end up in different years, if their parents want them to be. The cutoff here is still December 31. My son's J/K class is full of kids with November/December birthdays.


#16

Who would choose 7/16/77? I'd be all for additional sevens.


#17

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.