Maybe in a relative sense, but not in an absolute sense.
Whether something is an indulgence or not is determined by the relative burden on the pocketbook, not the absolute cost.
Except that yachts deserve big tax write-offs and children don't, right?
Do personal yachts really get a "big tax write-off"? Do you have a link?
First of all, ProPublica is a leftist rag. They were the ones who wrongfully claimed that billionaires had a very small tax rate by misleadingly dividing their taxes not by their income (which is how income taxes work, duh!) but by "unrealized capital gains" which is not something our (or (almost) any other, for that matter) tax system uses as a basis for taxation.
Second, just as I thought those are deductions for business expenses. There is no special "yacht deduction". An argument could be made to reduce and tighten business deductions, but let's not pretend that it's a special "yacht" or "private jet" deduction.
So you'd prefer strict means testing? Strict means testing was the cause of the social pathologies associated with an earlier generation of welfare programs. The "no man in the house" rule produced what many welfare opponents decried about it. They like to talk about unintended consequences, but here was an unintended consequence of a policy that they like.
I agree "no man in the house" rule was stupid. At the same time, child-free working and lower-middle class people should not be subsidizing children of middle-middle and upper-middle class people with children.
Furthermore, any child tax benefit should not be linear (as our system is) but should taper off with number of children, giving less benefit after 2nd child and none after 5th. This is for two reasons - costs of children are not linear, as there are significant economies of scale in housing, transportation, clothing (i.e. hand-me-downs) even food (shopping at Costco in bulk). Second, I do not think the government should encourage (through subsidies) very large families.
Social Security and Medicare are hard for politicians to touch because they are universal, and they are universal because they are not means tested.
And both are very expensive. I do not advocate getting rid of them, but I also do not advocate adding more and more unneeded universal benefits that are difficult to get rid of. Our deficits and debt are big enough as is.
Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo. Children are an economic liability, not an economic asset, and that gets in the way of producing future generations. Or do you think that we should not have any future generations?
People are capable of producing children without having all the costs born by other people. I support public education and even some tax benefits, but not a ratchet of ever increasing benefits like the $300-360 per child Pandemic benefit that Biden wanted to make permanent.
I do also think we should not have any sustained population growth. Constant population growth rate means dP/dt=rP, which solves as exponential growth P=P
0e
rt. Exponential growth is not sustainable. We need to recognize that and shift into a stable population growth model instead of pretending that we need increasing number of people each generation.
Because costs of a private police force (or fire brigade) are prohibitive for most people. They are much more expensive than some Pampers and Gerbers. You are not arguing in good faith here.
I would like to challenge some of your assumptions regarding costs of raising children and the net benefit/cost to society.
To a certain extent, there are economies to scare for having more than one child: Likely you can pass along some clothing, toys and equipment that the older child has outgrown to the younger child. However, this presumes that the clothing is suitable (few people would dress their second born male child in his older sister's hand me downs) and has not been worn out beyond use--which tends not to happen for the clothing of infant children but definitely does happen for toddlers on up. Likewise, I cannot remember how many baby strollers we went through, in part because we could not afford the more expensive, more durable type. We went through more than 1 stroller per child. Trust me: I would have much preferred not to have to shop for and spend money on more than one stroller. We were able to continue to use the baby crib and baby dresser/changing table but baby sheets, etc. did get worn out and needed replacing.
Having a second child is not much more expensive, assuming you can re-use a lot of the same things you had with your first child. However, if you have a 3rd child, you suddenly are faced with needing another larger vehicle than the small one that held your family of 4. While you may (or may not, depending on how safety ratings go) be able to re-use the infant car seat for second and third children, you will likely still need to buy a larger carseat for the older children.
The real huge cost is for child care. To have good quality childcare (and good luck finding it!), it costs a LOT of money. Much more for young infants and as the children get older, it becomes less expensive. It is not at all unusual for the entire paycheck of a parent to go to childcare expenses each month.
If you are fortunate, your child is born healthy. Depending on your income, employment, and state and part of the state where you live, you may have only ordinary but still expensive costs associated with normal preventative health care for children. If your child has a serious or just a chronic condition that requires monitoring or medication (asthma, for example) your costs for health care may be extremely expensive.
Then there are preschool programs, school programs and associated costs even for free public education, again, depending on where you live, what school district, what ages, etc. Before and after school care are additional costs.
All of this assumes a healthy child/children, with no special needs. Expenses increase as the child grows older and takes part in various activities, sports, etc. And then there is college.....FWIW, day care for an infant costs about the same as tuition at a public university.
What does society get from helping to support children--that is, providing the needed infrastructure and support (education, health care, childcare)? Children whose basic needs are well provided for are more likely to do well in school, to complete school, and to become productive members of society. They become the doctors, lawyers, teachers, truck drivers, nurses, IT personnel, carpenters, engineers, etc. who will replace the older generations who retire and/or die.
Providing well for children helps society to continue to function and to function well. Rather than spending money on maintaining incarcerated individuals, we enjoy the labor (and taxes from the labor) of a well educated, healthy, productive population.
Seriously, dude: Who do you think will help you in the nursing home you may live in when you're 93? Hint: They haven't been born yet!
I agree that lower/middle class individuals should not subsidize the children of more wealthy families. I'm not certain how you think that is happening now. I do think that everybody who can should pay something into the system--even if it's only a $1 co-pay at the doctor. I think more wealthy individuals should pay more than less financially secure persons.
Wealthy people have many more resources at their disposal--including mechanisms to avoid paying taxes. Frankly, I think there is very little excuse for billionaires and zero excuse for any billionaire to be able to buy the removal of bridge structures because their fucking yacht they had custom built is too fucking big to get out of port. Or to use facilities paid for by all US taxpayers for their personal space missions. We seriously need to be very worried about Musk and others staking claims in space.
As we are told, the poor we have with us always, but being poor should not mean that you are not treated fairly and humanely, that you do not have chances to improve your circumstances or the circumstances of your children or that your children do not get to eat or attend school or live in decent domiciles raised by loving parents who may not have much money.
