Should we phase out the child dependency deduction?

[NobleSavage]

We have enough people. We should start giving tax credits to people who don't have kids. If you want the pleasures of raising a family, buck up. If we need people there are plenty south of the border dying to get in. Of course I would include free birth control and mandatory sex ed.

 

[Blahface]

We have enough people. We should start giving tax credits to people who don't have kids. If you want the pleasures of raising a family, buck up. If we need people there are plenty south of the border dying to get in. Of course I would include free birth control and mandatory sex ed.

I am very conflicted about this. I strongly feel that we shouldn't subsidize having children, but I really don't want to punish the kids. I strongly support a living wage, but I get really annoyed at protesters who say, “We need a higher wage; I've got four kids to feed.” My first thoughts are, “Mother fucker, you shouldn't have had four kids if you work at Wal-Mart.” Then I think, “Well, they probably never intended to have those kids in the first place.”

I think at the very least we should provide accurate comprehensive sex courses in public schools, offer free birth control and free access to abortions.

If we have all that, and poor parents still choose to have kids, I would consider giving them all the resources they need to raise the kids right, but take it out of their social security benefits.

For the kids of wealthy parents, I would definitely want to put an additional tax on them. At the very least put a tax penalty on having more than two kids.

 

[Axulus]

We have enough people. We should start giving tax credits to people who don't have kids. If you want the pleasures of raising a family, buck up. If we need people there are plenty south of the border dying to get in. Of course I would include free birth control and mandatory sex ed.

Phase out the tax credit for kids but phase in a credit (or increase the earned income credit) for having a lower income with a kid. Why should an upper middle class family get a tax credit for having kids? On the other hand, it takes more income to support kids, so be more generous with the tax situation for lower income families if they have kids, so that they may adequately support themselves and their kids.

 

[Axulus]

We have enough people. We should start giving tax credits to people who don't have kids. If you want the pleasures of raising a family, buck up. If we need people there are plenty south of the border dying to get in. Of course I would include free birth control and mandatory sex ed.

I am very conflicted about this. I strongly feel that we shouldn't subsidize having children, but I really don't want to punish the kids. I strongly support a living wage, but I get really annoyed at protesters who say, “We need a higher wage; I've got four kids to feed.” My first thoughts are, “Mother fucker, you shouldn't have had four kids if you work at Wal-Mart.” Then I think, “Well, they probably never intended to have those kids in the first place.”

I think at the very least we should provide accurate comprehensive sex courses in public schools, offer free birth control and free access to abortions.

If we have all that, and poor parents still choose to have kids, I would consider giving them all the resources they need to raise the kids right, but take it out of their social security benefits.

For the kids of wealthy parents, I would definitely want to put an additional tax on them. At the very least put a tax penalty on having more than two kids.

Tax penalty for having more than two kids is BS. Please leave your social engineering and bigoted opinions at the door. If consuming carbon energy is damaging to the environment or society or whatever, or they take up more resources to educate them, tax that or charge for that, but don't charge just for having the kids.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I do agree there's no social policy reason for it anymore. However, there is still the basic idea of the tax code that we don't tax the basic costs of living.

Thus eliminate the 0% bracket and give every filer a deduction equal to poverty line existence for their household size.

 

[NobleSavage]

What about a tax credit for getting a vasectomy? I had to pay for mine.

 

[NobleSavage]

I am very conflicted about this. I strongly feel that we shouldn't subsidize having children, but I really don't want to punish the kids. I strongly support a living wage, but I get really annoyed at protesters who say, “We need a higher wage; I've got four kids to feed.” My first thoughts are, “Mother fucker, you shouldn't have had four kids if you work at Wal-Mart.” Then I think, “Well, they probably never intended to have those kids in the first place.”

I think at the very least we should provide accurate comprehensive sex courses in public schools, offer free birth control and free access to abortions.

If we have all that, and poor parents still choose to have kids, I would consider giving them all the resources they need to raise the kids right, but take it out of their social security benefits.

For the kids of wealthy parents, I would definitely want to put an additional tax on them. At the very least put a tax penalty on having more than two kids.

Tax penalty for having more than two kids is BS. Please leave your social engineering and bigoted opinions at the door. If consuming carbon energy is damaging to the environment or society or whatever, or they take up more resources to educate them, tax that or charge for that, but don't charge just for having the kids.

The entire tax code is one huge social engineering experiment. Blahface's idea is debatable, but not bigoted.

 

[Derec]

I do agree there's no social policy reason for it anymore. However, there is still the basic idea of the tax code that we don't tax the basic costs of living.

But costs of living do not increase linearly with the number of children. I also do not think it's a good idea to encourage very large, Duggeresque, families. So reducing the amount after the second child and stopping it altogether at some point (say after the 5th) would make a lot of sense.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

We have enough people. We should start giving tax credits to people who don't have kids. If you want the pleasures of raising a family, buck up. If we need people there are plenty south of the border dying to get in. Of course I would include free birth control and mandatory sex ed.

I am very conflicted about this. I strongly feel that we shouldn't subsidize having children, but I really don't want to punish the kids. I strongly support a living wage, but I get really annoyed at protesters who say, “We need a higher wage; I've got four kids to feed.” My first thoughts are, “Mother fucker, you shouldn't have had four kids if you work at Wal-Mart.” Then I think, “Well, they probably never intended to have those kids in the first place.”

Here's a thought. Maybe they never intended to be working at WalMart. Maybe they intended to be working a full week at a decent wage in an environment that respected labor.Maybe when those four kids were born, their parents could afford them, but there were layoffs, or closings, or downsizing and outsourcing or sickness or death.

I think at the very least we should provide accurate comprehensive sex courses in public schools, offer free birth control and free access to abortions.

I am all for reproductive education and family planning support.

If we have all that, and poor parents still choose to have kids, I would consider giving them all the resources they need to raise the kids right, but take it out of their social security benefits.

Then YOU aren't giving them resources. You are shifting their own resources around so that they are paying and you're not giving anything.

For the kids of wealthy parents, I would definitely want to put an additional tax on them. At the very least put a tax penalty on having more than two kids.

You don't want people, rich or poor, to have children or at least not have more than you think they should.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We have enough people. We should start giving tax credits to people who don't have kids. If you want the pleasures of raising a family, buck up. If we need people there are plenty south of the border dying to get in. Of course I would include free birth control and mandatory sex ed.

Yes! Absolutely! The Boomers had enough of it, why let anyone else have it. Like Social Security! Fuck anyone after Generation X. And all that deficit spending under Reagan and HW Bush? That was just a tab, no big deal.

Touch the Deduction and we'll pull your plug!

 

[Nice Squirrel]

What about a tax credit for getting a vasectomy? I had to pay for mine.

I support this. As a middle aged man I am shocked by how many women will consent to forego birth control altogether. As a friend of mine who just got snipped said. "I'm not taking care of a teenager when I am 70."

 

[PyramidHead]

I would add to the OP's suggested policy: gigantic tax breaks for adoption.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I would add to the OP's suggested policy: gigantic tax breaks for adoption.

That is a good idea, with bigger deductions for adopting older kids

 

[Harry Bosch]

I would add to the OP's suggested policy: gigantic tax breaks for adoption.

The government does provide a $10,500 tax credit which is nice. The average cost for international adoption is about $29k. Costs within the US vary, but the average is probably at least $15k.

 

[Toni]

We have enough people. We should start giving tax credits to people who don't have kids. If you want the pleasures of raising a family, buck up. If we need people there are plenty south of the border dying to get in. Of course I would include free birth control and mandatory sex ed.

Pssssst: Those people we have enough of? Maybe nobody told you this but someday every last one of those people, including you and me, someday, we're all gonna die. Also I don't know if anybody has explained to you how social security works but today's workers are paying for today's retires. If people quit having children, there will be no one to pay for your safety net in your old age.

So where did you get the idea that people are having huge families which are bankrupting the US through all of those outrageous tax deductions? Please investigate the average family size and birth rate in the US.


Also please consider that perhaps there are other behaviors we might like to discourage through prudent use of our tax code.

 

[Bronzeage]

We have enough people. We should start giving tax credits to people who don't have kids. If you want the pleasures of raising a family, buck up. If we need people there are plenty south of the border dying to get in. Of course I would include free birth control and mandatory sex ed.

Pssssst: Those people we have enough of? Maybe nobody told you this but someday every last one of those people, including you and me, someday, we're all gonna die. Also I don't know if anybody has explained to you how social security works but today's workers are paying for today's retires. If people quit having children, there will be no one to pay for your safety net in your old age.

So where did you get the idea that people are having huge families which are bankrupting the US through all of those outrageous tax deductions? Please investigate the average family size and birth rate in the US.


Also please consider that perhaps there are other behaviors we might like to discourage through prudent use of our tax code.

Yeah, like maybe a high tax on cigarettes, or something.

The OP is a strange counterpoint to the argument that over-population is not a problem because there are so many places on Earth where there are no people at all.

 

[laughing dog]

I am unaware of strong empirical evidence that the child deduction induces people to have children (or more children). So tinkering or eliminating it will probably have little effect on the number of children born in the USA.

I am also unaware that there "too many" or "enough" people in the USA. On what basis is that claim being made?

 

[ronburgundy]

I am very conflicted about this. I strongly feel that we shouldn't subsidize having children, but I really don't want to punish the kids. I strongly support a living wage, but I get really annoyed at protesters who say, “We need a higher wage; I've got four kids to feed.” My first thoughts are, “Mother fucker, you shouldn't have had four kids if you work at Wal-Mart.” Then I think, “Well, they probably never intended to have those kids in the first place.”

I think at the very least we should provide accurate comprehensive sex courses in public schools, offer free birth control and free access to abortions.

If we have all that, and poor parents still choose to have kids, I would consider giving them all the resources they need to raise the kids right, but take it out of their social security benefits.

For the kids of wealthy parents, I would definitely want to put an additional tax on them. At the very least put a tax penalty on having more than two kids.

Tax penalty for having more than two kids is BS. Please leave your social engineering and bigoted opinions at the door. If consuming carbon energy is damaging to the environment or society or whatever, or they take up more resources to educate them, tax that or charge for that, but don't charge just for having the kids.

There is probably no more legit reason to tax someone than for having kids. Kids use and consume public resources as much as adults do. The whole point of taxes is to raise money to pay for the maintenance of public resources that each person in society depends upon, and kids to an equal degree. Every single thing that the government has to pay for cost more due to each individual kid that is born. Some one needs to pay for that use, and why the hell should it be other people who do not have kids? Without added taxes for kids, you are inherently forcing other people to pay for it, which couldn't be more at odds with the libertarian principles who claim to support.
The only thing that makes sense about your statement is that the taxes should not only kick in after the 2nd kid, but should apply to the first and second kid and every kid thereafter.

 

[ronburgundy]

I am unaware of strong empirical evidence that the child deduction induces people to have children (or more children). So tinkering or eliminating it will probably have little effect on the number of children born in the USA.

Having strong direct evidence would require a controlled experiment in which random people are assigned to either get or not get tax credits. Its an impossible type of study, so not a reasonable expectation. What evidence we have is indirect, but there is a mountain of it and it all points to tax credits incentive's having kids, and thus making the choice more likely, and thus increasing the number of births.
Tax breaks means a large reduction in the costs of having a kid. The only way that tax breaks would not impact births is if we assume that there are zero people who give any consideration at all to cost and financial issues when deciding to have a kid, how many, get an abortion, etc.. Virtually every relevant piece of info from behavioral sciences predicts that people would and do give financial issues some consideration in those situations.

I am also unaware that there "too many" or "enough" people in the USA. On what basis is that claim being made?

Yeah, this is the wrong claim. The real issue is that every single child increases the use of public resources and increases all problems caused by human consumption. Thus, every child increases the total tax burden that must be met to supply those resources, address those problems, etc.. If the people who have the kid don't pay that extra amount, then everyone else must. If they actually pay less than before they had a kid, as they do with tax breaks, then everyone else is paying all that much more for each kid other people choose to have.

 

[ksen]

You know what one of the best forms of birth control is?

Increased living standards.

Just sayin'.